Best modern profile for PA

[Horby]

I have been trying to find a profile design that will be competitive in a few categories and was wondering what profile plane would give me the best performance. I have been looking at things like the Pathfinder, profile Oriental, the Tutor (which is legal for 3 categories)  and a few others but I really don't want to go to any thing really big. Does any one else know of any modern profiles that will give good performance?


Cheers,
Warren

[Richard Walbridge]

I have been trying to find a profile design that will be competitive in a few categories and was wondering what profile plane would give me the best performance. I have been looking at things like the Pathfinder, profile Oriental, the Tutor (which is legal for 3 categories)  and a few others but I really don't want to go to any thing really big. Does any one else know of any modern profiles that will give good performance?


Cheers,
Warren

Imitation....no more no less!

Rich Walbridge
Central Valley Stunt Mafia

[Horby]

Who makes the kit or where do I get plans? (Or have a look at them)


Warren

[John Kelly]

   ... A look

[John Kelly]

   ...AMA Oct 1979, no. 279 $9.

[Ward Van Duzer]

No doubt in my mind... The Cavalier. Classic, pretty, and fully current. Suitable for .36 to .40's. Got my first 500 score with mine. Call Tom Morris. Oh yea, he does electric too!

Ward

[Sean McEntee]

If you are wanting to fly this model in profile, then the imitation is NOT legal.

Ted Fanchers doctor, mike Pratts Primary Force, and Don Hutchinsons Warbird series are all good flying profiles. The Profile Cavilier will get you into 3 events as previously mentioned.

[Tim Wescott]

If you are wanting to fly this model in profile, then the imitation is NOT legal.

Ted Fanchers doctor, mike Pratts Primary Force, and Don Hutchinsons Warbird series are all good flying profiles. The Profile Cavilier will get you into 3 events as previously mentioned.

How so?  Profile rules differ from place to place, but from a quick look at the plans the Imitation is legal both by the AMA definition and by the rules we use here in the Pacific Northwest.  It's narrower than 3/4" behind the trailing edge (as far as I can tell), and the engine is completely exposed.  Unless it needs an engine bigger than a 46?

[Tim Stagg]

Tim,

I have been flying my pathfinder  in Expert for a couple of years now. You can change the looks of the fuse if you like, but the plane performs great. I often fly it at PA events as well and it is competitive.

It would be my ONE PLANE airplane if I had to pick.

The Brodak P40 is also very hard to beat. If you build the P40....move the wing up 1" in the fuse to help with Vertical CG.

Just my 2 cents, everybody has them.

Tim

[Robert Zambelli]

As far as I know, ANY profile plane can be flown in profile stunt.
Baby Ringmaster, Patternmaster, whatever.
Scrap the full fuselage, make a profile body, any shape, any size and you"re good to go.

There is, as I recall, a maximum thickness for the fuselage.

Bob Z.

[Tim Wescott]

There is, as I recall, a maximum thickness for the fuselage.

The AMA has a set of rules about what constitutes a "profile" -- they're clearly designed to keep some joker from showing up with a full-fuselage pattern jobbie and trying to claim that it's a "really thick profile".  Sean was saying the Imitation didn't count -- but as far as I can see, it certainly qualifies by our local rules here.

[Dennis Moritz]

The Prowler opened my eyes. The one I flew until three weeks ago was purchased at a Flea for $10. Best corners I ever managed. Three weeks ago something pulled out while I was feeling the inverted figure. Bam. Fues split along a previous break, prior to my ownership. If you can buy the wing - it's a foam wing, which I rather like, no warps - should be fairly simple cutting out the rest of the parts. I was flying mine with a Tower 40. Just about had the engine tuned in when the miserly origin of my purchase asserted karma.

[55chevr]

There are a lot of good choices for profile.   My choice would be Forerunner as I am most familiar having built and flown 5 of them.

