w1nd6urfa

My Feedback: (4)

Here you go:

Wing pic shows weathering with scotch brite - leaves visible lines

Strut covers are home made using 0.8 mm alum sheet placed over a wine bottle to get the required curvature to "hug" the wing

Nick

TimBle

thats a VQ models FW190...

Ramstein44

My Feedback: (157)

I've been really interested in the BH fw190 being flipped.. For those of you that already have it, what do you think of the details of it to do this? Also, aftermarket retracts? Do you think the ESM FW cockpit kit could fit it?

Kostas1

hrrcflyer

Hey Chris,

Do you happen to know what the electric setup in the plane was?

Thanks,
David

flycatch

My Feedback: (26)

Maiden mine today. The airplane flew with little airleron and elevator trim. I installed; TYs ESM FW190 cockpit, ESM FW190 modified electric retracts, aftermarket semi scale tailwheel assembly and powered it with a Saito 1.8FS. I used a sub C 6V battery pack and used it to also to adjust the CG per factory location. The take off took a little right rudder and it tracks straight down the runway. What a difference to the ESM FW190 I had. I had a slight headwind coming from the east and I would call this a perfect day for its' first flight. I did not retract the gear and flew at various throttle setting. At full throttle it climed however at 3/4 throtttle were I do most of my flying it maintained a constant altitude. I would call this perfect. Landing was a no brainer. Lowering the throttle produced a constant decrease in altitude. I did not use flaps and just maintained a constant heading using throttle to come down the glide slope. Once over the threshold and about six feet above the ground I decreased the throttle to idle and the airplane touched down on both mains. I did use just a touch of up elevator prior to contacting the runway and held it to bleed off airspeed during the rollout.

Debrief after flight revealed that the tailwheel departed its' mounting bracket somewhere while in flight. The exhaust header and muffler came loose. Easy fixes for a rewarding first flight.

This plane like their other offerings is a worthwhile investment and IMO is a better than an ESM airframe.

Speaking of ESM I'll be test flying there Hawker Hurricane this coming Friday weather permitting.

w1nd6urfa

My Feedback: (4)

Congrats for the maiden!

The difference to the ESM 190 is due to lower weight?

For the Saito exhaust header use teflon tape and re-tighten when hot, guaranteed solution.

Nick

Kostas1

flycatch,

what is your all up weight;

Did you take any pictures or did you capture a video of the maiden;

flycatch

My Feedback: (26)

I flew alone so no video. The manufactured advertised the airframe at 10.5lbs. This I assume was with an engine installed probably a 1.2FS. I did not weight this model but I would guess about 13lbs. The wingloading was way below 30 maybe around 25. My ESM FW190 was a lead sled at 17lbs. The Hawker Hurricane I will be test flying weights about 18.5lbs but it has a larger wing platform however it's another ESM heavy metal warbird. I normally don't bash other manufactures but I feel BH models in the near furture will become the leader in fun scale ARFs'. I forgot to mention I replaced the spinner with another sold by SkyShark models. It's the same unit used on there FW190D. The provided spinner in my opinion may explode like the one on the ME109 sold by CMP. That 109 is also a POS and buyer beware.

RBean

I am thinking or ordering one of these from The Hobby People. It comes with air retracts and oleo struts. Does anyone know if the stock gear is any good? I fly off a grass runway. Mostly I have been disappointed by retracts which come with ARFs. If the struts and retracts are ok, it is a good deal, but I don't want to pay for them, to throw them away. I also have a DLE 20, new still in the box. If this plane builds as light as the published specs it should be enough power, so what about the actual finished weight? Any info?

flycatch

My Feedback: (26)

