I made a kit foamy FW190 a few years back...took about a month to build and I was really happy with it but never flown anything before...Bought a Futaba handset and some bloke from the shop said I needed a brushless motor to power it so I got one of those too...All ready, I drove to some fields and walked away from the road about 5o yards...got it powered up and full throttle to launch it just like the bloke in the shop told me and I launched...It was so fast it covered the distance from me back to the road in the time it took me to get my hand back on the handset and it disappeared over a hedge...and I heard a clunk...It had hit the road next to my car...It's still in the attic in pieces!
Sorry you had such an experience, I had a very similar problem with an early eflite Spitfire; got away from me quickly, no idea of its attitude and spanked it into a field 200m away 😳
beautiful building. Please balance your props. The texan had a great balanced prop. Notice it sounded different? When launching, don't punch the throttle. The P factor will always torque the plane in a very steep bank, sometimes unrecoverable. Hope this helps and good luck with the rebuild and remaiden.
@@srknight307 so sorry for this loss especially I have seen all the build recently and how much effort you put into this Bf109. Such a shame.. honestly saying I don't see any reason for using a two bladed prop on s scale model made out of this tiny balsa sticks. This has no point as you just fly around your head only and efficiency is not a priority in those builds but only a few minutes of showoff for the aircraft. Go for the exact same props ad they used on a manned sized planes. Two bladed props are to long for the small and lightway builds. I messed up my foamy spitife conversation from freeflying model to a 3ch RC model but in my case it happened on a 3rd flight. This is the thing about those tiny scale models that these are way to fragile for flying really and should be kept for a showroom most of the time. I would try and go for some nano flyconrollers (FC) which has axial gyro to help stabilising the level flight which is extremely helpful in a hand lunch of those unstable acro platforms which they were as fighter aircrafts. As it is otherwise big waste of your work on those modules and tooth grinding to see. Messerschmitt model wasn't the easiest to fly as full size airplane apparently in first place. I know what you feel though as I crashed few of my foamy builds already and lost one well designed and flying acro drone in the fields as well which was devastating.
When you have electric power you could use a catapult platform wich you trigger with a foot pedal. It will give you controll all the way when you get hang of it. I enjoy your videos and think I will give stick and tissue a go. Been flying models for the last 41 years. Done dogfighters with OS 10`s and 15`s and started mostly like you do but with throw from over my head to have more power in throw. And more distance from the ground to recover. I will continue to follow your work. Good job and blue skies.
Thank you 😊 I’ve been using a filly for my latest builds and it’s worked better so far. I have actually made a catapult type launch rail but it would be using the model power rather than bungee. Not tried it yet though 🤞Thanks for your support 👍🏻
I love guillows RC conversions, yours are ripping fast. I just posted a video of a guillows DR-1 triplane I converted. Am inspired to do some war birds next :)
Hmmm, had to be the position of the servos for rudder and elevator as I thought it was too far in the rear. You did perform a weight and balance test on it; right?
Too bad about the 109...as a newbie to this hobby that has been the results of my first two flights. I've started w/foam board planes from FliteTest and find that so far I enjoy the building more than the flying. Maybe if I finally have a successful flight that will change. I was inspired to get a Guillows kit to build and so far your build videos have been an inspration. I haven't built one of these since I was a teen (won't discuss how long ago that is) so I'm really looking forward to the process and managing the conversion to RC control. Tks for the vids.
@@srknight307 I'm being reminded how dimensionally eratic the old die-cut kits were...and how difficult it was to get all the pieces out without splitting them...much care needs to be taken. I am curious about what you're using for glue...it looks like CA...is that a better choice than a carpenters glue? Certainly it would dry a lot faster.
@@icedog75 yes it is CA, both thin and medium. It dries quicker and also hardens the balsa I find. Good for applying to any slight splits in the wood to take away any possible weakness. Just watch those fingers though 😉
Sorry to see the 109 challenge. In watching both the spit and the 109 launch, it sounded like you pulled back the power right after launch and then went to full right after? If so, may I recommend launching at 3/4 and keeping it up till flying speed. Torque can be a factor (more so with a 3 blade) but it looks like an issue with snap/stall vs torque. Set her aside for a little while and come back to her- the damage always seems the worst right after a crash. FSM
Thank you, yes, I see what you mean. Will try and bear that in mind for next time. I’ll get the 109 rebuilt, with a 3 blade prop as I have a spare and see how she goes 🤞
Feel gutted for you. A fair bit of surgery to do and it will soon be in the Air again. I noticed the left Aileron on the spit looks like it is out of Alignment just wondering if you have a loose hinge on that side.