[Bob Hunt]

While I'm flattered by the impression Dennis has of my Prowler design (and by the way, I still make foam cores and covered foam wings for that design...), my choice for the best profile I've ever flown - and quite possible the best airplane of any kind that I've flown... - is Gordan Delaney's Pathfinder profile twin. Ask anyone who has flown that ship and you're likely to hear the same story.

Bob Hunt

[Trostle]

The AMA has a set of rules about what constitutes a "profile" -- they're clearly designed to keep some joker from showing up with a full-fuselage pattern jobbie and trying to claim that it's a "really thick profile".  Sean was saying the Imitation didn't count -- but as far as I can see, it certainly qualifies by our local rules here.

Yes, the AMA has some rules regarding the width for the fuselages for several specific profile events governed by AMA rules, like in Carrier, Racing, Scale. 1/2A Proto, and Slow Combat.  There are no AMA rules for any CL Stunt event.  Local rules can sometimes be found, but in many cases, what is allowed in local contests, the definition for what a constitutes a profile stunt model is at best loosely defined.  Generally, anything up to a 1/2" wide fuselage plus doublers to a certain distance behind the wing LE plus a nose cheek cowl or fairing falls within what most will define as a profile stunt model.  Most local rules I have seen do not require a side mounted engine, though some local rules may require that.  That is unfortunate because there are many good profile designs where the engine is not necessarily side mounted.  That may be the reason some feel that Imitation does not qualify because Ted designed the thing so that the engine could be mounted with any orientation.

Keith

[Trostle]

(Clip)
--- my choice for the best profile I've ever flown - and quite possible the best airplane of any kind that I've flown... - is Gordan Delaney's Pathfinder profile twin. Ask anyone who has flown that ship and you're likely to hear the same story.

Bob Hunt

Well nobody has asked me about Gordon's twin Pathfinder for a while, but I will add to Bob's comment here.  Great flying airplane.  It is one of those things that you can hold on to the handle and just comfortably "paint" the maneuvers you want is the best way to explain it.  It has certainly made me add to my bucket list a twin based on that twin Pathfinder numbers.  (Has two .15's).

Keith

[Horby]

This is awesome,  I am getting alot of good ideas thank you every one.


Warren

[Motorman]

I was gonna just get a Brodak Legacy 40 kit and make a profile fuselage for it.

MM

[Wynn Robins]

hands down the BEST flying profile for F2B is the Pizzazz designed by Owen Rogers here in NZ - it wont win any beauty contests - but it WILL win contests

[RC Storick]

Most local rules I have seen do not require a side mounted engine, though some local rules may require that.  That is unfortunate because there are many good profile designs where the engine is not necessarily side mounted.  That may be the reason some feel that Imitation does not qualify because Ted designed the thing so that the engine could be mounted with any orientation.

Keith

The side mounted engine rule would also rule out electrics as they are radial mounted.

[MarcusCordeiro]

Pathfinder... Period.

Marcus

[John Kelly]

   ...Pete Catlow's OS .46 LA powered PIZZAZZ

[Joe Yau]

Pathfinder... Period.

Marcus

^ X2    still one of my favorites..

[Randy Cuberly]

Here's another vote for Gordon Delaney's Pathfinder Twin.  I was so impressed by it that I got the plans and bought two OS FP15's and I'm building one.
I usually don't get very excited about profiles.

When I flew it I was expecting it to be pretty good because a lot of guys like Bob Whitely flew it before I did and Bob was really impressed and He doesn't impress easily.  Then I flew it and truly couldn't believe it!
It did everything as well as anything I've flown (and I've flown some pretty good airplanes).

Of course it was in wonderful trim...no less would be expected with one of Gordy's airplanes, but it flew like a larger very competitive competition stunter!

If you really want a profile and can deal with two engines (a little more work), I really believe there is nothing better.  Actually it's an easier build than most also.

My second choice would be a Kit Built Brodak Cardinal, with a slower control system than shown on the plans, and an LA46.  I had one of these for a long time and very few airplanes flew as well!

