Brodak P51

[Paul Taylor]

Any have any experience with the Brodak P51 kit?
If so how did it fly?

[Clint Ormosen]

Are you referring to the profile P-51B that’s part of the Warbird series? If so, they all fly very well but the word is that the Zero is the best flying one. Not sure why that would be, though. I’ve flown the Mustang version and in my opinion it kinda flies like a stock Twister.
I have the FW190 and Sea Hurricane kits to build.

[Paul Taylor]

Thanks Clint
Yes it’s the profile. I have the Sea Hurricane. It flys a good pattern. Or as good as I fly. 🤣

[Clint Ormosen]

Thanks Clint
Yes it’s the profile. I have the Sea Hurricane. It flys a good pattern. Or as good as I fly. 🤣

Well, I’d expect the mustang to fly similarly to your Hurricane because I think these profile warbirds are all essentially the same model.

[Dan Berry]

If you build it to 46 ounces and include a wicked warp that isn’t removable you won’t like how it flies.

[Paul Taylor]

If you build it to 46 ounces and include a wicked warp that isn’t removable you won’t like how it flies.

I will have no problem building to 46oz, and can’t guarantee anything on the wing! 🤣🤣🤣

[Dan Berry]

I will have no problem building to 46oz, and can’t guarantee anything on the wing! 🤣🤣🤣

At 46 you won't like it.
I have one I'll give you. Come to Eldorado May 20 weekend.

[Dan McEntee]

Are you referring to the profile P-51B that’s part of the Warbird series? If so, they all fly very well but the word is that the Zero is the best flying one. Not sure why that would be, though. I’ve flown the Mustang version and in my opinion it kinda flies like a stock Twister.
I have the FW190 and Sea Hurricane kits to build.

  This is shades of the Midwest Warbird Series days!! Of the P-40, Skyraider, P-63, and Mustang, and ME-109, which one flew the best!!!??? In those, I always heard it was the Skyraider. I had the P-40 back then but don't remember anything about it, but I think those two had the most wing area. All the airfoils were pretty thin. I have collected all of the originals plus a couple of Larry Richards repli-kits. Of the Brodak series, I have never really heard much. Wayne Willey did the Zero that I has seen a couple of times and it looks outstanding!! Looking at that airplane and the rest of them, it seems to have the most wing area, just by eyeballing them, and that may be the difference. I have most of those also and the Mustang , when it gets done, will get the Paul Mantz Bendix racer treatment, or maybe Jimmy Stewarts Bendix racer!!  So many airplanes and so little time!!.

   If you think that the Mustang "kinda flies like a stock Twister," it should do pretty well. We have a guy here in the club that used a bone stock Twister to go from the Beginner Class to doing very well in Expert with it before it finally crashed so bad it couldn't be repaired!! These are all Pat Johnston designs or Pat King designs, are they not?
   Type at you later,
   Dan McEntee

[Richard Fleming]

Mike Garman designed the first Brodak .40 sized warbird series.

[Dan McEntee]

Mike Garman designed the first Brodak .40 sized warbird series.

  Yeah, that's who it was. He designed a few other semi scale profiles that got published in the magazine, a GeeBee and  another Thompson Trophy race of some kind, I believe. I know I am familiar with the name. I'm sure he used some common "numbers" for the time period he designed them, and combine that with some common sense structure and and reasonable weight and the result should be a good flying model. I think they all look pretty good also.
  Type at you later,
  Dan McEntee

[wwwarbird]

 
 Wayne Willey did the Zero that I has seen a couple of times and it looks outstanding!! Looking at that airplane and the rest of them, it seems to have the most wing area, just by eyeballing them, and that may be the difference.
 

 Thanks for the compliment Dan, mine was seriously modified...

 https://stunthanger.com/smf/building-techniques/brodak-zero-well-sorta/msg190285/#msg190285

 https://stunthanger.com/smf/paint-and-finishing/brodak-zero/msg188234/#msg188234

 https://stunthanger.com/smf/open-forum/jeff's-brodak-zero-is-finished-here's-the-rest-of-the-story/msg190511/#msg190511

[wwwarbird]

Well, I’d expect the mustang to fly similarly to your Hurricane because I think these profile warbirds are all essentially the same model.

 Correct, they all share essentially the same wing and share most other dimensions. Only real differences are in the outlines but they're all pretty much the same model.

[John Miller]

I had the honor to Re-draw Mike Garmons' designs into the Cad format for John Brodak. It was the beginning of my relationship with him and his company. All of Mike's warbirds share the same wing, a modified Nobler wing. The P51 was an unfinished drawing that was of the D model. As there were almost no models of the B version being flown in CL, I changed the out line to the earlier fast-back B model. I liked the looks a lot better.
All of Mike's designs used the same wing.480 sq. inches, 48" span. John asked me if I had a plane I liked and if I would add it. Thus, the La3 was added. It used the same wing, except for added area created by altering the rib spacing. It does have more wing area, and flies quite well.

John M.

