Author Topic: Designing a Stunt Lancaster Bomber (Read 2517 times)

Dennis Holler · « **on:** August 31, 2010, 09:27:01 PM »

I've seen a few posts and comments concerning four engined bombers but I get the impression most have been scale. Has anybody regularly used a four engine bird to work the stunt pattern? It would be neat. Kind of like a Jack Sheeks Mosquito only bigger.

What should be the first steps to attempting to design a plane like that for stunt. I found some info on model airplane design but it seemed to mostly be aimed at the RC crowd, so I'm coming to the source. I'm not against a large plane(thinking about 75-85" to start off), I want to have some fun

Should I start with the general span I would like and then look at the airfoil (18-20% as I seem to notice are the numbers tossed around) then figure out the chord etc. I am not sure how to estimate the weight other than 28 oz for four .35's . Should I target a wing loading? I have some smaller Lancaster plans as ref, but of course they are scale and I was thinking I'd need a bigger wing to make the darn thing work the pattern...guessing 700-800 sq to start with four 25-35 size engines on it.

I'm thinkin I need some splainin before I get going to far

Glenn (Gravitywell) Reach · « **Reply #1 on:** August 31, 2010, 10:09:43 PM »

The idea is fantastic. I love the Lancaster. Your first step in designing it should be to get ahold of Paul Walker. He did a B-17 a few years ago and even campaigned it for awhile.

wwwarbird · « **Reply #2 on:** August 31, 2010, 10:23:10 PM »

Cool idea Dennis, but be ready for a LOT of work here before this thing ever gets air under it's wings. To make a model of this type successful will take a lot of time and patience. There was a guy a few years ago, I think from Australia, who did a Lancaster C/L Stunter. I think it had four .25's with something like a six foot span. It would be well worth your while to track down any and all info on that model. I'm sure it could use a little refining, but dimensionally it was a good design overall and was pattern capable.

I definitely think you should first decide on the powerplants to be used. Choose something that is reliable and very user friendly or you will regret it later. Please don't make it electric.

Once the engines are settled on, you can rough out your dimensions. This will take a fair amount time to get right. If anything, lean towards having excess power. Absolutely, positively, do not consider or second guess otherwise. Did I say make sure that you have plenty of power?

Of course with that you need to be sensible about your overall weight, not forgetting about multiple fuel tanks and things related. Oh yeah, make sure you plan on having some excess power.

It's going to be a big model, but if you want to fly it on a regular basis I would highly recommend keeping it to 80" or less. Partly because you will have to transport the thing. Also think about yourself banging it in to things during your construction, because you will, and every ding is just something else to fix. Been there, done that.

Flying it will be quite an experience. My PBY twin is 64" (700 sq) and is right around 84 ounces. It's got two Saito .40's and has plenty of power for the whole pattern, but not a big amount of excess. On 62' lines and 5.5 second lap times it's not crazy, but it takes a heck of a grip to pull maneuvers and after a flight you know you've flown a serious model.

Have fun, and keep us posted!

Serge_Krauss · « **Reply #3 on:** August 31, 2010, 11:33:22 PM »

You could start here:

http://www.clstunt.com/htdocs/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=204676&mesg_id=204676&listing_type=search

A search on SSWF for "Lancaster" will get you more, including at least a couple more from the designer/builder, with more pictures and flight info.

P.J. posts on this forum too; so he may see your post and wish to comment. My only suggestion, other than using good aero design practices, might be that electric looks like a very good way to go for multi-engined CL planes, especially stunters, where time and fingers count.

SK

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #4 on:** August 31, 2010, 11:39:06 PM »

Four 35s would make for a huge model. Even four 25s would be big big.

With all due respect to Wayne, I'd wimp out and go electric: one timer, four ESCs.

