Author Topic: What is TOO BIG for C/L (Read 9099 times)

Richard Hutlet · « **on:** February 03, 2015, 04:32:25 PM »

Hey gents,

I've got an Topflite Elder 40 I built about 25 years ago sitting in my basement
half covered. I'm thinking of converting it to C/L as it will never see the sky as an RC.
With that said What would be considered "Too Large" for C/L. I've been looking at
a couple of Scale models to possibly try my hand at, but most of them are in that 60"
Wingspan area. I'm not bad at math but engineering a plan to scale something down
would not be easy for me. I'm sure the larger the aircraft the sturdier the hardware and lines
have to be. Just curious as to what some of you would draw the line at as far as size goes.

Rick

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #1 on:** February 03, 2015, 04:47:21 PM »

I think if you're going to fly it in a scale-like manner, then it should be fine. Slap a bellcrank in it, run the leadouts under the wing, put a throttle in it one way or another, and go fly.

In answer to the title line of your question, a full-scale F4F is probably too big for control line, unless you use longer than usual lines (500 feet of 1/2" cable sounds about right) and use some sort of an anchoring system (a foundation for an AM radio tower may work well: put a platform on it with a swivel, equip the platform with a control stick attached to the lines and a seat for you. Start 'er up and go fly! Don't forget the pull test, though.)

Randy Cuberly · « **Reply #2 on:** February 03, 2015, 04:57:29 PM »

Hi Richard,

I don't think it's size that really matters as much as weight. Of course the two are definitely linked a the larger airplanes tend to weigh more.

For Stunt I think something in the 4-5 lb weight is about the limit of what can be flown with any precision, unless you're built like Arnold S.
I've had a couple of stunters in the 74 oz range and they become a handful to fly when the wind blows hard because they pull so hard down wind.

For scale or sport a lot more can probably be tolerated by most folks. I personally flew a scale B24 that weighed 16 lbs a number of years ago and it wasn't much fun even with a throttle. It took a lot of effort and concentration to fly it with all the pull it generated. I'm not really a big guy, 180 lbs, but not a little fellow either and fairly strong.

There are official weight limits for competition, but personally I believe the pratical limits are about what I mentioned above.

Best weight for a stunter for me seems to be under 60 oz or so on about 65 ft lines. Even then the pull can get pretty hefty in strong wind like is often found in competition.

Speed of course is another important factor and AMA Fast Rat became almost a thing of the past when speeds reached the 160+ class...most folks simply found it too physically demanding to fly the things, especially in traffic. Most of them weighed agound 32 oz or less but the speed made the pull astronomical...can you spell Big Arms and a lot of body lean.
I think the best discription I heard of the event was "It's like picking up a 60 lb tool box and running in place with it for about 5 minutes...Some folks might think that's fun...

I'm much too old now for that kind of FUN.

Hope this helps some!

Randy Cuberly

Steve Scott · « **Reply #3 on:** February 03, 2015, 05:06:42 PM »

My first model mag was the American Modeler Annual edition in 1965 and it covered the '64 Dallas Nats. Photo of a CL Lockheed L-188 Electra in Western Airlines livery. If I remember, it had four ST .40s and the pilot had to be anchored with a rope around his waist to another modeler.

I built and flew a 80-85mph slow combat ship with Fox 36 schneurle many years ago and found it a bit uncomfortable to hang onto as a skinny kid.

Jared Hays · « **Reply #4 on:** February 03, 2015, 05:13:04 PM »

I'm not sure where you would draw the line but these gotta be getting close to it and I love it haha...I want to build a Sweeper 900 like the black and white one.

peabody · « **Reply #5 on:** February 03, 2015, 06:09:58 PM »

GSCB member Frank Marino built and flew a 1/4 scale Piper Cub.....three lines with throttle.

JoeJust · « **Reply #6 on:** February 03, 2015, 07:35:58 PM »

In the late 70's when I was the outside sponsor for the "Clipped Wings" model club at the Walla Walla State Pen I was asked to be the pilot for a Bud Nosen Citaboria (spelling?) powered by a Fox .78 with a throttle on 52 foot lines. The club members kept yelling "do a Wing over! So I tried one. It darn near lifted me off the ground. One attempt was enough for me!
Joe

John Rist · « **Reply #7 on:** February 03, 2015, 10:16:19 PM »

My logo photo was an 80" Eindecker. Flew great. Lost it at the end of it's first flight do to a control problem. Too answer your questen max model weight is 20 lb. Max motor size is 1.25 2C and 2.50 4C. I have an Extra 300S that weighs around 12 LB and has a 1.2 Sato 4C. Flyes great but does pull like a bear. By the way their is no limit on the size of an electric motor.