Sorry to tell you this but the retracts are junk. I tossed them and installed ESM electric retracts. The strut lenght on the ESMs are too long since they were designed for the ESM FW190. If you have access to a milling machine like I did it is an easy modification. I installed robart 4" wheel assemblies and they have no problem supporting the weight of the aiframe which is about 13lbs. I used a sub "C" 6V battery pack to balance the plane with a Saito 1.8FS for the powerplant. Using the factory reccommended control throws the plane felt sluggist on airlerons. Rudder and elevator throw felt fine and you don't needs flaps to land. Rollout on the mains with a 5mph headwind is about 50 to 75 feet. With flaps it should be a third of this distance. The rake of the landing gear should prevent any noseover tendencies. The tail rises in less than 15 feet at half throttle and it pulls to left slightly. The rudder took care of the torque with no problem. I fly off of packed clay surface and the tire have a good bite for tracking straight. The gear is set with a slight toe in and this may have added to its tracking capability. Upon landing use throttle management and fly the airfame to the ground. Once you touch on the mains reduce throttle to idle and allow the plane to bleed off airspeed. The tail will come down on its' own with no problem. One thing I did notice was that it is no speed demon airborne. I'm turning a Vess 16X8 propellor and the engine has less than 30 minutes on it out of the box. I believe the engine needs more time and the RPMs should increase by at least 15%. I'm going to try a 16X6 next time out to see if that helps. This plane is a keeper and maybe in the near furture BH will come out with a FW190D.

RBean

Thanks for the reply. I was afraid of that, regarding the stock landing gear. Otherwise sounds like the plane flys nice.

m3_express

flycatch,

I'm in the same boat as RBean... I want to get this kit but don't want to pay for retracts I won't be using.

Since you said they are junk, can you explain what specifically are bad about them?

I've dealt with the ESM air retracts.... They aren't too good either. But, after an hour or so disassembling them, lubing everything, then reassembling with loctite, they turn out OK.

HK

flycatch

My Feedback: (26)

On a scale of 1-10 these are a -10. The pair supplied with the ARF were even rusted. Go to a Hobby People outlet that has this ARF available and see for yourself. I have a set of of Robarts and Spring Air and these pneumatics are not junk. I switched over to electrics sold by ESM and the quality is there even though they are solw. The plane itself is quality just like most of the BH line. I have their AT-6 and Pitts S1S and they are exceptional.

kahloq

Nice looking FW-190. And for its size relative to weight...yea its a kite with a motor. That being said.....the outline is better then the ESM FW-190A regarding the gun hood, but, the ESM one is far from being a lead sled...that part is purely a builder/pilot issue. This has been discussed and debunked in several other threads. Is it heavier?...yes it is. But it does not fly like a brick either

The good side to the BH plane is its lighter for those NOT accustomed to flying a plane other then sport/pattern style feather lite planes. The downside is the extreme price. Normal price of $499 is way too high...and then considering the retracts are reported as poor.
Even on sale(this last week) when it was reduced to 399 for a bit is still too high. Especially since you can get an ESM one for 319.

If I didnt already have the ESM one, Id probably be tempted to buy this one anyway merely because its Luftwaffe...but not at $499.
I will add that my Grauper FW-190 Dora9 is about the same weight as this BH 190 and yeah its real easy to fly and land cuz its so light for its size. Fun to fly, but not at all challenging.

flycatch

My Feedback: (26)

You and I don't no one another but from what you said it's all about price. The BH line of airframes are designed for those into fun scale while like you said the ESM line are for those who sit on the top of the pyamid. For your information I had a FW190 ESM ARF and for the wing area and overall weight of the fuselage it was well into the forties. I lost mine to in-flight radio failure not pilot error. At 3/4 throttle setting is flew fine but once below this setting your piloting skill and reading the airplane came into play. Due to the high wing loading landings became a text book approach and if not done properly go arounds became the norm. I flew aerial targets for the military and our airframes weighed in excess of 75 lbs. Yes the BH FW190 is overpriced but it looks and flys great just like my other two BH airframes. One last thing I currently have an ESM Hawker Hurricane powered by a Saito 2.2. It weights about 18.5 lbs but the wing area is about 37% more than the ESM FW190.
Stay with the ESM airplanes that's your call but within two years BH models will be the leader and plane of choice for those wishing to fly scale aircraft.

