Слишком большой и неудобный

@@AdrianFlores-yc9yz большой и неудобный планер 4 метра размахом лучший. Это все жрет только деньги и нервы

Get a Solius and youre done

Coming in too steep on approach!

Hard starting because it’s cold out.

Yeah they're just a baby radial.

Alex Surh EXACTLY!

Yep she idles like a Harly!!

thats the way to start the engine

You first have to prime the engine and line because the engine runs on a mixture of gasoline and oil , the engine does not have an oil sump

I like to see you spin the prop and start it cause it is not easy

@@twitchkaiz2669 Oh I know it is! That's why I got the electric motor that goes on the spinner.

Lol u sed opps instead of oops

Yes the carrier planes. Omg they got it correctly. Those are f4Us I believe

Cris Alfred Panlubasan well the F4Us really weren’t used on carrier tho

@@EliFonte Indeed, for the most part.

Fiestameister SE well ya it’s obvious when u look at the wings but they weren’t used on carriers due to landing difficulties vs the hellcats and the wildcats which were better so instead they used em in places like the Solomon Islands

@@EliFonte I think I learned that they eventually were able to find a solution and put some on carriers later on.

🤣🤣

i have a friend that put 2 DCOE weber on his 75 vw beatle, and its sounds exacly like this...

if your car had no exhaust pipes.....:"DDDD

Get a throttle control speaker box for it and it will loli used to have this corsair polystyrene and servos and a big batter in nose! Never had the sound systems out for them when I had one years ago!

Just really the same sound systems in the RC tanks cool as heck on high speed flybys

I wanna upgrade to a styrofoam one with bottle rockets

@@burntrubberballs Damn, I recall those things, they were like $1 and you didn't honestly expect them to last forever, or to the end of the day

Balsa wood or those semi-rigid foam ones, brings back memories

One of my friends fathers worked at Pratt & Whitney during the war and he built the engines for the Corsair in East Hartford, CT !! Also.... my Uncle was an attorney who also worked at Pratt & Whitney ....🙂🙃🙂😎

Iconic look alright, but the Thunderbolt had a gravitas it earned in battle that makes it as instantly recognizable as the Corsair. The egg shaped cowl opening, the Spitfire-like wing silhouette, the fat-boy middle of the fuselage: The only thing missing here was that if it was the in same scale as those two Corsairs, it would have been huge. As a pure fighter, yes the Corsair rates right up there with the Spitfire and Mustang, but as an all-around fighter-bomber that could out-survive all the best the Krauts and Japs had to offer, there's only two that come to my mind and those are the Lightning and the Thunderbolt. IMO they were the best fighters of the war.

They did it with full sized ones in the 1910s.

The later 1944 P-47's had four blades to handle the massive supercharged Wasp. It was the reason the Corsair had bent wings. Lifted the prop out of the way of the ground so they could fit a bigger one.

Moki’s now available with starter.

@@jonbar140 there’s quite a lot more to it than just giving the propeller clearance - were that the only reason then the hellcat and thunderbolt, both of which use the same r2800 engine with propellers of almost the same size, would require inverted gull wings too. that prop clearance could’ve been achieved with telescoping landing gear and a conventional wing as seen on the thunderbolt, however this would have had a number of disadvantages. for one thing telescoping landing gear would have been significantly less durable - in all the reports and footage i’ve seen, i’ve never once seen a corsair landing accident where the undercarriage breaks. the smaller undercarriage also enables for the main gear to be fully enclosed when retracted, something no other US naval fighter or indeed most land based fighters had at the time (certainly the spitfire, bf109 and p40 did not have this at the time the corsair was introduced). the smaller gear takes up less space in the wing, allowing for a shorter chord and overall more efficient wing. this also allows for much larger flaps, critical for lowering the stall speed for a carrier fighter which in turn allows for larger ailerons. this contributes to the excellent rolling capability of the corsair which was a quality noted both by those who flew it and who fought against it. the inverted gull wing also has a lot to do with minimising interference drag. the place where the fuselage meets the wing root is a significant source of interference drag, and when naca did a lot of testing on the angle at which the wing meets the fuselage and found an angle of around 90 degrees to be best suited to minimising interference drag. in order for the corsair, with its very evenly rounded fuselage (designed to minimise the frontal area of the fuselage despite the engine, which had a large frontal area and required oil coolers and intercoolers which other aeroplanes using the same engine put in the front of the fuselage thus increasing that frontal area further. vought’s designers wanted to avoid this in order to present a better aerodynamic profile since they wanted it to be competitive with land based fighters with speeds of around 400mph) to achieve this 90 degree angle with a conventional wing the wing would have to be mounted about in line with the propeller spinner which would require significantly longer telescoping landing gear. that would have sacrificed strength as noted, and would have sacrificed the capability of the landing gear to do double duty as a dive brake, something the corsair was able to do. i hope that’s of interest

