Pica 1/6 (.60) Focke Wulf 190

Photographs: (For a full-screen image, click on the picture!)

This was taken when the model was completely assembled but finish work had not yet begun.
(186K, JPEG)

Taken before the first flying session.
(168, JPEG)

This was taken after only a few flights. Flaps shown extended.
(220K, JPEG)

Also after a few flights. This pilot later baled out when the canopy came off in flight! I never found him :-(
(216K, JPEG)

Also taken after a few flights.
(191K, JPEG)

The kit was built pretty much stock, with the following exceptions:

• built-up (ribbed) control surfaces
• full cockpit installed
• inverted engine (Super Tigre .90)
• radio - Futaba Super 7 - standard servos (6)
• tailwheel moved forward to the scale location
• landing gear struts lengthened -- closer to scale (big mistake)
• finish is 3/4 oz. glass cloth and finishing resin (both PiC)
  • enamel paint (Testor's -- the kind used for platic models)
  • clear coat of Perfect Paint dead flat clear over for fuel proofing
  • all markings scaled from accurate drawings and painted on
  • paint colors matched to color chips based on samples from actual German aircraft (from the Monogram Painting Guide for German Aircraft 1939-1945. This book is now out of print, unfortunately)
  • paint scheme and markings matched to an actual aircraft, right down to the "Werk Nummer"

After all this work, it was a bit difficult getting up the nerve to fly the thing, but I was determined from the outset of this project that it was not to be a "hangar queen".

The first flight was the greatest thrill of my R/C career. By the time I was ready to fly, the dozen or so people at the field had all stopped what they were doing to watch. With the cowling off, I advanced the throttle and low and behold, off it went!!! It required a bit of trimming, and I had the aileron throws way too large, but other than that, it flew beautifully. Unfortunately, I had the low-speed mixture too lean, and the engine died when I throttled down to about 1/4. The deadstick landing was no problem, however. Compared to the ARF warbirds I've flown (EZ Fw-190 and Zero), the landing was no problem at all. This plane lands almost like my Super Sportster! It does not have the tendency to stall on power-off approaches like the ARFs did.

Second flight, low speed tests, stall tests. Stall was straight ahead and gentle. This plane is much easier to fly than I expected! I attempted to retract the gear, no dice. I'm still not sure what the problem is here, although it looks like it's the air pressure against the gear doors (I was trying to retract at speed halfway through the flight) caused it. I think the tank pressure was also a bit low. Later attempts with the gear doors off proved successful.

I've now had two sessions for a total of four flights, and I'm very pleased with the results. I can certainly recommend the plane to anyone with enough experience to take on such a project.

Epilogue (May 1996)

I now have about 40-50 flights on the plane. I now know that I flew it through most of the early flights in a tail-heavy condition. It always seemed unstable in the roll axis and I'm now convinced that is the reason. The problem was that if I moved the CG forward I could not take off because of an extreme nose-over tendency. I could not bend the wheels forward or they would not retract. I later solved the problem by rotating the retract units themselves forward, so that the gear moved more forward when they were extended, thereby relieving the nose-over tendency and allowing me to move the CG forward to where it should be. The CG on the plans is too far aft!!! The plane should hang nose-down quite a bit when balanced at the CG point in the plans.

In general the retracts have been a big hassle and have caused me alot of frustration. I made the mistake of lengthening the struts to achieve a more scale-like "sit". This makes them more prone to bending and also puts more strain on the retract mechanisms. The added scale effect has not been worth the pain. The strut length shown on the plans would have made the landing gear much easier to deal with.

The engine has been a nightmare. I don't know how much of this has to do with the fact that it is mounted inverted. I would say that more than 90% of my flights with this plane have ended in deadstick landings. I will never put an inverted glow engine into another plane. Not without a glow driver at least. I experimented with one for this plane but found it to be too much trouble. I am going to try side-mounting the engine, but this is a major undertaking since alot of changes with the fuel tank, throttle linkage and cowling will be necessary.

July, 1996

Side mounting the ST90 did no good whatsoever. It still ran badly through the midrange and quit with maddening frequency. I have switched to a side-mounted OS .60FP and it is like a breath of fresh air! The difference in power is more than made up for in reliability. For once I can fly this plane around the pattern without constant fear of the engine quitting. I put a Slimline Pitts-style muffler on it and replaced the cowl. A bit of ding-filling and repainting and it looks like new.

January, 1998

Last summer I put a Saito .90 in the Fw 190, partly to test it out in preparation for putting it into my Do 335. I think that this is *the engine* for this plane. The scale effect is better and the Saito is rock-solid reliable. I put it in side-mounted.

Back to The Virtual Hangar Home Page