Randy Cuberly

[Tim Wescott]

Yes, the AMA has some rules regarding the width for the fuselages for several specific profile events governed by AMA rules, like in Carrier, Racing, Scale. 1/2A Proto, and Slow Combat.  There are no AMA rules for any CL Stunt event.  Local rules can sometimes be found, but in many cases, what is allowed in local contests, the definition for what a constitutes a profile stunt model is at best loosely defined.

Here's our local rules.  They're terse, but I don't think they're all that loose except in how an electric engine may be mounted.  The Imitation would be accepted without question as long as the rear fuselage were narrow enough, and the builder didn't put on a cowl:

http://flyinglines.org/rules.profilestunt.html

[Dwayne]

Well nobody has asked me about Gordon's twin Pathfinder for a while, but I will add to Bob's comment here.  Great flying airplane.  It is one of those things that you can hold on to the handle and just comfortably "paint" the maneuvers you want is the best way to explain it.  It has certainly made me add to my bucket list a twin based on that twin Pathfinder numbers.  (Has two .15's).

Keith

Plans? 

[Dan McEntee]

  The whole original intent for the profile class was as a low key fun event, and the challenge of getting a side winder mounted engine to run well. Most club rules call for a side mount engine with a limit on engine size to .40 size engines or smaller. This sort of makes the playing field more level. I think SIG originated it at their contest, or at least they originated the no-flap 10 point bonus that they had in their rules and some other contests have also. That is one of the reasons Mikle Pratt designed the Primary Force with no flaps. I myself like that rule. Local contests can have what ever rules they want. My feeling about electric is that it goes against the original intent of the contest, and if they are allowed it should be at some sort of penalty, like -10 points or something like that. If a person builds a nice straight and reasonably light airplane, it can be ANY profile airplane. All it takes is good trim and lots of practice. A good airplane can only help a pilot to a certain extent. But a good pilot can grab the handle of just about anything and be competitive. Like the old saying goes about the late great sprint car driver Jan Opperman, "He can take hisn, and beat yourn, and then take yourn, and beat hisn!" And I have seen that done!
   Type at you later,
     Dan McEntee

[Steve Helmick]

Warren...There have been a lot of good designs suggested. Since you said you were interested in something not too big, the Profile Cavalier would be an excellent choice. That, and the Profile Oriental. Both are Classic legit, a plus. I assume you're planning on electron power? That kinda tips the scales for the Cav, IMHO.  Steve

[Tom Niebuhr]

I haven't flown Gordon's twin, but EVERYTHING that I have heard about it is that is is fabulous. That is the single reason that Bob Hunt is developing his electric twin.

Personally I can't wait for more reports on Bob's electric twin development. The initial flight reports are already outstanding.

[Dwayne]

Since you are looking for something not to big, how about a Sig Twister with a Evolution .36? Extend the fuse 1.5 inch and build the rest stock, great combo. 
Good luck.

[Horby]

Warren...There have been a lot of good designs suggested. Since you said you were interested in something not too big, the Profile Cavalier would be an excellent choice. That, and the Profile Oriental. Both are Classic legit, a plus. I assume you're planning on electron power? That kinda tips the scales for the Cav, IMHO.  Steve

Hi Steve,
Yup, there is allot to choose from and no real clear winner.
I have in my possession a 1/2 built Primary Force, an RSM Tutor kit and a profile Oriental kit. You have seen how my current Tutor flies and after looking closer at it, it needs some more trim work and I would like to replace it with a new plane. That was one of  my reasons for asking my original question about competitive planes. Do I trim and fix my current plane or build another or both and what plane should I go with. My current Tutor is an electric conversion as well so it is a bit heavy  and that is another reason why I am considering another plane. Putting time into a heavy plane  vs building a new lighter one is where I am at. (And which one?)
Bryan an I have kicked around allot of ideas over the summer but I am still sitting on the fence as to which plane to go with. I am going to have a look at the Cavalier, I have not seen that design and it looks interesting.

