Guillow series 500

RG WILLIAMS · Post by **RG WILLIAMS** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:12 pm

I am looking at the series 500 WW2 models and trying to determine the AC with the best flying potential. My LHS has the P-40,F6F Hellcat, and the
Spitfire.
All have a 16.5 in. ws. The wing area looks the greatest on the Spitfire. The box weight of the Hellcat and p-40 feel greater than the Spitfire. A greater weight to the finished model?
I know the series 600,700,and 900 would most likely have the greatest potential for long flights. But in the 500 series what would be the best choice?
Thanks for your expert thoughts.

Best Regards,
rg

supercruiser · Post by **supercruiser** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:24 pm

The F6F Hellcat is likely the best flier. I have not built the P-40, so I can't say for sure about that one. I have built and flown the 500 series Spitfire, it's a beautiful airplane and a real pest when it comes to getting it to fly.
I would definitely go with the Hellcat.

thymekiller · Post by **thymekiller** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:27 pm

I have the p40. Its a decent flyier, but I'm told the hellcat is better. The spit needs alot of washout because of the wing shape, as I have been told.

Mad Cap Romanian · Post by **Mad Cap Romanian** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:14 pm

AHHH! The 500 series! I had a look to see which ones they were.

I has the Spitfire as a kid. It was tail heavy, so we never really flew it. If you put weight in the nose, it should be ok.

Mine was painted with Pactra Aerogloss Dope Jet Black.

I'm going to try the Foke-Wulf soon!

thymekiller · Post by **thymekiller** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 8:38 am

" I built it as a kid "
IF the other kit makers HAD a forum, you wouldnt read that line on very many of them. I think Guillows was a first kit [ or close ] for most people. [maybe 80%]
Except for Comet and Guillows, I dont think anybody has such a huge following.
That says something about Guillows. And its been said for a LONG, LONG, LONG time!

LONG LIVE THE KING!!!!

Mad Cap Romanian · Post by **Mad Cap Romanian** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 12:39 pm

Is Comet still making kits? I'm currently working on Kit #3104, a 12" wingspan Fokker D.VII.

It's pretty tough because it's so small and the instructions are confusing. I've had it in a box at my parent's home for @ 20 years and I'm missing the wheels and plastic thrust button. I have a replacement propeller arrangement my dad and I made 20 years ago for another indoor flyer of my own design, but I think I'll have to make some wheels for it.

I'm also missing the silk span.

svaughn · Post by **svaughn** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 2:18 pm

I had good luck getting the P-51 to fly. It was very tail heavy so I decided to splice two plastic propellers together to make a 4 bladed prop. The thing can really climb!

I think your ability to build light (especially at the tail of the plane) will affect the flying more than which model you pick.

Building without landing gear helps reduce the drag I'd guess. That would help flying too.

Mad Cap Romanian · Post by **Mad Cap Romanian** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 4:13 pm

It won't help landing though!

I compensated for tail heaviness by adding weight to the nose. I used some large flat washers on my DeHaviland Chipmunk.

supercruiser · Post by **supercruiser** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 6:51 pm

Removing weight from the tail is very beneficial to flying. On the Chipmunk,
removing .5 grams from the tail means 1 gram less weight on the nose.
1.5 grams wieght reduction will make a difference. The key is to trim off that weight without making the tail too flimsy.

thymekiller · Post by **thymekiller** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 8:05 pm

Supercruiser is dead on about tail weight. The key to long flight times is weight. Cut it everywhere you can. Some people use lighter wood for the formers. I sand formers as thin as I dare and cut the centers out more. I also cut the keels in half longwise. Same with le and te if I can get away with it.
The point is, less weight means it needs less ballast. That makes "all up" weight lower. A gram off the tail is generally 2 or more grams off "all up" weight. Every little bit counts. Glue adds weight. Some less than others, but dont slather it on.
Its not that I'm an expert, but I read ALOT.

As far as I know, all Guillows planes in a series use the same airfoil. The spit has round tips so it is a little tougher and I think the hellcat has more wing area in that series. The biggest thing is to build LIGHT !!!

thymekiller

thymekiller · Post by **thymekiller** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 8:44 pm

Heres 3 series 500 Guillows. 2 p40's and a 109.
The 109 weighs 51 grams. There is a pic of the bolt for nose weight. Covered in chrome monokote. I could throw a rock farther than it will fly.
The bones p40 is stock Guillows. Half the stab is missing, no rubber, prop, or covering. I could make it fly but not for long. 25.5 grams as is.
The white p40 weighs 24.2 grams ALL UP. rubber, prop, paint, ballast, everything. Best time on that one is almost 30 seconds.

The white one would weigh less, but I crashed it alot and did not use the glue like I should. [too much] Heres the nside of the fuse.

Hope this helps.
thymekiller

Mad Cap Romanian · Post by **Mad Cap Romanian** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 10:55 pm

Looks impressive!

The only thing I was thinking of is that the Guillow's planes were probably designed at the factory to balance out with the Cox .010 or .020 gas engines, fuel tanks, etc. This would balance out the typically heavy tail sections.

As far as flying with rubber power, the plastic prop, nose bearing and metal rod combination doesn't have enough weight out of the box to balance that tail. Therefore, you would have to lighten it for propper ballance.

As the Chipmunk was my introduction to building Guillow's kits after 20 years absence, I found it easier to just add my two washers into the nose instead. It's heavier, but my plane still flies quite far on the factory supplied elastic for me to be happy with for now. However, when I build another plane, I'll look into lightening the tail instead, possibly building it from the thinner 3/32nd Balsa instead of the 1/16th that they supply you with.

supercruiser · Post by **supercruiser** » Sat Feb 14, 2009 12:03 am

Mad Cap Romanian wrote:
The only thing I was thinking of is that the Guillow's planes were probably designed at the factory to balance out with the Cox .010 or .020 gas engines, fuel tanks, etc.

I think you are right about that.

Mad Cap Romanian wrote: but my plane still flies quite far on the factory supplied elastic for me to be happy with for now.

Thats what really matters.

supercruiser · Post by **supercruiser** » Sat Feb 14, 2009 12:23 am

Mad Cap Romanian wrote:Is Comet still making kits?

Guillow owns Comet, they bought all the Comet line in 1998. The 4000 Learning Series (Goldwing, Cadet, Cloud Buster, Flyboy) are re-released Comet models.

Mad Cap Romanian · Post by **Mad Cap Romanian** » Sat Feb 14, 2009 11:50 am

WOW! So I would be O.K. posting a Comet kit I'm building?