Fantastic model. In both flights you gave it throttle, threw it, backed the throttle down to nearly nothing while it was pitched up so it lost all air speed then suddenly gave it a lot of throttle that torqued it severely left. Why did you bring the throttle so low right after launch? I hope you give it another try. Get someone else to throw it so you can keep your hands on the sticks.
Thank you, yes you’re right I think I panicked which caused the disaster. She’s rebuilt and ready. I’m also going to try a dolly launch when I can get back there and see how that goes. Throttle control is required for sure 🤞👍🏻
OUCH! The BF 109 did exactly what the Real Airplanes were known for. Too much engine Torque at Take Off and they would flip over and kill many too slow to react young Pilots. I enjoyed building these planes and flying them. My favorite was the FW 190. Always wanted to build the P-47 Thunderbolt, and for some reason later, the B-24 Liberator was always calling to me as well. Never built either one, but I sure thought about it enough. In my day, there was no Electric powered planes. And R/C was still too Pricey for a 13 year old kid. But, I flew these with Rubber and small Cox engines. I still remember the Helpless feeling after letting go a brand new build,with a Cox engine, only to watch it take off, and ever so slowly turn to the left, and then slowly twist inverted, and then Smash into the ground. Balsa and Tissue fragments, Splinters, and Dirt! My Last FF plane was a plane I think was named Snooper, a largish FF model, powered by a speedy .049 Cox engine. I painted this thing Bright Orange so I could easily see it way up in the Sky. Its first and last flight was sad like your BF 109. my plane was hand launched as well, it took off, started going almost straight up. After about 5 seconds of going up and up and up, suddenly it twisted, turned back around, and Rocketed straight as an Arrow into the Ground! More Splinters, torn Tissue and a few Expletives deleted. I built a few more Control Line planes, but eventually Girls and Motorcycles pulled me away from a much less expensive Hobby.
Did you angle the motor down to the right? Anyway, the 109 sounded like the prop was WAY off balance. But the next one sounded good. Thanks for posting, nice models, over all.
On a maiden flight you should not do an underarm launch as you want a launch that is as level as possible. Once you are confident in an aircraft's ability only then you should use underarm launches. The problem with an underarm launch is that it has a tendency to nose-up and also starts at waste height. Whereas a normal overarm launch will be level or slightly nose down and by definition starts at head height. This means that you can start at a lower throttle setting or even test glide the thing. Also I don't understand why your throttle started after your launch, it only complicates the launch. (I've been flying RC for 50 years BTW brilliant hobby and great for kids to get into STEM subjects. That's probably why I am still an engineer now.)
Yes a few lessons to be had there for sure! I've had a couple of successful maidens since and I've used a dolly so that I can have full control from the outset. :-)
Shame. Even before launch this sounded way too overpowered. What KV are you using,and why. I have some experience with smaller aircraft,though never done a Guillows yet, and it just sounded like that to me. The other 3 looked and sounded as they, to my ear, should. I'm sure by now you have sorted it out. I agree that launching on your own is by far the worst part,and the cold hands would not have helped. Good luck on the rebuild. I have a 30" scratchbuilt Fairey Fulmar to maiden soon so am going through the same....
I'm sorry for you loss. It looks to be very nicely built, that paint job is outstanding! I hate to say it but i think you not really have a suiting power system in there. It looks to be way over powered and heavy. I run mine with a Turnigy 2211 2300kv motor (19 grams i believe) and a 10a turnigy plush esc. Hk5330 1.9g servo's and a 370mah 3s. All up weight about 180 grams. I hope you have been able to fix it. Here is the flight video off mine. ruclips.net/video/z8hu5uEL4W8/видео.html
I built dozens of these things as a kid. Guillows airplanes always looked great when properly done, very nice, fun kits, but they always flew like crap if at all. The supplied rubber motors and propellors were useless for flight. Even with later day electric or small glow power and R/C (forget free flight) they fly like mosquitoes, mostly on pure power, very jerky, unstable, and way too fast. Built straight from the kits without major mods they are overbuilt and too heavy, many are virtually impossible to balance properly (WWI fighters) and the wings' airfoils are universally inefficient. Some talented, knowledgeable and valiant (stubborn) folks have done the right mods and have managed to get some rather shaky flights from them. Some have doubled or tripled the excellent scale plans and built from them. It's no surprise that the larger models fly much better (larger models always fly better). When painted up nicely Guillows airplanes are still just show horses.
I agree they’re not the easiest to fly. My smaller series models do not fly but the others I’ve built in the 400 series do if you see my other videos. The best to fly by far is the SBD3 and I think that’s because it has a much better airfoil wing. Hopefully the 109 will fly soon!