Batteries would be an interesting tradeoff. One battery in the fuse would concentrate the weight and make the thing right faster after gusts. On the other hand, one battery per motor, in the nacelles, would distribute the weight across the wing and simplify the power wiring. This would make it respond less to a gust, and would reduce the lift requirements on the wing -- but make it less robust if you pulled a boner like hitting a flight box or something.

It'd have to have a really high aspect ratio to look good -- on a single engine model that'd affect the wind performance; I don't know how it'd be with multiple engines.

wwwarbird · « **Reply #5 on:** September 01, 2010, 12:01:26 AM »

Well put Tim, electric would be wimping out.

BTW-Serge found the model I was talking about. I remember seeing some photos of it in Stunt News too.

PerttiMe · « **Reply #6 on:** September 01, 2010, 03:11:43 AM »

Does it have to have four engines?

What about 2 engines and 2 fakes, to make life a bit simpler?

wwwarbird · « **Reply #7 on:** September 01, 2010, 08:27:36 AM »

That would be wimping out too. If you're gonna do it, do it.

Dennis Holler · « **Reply #8 on:** September 01, 2010, 09:42:24 AM »

Four engine's

and maybe Clancy's U-tronics to throttle em....no motors

, just engines

PJ has already given some input...so its concepting time

Could be worse, I could like B36's

So PLEASE egg me on!!

And feel free to add any pics you have any big four engine birds that hook to lines and a handle

Howard Rush · « **Reply #9 on:** September 01, 2010, 11:51:15 AM »

Here's a stunt bomber: 6th at the Nats, 9th or so at the 2000 World Champs.

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #10 on:** September 01, 2010, 12:07:57 PM »

Quote from: Howard Rush on September 01, 2010, 11:51:15 AM

Here's a stunt bomber: 6th at the Nats, 9th or so at the 2000 World Champs.

That must be something to see in the air.

Didn't the Lancaster have a much higher aspect ratio in real life than the B-17? If I remember correctly most other bombers had skinnier wings, for less drag at altitude.

Dennis Holler · « **Reply #11 on:** September 01, 2010, 01:24:48 PM »

If so wouldn't that contribute to the Lanc's greater payload capability and be the cause of its lower top speed?

Paul Smith · « **Reply #12 on:** September 01, 2010, 01:45:39 PM »

The limit is 15 cc or about 91 cubic inches, so equal-size engines would need to be about .227 or less. Notwithstanding the rules, 1.4 cubic inches of power on 70' lines would be a handfull. Not to say it hasn't been done, but every flight would be a life-threatening event.

rustler · « **Reply #13 on:** September 01, 2010, 02:29:48 PM »

You could always make it electric and fit an electronic "engine noise" in the fus., as they do with electric model railway locos, (steam noises) and, I believe, some electric radio models!

Howard Rush · « **Reply #14 on:** September 01, 2010, 03:37:40 PM »

The B-17 uses four OS FP .15s. It has plenty of power. It is a handful for a fit person. PJ's Lancaster has four .19s. PJ is an athlete and a lot younger than most of us geezers. If you want to pursue this project, please call me. I have stories and some secondhand experience.

There is, by the way, a B-36 stunter under construction.

wwwarbird · « **Reply #15 on:** September 01, 2010, 06:41:41 PM »

Uhh...B-36? Who's doing one of them?

Six .25's and four Jetexes?

Dennis Holler · « **Reply #16 on:** September 01, 2010, 08:48:37 PM »

Its 10:37, the kids have been in bed for a few hours, the honey do list is complete.... and the roll of paper is spread all over the kitchen table. I have my magazine page scale drawings and am laying out the maximum size (2 meters) span and fuse. Its kind of refreshing. I say that cause I'm an engineer by day but my current position has me no where near numbers any more....and strangely enough I miss it!!

That's ok though cause I'm

We'll see what kind of mess I come up with!

