Parkzone Messerschmitt 109

[James40]

I'm thinking of getting a buddy for my Parkzone P-51 'Gunfighter' and I like the look of this 109. Has anyone tested it or flys this one that could give me some feedback. It's an extra 10cm wingspan over the P-51 but is it as nice to fly ?

[Gemma Jane]

I love mine James, but only as a hand launched belly landing model. I think it has been well covered on the US forums and to be fair by PZ themselves that the BF109 has inherited the original aircrafts ground handling characteristics. On a rough patch I found it impossible to do a ROG. So I pulled out the U/C and threw the model instead and never looked back since.

 

It really does look like a BF 109 in the air and feels great to me. Keep it a little hot for the first landings, it can tip stall, the landings should be no harder to do than the P-51 though if you go for no U/C on the 109.

 

[James40]

That's just what I wanted to hear Gemma, thank you. Have you re-enforced the belly at all to handle the u/c less landings, the P-51 has plastic skid plates on all the possible points of impact and I'd be worried that anything other than a good condition grass strip would damage the foam structure? I'm sure I read you can fit extra servos and use flaps on the 109? That should keep the landing speed down.

[Gemma Jane]

Hi James,

 

I've not used anything to reinforce mine and it's standing up well to landings on a rough grass patch so far.

 

Perhaps a bit of of that wide Selotape on the front scoop and along  the square edge of the radiators under the wings wouldn't do any harm, but I've not found it essential. I think the three bladed prop helps to stop the belly getting marked badly and the PZ Z-Foam is pretty resilient stuff.

 

Yep it's flap servo ready, I've not bought the conversion kit yet, thinking about it though. 

 

 

[NigelH]

I've honestly no idea why people have moaned about the ground handling characteristics of the BF109.  I've flown one and seen it take off and land loads of times with only the odd low speed nose over when it has hit a pot hole.

 

It has been tried without the gear but the owner went back to it.  There were already signs of wear after very few landings without it.

 

[NigelH]

BTW, the flaps were installed in the one that I know of and I don't think it made any difference.  It floats in anyway.

 

[James40]

Nigel, I read RC groups now and again when I'm interested in buying something but for every negative report on an item, there will be 10 positive reports, it's just not many people go to the effort of posting when they are pleased with an item, they only post when they have a complaint. I'm going to buy the 109 as I think it looks great, it will look even better flown along side the P-51, can't wait.

[David perry 1]

My son had one of these and it flies like a dream. So much excess power it really is a hoot with terrific vertical performance.

Alas, the motor was not right from the start so that went back, then the new one had no mount so we made of of those, then we found we had a bad lipo cell so that went back and finally the AR500 decided it was going to go down so the model was eventually stuffed in, genuinely due to radio failure.

 

Was it fun? Yes.

Would I buy another?  Hmmm, need to think about that.  Quality issues rather spoiled the event, but I guess the vast majority are fine.  We have also had PZ P51 and Spitfire and Piper Cub, all of which gave (and in the case of my spitfire, "give")  stirling service.

 

D 

[Gemma Jane]

I've honestly no idea why people have moaned about the ground handling characteristics of the BF109.  I've flown one and seen it take off and land loads of times with only the odd low speed nose over when it has hit a pot hole.

 

On a rough patch we tried to get it off the ground a few times. If enough elevator was applied to stop it nosing over, then it got in the air too early and rolled onto it's back and torque rolled into the ground - the low air speed rendering the ailerons useless to counter the roll.

 

After doing this for the fourth time I concluded the best option was to remove the U/C and hand launch.. it flew perfectly so no CofG issue or anything else. Now this isn't the first foam model I've flown off a rough patch with a U/C so I couldn't help concluding the BF109 was more tricky than most and the reports justified. As it is to me it looks a hundred times better in the air with no U/C in any case so I never really worried about it too much.

 

I would like to try it off a good surface with the U/C on, but it would have to be a very good grass surface I think to be worth trying the U/C again.

 

 

 

[David perry 1]

Posted by Gemma Jane on 23/06/2010 14:21:47:

 

"On a rough patch we tried to get it off the ground a few times. If enough elevator was applied to stop it nosing over, then it got in the air too early and rolled onto it's back and torque rolled into the ground - the low air speed rendering the ailerons useless to counter the roll."

 

And this is why full size pilots are taught to "prevent further wing drop with rudder, not aileron"!  The local increase in alpha WILL cause the roll!