PS the picture was before I added the Sato 120

Trostle · « **Reply #8 on:** February 04, 2015, 12:19:27 AM »

Quote from: Steve Scott on February 03, 2015, 05:06:42 PM

My first model mag was the American Modeler Annual edition in 1965 and it covered the '64 Dallas Nats. Photo of a CL Lockheed L-188 Electra in Western Airlines livery. If I remember, it had four ST .40s and the pilot had to be anchored with a rope around his waist to another modeler.

I built and flew a 80-85mph slow combat ship with Fox 36 schneurle many years ago and found it a bit uncomfortable to hang onto as a skinny kid.

That was Earl Carpenter's electra. It had four ST .23's. Indeed, it took two people to hold it down. Otherwise it would drag him across the circle.

There was a picture of it on the cover a Flying Models back in the day. Hung in T&A Hobbies for years.

KT

Trostle · « **Reply #9 on:** February 04, 2015, 12:23:01 AM »

Quote from: JoeJust on February 03, 2015, 07:35:58 PM

a Bud Nosen Citaboria (spelling?)

Joe

Hey Joe,

It is Citabria. That is airbatic spelled backwards.

Keith

Larry Borden · « **Reply #10 on:** February 04, 2015, 07:57:08 AM »

Ringmaster 1000, 68 inch span 1000 squares and Ringmaster Bipe 1099, 62 inch span 1099 squares. Both powered by K&B .61

Brett Buck · « **Reply #11 on:** February 04, 2015, 10:35:06 AM »

Quote from: Jared Hays on February 03, 2015, 05:13:04 PM

I'm not sure where you would draw the line but these gotta be getting close to it and I love it haha...I want to build a Sweeper 900 like the black and white one.

This, the predecessor (*1200 square inches* instead of a mere 900), and most of the similar models were definitely too big for 70' lines. Flown to competitive sizes, it always looked severely cramped and greatly emphasized the fact that the corners were too big (although not a whole lot worse than anyone else, it was easily visible). Windy had a whole series of these airplane. Even he seemed to realize that the more conventional Patternmaster and derivatives were more competitive and moved on after a few years.

The current crop of competitive airplanes are in the 600-700 square inch range and that seem to be about the practical limit for both 70' radius, and most people's right arm muscles. An interesting phenomenon is that when we got good engines in about 1988 or so, and you had to fly correctly even when it got windy, that drove people to smaller airplanes as well, because it was/is very difficult to physically get the larger competitive airplanes through a pattern in poor conditions. You aren't likely to see airplanes grow beyond the current range of about 650 +- some.

Brett

Jim Kraft · « **Reply #12 on:** February 04, 2015, 11:52:59 AM »

68" Britt Taurus at 850 square inches and 64 ounces. Anderson Spitfire pulls it real hard down wind on wndy days. I started out flying it on 67' of .018 lines and shortened them to 65'. It now has an Orwick 64 in it and I need to cut a new set of lines about 70'. On 65' lines with the Orwick wound up a bit it flys under 5 second laps real easy. Huge fun to fly though.

Randy Ryan · « **Reply #13 on:** February 04, 2015, 11:58:21 AM »

How big is the Little Moe? Or is that Lil Moe?

Jim Kraft · « **Reply #14 on:** February 04, 2015, 12:11:53 PM »

Hey Randy; I think the Little Moe is 1200 squares, but do not know what the span is.

Bill Little · « **Reply #15 on:** February 04, 2015, 12:49:23 PM »

Hi Rick,

Clancy Arnold ( a member here) has a Taube with at least 8' WS that he flies in scale. It is an awesome achievement. This model of an "Antique" plane is pretty light for its size, though. As has been said, weight is the deal breaker! Even with the fairly simple flight schedule you create in Scale, you can get pretty uncomfortable with an 18 lb. model in stiff winds!

I think as far as Stunt goes, a model getting around 80oz. is the upper limit.

BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM

Jared Hays · « **Reply #16 on:** February 04, 2015, 10:57:56 PM »

Quote from: Brett Buck on February 04, 2015, 10:35:06 AM

This, the predecessor (*1200 square inches* instead of a mere 900), and most of the similar models were definitely too big for 70' lines. Flown to competitive sizes, it always looked severely cramped and greatly emphasized the fact that the corners were too big (although not a whole lot worse than anyone else, it was easily visible). Windy had a whole series of these airplane. Even he seemed to realize that the more conventional Patternmaster and derivatives were more competitive and moved on after a few years.