Oh yea..... 78 inch span 52-3/4 inch length

wwwarbird · « **Reply #17 on:** September 01, 2010, 10:36:14 PM »

Even though I've never seen it in person, that B-17 of Paul Walker's is possibly the coolest stunt model of all time in my opinion. An engineering and construction masterpiece from everything I've seen and heard about it over the years. It's also immaculately finished from what I can tell in many photos I've seen, and it PERFORMS. I'm not saying you're attempting this feat Dennis, but it's going to be a tall order for anyone to ever top that one.

Dennis Holler · « **Reply #18 on:** September 02, 2010, 06:10:03 AM »

No, definitely not trying to top Paul or PJ or anyone else... Just trying to have fun. I'm just a hack-retread you know... don't have a wing jig, trace wing ribs with a sharpie and cut em out with a razer blade....I do like the idea of doing something a little different though.

I like WW II planes the most and am not really interested in generic models...don't know why, its just my interest. Doesn't mean the others aren't cool or great pieces of engineering, but just not my cup of tea. There sure seem to be exceptions though, like Chief's, Tom Tom's, WWI stuff.

Its all suppose to be about fun at least until you see the splat on the pavement!

Neville Legg · « **Reply #19 on:** September 02, 2010, 10:58:46 AM »

Not to say it has n't been done, but every flight would be a life-threatening event.

Every flight in a Lancaster during WWII was life threatening

We had a chap in our club who was a Flight Engineer on Lancasters during the war, he showed me the scars on his hands where flak went through the fuselage, he didn't show me the other scars he had, said it nearly turned him into a WAAF

Cheers

wwwarbird · « **Reply #20 on:** September 02, 2010, 05:14:45 PM »

Right on Dennis.

You do realize don't you that in the time it will take you to build this Lanc', you could start and finish about 6 or 8 other models!

PJ Rowland · « **Reply #21 on:** September 03, 2010, 02:02:52 AM »

Ive already had a few emails back and forth with dennis.

I did indeed have some decent success with the lancaster with the only real blemish being that it was DQN at the nationals for being 4 cms overspan - we modified it after that and placed 1st in expert at a local contest which still scored over 1000+ From memory i would have placed 5th at the Nats with the scores that weer posted . The protest came in at the beginning of round 3 so we had already put up 2 SOLID scores.

I dont hold resentment towards the guy who put in the protest it was overspan but why wait till round 3 ?

I support anyone trying to do a 4 engined bomber - To date I beleive only Paul and myself have built and flown it in expert class at a Nationals - so its not something to be taken lightly by any means.

I think its not really a project you can build just to have a hack fly about the sky on a sunday afternoon - there is massive amounts of preflight checking, and enigne tuning. I heard someone tell me that Pauls b17 startup was like the spaceshuttle. Indeed mine took close to 15 mins to prep before each flight, and 10 minutes to debrief the tired piolet!!!

Although I have been very tempted to do another one and compete it again at a Nats I dont think I would like to go through the months of trimming and sorting process again jsut to prove a point to post a score at a Nats - I feel any point I wanted to prove was done so already.

I know Paul isnt keen to ever fly the B17 in a contest and I COMPLETELY understand why this would be the case.

I look forward to giving you any reasonable assistance and im sure Howard can also ( as I had alot of help from both paul and Howard when developing it )

Goodluck look forward to seeing it fly - Just to have a giggle I insist you build it with 4 x 35's !

1st place at a contest top 3 shown.

PJ Rowland · « **Reply #22 on:** September 03, 2010, 02:12:03 AM »

I actually made my own insignia on the front of the Fuse.

Callign her " Lady Luck "
And using the pattern photo of a 4 leaf clover as the logo - I loved it.

Someone said Why didnt you call it Bert.

Just on a side note.. Although I am proud of my acheivement and proud of how we flew it I am in NO WAY putting myself in the same league as Paul walker, and my intention was never to take away from what he did.

facts are : he did the 1st one, he competed at 2 Nats and a World champs with one being a TAKEAPART version. Sure I traveled interstate with mine on a big ass trailer ! But for me the fact he did a TA version is without a doubt something to hang your hat on!