Lots of true in this. I flown two of F4U corsairs mini series which were 800mm wingspan and those flown so good and smooth. I could do anything with them without any gyro FC whatsoever. In around 15 flights i only crashed once on a landing approach and nothing happened to the model thanks to its robust foam construction. Only minor scuffs appeared. I was so pleased with the models but I sold them later as moved to other flying staffs. Those days however we can see very good 400mm warbird serises from Eachine company (Chinese) and those are equipped with high tech FC gyros which help a lot in the flying and give you few flyght modes. Also seem bullet proof and crash resistance. The old balsa planes are things of the past already.
@@srknight307 I understand the Guillows "Hellcat " is a good flyer (as was the real one) due its rather large wing area and excellent proportions. Built light with a few mods, I think it's a good candidate for flight. One thing for sure, Guillow's models look beautiful.
@@theartofflying3108 You may be right about the old built-up balsa models. There are still a few of these kits around, and a few of us old timers who like them, if only for nostalgic reasons. They do take some time and skill and are very fragile. In this instant gratification, no skill, no effort world, they are, indeed anachronisms. Still, they teach that leaning how to actually DO something and to persevere to its completion brings a satisfying reward is a good lesson. Nothing does this better than aircraft modeling and flying.
@@Glicksman1 you may be right. I’m going to try a different brand kit to build next and see how that goes. The wing is bigger than the the 109 and looks to be a better airfoil shape too so fingers crossed 🤞
😊Happy Days. Indeed, thanks for the share. ❤🙏
I made a kit foamy FW190 a few years back...took about a month to build and I was really happy with it but never flown anything before...Bought a Futaba handset and some bloke from the shop said I needed a brushless motor to power it so I got one of those too...All ready, I drove to some fields and walked away from the road about 5o yards...got it powered up and full throttle to launch it just like the bloke in the shop told me and I launched...It was so fast it covered the distance from me back to the road in the time it took me to get my hand back on the handset and it disappeared over a hedge...and I heard a clunk...It had hit the road next to my car...It's still in the attic in pieces!
Sorry you had such an experience, I had a very similar problem with an early eflite Spitfire; got away from me quickly, no idea of its attitude and spanked it into a field 200m away 😳
This is righteous. I've had these kits since I was a kid. Trying to find the zero kit with the floats.
Amazing how fast they are.
beautiful building. Please balance your props. The texan had a great balanced prop. Notice it sounded different? When launching, don't punch the throttle. The P factor will always torque the plane in a very steep bank, sometimes unrecoverable. Hope this helps and good luck with the rebuild and remaiden.
Thanks for the tips!
@@srknight307 so sorry for this loss especially I have seen all the build recently and how much effort you put into this Bf109. Such a shame.. honestly saying I don't see any reason for using a two bladed prop on s scale model made out of this tiny balsa sticks. This has no point as you just fly around your head only and efficiency is not a priority in those builds but only a few minutes of showoff for the aircraft. Go for the exact same props ad they used on a manned sized planes. Two bladed props are to long for the small and lightway builds. I messed up my foamy spitife conversation from freeflying model to a 3ch RC model but in my case it happened on a 3rd flight. This is the thing about those tiny scale models that these are way to fragile for flying really and should be kept for a showroom most of the time. I would try and go for some nano flyconrollers (FC) which has axial gyro to help stabilising the level flight which is extremely helpful in a hand lunch of those unstable acro platforms which they were as fighter aircrafts. As it is otherwise big waste of your work on those modules and tooth grinding to see. Messerschmitt model wasn't the easiest to fly as full size airplane apparently in first place. I know what you feel though as I crashed few of my foamy builds already and lost one well designed and flying acro drone in the fields as well which was devastating.
Just been looking at her and the engine mount had cracked so was vibrating when flying hence the noise. 3 bladed prop now fitted 🤞
Good work!
When you have electric power you could use a catapult platform wich you trigger with a foot pedal. It will give you controll all the way when you get hang of it. I enjoy your videos and think I will give stick and tissue a go. Been flying models for the last 41 years. Done dogfighters with OS 10`s and 15`s and started mostly like you do but with throw from over my head to have more power in throw. And more distance from the ground to recover. I will continue to follow your work. Good job and blue skies.
Thank you 😊 I’ve been using a filly for my latest builds and it’s worked better so far. I have actually made a catapult type launch rail but it would be using the model power rather than bungee. Not tried it yet though 🤞Thanks for your support 👍🏻
I love guillows RC conversions, yours are ripping fast. I just posted a video of a guillows DR-1 triplane I converted. Am inspired to do some war birds next :)
Thanks, you did a nice job on the DR1. I have one and hope it’ll be as good as yours when I build it 😎
Hmmm, had to be the position of the servos for rudder and elevator as I thought it was too far in the rear. You did perform a weight and balance test on it; right?