The current crop of competitive airplanes are in the 600-700 square inch range and that seem to be about the practical limit for both 70' radius, and most people's right arm muscles. An interesting phenomenon is that when we got good engines in about 1988 or so, and you had to fly correctly even when it got windy, that drove people to smaller airplanes as well, because it was/is very difficult to physically get the larger competitive airplanes through a pattern in poor conditions. You aren't likely to see airplanes grow beyond the current range of about 650 +- some.

Brett

Doesn't bother me I'm not trying to win the NATS I just think its cool as hell! and between my dad and I we have like 7 ST 60's 3 are NIB so might as well build something for them.

Trostle · « **Reply #17 on:** February 04, 2015, 11:04:28 PM »

Quote from: Jared Hays on February 04, 2015, 10:57:56 PM

Doesn't bother me I'm not trying to win the NATS I just think its cool as hell! and between my dad and I we have like 7 ST 60's 3 are NIB so might as well build something for them.

How about a Ford Tri-Motor? Makes sense to me. Really cool.

KT

Brett Buck · « **Reply #18 on:** February 04, 2015, 11:24:44 PM »

Quote from: Jared Hays on February 04, 2015, 10:57:56 PM

Doesn't bother me I'm not trying to win the NATS I just think its cool as hell! and between my dad and I we have like 7 ST 60's 3 are NIB so might as well build something for them.

Go for it! And start lifting weights, and eating A LOT of peach cobbler.

Brett

Derek Barry · « **Reply #19 on:** February 05, 2015, 05:45:46 AM »

The orange plane is the 1969 Sweeper, which is the one the Brett was referring to. It is a lot of fun to fly but it is a handful.

Derek

Larry Borden · « **Reply #20 on:** February 05, 2015, 06:26:27 AM »

Several people have flown the Ringmaster 1000 at the Ringmaster Roundup and were surprised at how easy it flew. Doesn't pull more than a 40 size plane and floats like a balloon when the engine quits. Once the engine quits, get it on the ground in a hurry. Didn't do this once and a gust of wind caught it and rolled it in on me. Broke the fuselage right behind the wing.

Bob Heywood · « **Reply #21 on:** February 05, 2015, 06:43:18 AM »

If you're talking BIG check out Sgt. Gordon Ford's C-5A. It was a handful but he was a pretty big man and well up to the task. So, I guess it wasn't too big.

Fred Cronenwett · « **Reply #22 on:** February 05, 2015, 07:54:48 PM »

CL scale allows for 20 lbs and a 1.25 cubic inch glow engine. I have flown a 18 lb, .90 powered CL scale model with a 87" span. My B-29 comes in at 13 lbs with a 96" span. A friend flies a 19 lb model that has a 106" span. the 106" span model is the 1/3 scale Spacewalker and it weighs 304 ounces...we just round to the near lb!

If you adjust the line guide the line pull is not that bad, but it does have more line tension than the average .40 powered model. The B-29 pulls about 50 lbs during a typical flight.

Anytime I fly a model that weighs 4 lbs or less it feels really small!

Fred

Darkstar1 · « **Reply #23 on:** February 06, 2015, 04:44:51 AM »

Quote from: Brett Buck on February 04, 2015, 10:35:06 AM

and most people's right arm muscles.

Brett

Not my right arm.

pat king · « **Reply #24 on:** February 06, 2015, 09:00:35 AM »

I sell a 900 square inch Magician 67.8" wingspan, the Ringmaster Bipe 1099- 62 7/16 span 1099 square inches, Ringmaster Tri 1135- 55 1/2" span 1135 square inches, Ringmaster 2X- 84" span 1526 square inches, Ringmaster X-Wing 49 5/8 span 936 square inches, AREA 51 saucer- 36" diameter 1018 square inches. The big airplane is the Ringmaster Tri2K- 62 1/2" span 2053 square inches.

Pat

Robert Zambelli · « **Reply #25 on:** February 06, 2015, 10:10:01 AM »

Here are two photos of the Sweeper I restored for the Brodak museum.
That's John's grandson holding it.

The third photo is my Colibri triple.
Wingspan - 68 1/2 inches
Tailspan - 31 1/8 inches
Tail moment (hinge to hinge) - 19 inches
Weight - 78.3 ounces
Very easy to fly but the Surpass 26s are not as reliable as I'd like.
I will replace them with three Saito 30s.