I am honoured someone would mention my name in the same sentence as PW but my inspiration came from seeing and hearing about the B17- being the 1st would have been such a major undertaking and something not to be scoffed at!

I chose the lancaster just to be different than to just copying the B17.

My only regret is sort of selfish, everyone said it was amazign to see me fly the pattern with it, sure I saw it on video but never saw anyone fly it through a pattern, and I never saw pauls fly In person.

If I can inspire someone else to do the same as PW inspired me, I can consider the project more of a sucess.

wwwarbird · « **Reply #23 on:** September 03, 2010, 08:06:45 AM »

Right on PJ, I also agree with your comments on the work it takes to operate and fly multi's. That's why I suggested that Dennis makes sure he chooses some reliable engines. It's nowhere close to your Lanc' or Paul's B-17, but even my PBY takes some commitment on a flying day. It is a lot of fun though.

Dennis, you might even consider buildng and flying a twin first just to get a taste of the multi thing. PJ and I aren't kidding here, building a big 4 engine stunter will be a TON of work. It's very tough to actually get it finished before burnout occurs and you just end up with another conversation piece to hang in your shop. Have fun with whatever you decide.

Here is some pictures of another twin in our club. It's a Beech D-18 scratchbuilt by Keith Sandberg powered by two O.S.30 four-strokes...

Dennis Holler · « **Reply #24 on:** September 03, 2010, 01:47:43 PM »

Thanks PJ , those are some great pictures that I haven't seen in other threads!

Guys, You are all definitely right it is not a month project for sure...I have stuff I want to finish up before I would even start building the beast as well as the wife and three kids that inisist on my presence every so often!

The burn out reality is or would also be a concern.

I've seen how fast some guys seem to turn out planes, and I know I am not capable of that at least not right now, but I'm not going to shy away form something I am interested in just because its complex...It's much better to understand and grasp that up front though, so I appreciate all the words of wisdom, I'm trying to store them away so there is less chance of being squashed later

Based on the discussion so far I assume both Paul and PJ spent a good bit of time up front concepting and understanding the design and at this point thats where I'm at. On a good night I might get an hour or two to my self to do something and that has been conceptualizing the lancaster lately.

I'm getting a good idea of size and proportions first in scale and then intend to work on altering the design for aerobatic capabilities. Your all right, there is a lot to keep track of.... but it is entertaining and certainly a relaxing break from work

Wayne, You bring up a great point in trying a twin first or in the interum, I've had an affinity for Jack's Mosquito for a while, I could certainly build the RSM kit and start learning about flying and maintaining a twin. Thats actually an Idea I really like. It would help the learning curve and let me start that curve while working on the big plane..

It's looking like a great weekend, lets get out and fly em!

wwwarbird · « **Reply #25 on:** September 03, 2010, 04:13:27 PM »

Dennis,

If I may offer them, here are some thoughts that may help your designing/drawing work...

It would be a good idea to find out and make notes of the moment and overall size specs of all flying surfaces on both PJ's Lanc' and Paul's B-17 if possible. This alone could save you some time. Another thing is to look at the same typical overall dimensions and percentages of a large modern PA Stunt model. Proportionally at least, the two models mentioned above most likely fall into the dimensions of the modern "PA Plane". Combining and kind of averaging all of this information in determining your models dimensions would be ideal.

Here's what I do from there:

Don't settle initially on "The finished model will be this size" anywhere, just have a general idea. Now on your "clean sheet" of paper, draw a centerline and/or a thrust line and mark onto it your desired moment dimensions. Then, draw in the wing airfoil and stab and elevator outlines in their desired locations. This will all end up being for your fuselage and engine nacelle profile view drawing(s). Lastly, also mark where the desired tip of the nose and tail of the model will be. Using these marks as your guide, draw in a Lancaster outline to fit within these parameters. Don't second guess yourself if a true scale outline doesn't jive with your reference marks, stick to the moment dimension plan as your guide. You can and will "cheat" the scale Lanc' proportions to fit into your determined specs. Just play with it until it looks good, and is "believably" scale. Typically, at least on the fuselage, you will end up "squishing" and "stretching" the outline from scale. I call this eyeball engineering. This is all how you will end up with a stuntable model. You can see that PJ's and Paul's models incorporate these thoughts, but yet appear very scale.