Cheers,
Warren

[Louis Rankin]

After judging profile at Paducah for three years and MSC for five years, it is my humble opinion that the Pathfinder is the smoothest looks like it is flying on rails profile I have ever watched and judged flying.  The Tutor II is a very close second.  While the Tutor II does not look as smooth, it does have the capability to fly very slow and corner very well.  The Pathfinder also takes off and lands the smoothest of all profiles I have judged.  The Tutor II is no longer made.  The Pathfinder can be found at Brodaks and other suppliers.

The Imitation is not allowed to compete in profile at many contests, so I would not consider it for competition flying.

[ChrisSarnowski]

We also have the Brodak Fly-In with the side mounted engines and 3/4 max thickness rule.

Why not build the Imitation with side mount engine? Or go electric? Either way you could meet 3/4 thickness.

-Chris

[Kim Doherty]

I have been trying to find a profile design that will be competitive in a few categories and was wondering what profile plane would give me the best performance. I have been looking at things like the Pathfinder, profile Oriental, the Tutor (which is legal for 3 categories)  and a few others but I really don't want to go to any thing really big. Does any one else know of any modern profiles that will give good performance?


Cheers,
Warren

Warren,

One day many many years ago, I went to our flying field with a newcomer from China. His model was not assembled yet so I let him fly my Tutor (the third one I had owned). To be fair, it was well trimmed out and the engine ran very well. He made some climbs and dives to check it out then proceeded to fly the pattern as no Tutor had been flown before. I was so humbled. From that point forward I never looked to my model for answers.

You can make ANY properly built, aligned, powered, trimmed profile model fly EXCEPTIONALLY well. All it takes is a bit of practice and a couple of World Championship wins under your belt.

Oh, reread the line about a bit of practice.   


Kim.

[RC Storick]

We also have the Brodak Fly-In with the side mounted engines and 3/4 max thickness rule.

Why not build the Imitation with side mount engine? Or go electric? Either way you could meet 3/4 thickness.

-Chris

Point is electrics are not side mounted they are radial mounted in the center line of the fuse.

[Horby]

The motor does not have to be mounted dead center, that's one nice thing about electric power. (you can put the motor anywhere you like) And it allows you to concentrate on the flying instead of all the other messing around...... and if the local rules dictate an offset motor, you do it. We have to put this in perspective.... I am not looking for a world championship but I would like to have a plane that won't limit me with performance. The rules..... well you have to have them and they do change and they are different in the various regions. I compete to have fun and meet new people and so far rules are and have been a formality that every one has to follow to make the competition official. That's to cool thing about our sport you can have hang ups if you want them but at the end of the day we are all out for the same thing. (Fun) Where an I going with this post? no idea but I have been spending a few hours gluing PVC together and I just thought I would comment on the offset motor thing. 

WaRrEn :-)

[Trostle]

There has been praise here (mine included) on the Pathfinder as a really good profile.  The fact is, there are several good profiles out there, many of them mentioned here.  Something a bit more practical for size and budget would be either the Coyote by dick Mathis or the already mentioned Primary Force.

Keith

[ericrule]

As far as Gordon's Twin Pathfinder goes he gave RSM permission to kit the model about 3 years ago. We have done a number of them for people who asked for them but have not yet added it to our line of kits.

If anyone is interested in have one or more please drop me a line at eric@rsmdistribution.com If there is sufficient interest we will do a run of them. Fir those who would prefer to use electric power I can easily set up the cut files to do the nacelles that way. Just let me know.

Eric Rule

[Robertc]

My favorite is Larry Cunningham's MoBest.  To me, it's a very pretty profile that really flys well.  I've built 5 of them.
First one had an OS 40FP and was plenty of power ( it wasn't heavy)  The last two have had LA 46s on them and really worked well.

[bob whitney]

The motor does not have to be mounted dead center, that's one nice thing about electric power. (you can put the motor anywhere you like) And it allows you to concentrate on the flying instead of all the other messing around...... and if the local rules dictate an offset motor, you do it. We have to put this in perspective.... I am not looking for a world championship but I would like to have a plane that won't limit me with performance. The rules..... well you have to have them and they do change and they are different in the various regions. I compete to have fun and meet new people and so far rules are and have been a formality that every one has to follow to make the competition official. That's to cool thing about our sport you can have hang ups if you want them but at the end of the day we are all out for the same thing. (Fun) Where an I going with this post? no idea but I have been spending a few hours gluing PVC together and I just thought I would comment on the offset motor thing.  