Bob Z.

peabody · « **Reply #26 on:** February 06, 2015, 11:36:20 AM »

Chuck Holzapple built and flew a Sweeper at a contest in NY that I judged....it was BIG and difficult to judge, and the square maneuvers appeared very weird.

Fred Cronenwett · « **Reply #27 on:** February 07, 2015, 06:18:00 AM »

The larger models fly better and penetrate the wind better, I try to keep my new scale models under 15 lbs and power it with an electric motor, or if I flew glow power a .90 sized engine.

The 60" span models for CL scale would come in about 8 lbs and are very manageable, I have a new project to build and it will have a 68" span and weigh about 11 lbs (electric powered).

Fred

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #28 on:** February 07, 2015, 08:14:05 AM »

How about 78" span & 1200 squares? Power is an OK Super 60 Gold Head. First pix is dad posing the "Big Wing" (it never had a more formal name) in the summer of 1951.

Second pix posted for Keith Trostle: do you recognize the lad posing the bird? HINT: This pix was taken about 3 years before I was born...

BTW, the original wing still exists, I have it commited to CAD & laser cut-files. Three are under construction, with intent of getting it approved for OTS.

Trostle · « **Reply #29 on:** February 07, 2015, 09:01:51 AM »

Quote from: Dennis Adamisin on February 07, 2015, 08:14:05 AM

How about 78" span & 1200 squares? Power is an OK Super 60 Gold Head. First pix is dad posing the "Big Wing" (it never had a more formal name) in the summer of 1951.

Second pix posted for Keith Trostle: do you recognize the lad posing the bird? HINT: This pix was taken about 3 years before I was born...

BTW, the original wing still exists, I have it commited to CAD & laser cut-files. Three are under construction, with intent of getting it approved for OTS.

That looks like Archie. He is a little bit youger in that picture which is a long time before I met him, you and the rest of your family.

Keith

Gerald Arana · « **Reply #30 on:** February 07, 2015, 09:05:54 AM »

BTW, the original wing still exists, I have it commited to CAD & laser cut-files. Three are under construction, with intent of getting it approved for OTS.
[/quote]

Dennis, Are you going to be selling plans?

If so, I'd like a set.

BTW, Where is the LG? Or was it hand launched?

I'm thinking that the builder could add a LG to bring it up to modern times and still be OTS legal.

Looks good, Jerry

PS Another use for an LA 46!

Bill Little · « **Reply #31 on:** February 07, 2015, 09:45:56 AM »

Quote from: Gerald Arana on February 07, 2015, 09:05:54 AM

BTW, the original wing still exists, I have it commited to CAD & laser cut-files. Three are under construction, with intent of getting it approved for OTS.

Dennis, Are you going to be selling plans? If so, I'd like a set.

BTW, Where is the LG? Or was it hand launched? I'm thinking that the builder could add a LG to bring it up to modern times and still be OTS legal.

Looks good, Jerry

PS Another use for an LA 46!

Hi Jerry,

Brother Denny was telling me about the "Big Wing" on the phone yesterday. It is a great project! Another "lost" OTS model brought back. Always need more to bring down the number of Humongous and Jamisons seen at the meets.

And at 78" WS and 1200sq.in, I think i want more punch than a LA .46! LOL!!

BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #32 on:** February 07, 2015, 03:05:34 PM »

Keith: another pix of Archie with the Big Wing. A little easier to make out the engine too. I remember dad giving us engines with props on them to flip while we watched TV in the basement. He swears we broke in (or wore out) several engines that way.

Gerald: Yes it had a landing gear. It is actually a trike arrangement; in back there were two subfins with small wheels in them, located roughly at the ends of the elevator. Later the landing gear was removed and it flew off a dolly. Hope to have plans & laser short kits in the future. I think an LA 46 could work. While it is large it has a 11% thick airfoil so it will not be very draggy. I am expecting the one I have on the board now to go about 60 oz. The original flew with an 11" prop on the OK, so the LA46 should still be up to task. The only problem I see could be balancing it. I would love to lengthen the nose some but then it would not be authentic to the original...

john e. holliday · « **Reply #33 on:** February 07, 2015, 04:15:46 PM »

When you get the plans done, don't forget the old DOC. Would build one just to honor Big Art. I see why your Mother fell for such a handsome dude and he is still handsome even today. Hope he is getting back on his feet.

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #34 on:** February 07, 2015, 04:28:06 PM »

Quote from: Dennis Adamisin on February 07, 2015, 03:05:34 PM

I remember dad giving us engines with props on them to flip while we watched TV in the basement.

