Jump to content

CMPRO Mitsubishi Zero engine thrust settings


Gordon Brown
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm in the process of building a CMPRO Mitsubishi Zero, the 71 inch wingspan job, and the manual doesn't give any advice on down and right thrust for the engine. Anyone got any ideas? I'm assuming as it's a low wing plane the down thrust would be small but as thus is the first large IC model I've built I'm not sure about right thrust. The engine will be an ASP 120fs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Advert


I had a CMP Pro Zero a couple of years ago, I can't remember if it was this one but how many different sizes did they make? Anyway, the C of G as stated in the manual was wrong and too far back. The plane had one eventful flight and one only. Sorry, I can't help with information about the engine thrust but make several enquiries about the c of g on the web, I found loads of evidence after I'd crashed the plane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with Daren on this one, getting the thrust settings correct doesn't seem any different to getting the cog correct. I suppose if I really want a challenge I could use the cog from the manual but common sense dictates that's building in too many potential problems. Having seen the difference proper trimming made to my Monolog in terms of how pleasant it was to fly I'm keen to make sure the Zero gets the same treatment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no experience of full size and how they counter thrust issues, apart from knowing about rudder pedals and trim tabs, do they fly straight lines with a boot full of rudder in or trim it out ? however it's a simple process to trim a model aeroplane to counter it, I don't see holding rudder in verticals when doing stall turns as learning to use rudder (makes the ones to the right less crisp) it's a no brainer for me..trim it out on the mount. Learn to use your rudder landing/taking off in cross winds, co-ordernating rudder/aileron turns ,flying inverted, knife edging etc all more fun with a well trimmed model.

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite right, many full sized WW2 aircraft used measures to counter the effects of propellor induced forces on the aircraft, mainly because of the huge amounts of power in fighter engines. Offset fins and thrustlines. I have no knowledge of this relating to the Zero but some of the later marques were using massively powerful motors and I would be surprised if the designers didn't deal with the trim changes in some way.

We no longer build models using a single sided razor blade because better tools are available for the job. (I guess you need to have started modelling many years ago to fully apreciate that comment). wink

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darren, you should have a look to my workshop: the most advanced piece of technology is a mini jigsaw I recently bought in Lidl
Going back to the original question, I don't have experience with this particular model, but ages ago I had a Giles 202 of CMPro. In that one, the right and down thrust was already built in the firewall, and the engine was mounted with a specific offset to compensate it. Could it be that the Zero have a similar arrengmemt?

Edited By AVC on 12/12/2015 05:37:58

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it has you should be able to see it by eyeing the face of the firewall or use a small square..I recently had a prototype Extra300 to build and it too had built in thrust line. To get the prop in the right place meant that the engine mount was almost in the top right hand corner of the firwall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having no engine side thrust won't make much a difference, unless you are an extremely low speed and the model gyrates round the engine thrust or if you are under very high power levels, which would give a slightly left turn - hence why doing a left roll is quicker than doing a right roll, because of this reason.

Ideally, an airframe should have no side thrust, as a dead stick glide, or very low power descent would cause trim changes. The model should have some design built-in to limit the amount of side thrust - such as pattern models, where a slight trim change would cause a noticable drift - unless the pilot corrects that, but the judges will see that and puts more load on the pilot - precision - not what you want by differing thrust/angle of attack values.

Edited By Paul Marsh on 12/12/2015 13:35:08

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Haven't progressed very far with mine I'm afraid, other committments, other models all took precedence and I haven't flown as much since my lad left to join the army as he was one of the main drivers of the hobby. I have fitted split flaps and diddled about with mounting the tank etc, hit a minor issue with the ASP 120fs exhaust as the angle it's at means that I'd have to hack a huge hole in the cowl to allow it to exit. I've put together a design for a better exhaust manifold that I will knock up on the lathe when I get time. I've just finished building my Rojair ME163 so there's space to get on with the Zero, or the FW190 that needs repair, or the half built Stuka, or the Polecat kit, or the half built Swordfish I couldn't resist buying, or that rather nice big Citabria...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...