[Dan McEntee]

I had the honor to Re-draw Mike Garmons' designs into the Cad format for John Brodak. It was the beginning of my relationship with him and his company. All of Mike's warbirds share the same wing, a modified Nobler wing. The P51 was an unfinished drawing that was of the D model. As there were almost no models of the B version being flown in CL, I changed the out line to the earlier fast-back B model. I liked the looks a lot better.
All of Mike's designs used the same wing.480 sq. inches, 48" span. John asked me if I had a plane I liked and if I would add it. Thus, the La3 was added. It used the same wing, except for added area created by altering the rib spacing. It does have more wing area, and flies quite well.

John M.

   Thanks for the clarification, and I for one am glad for the razor back "B/C" model. Another one that has been over looked is the razor back version of the P-47. Other than Billy Werwage and his models and a few copies, the Jug has been under represented. I have plans for the Charles Parrott, and some one's kit of it also. A profile plan of the Jug I think would be well received.
   Type at you later,
    Dan McEntee

[Steve Lotz]

Weren't the K&B 40 lapped-piston engines made for those planes? I have one kicking around here somewhere.

[Clint Ormosen]

Weren't the K&B 40 lapped-piston engines made for those planes? I have one kicking around here somewhere.

That wouldn’t be my first choice of engine. They’re very heavy and difficult to get a decent run out of.

[wwwarbird]

 An LA.40 is ideal for this series IMO.

[Leonard Bourel]

My wife and I built a p51 kit about 6 or 7 years ago as she wanted to use it in fun scale She would not let me fly it even on the first flt and it looked like it flew great right from the get go as there is no builder of the model rule in fun scale at our contests here in Canada She let me take it to a contest to fly one weekend in fun scale I was shocked how well it flew and won the scale contest easily. The next day someone asked me if I was flying in profile stunt I said I didn't have a plane to fly and someone mentioned that I still had Naomis mustang in the car . I was needless to say a little leary to fly the mustang in a stunt event having never flown even a single stunt flight with it and I knew Naomi would kill me if I crashed her best plane but I decided to enter and just go easy on it and try to save the plane Surprise the mustang flew impeccably and would have won the contest had I done a better job of measuring fuel I had an over run once and an under run once but still managed second place It is a great flying plane and I highly recommend it to anyone.

[Dwayne Donnelly]

My wife and I built a p51 kit about 6 or 7 years ago as she wanted to use it in fun scale She would not let me fly it even on the first flt and it looked like it flew great right from the get go as there is no builder of the model rule in fun scale at our contests here in Canada She let me take it to a contest to fly one weekend in fun scale I was shocked how well it flew and won the scale contest easily. The next day someone asked me if I was flying in profile stunt I said I didn't have a plane to fly and someone mentioned that I still had Naomis mustang in the car . I was needless to say a little leary to fly the mustang in a stunt event having never flown even a single stunt flight with it and I knew Naomi would kill me if I crashed her best plane but I decided to enter and just go easy on it and try to save the plane Surprise the mustang flew impeccably and would have won the contest had I done a better job of measuring fuel I had an over run once and an under run once but still managed second place It is a great flying plane and I highly recommend it to anyone.

I was witness to this and can confirm that the Mustang did indeed fly and look great. On a side note I was also the recipient of those engine runs and won profile stunt that day, thanks Len 

[Clint Ormosen]

Since I spent this morning flying Pete Cunha’s version of the Brodak Zero with Brodak 40. I can confirm what capable models these warbirds are. I hadn’t actually flown a pattern in about 4 or 5 years now and a couple flights on this thing and I’m ready kick some butt! 😂
Not really! But I did feel pretty comfortable doing a couple of complete patterns with it. It sorta inspires me break out one my warbird kits. These are pretty darn good flying profile models.

[Philip THOMAS]

Thanks Clint
Yes it’s the profile. I have the Sea Hurricane. It flys a good pattern. Or as good as I fly. 🤣

Hi. Guys I’m currently building my Sea Hurricane, a quick question, the bell crank is drawn “backwards” on the plan. Is this correct?  I’ve not seen that before, what would be the reason?
Cheers
Phil

[Dave Hull]

The idea is to better balance the yaw moments on the plane during maneuvers. If your prop is running the "normal" direction (clockwise when viewed from the cockpit) when the plane pitches up, the gyroscopic forces tend to yaw the nose out. By placing the "up" leadout forward it tends to offset this yawing moment. And the opposite applies when pitching down.

As the spacing between the leadouts is reduced the effect of reversing the bellcrank is reduced. Reversing the bellcrank (and leadouts) would have no yaw-stabilizing effect if the leadouts came out the same hole.

Another input to the situation is if you use a light wooden prop, the inertia is much less and the gyroscopic forces will be much less. So if you are flying with a heavy plastic prop and are experiencing yaw wiggles in corners, move your leadout guides together (if you have separately adjustable blocks) but keep the same average location as before. Then try a lighter prop of the same diameter and pitch.

Be aware that running the guides closer together may cause interference between your line connectors if they are not staggered leading to loss of control. So make your choice(s) and take your chance(s).

There are other causes of wiggles, so do not automatically assume that your conventional leadout locations are ruining your planes performance.

Dave

[Philip THOMAS]

Outstanding Dave, thank you for educating me!