Did he give you diesels when he was mad at you?

Mike Keville · « **Reply #35 on:** February 07, 2015, 04:32:28 PM »

Mercy! Looks like, essentially, a double-sized (plus 6") dMECO Sportwing. Right?

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #36 on:** February 07, 2015, 05:10:27 PM »

Mike: exactly right. Dad and his brother Paul had a friend who built a double sized Junior 29 that was 78" - sorry have not been able to document that one. A double sized Sport Wing would be "only" 72" so the outer panels (from the ends of the elevators out were extended a wee bit more to get to 78". The original wing still exists and I noted (and duplicated) that the outer ribs were not spaced exactly equal.

Over its life the original wing had three different fuselages on it, the last was an oval cross section but that is post-1952. Dad is holding the original wing which now sports fuselage #3, and I am holding one of the new wings.

Tim: OUCH!

Mike Keville · « **Reply #37 on:** February 07, 2015, 05:17:42 PM »

Thanks, Dennis. That is truly awesome. Would love to see it fly sometime.

Robertc · « **Reply #38 on:** February 07, 2015, 08:41:22 PM »

Here's a pic of Rusty Brown's Little Mo
It was at least 900 sq in.

Larry Borden · « **Reply #39 on:** February 23, 2015, 01:29:46 PM »

Quote from: Bob Heywood on February 05, 2015, 06:43:18 AM

If you're talking BIG check out Sgt. Gordon Ford's C-5A. It was a handful but he was a pretty big man and well up to the task. So, I guess it wasn't too big.

Thought that name sounded familiar. I was going through some of my USAF stuff and came across his name. We were both on the 1971 USAF model airplane team that competed at the Glenview Nats.

Jim Carter · « **Reply #40 on:** February 23, 2015, 02:11:39 PM »

I think this might be just a bit too big for c/l .... any thoughts??

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT3dMCnVZsPTnjvnjtueu7yY_Cicsv76Pb2HS7Q8TJwaY9QhGpM

Don Chandler · « **Reply #41 on:** February 23, 2015, 02:57:20 PM »

I have had two 72" wing span scale ships, sig Citabria and a Vultee trainer. Both flew well The Citabria on a OS .46 and the Vultee on a K&B .60 Sportster. Both planes did have elecrnic throtle comtols.

Gerald Arana · « **Reply #42 on:** February 23, 2015, 03:42:33 PM »

Bill L.

Well, I do have some 60's I could use.

I'll just have to wait and see.

Later, Jerry

EddyR · « **Reply #43 on:** February 23, 2015, 04:12:00 PM »

This was to big and to heavy. A modeler from South Carolina asked me to test fly this 90+ ounce giant Fierce Arrow,1500+square "
It had a blue head ST/60 which powered it easily but it was badly out of trim and I felt it was unsafe to fly. It turned in at me on all stunts. I had to lean back and use two hands to fly it. I have flown a lot of very large models even a 90 ounce Pattern Master. I would not fly it a second time. He never came back. to bad as he was a good builder but just got carried away with the FA

Randy Cuberly · « **Reply #44 on:** February 23, 2015, 04:30:33 PM »

Hey,
Anybody have any photo's of Gordon Delaney's "Too Much". Memory tells me it weighed about 6.5 lbs with two Fox 35's. It was spectacular to watch it fly the pattern with Gordon or Bart Klipinski at the handle.

Not too many folks stepped up to fly the thing because of it's size and weight, and I doubt that Gordon flew it in a lot of wind.

Randy Cuberly

dennis lipsett · « **Reply #45 on:** February 23, 2015, 07:26:19 PM »

These have been seen before. Both the flitestreak and the magician are 900 sq in models and the Ringmaster is 850. The Magician has a 67 in W/S and the other 2 are 63/64 in. All are in the 60's weight wise and all who have flown them have been surprised at how reasonable the pull is. It is less than a PA 65 equipped model and I can't comment on a 75 as neither I or the people that I fly with have used them. and yes they have a very good corner not loose. Pat King did excellent design work on these models.

Tom Niebuhr · « **Reply #46 on:** February 24, 2015, 11:57:16 AM »

Dennis,
Thanks for posting the Giant Sport Wing... perhaps you can call it the "Super Sport Wing".

I have always been intrigued by the Sport Wing. I have the plans but never built one. The original had almost no airfoil. Even at 11% the super version should fly fine. I am anxious to see the new build and also please me on the list for plans.