• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

*Unofficial* FT P-40

SP0NZ

FT CAD Gremlin
Staff member
Moderator
Mentor
#1
FT P-40 Warhawk

Designed By: Andres Lu
Plans By: Dan Sponholz

FT P-40 Image & Logo Forums.png
Description:
Coming Soon​

Speed Build Kit:
Coming Soon​
Power Pack Compatibility:

Specs:
Wingspan:
Center of Gravity:
Control Surface Throws:
Expo Suggestions:

Free Plans: FT P-40 Warhawk Plans

Videos:
Coming Soon​
 
Last edited:
#5
OK so I can't take it anymore... I got DTFB ready and new blades... the suspense is killing me! Hey hey, Ho ho, the P-40 plans have got to show. Up that is... :)
 
#12
So there is no throw gauge for this?
I would just dial in a lot of expo if your radio supports it. That will still give you the control throw if you need it but will keep the movements much less twitchy. I usually go with dual rates at 75% throw and 45% expo for low and 100% throw and 30% expo for high. Good luck!!
 

Verris

Active member
#13
What is the correct CG for the P-40? Sp0nz's plans say 2" back, where the build video says 1/2" back. Built mine from the plans and theres no way I'll get it to balance at 2" back with a 2200, way too nose heavy and the wing gets in the way of moving it back any more.
 
#14
I am wondering if it would be possible to do removable wings like on the FT Spitfire build (time 35:33).
Anybody tried (or is willing to try)? Can you let us know?
1559907416470.png

Aside from benefits of removable wing a receiver and antenna positioning would be much more accessible and would allow you to position some electronics more to the back if you have issues with the CG like Verris wrote.
*Looking at the build the ventilation hole on the bottom would have to be shifted far to the back.

Also (if it isn't already enough) thinking about removable top hatch like on the FT MiG 3 build (time 1:21:02) allowing also better access to electronics.
1559907484100.png 1559907691117.png

Please let us know what are you thinking about this modifications?
 

w1lp33

Active member
#15
I do it on all the ft warbirds :) now mind you, I did this one after I’d already glued the wing in, so it’s not the prettiest.


I am wondering if it would be possible to do removable wings like on the FT Spitfire build (time 35:33).
Anybody tried (or is willing to try)? Can you let us know?
View attachment 133031

Aside from benefits of removable wing a receiver and antenna positioning would be much more accessible and would allow you to position some electronics more to the back if you have issues with the CG like Verris wrote.
*Looking at the build the ventilation hole on the bottom would have to be shifted far to the back.

Also (if it isn't already enough) thinking about removable top hatch like on the FT MiG 3 build (time 1:21:02) allowing also better access to electronics.
View attachment 133032 View attachment 133034

Please let us know what are you thinking about this modifications?
 

Attachments

w1lp33

Active member
#16
I havent added it yet, but I'd recommend putting a little square of foamboard at the rear of the wing spaced to fit inside the fuselage, so that the wing stays centered. Luckily the battery tray piece slots into the front of the wing perfectly so the front will stay centered.
 
#17
I havent added it yet, but I'd recommend putting a little square of foamboard at the rear of the wing spaced to fit inside the fuselage, so that the wing stays centered. Luckily the battery tray piece slots into the front of the wing perfectly so the front will stay centered.
Oh, thats nice to see that someone already done it :)! Thank you for sharing and the pictures!
Did you noticed any difference in flying characteristics after this change? Does it balance with no problems (do you use 2200mAh 3S)? If you have any more ideas or tips, please go ahead and share :).
 

w1lp33

Active member
#18
I have not had a chance to maiden this yet, but I've never had an issue doing this mod to any of the others (Mig-3, Spitfire, Mustang...)

I'm a little iffy on the cg because I've seen it listed as being anywhere from 1/2" to 2" back, so hopefully someone can shed some light on that or I'm just gonna have to glide test it and figure it out. But yeah, I'll be balancing with a 3s 2200. Currently I can get the cg from about 1/2" to 1-1/2" back, so if the cg really is at 2" I'm gonna have a problem....

Hopefully monday or tuesday I'm going flying, so we'll let you know then how it goes :)
 
#19
Also (if it isn't already enough) thinking about removable top hatch like on the FT MiG 3 build (time 1:21:02) allowing also better access to electronics.

Please let us know what are you thinking about this modifications?
I do not have the P-40 but have added a top hatch to the Mustang, Spitfire, and Scout. Using 2200 3 and 4s the top hatch gives you a lot more room to adjust the CG, (except the Scout) This also allows you to place the receiver at the back of the power pod. (except the Scout) I am about to the point that all my planes will have a top hatch and landing gear or I do not build them.
 

w1lp33

Active member
#20
Yeah I was a little bummed this didn’t have the top hatch... I might add one later if I can figure out a way to do it semi cleanly.