 

Sorry to hear of the problems though.

 

D 

 

 

 

 

[Gemma Jane]

Nice thought David but I do not agree.

 

With no inputs to the aileron the result was the lift-off and torque roll onto it's back.

 

No amount of countering aileron would allow a normal take-off, so the model ended up on its back again three more times before I decided enough was enough.

 

You are thinking of stall recovery, There is no reason to believe my model was stalled at lift off, it was in ground effect and flying, but too slowly for the control surfaces to actually be effective against the torque roll from the three bladed prop which even PZ warn about in the manual.

 

No pilot I know was taught to counter a wing drop just after take-off with the rudder - in full size one simply uses aileron to keep the wings level and rudder to counter any unwanted yaw, and that works just as well for models as full size.  

 

It's all a bit academic really, I suspect it will fly off a good surface just great, what it can't do is fly off a rough surface as well as all my other foam models with U/C.  I've not got a good surface so I I'm happy to report the BF109 is easy to hand launch, looks better in the air without the dangling bits and is just great to fly.

 

 

 

[David perry 1]

Posted by Gemma Jane on 23/06/2010 22:48:37:

 

No pilot I know was taught to counter a wing drop just after take-off with the rudder

 

 

They are by me!  I'm intrigued by why you think pilots would not be taught this.  A stalled wing is further stalled by the addition of down aileron. Thats exactly why we teach "...prevent further wing drop with rudder...".   The use of rudder should be automatice really, ' plane stalls: wing drops: add rudder'.  Next time you fly full size, go up a tad and then try very slow flight. Get the nose into the t/o attitude, add full power and keep gently pulling till it is at the incipient stall stage.  Now wait till the wing drops and add aileron.  Now try the same thing with rudder.   I accept that with something like  a Warrior this demo is negated by the design features, but an old Cherokee with the Hershey bar wing does it well, and anything of performance will too. I am not sure what you fly .

 

Much better though not to get so slow that one stalls on take off! 

 

D 

 

 

[Gemma Jane]

David, read my post again and consider it.

 

I didn't contest the use of rudder in the stall I was discussing keeping the wing level during and after take-off. The wing is not stalled during take-off for obvious reasons. However if one lifts off prematurely (I'm sure this was the problem with the BF109 as I was holding the elevator to keep it from nosing over on the rough surface) then one can enter a flight regime where the wing though not stalled simply does not have sufficient airflow over the ailerons to counteract the torque roll. 

 

I'm familiar with both the Cherokee and the Warrior the last time I carried out stalls in all configurations in a Warrior was last week and then of course I used rudder  to prevent further wing drop, despite the fact I know full well the Warrior can recover on aileron - it isn't what examiners will be looking for. This though is not the flight condition I was discussing and hence why I do not agree that aileron was causing the BF109 to roll, clearly a plane that is getting airborne does not have stalled surfaces. Torque reaction from the fairly large 3 blade prop was causing the roll and with the low take-off speed there was not enough control authority to correct it in my opinion.

 

Check any flying manual for control during the take-off run, correct yaw with rudder and keep the wings level with aileron. If you are teaching pilots that need to use the rudder to control wing drop just after take-off because you fear they have stalled the wing,l I think perhaps you should introduce the concept of an ASI to them.

[James40]

It depends on the plane but we always keep the wing down with aileron in a crosswind, the weather cocking is kicked out with the rudder then flown wing down into the wind, aileron is kept in all the way down the runway if needed.

 

Anyway, back on topic:

 

The Messerschmitt is on special offer at Squadron Leader at the moment  with £44 off, my order has just been placed

 

[Gemma Jane]

Great news James hope you enjoy!

 

Into wind aileron in a crosswind take-off is a good example of the fact full size pilots do use aileron during take-off and it is perfectly normal and safe to do so.

 

 

 

 

[James40]

lol, i'm not the pilot, I'm the Eng, still know how it's flown though as I'm sat right there with the 2 guys doing the flying. Anyway, my 109 arrived today and I instantly decided on a belly landing plane, the gear just doesn't look right. So to strengthen up the belly I've fitted a plastic cover to the nose air inlet and on the two radiator scoops I've fitted the little plastic fins that you can use to protect wingtips from scraping on the ground. I think that should keep the majority of the fuselage offthe ground and protect the parts that do touch. I have also added the flaps to keep the landings nice and slow to further protect the belly and it also reduces the aileron surface so roll will be a little less twitchy. I'll get some pictures up as soon as I've painted the plastic belly scoop to the correct yellow colour.