E' fantastico bravo💪
Too bad about the 109...as a newbie to this hobby that has been the results of my first two flights. I've started w/foam board planes from FliteTest and find that so far I enjoy the building more than the flying. Maybe if I finally have a successful flight that will change. I was inspired to get a Guillows kit to build and so far your build videos have been an inspration. I haven't built one of these since I was a teen (won't discuss how long ago that is) so I'm really looking forward to the process and managing the conversion to RC control. Tks for the vids.
I prefer the building too, generally much less stressful! The Hurricane is coming along and will hopefully have a much more successful maiden 🤞
@@srknight307 I'm being reminded how dimensionally eratic the old die-cut kits were...and how difficult it was to get all the pieces out without splitting them...much care needs to be taken. I am curious about what you're using for glue...it looks like CA...is that a better choice than a carpenters glue? Certainly it would dry a lot faster.
@@icedog75 yes it is CA, both thin and medium. It dries quicker and also hardens the balsa I find. Good for applying to any slight splits in the wood to take away any possible weakness. Just watch those fingers though 😉
Sorry to see the 109 challenge. In watching both the spit and the 109 launch, it sounded like you pulled back the power right after launch and then went to full right after? If so, may I recommend launching at 3/4 and keeping it up till flying speed. Torque can be a factor (more so with a 3 blade) but it looks like an issue with snap/stall vs torque. Set her aside for a little while and come back to her- the damage always seems the worst right after a crash. FSM
Thank you, yes, I see what you mean. Will try and bear that in mind for next time. I’ll get the 109 rebuilt, with a 3 blade prop as I have a spare and see how she goes 🤞
Feel gutted for you. A fair bit of surgery to do and it will soon be in the Air again. I noticed the left Aileron on the spit looks like it is out of Alignment just wondering if you have a loose hinge on that side.
Thanks Terry, I’m sure I’ll be able to fix her. I’ll check the aileron on the Spit too tomorrow now you’ve mentioned it 🙏
Fantastic model. In both flights you gave it throttle, threw it, backed the throttle down to nearly nothing while it was pitched up so it lost all air speed then suddenly gave it a lot of throttle that torqued it severely left. Why did you bring the throttle so low right after launch? I hope you give it another try. Get someone else to throw it so you can keep your hands on the sticks.
Thank you, yes you’re right I think I panicked which caused the disaster. She’s rebuilt and ready. I’m also going to try a dolly launch when I can get back there and see how that goes. Throttle control is required for sure 🤞👍🏻
it seems like you have very sensitive controls. If you apply full power after launch the motor torque is going to flip the plane to the left.
Yes 🙌 think they is what happened. I need to be more confident with launch throttle being a little more and not touch it again till she’s flying 🤞
OUCH! The BF 109 did exactly what the Real Airplanes were known for. Too much engine Torque at Take Off and they would flip over and kill many too slow to react young Pilots.
I enjoyed building these planes and flying them. My favorite was the FW 190. Always wanted to build the P-47 Thunderbolt, and for some reason later, the B-24 Liberator was always calling to me as well. Never built either one, but I sure thought about it enough.
In my day, there was no Electric powered planes. And R/C was still too Pricey for a 13 year old kid. But, I flew these with Rubber and small Cox engines.
I still remember the Helpless feeling after letting go a brand new build,with a Cox engine, only to watch it take off, and ever so slowly turn to the left, and then slowly twist inverted, and then Smash into the ground. Balsa and Tissue fragments, Splinters, and Dirt!
My Last FF plane was a plane I think was named Snooper, a largish FF model, powered by a speedy .049 Cox engine. I painted this thing Bright Orange so I could easily see it way up in the Sky.
Its first and last flight was sad like your BF 109. my plane was hand launched as well, it took off, started going almost straight up. After about 5 seconds of going up and up and up, suddenly it twisted, turned back around, and Rocketed straight as an Arrow into the Ground! More Splinters, torn Tissue and a few Expletives deleted.
I built a few more Control Line planes, but eventually Girls and Motorcycles pulled me away from a much less expensive Hobby.
Thankyou for your comment, experiences I’m sure many of us have shared 😊
That’s a “rekitted” model. Done that more than once
Washout on wingtips was different
Quite possible yes especially after redoing the ends after first crash. Thanks 😊
What was the conversion? Upsized the power?