The same sort of process is done with the top view for the wing, flaps, stab, and elevator. I first draw the wing spar line, and then cross it with a model front to rear center line and the moment reference marks. Then, once you settle on the spacing, lay out the perpindicular rib reference lines. Now draw in your Lancaster wing outline using the same process you did with the profile drawing. Do the same for your stab and elevator.

MAKE AT LEAST A COUPLE COPIES EACH OF EACH DRAWING AT THIS POINT.

Once those copies are done, take one each of the side and top views and sit down and figure out how to actually build the thing. What I mean by that is figuring out and drawing in where all of your bulkheads, engine mounts, landing gear mounts, and everything else, will be.

This is all kind of a "nutshell" explanation, but it works for me.

PJ Rowland · « **Reply #26 on:** September 03, 2010, 05:48:05 PM »

Great advice wwwarbird.

( Yea you wouldnt have seen those photo's becasue they were from my own stock pile - I also have a video documenting the process from building the wing to initial testing of the engines, painting and 1st test flight through to Nationals official flight. I could get you a copy if you can be bothered sitting through 3 hrs of that.)

I did get some dimensions off Paul, but by no means did I get any full details such as nacelle dimensions, root design, ect.. He was a wealth of information tho.
I chose a bigger engine, the enya 19's becasue I wanted a little more power and we had them pumping out at 10200 ground launch. We actualyl bought 7 engines brand new ran them all in on a giant test bench ( wish I had photos of that it looked like the spruch goose of engine test stands ) we foudn that not all engines even out of the factory were the same.

Some were tight, some were loose, some had different power bands. We spoke to enya direct and they said they cant control certain factors such as + and - tolerances during production that would effect performance. I even offered to have 4 engines commissioned to identical specs, but they werent interested.

We did out of the batch of 7 get 4 that were pretty damn close to identical.

Depending how serious you are, I can see if I can get you a copy of the plans I used to build off. I had scale plans of a lancaster which was much much smaller , we blew that plan up and used it as a general FËEL guide for locations - as a basis, then took all my dimensions of a pre-existing stunter 60" size scalled it up 10 % used that airfoil, and just made it dimensionally correct for stunt. overdrawing over the blown up[ plan until it was right. The trick was nose length, we had to guess the weight of the engines in relation to the CG location and tail moment - it was a very calculated guess and we got it spot on the number.

The plans I have which we built off would give you all the dimensions and root / tip templates but its not a PLAN like you would get off randy smith. Its just a lot of sketches over a blown up plan.. kinda sketchy.

I would be tempted to build a twin first and get a feel for how to go about it, and setting it up maybe a mosquito. However, I didnt ever build a twin first so I cant really offer that as real advice - but I do have 20+ years experience flying expert stunt at both National and world levels.

Howard Rush · « **Reply #27 on:** September 03, 2010, 07:19:24 PM »

Something else you might consider is the flap balance tabs PJ uses to reduce the ponderous flap hinge moment. Not everybody uses those: only the most technologically advanced stunt fliers.

Dennis Holler · « **Reply #28 on:** September 03, 2010, 10:15:30 PM »

Thanks guys for all the great thinking and splainin. I knew I was short on knowledge so this thread and the emails from PJ, Howard, and Wayne are working toward getting me straightened out

LL~If thats at all possible

. So we'll keep

on it and see where we go! I got me some more homework to figure out

Pj I might take you up on those sketches, or maybe see where I get to and then compare them anyway.. Your comment about the nose length kind nose answers one of my questions as well, as I was wondering how I would swag that out....