[James40]

Sorry about the huge block of text, this forum STILL hasn't been fixed to work with iPhones like every other forum out there.

[James40]

Well, it's taken me about 2 hours to figure out how to program my DX7 to operate the AR500 with 3 position flaps. I ended up creating a mix with gear and flap, connecting the flaps through the gear channel with a servo slow to split to the two servos and reverse one and then setting up the travel. It's not spot on 1/2" half flap and 1" full flap. Just waiting for another plastic skid to arrive to protect the flaps on landing and it'll be time to maiden her at the sports field.

[Gemma Jane]

Would like to see pictures of the flap installation if possible James, good luck with the maiden.

[James40]

Here's a couple of pictures of the flaps installed:

 

You can see the two plastic plates I fitted and the skids to prevent any damage to the flaps or the servo arms. I don't think it needs the extra inboard flap, it flys plenty slow enough with the flap it has and adding the extra would have to make it a split flap that I think will be too much.

 

In this pic, you can see the plastic plate and skid fitted to the nose air scoop to protect that area, I also added some yellow paint to the horizontal stabs and the belly to aid in orientation as it all seemed to blend into one colour at a distance, the extra yellow flashes just help pick it out.

 

 The servo slow for the flaps and the larger battery fit nicely in the belly, CofG is spot on, Parkzone handily put some bumps on the wing where it should balance to make life easy.

 

For hand launching I grip her around the fuselage just behind the wing, this has already started to lift the paint from the foam so I applied some clear hinge tape to the areas where my fingers grip to protect the surface finish.

I think this is a great looking plane for a foamy and Parkzone really are pushing out some very nice models at the moment.

It would be nice to see a revamped version of the Spitfire with individual servos for the ailerons and a good brushless motor up front.

[James40]

Well I've got 3 flights in with the 109 now so I'll give a little report. Firstly, it's no where near as quick as Parkzones P-51, the 109 travels around at a much more sedate pace. It is very twitchy in elevator, I've already got 30% expo dialed in but it needs much more, I've also reduced the travel down from the instructions minimum rate.

 

Second, with the flaps installed the ailerons are reduced in size by 50%, on low rates with these smaller aileron, roll looks very scale, I can't imagine what high rates and no flaps would be like! Speaking of the flaps, I've read 200 pages on R/C groups about how difficult this model is to land. With flaps fully down and landing into a very gently breeze, I could walk along next to the thing, it really is a slow and easy plane to land with flaps.
 

Rudder authority is low, I'm going to increase the travel to see if that helps but she struggled with stall turns, it is a small rudder and a long tail section though so maybe more travel is needed. So how would I rate it? Well it looks superb in the air, it looks nicer than the Mustang, it's a plane you have to concentrate more on the flying though as the stall is quite a vicious wing drop but easy to recover.

 

The Mustang is much more fun to throw around the sky, the 109 much nicer to do scale flying and low, slow passes. Both are simple to belly land and have to be really pushed to get into trouble but the 109 is the one that will catch you out.

 

Edited By David Ashby - RCME Administrator on 06/07/2010 13:22:19

[James40]

Sorry about the huge block of text, it's the iPhone/forum problem again.

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Is it worth adding a few gramms in the nose James, just to negate the pitch sensitivity?

 

Good flying report

It'll be interesting to see how the new Wilcat flies.....

Edited By David Ashby - RCME Administrator on 06/07/2010 13:29:07

[James40]

I had her on the CofG balance device and she was spot on, I think it could just be the design of the BF109, it's a large wing right up at the front, then quite long tail before you get to the horizontal stab, plus the instructions do seem to recommend a lot of travel even on low rates. I'll push the battery right up to the front and try again, I'm also updating the Velcro strap from the nasty ones parzone seem to provide. I too am looking forward to the Wild Cat, Parkzone really are making some nice kits. Wish they would do a re-make of the Spitfire. Oh and thanks for the edit David, I hate looking at a block of text, my eyes start watering.

Edited By James40 on 06/07/2010 14:55:18

[David Ashby - Moderator]

I think a revamp of the Spit must be on the cards sometime.

 

C of G is a funny thing though and what one person finds acceptable another will hate. A little weight in the nose won't go amis and may well transform it. I have found some of the other Pzone birds bebefit from the same treatment.