Agreed

That’s for sure. We spent way more time trying to get the motor running than we did actually flying. But we least we learned how to take a motor apart and put it back together.

Your's started?

I had one of the trainers that was yellow and blue. FINALLY got it started, forgot how the controls worked because I was excited/nervous, put it into a loop, and crashed into the ground. 😆 Rubber bands and broken parts everywhere!

Yeah mine went from control line plane to a shelf model because of that engine.

Couldn't agree more Colin! Have a good weekend.

@@EssentialRC you too!

Well, still can chalk it up as a good landing. He did walk away from it.

If the planes on the ground and the pilots alive it’s a successful landing

With grass landings, especially in the wet; there's always the chance somethings going to bounce or slide. Even these huge ones don't weigh a great deal so it often can lead to issues like this. Least there was no heavy damage to them compared to what could be.

Carefully

Carefully

Ante Brkic they have throttles so you can idle the motor down and land its controlled with the radio

If you can walk out of a landing it’s a good landing if the plane can still fly it’s a great landing

Yup...every time

My grandfathers flew 50 missions in the skies over Germany and Japan. His saying was "on wings of history we saved the world"

This model was the "Razerback" version. There was also a bubble-top version.

Jeff Childs Thank you. Were they a good close air support combat platform?

@@peterh4446 Don't know.

@@peterh4446 Evidently, the U.S. was still using them in Vietnam.

@@peterh4446 They are very good. There's a reason why the A-10 Warthog is called the Thunderbolt II.

I was gonna say. “That awkward moment when an R/C airplane has the same size engine as your motorcycle, and also sounds better”

It’s not ACTUALLY a bigger motor than a 250cc motor bike lmfao. That would be ridiculous.

Yeah, a fast motorcycle cycle if it's a 2 stroke dirtbike....

iamtuben2 id even call the fly bys average

They are barely able to perform a circle very poors pilot abilities, if you Wonder if i can do better look for my fg 84 corsair topflite and you'll can compare...

@@castlefranck3979 I wasn't wondering but okay, I looked. And yes, you are pretty good. Although I have seen some better. These guys seem to be old, and in my experience flying with these guys, they are a little slower. Of course that's natural, being older. Got to give them some credit ok.

@@ironman98 i'm not pretend to be the best pilot, but i 'm flying plane i can handle. It' s truly heartbraking to see such Wonder planes crash on landing, i know some 80 plus pilot in my country, Who has much more abilities age is just a number, i'm learning every day and listen from the wisdom of the elder to improve myself.

@@castlefranck3979 Well the first one that "crashed" (they really didn't) that had its landing gear give way, that is a Corsair, and from my memory, I believe that they are somewhat difficult to land if you land them improperly. The second plane that is landing appears to be a Mitsubishi zero replica. The only issue with that one landing, is he came in on a slightly too steep of an angle. That's all. And he didn't even break anything.

And money 😂

No scale brakes

Indeed

❤With one of the most iconic saying from the military for a name.

Aniquin also a modern one with an ejector seat would be cool especially since they have working parachutes for some

Or a small Asian.

My pleasure!

Mine too!