kahloq

No we dont know eachother. But in each thread...here...rcgroups...where you even mention the ESM fw-190..you call it a lead sled when most everyone else that has posted in said threads disagrees with you to the fact that it doesnt fly like one. Each time, you constantly state the wingloading in the forties, but that doesnt really mean much since the larger a plane gets, the more weight it can carry without effecting the flyability. You yourself should know this considering your stated experience with military drones.
This plane has a wing area of 869.76 square inches or 6.04 square feet.
For your 17 pound one, your at 45 oz per square inch. However, MOST of the planes flying arent weighing that much.

Please see this video. Its an ESM fw-190 with a heavy 170 saito radial up front. Watching the vid, you can easily tell the plane flies fine at less then full throttle. If you pay attention to the engine noise, you can make out that during several fly bys, the pilot was considerably less then full throttle and on landing, with the motor at idle the plane just wanted to float. I am not trying to prove the esm one is a better plane at all...only that it is NOT a beast to fly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0WSRM4fc3s

For you information...I DO also own the esm fw-190 and it does not exhibit the problems you state regarding less then 3/4 throttle. I can fly around a 1/2 throttle no problems whatsoever and landings are a non-event...and mine's at a bit over 16 pounds running a saito 180. Eventually, ill switch it over to a 170 radial since I have two of them.

Back to the BH model
I do not have any issues with the BH fw-190 at all. Im not knocking it, but you exagerate your impressions on the ESM one quite often.

Price wise...the BH is more expensive sure. My point regarding the $499 isnt about ... hey I cant afford that...its about....for $500, Id get a 50cc esm fw-190 D9 instead for only $50 more for a much larger plane that...as with the rest of the esm line...are generally MORE accurate scale wise(the esm fw-190 is an exception here....the gun hood slope is wrong)

Although BH makes some fine looking planes, they will not ever be able to become "the leader and plane of choice for those wishing to fly scale aircraft" as you put it. Their price point is too high compared to ESM, Top Flite, Hangar 9, CMP. And just like any other manufacturer, they deviate from scale to make them easier to fly. So scale isnt the right word here. Fun or Sport scale yes. it is a nice offering though and one of a few nice fw-190s available as an arf

I agree with you in the sense I hope BH brings out more warbirds. More options, competition, etc are good for all of us...no matter what type of plane..fun, sport, semi, or scale a person wishes to fly.

kahloq

As a note
.....I got an email from Hobby-people that BH has lowered the price on all their planes to hobbypeople, so once again, the BH FW-190 is reduced price to $399 for anyone that was wavering. $399 isnt so bad. Would definitely make it easier to electrify this one relative to the ESM since the fuse is balsa built up and lighter if someone wanted to go that route. I have done plenty of ESM as electric and they work out fine, however, it is harder to make a battery hatch. If that is a concern, Id recommend this BH fw-190 instead. Both can have the gun hoods removed if your very carefull. Thats what i did on the graupner d9 as well.

After the new year, I may still pick this one up if the price drops a bit further or the BH Stuka. The Stuka is more cartoon scale relative to an esm, but i do like the shock absorbing main struts and tail wheel set up on the BH. A good paint job and some tweaking could make it look better.

Id be interested to know what the cowl diameter of this BH FW-190 is. Maybe the 2nd 170 radial I have could go in this. The retracts though still worry me since many here are reporting they arent very good.

flycatch

My Feedback: (26)

In 1982 a book was published entitled "Basics of R/C Scale" it was written by Patrick H. Potega and published by "Model Agency Press". In chapter 3 he provides a chart showing the relationship between wing loading and model type. He clearly states that anything above 35 oz./sq. ft. has; unpredictable handling, hot, nasty stalls and is too heavy. His book became my bible and I adhere to its' words. If you enjoy flying on the wing then that's your choice not mine. People in this hobby who get into scale do it for a reason and that's to emmulate a real aircraft in flight. I want more people to enjoy scale with an airframe that is not constantly challenging their flying skills. Like I said I flew an ESM airframe and going to fly another but they are not for the average weekend pilot. BH models has taken away the fear factor and placed harmony back into the hands of the pilot. My BH Pitts was another example of a dreaded airframe to takeoff and land. The BH Pitts behaved like a trainer and it fooled quite a few others on its' maiden flight.