Hi, the conversion was from free flight rubber power original design to brushless powered 4 channel RC flight 😊
Did you angle the motor down to the right? Anyway, the 109 sounded like the prop was WAY off balance. But the next one sounded good.
Thanks for posting, nice models, over all.
A little yes, perhaps not enough.
On a maiden flight you should not do an underarm launch as you want a launch that is as level as possible. Once you are confident in an aircraft's ability only then you should use underarm launches. The problem with an underarm launch is that it has a tendency to nose-up and also starts at waste height. Whereas a normal overarm launch will be level or slightly nose down and by definition starts at head height. This means that you can start at a lower throttle setting or even test glide the thing. Also I don't understand why your throttle started after your launch, it only complicates the launch. (I've been flying RC for 50 years BTW brilliant hobby and great for kids to get into STEM subjects. That's probably why I am still an engineer now.)
Yes a few lessons to be had there for sure! I've had a couple of successful maidens since and I've used a dolly so that I can have full control from the outset. :-)
Shame. Even before launch this sounded way too overpowered. What KV are you using,and why. I have some experience with smaller aircraft,though never done a Guillows yet, and it just sounded like that to me. The other 3 looked and sounded as they, to my ear, should. I'm sure by now you have sorted it out. I agree that launching on your own is by far the worst part,and the cold hands would not have helped. Good luck on the rebuild. I have a 30" scratchbuilt Fairey Fulmar to maiden soon so am going through the same....
Thanks, it’s the same setup in all of the models; flitetest power pack F 👍🏻
2205 2300
You win some, and you lose some. Great build though.
Thank you 😊
I'm sorry for you loss. It looks to be very nicely built, that paint job is outstanding!
I hate to say it but i think you not really have a suiting power system in there. It looks to be way over powered and heavy.
I run mine with a Turnigy 2211 2300kv motor (19 grams i believe) and a 10a turnigy plush esc.
Hk5330 1.9g servo's and a 370mah 3s.
All up weight about 180 grams.
I hope you have been able to fix it.
Here is the flight video off mine.
ruclips.net/video/z8hu5uEL4W8/видео.html
Maybe, it works with my others this size. I think just too much on launch with a bit of panic added 🙄
I built dozens of these things as a kid. Guillows airplanes always looked great when properly done, very nice, fun kits, but they always flew like crap if at all. The supplied rubber motors and propellors were useless for flight. Even with later day electric or small glow power and R/C (forget free flight) they fly like mosquitoes, mostly on pure power, very jerky, unstable, and way too fast. Built straight from the kits without major mods they are overbuilt and too heavy, many are virtually impossible to balance properly (WWI fighters) and the wings' airfoils are universally inefficient.
Some talented, knowledgeable and valiant (stubborn) folks have done the right mods and have managed to get some rather shaky flights from them. Some have doubled or tripled the excellent scale plans and built from them. It's no surprise that the larger models fly much better (larger models always fly better). When painted up nicely Guillows airplanes are still just show horses.
I agree they’re not the easiest to fly. My smaller series models do not fly but the others I’ve built in the 400 series do if you see my other videos. The best to fly by far is the SBD3 and I think that’s because it has a much better airfoil wing. Hopefully the 109 will fly soon!
Lots of true in this. I flown two of F4U corsairs mini series which were 800mm wingspan and those flown so good and smooth. I could do anything with them without any gyro FC whatsoever. In around 15 flights i only crashed once on a landing approach and nothing happened to the model thanks to its robust foam construction. Only minor scuffs appeared. I was so pleased with the models but I sold them later as moved to other flying staffs. Those days however we can see very good 400mm warbird serises from Eachine company (Chinese) and those are equipped with high tech FC gyros which help a lot in the flying and give you few flyght modes. Also seem bullet proof and crash resistance. The old balsa planes are things of the past already.
@@srknight307 I understand the Guillows "Hellcat " is a good flyer (as was the real one) due its rather large wing area and excellent proportions. Built light with a few mods, I think it's a good candidate for flight. One thing for sure, Guillow's models look beautiful.
@@theartofflying3108 You may be right about the old built-up balsa models. There are still a few of these kits around, and a few of us old timers who like them, if only for nostalgic reasons. They do take some time and skill and are very fragile. In this instant gratification, no skill, no effort world, they are, indeed anachronisms.
Still, they teach that leaning how to actually DO something and to persevere to its completion brings a satisfying reward is a good lesson. Nothing does this better than aircraft modeling and flying.
@@Glicksman1 you may be right. I’m going to try a different brand kit to build next and see how that goes. The wing is bigger than the the 109 and looks to be a better airfoil shape too so fingers crossed 🤞
All the usual experts know everything but know f all