Brett Buck · « **Reply #29 on:** September 03, 2010, 11:10:04 PM »

Quote from: Howard Rush on September 03, 2010, 07:19:24 PM

Something else you might consider is the flap balance tabs PJ uses to reduce the ponderous flap hinge moment. Not everybody uses those: only the most technologically advanced stunt fliers.

Having been one of the few to fly the B-17, I can heartily endorse this plan. I could handle the line tension, but combined with the brobdingnagian control loads, it was about my limit. Even in dead air. Aside from that, it flew very honestly and there really wasn't anything to complain about. Aside from having to whip it for 5-6 laps with only the far outboard engine running, at about 1/4 power.

Brett

PJ Rowland · « **Reply #30 on:** September 03, 2010, 11:47:04 PM »

The Balance tabs are an interesting animal.. It doesnt reduce the Pull factor, it only reduces the force you get from the airflow moving over the flaps and giving you negative feedback. Its like powersteering so to speak. - I havent flown a model since 1997 without them so I cant really comment. It would have been nice to sway PW into installing them on the B17.

In the middle howard ... in the middle I want to see it on your impact by 2011.

Brett.. Whipping it for 5 - 6 laps

Why didnt you just do what I did and have all 4 quit at the same time ?

Subnote : I tell a lie, everynow and they I did have just 3 out of 4 quit at the same time and have to whip it to keep it going, loved those 18 second laps!

Brett Buck · « **Reply #31 on:** September 04, 2010, 12:30:26 AM »

Quote from: PJ Rowland on September 03, 2010, 11:47:04 PM

Brett.. Whipping it for 5 - 6 laps Why didnt you just do what I did and have all 4 quit at the same time ?

Subnote : I tell a lie, everynow and they I did have just 3 out of 4 quit at the same time and have to whip it to keep it going, loved those 18 second laps!

After I saw the endless hours of work trying to get all four fuel pressure regulators to work, all day long the day before, and then being entrusted with such an honor, I wasn't inclined to quibble over the details!

Brett

wwwarbird · « **Reply #32 on:** September 04, 2010, 12:46:56 AM »

I haven't heard of these balance tabs. Can someone explain what exactly they are, and how they are built and work?

Howard Rush · « **Reply #33 on:** September 04, 2010, 11:06:39 AM »

The tabs stay parallel with the wing.

Dennis Holler · « **Reply #34 on:** September 04, 2010, 12:20:34 PM »

Howard, That's neat, is there a size or percent flap area that works best for those tabs.

I finally noticed that PJ's flaps are perp to the center axis versus the prototype airplanes swept forward flaps as per your thoughts Howard. I might start with the Impact air foil you sent and go from there

wwwarbird · « **Reply #35 on:** September 04, 2010, 07:34:27 PM »

Now that's pretty darn funky! Thanks for the great pics of them Howard. Doesn't that end up killing off some of the effective area of the flap though? If so, wouldn't simply having slightly less flap chord have the same end result with any resistance?

Brett Buck · « **Reply #36 on:** September 04, 2010, 09:25:29 PM »

Quote from: wwwarbird on September 04, 2010, 07:34:27 PM

Now that's pretty darn funky! Thanks for the great pics of them Howard. Doesn't that end up killing off some of the effective area of the flap though? If so, wouldn't simply having slightly less flap chord have the same end result with any resistance?

Not really. There have been full-scale airplanes that controlled the surface entirely using the tabs - the controls weren't connected directly to the main surface at all. The controls would deflect the tab and the tab "flew" the rest of the surface to the desired angle.

Brett

wwwarbird · « **Reply #37 on:** September 04, 2010, 10:33:17 PM »

Quote from: Brett Buck on September 04, 2010, 09:25:29 PM

Not really. There have been full-scale airplanes that controlled the surface entirely using the tabs - the controls weren't connected directly to the main surface at all. The controls would deflect the tab and the tab "flew" the rest of the surface to the desired angle.