sharam

My Feedback: (2)

Where can I get a copy of this book?

kahloq

Your quote from the book is fine....except it does NOT take into account model size as it increases wingspan/wingarea to wingloading. I do agree with you that a lighter wingloading plane is easier for people with less time on sticks, however, most people flying ESM planes are also weekend pilots and not scale master pilots either. This BH is definitely better choice for NEWER pilots since they dont have the experience to fly anything much more then a light trainer.

How do you think a real airplane flies when were talking POUNDS per square foot to the wingarea? Its simple.....larger wingspan carries more weight per square inch with NO detriment. There also werent model airplanes easily available in 1982, so your author, although we knowleable at the time 30 years ago, could not include these aspects regarding larger wing = larger weight capability, better more powerful motors on r/c planes since there was nothing out there to use to test at the time. The larger the wing, the better use it makes of the air molecule which does NOT decrease in size as the plane gets smaller.

Most planes are designed to fly on the wing, not on motor power alone relative to the weight of the airplane....except 3D.
Im not going to argue with you about this. Its simple facts. While your book is great and WAS a nice guideline, it's severely outdated informationally speaking.
You want to fly light planes like the BH version....I dont have any problem with that at all or anyone else that wishes to fly one. What I do have issue with is your constant berating of the ESM plane stating its a lead sled when in fact it isnt and your adherence to a set wingloading number that isnt progressive based on wing size.

Stating you think a newer pilot would have more problems controlling an esm plane would be an accurate statement relative to a lighter BH....but calling something a lead sled is misleading people altogether since most will only hear that thinking its correct for ALL esm planes or even that particular fw-190 from esm. When in fact we both know yours weighed more then most.

Now..if you have this plane....please, by all means, enjoy it. Build it, share pics, share flight reports, etc.

kahloq

Pitts bi-planes are rather narrow landing gear. Also, the wing shape has something to do with its ability to stay stable. The real airplane is a very acrobatic beast, but to do that means its got to be very manueverable which equates to LESS then decent stability. I also have a Pitts bi-plane. Somewhat smaller then the BH, but it is also not for the faint of heart and will drop a wing if your not careful and its wingloading is well below 35oz/sq ft. Wingloading relative to wingsize is the key element. Ive got a a few planes that arent good at landing at all, even though their wingloading is only 20oz/sq ft. and ive got some that are ***** cats to land that are approaching 50oz/sq ft.

The following pics are of my B-17. It wingloading is over 40 and it is stable as all can be. Does not need to land hot, nor does it have nasty tip stalls. Its wingspan is over 80" though which is why.

flycatch

My Feedback: (26)

Can't help on that issue. I purchased mine from a hobby shop in Hesperia, California. The shop closed its' doors many years ago. I would try to find out if the publisher is still in business they were located in Canoga Park, Ca. 91307. If all else fails contact Mr. Potega if he is still amongst us.

flycatch

My Feedback: (26)

I'm not going to depate this with you or anyone else. It's a matter of aerodynamics and nothing else. Airframe design parameters have not changed but they have evolved since 1982.

Chad Veich

My Feedback: (60)

The highlighted quote is a blanket statment and, like most blanket statements, is simply not true in every case. Mr. Potega is certainly welcome to his opinion but it is just that, his opinon. Just because it got published does not make it any more or less his opinion. As pointed out by Kahloq the size of the model has to be taken into consideration when determining if wing loading is high, low, or something in between. While a 35 oz/sq. ft. loading on a .25 size Mustang (for example) is probably a wreck going somewhere to happen it is perfectly suitable for the same model at 1/5 scale and feather light on one that is 1/4 scale. Those are the simple facts.