WaRrEn :-)   when u side mount a glo motor the crank shaft ends up in the center of the fuse the same as an electric motor  and there is a raidial mount that would do the same thing

   after thinking about what i said ,it is wrong  the motor centerline is in line with the outer side of the fuse not the center

[WLGeorge]

Did I remember somebody writing here some time ago that the Pathfinder Twin .15 used the wing from a Brodak kit of some sort.  Seems like I read that somewhere but I will be hootied if I can remember where or find it.  I always admired the looks and just recently acquired two os .15 la's............Sorry if this is off the topic a bit.  My vote on the best profile is a Fancherised Twister.  Cheap  ,economical   ,fly the wings off, while you are slapping another one together.  Repeat.  In other words, fly it until you can put it where you want it, then incorporate improvements in the next one. Repeat.  Do that to any good profile and you cant go wrong. I have built 5 and they get better ever time I learn something new. 75% of the flying, is in the building.

[Balsa Butcher]

The Twin Pathfinder was featured in the August 2010 edition of Flying Models Magazine. Plans are still available. I believe it was mentioned in the article that it can be made from a modified kit Pathfinder although the plans are detailed enough to construct one from scratch. It gets my vote (Twin or otherwise) over an Imitation primarily because quality kits are available for either version. As far as capability...may the best man (or woman) win.

[Dan McEntee]

   You can get the plans for the Twin Pathefinder from the guy that designed the plane with Gordon, and that is John Miller. He frequents the design and cad forums for the most part. Smart guy, good guy, great model builder. It was designed from the ground up as a stand alone model, but shares some components withe the Pathfinder, and I think he mentions in the article that you could start with a kit for certain parts. The wing is 700 square inches I think, much bigger that a standard Pathfinder.
   Type at you later,
    Dan McEntee

[Brett Buck]

We also have the Brodak Fly-In with the side mounted engines and 3/4 max thickness rule.

Why not build the Imitation with side mount engine? Or go electric? Either way you could meet 3/4 thickness.

  No one I know enforces it the way described here, so no need. But it would be fine like that as long as you used a good engine.

  The locals such as myself are still trying to design our regular full-fuse airplanes to fly as well as an Imitation with varying degrees of success. David took the most logical path and built something that amounts to a full-fuse Imitation with a PA75. It's called a Thundergazer. The only significant difference is that the giant thick Imitation tail is replaced with a relatively thin tail, and he put a PA75 in it instead of an ST46. Everything else is remarkably close.

   Brett

[55chevr]

Why not find a good flying full fuselage stunt ship that you like and build a profile fuse using the same dim-s?

[Brett Buck]

Why not find a good flying full fuselage stunt ship that you like and build a profile fuse using the same dim-s?

  It won't necessarily fly the same way. Full fuselages are much more rigid and that can make far more difference than the wing/tail dimensions.
 
   Brett

[pat king]

If you want an airplane based on a full scale world champion aerobatic airplane look at my EXTRA 330SC. Available in fuel powered or electric powered.

Pat

[Randy Powell]

I kinda like my Ringmaster Deluxe as a profile. Pretty cool plane.

[john e. holliday]

The pop ups on this site are doing me in.   This will be the fourth time I have tried to post a response.

There are really too many profile models out there for me to chose.   I have built quite a few.  The two that have given me the best results are the Doctor design by Fancher and the Primary Force by Pratt.   As Windy says in one of his writings the power plant is the answer to a lot of problems.   Not only do you have to build straight and light, you have to have a power system that works.   Then you have to trim the planes.   The two I mentioned seemed to fly right for me right off the board.

[Randy Powell]

John, set your browser to not allow popups. May take downloading an add-on.