Brett

Hmm, I guess I wasn't aware of that on any full scale aircraft. It will take my melon a while to 'cipher this one.

PJ Rowland · « **Reply #38 on:** September 05, 2010, 04:49:16 AM »

Brett is right.

Perhaps you are missing the point of how the work aerodynamically.

Balance tabs move in the opposite direction of the control surface. The tab has a leverage advantage, being located closer to the trailing edge of the surface and thus can lever the control surface in the opposite direction. This has the effect of reducing the control force required by the pilot to move the controls.

Howard and I have different views as to the effectiveness of their location.

I personally use them located in the middle of the flap, my only scientific reasons for this are based on principles of leverage. Whereby, lifting something in the middle requires less force than lifting something on the end. Proof can be gained by getting a blank of 4 x 2 holding it on the end and lifting it up and down, vs holding it in the middle and lifting it up and down. !

My other evidence supports Ive tried these in countless configurations over the last 16 years ( 1994 was my 1st model to use them ) Ive had them large, small, on the tips, in the middle, on the root, 10 % of the flap 5 % of the flap, 30 % all different sizes. Ive had the same model, back to back flights with one on and one glued up and there is a noticable, measurable effect on reduced stick load.

I even have tried them on the tailplane but found it useless ,when you take the flap out of the equation, there is no reduced stick load with elevator only.

I have also found you can go alot smaller than I had initially estimated and still get good reduced stick load. My current model is using the smallest ones ive used to date and still have as must effectiness to reduces pressure.

These are 7 mm x 95 mm

The only problem is fitting the tab horn in is ultra fiddely!

Current model tab setup.

FLOYD CARTER · « **Reply #39 on:** September 13, 2010, 01:53:48 PM »

Take your answer from full-size aircraft design. A trim tab on the elevator forces the larger surface in the opposite direction of the tab deflection. For instance, if you want to trim the plane "nose up", the elevator tab moves down, which forces the elevator up--hands off the control stick.

I could take off, fly and even land my Aeronca "Champ" using only the elevator tab, and rudder pedals, with hands off the stick.

Floyd

Air Ministry . · « **Reply #40 on:** September 27, 2010, 10:51:40 PM »

Young Henshaw used to do zero G barrel rolls occasionally testing Lancasters.
A cup of tea sat on the dash would stay put, or he could lift the flight engineers feet of the floor,
so it had fairly accurate controls,at least at moderate airspeeds.

Trim Tabs,or ' balance tabs ' , the Bristol brabazons controls were connected to the TABS only ,
which ' powered ' the ailerons , rudder ,and elevator . Wouldnt want a cable to come off ! .

Michael Boucher · « **Reply #41 on:** October 02, 2010, 02:06:53 AM »

How about a model of the most produced bomber of WWII, the B-24?

TDM · « **Reply #42 on:** October 02, 2010, 07:52:23 PM »

Windy made a few twins if you are interested. He started with the B-25 A-26 and the Tigercat all of them powered by two 40 size motors.

wwwarbird · « **Reply #43 on:** October 02, 2010, 09:36:16 PM »

Quote from: Michael Boucher on October 02, 2010, 02:06:53 AM

How about a model of the most produced bomber of WWII, the B-24?

I've considered that one before. Too hard to make a stuntable version look right with that long skinny high-aspect ratio wing.

Air Ministry . · « **Reply #44 on:** October 18, 2010, 03:44:46 AM »

Thats why they invented carbon fibre veil .Beauty is in the eye of the beholder .
Full size was stressed as catapault launched dive bomber , so fairly tough .

Further digressing a trifle , Clay Lacey raced a DC6 , so if we get a Avro Lincoln ,
Trim the wings to 90 Ft , fit smaller wheels , clip the props , discard the turrets ,
and one or two other things , This should scare those Mustangs and Bearcats .