Dick Mathis Stuka

[David M Johnson]

So Im just going to throw this out there. Are there any modifications to this design that would be useful to do before I go very far with this build?  I'm looking for a plane to start getting better with not only learning stunt but putting the basic pattern together for the profile and beginner class.

[Trostle]

Dick Mathis had/has a way with model airplanes.  They work.  I do not have any first hand experience with the Mathis Profile Stuka.  However, the basics are all there.  It has the right numbers, a decent airfoil, solid nose construction, straight forward construction and decent looks for a profile.  Yes, it has no flaps.  When you are learning/refining your pattern, there is no need for flaps.  Airplanes such as this which are designed not to use flaps will give surprisingly good performance.  It will fly well enough to score well against Advanced competition.  (It all depends on the hand holding the handle.)  I see no reason to change anything.

As Dick mentions in his article, the wing area is adequate such that flaps are not needed to "cut pretty sharp corners without stalling so most flyers will not really need flaps since few of them try super sharp corners in the first place.  I suggest building it with fixed flaps, and, if you need more cornering power, modifying the flaps later."  Dick Mathis knows what he is writing about.

Find a good, strong, light 35 or 40 and keep the airplane light.

Keith

[David M Johnson]

Thank you for the information.  The engine I have in mind is a EVO 36 but I also have a standard unmodified Thunder Tiger 36 that uses the same mounting pattern.

[Dan McEntee]

  The Dick Mathis Coyote is another flapless design you may want to consider, and might share some specs with the Stuka. Some one of the cottage industry kit makers kitted this airplane recently, I think. At your stage of development, I recommend that if you really like this airplane, and it performs like you want, stick with it for a while. When you cut parts, cut parts for a couple airplanes. It will take you several airplanes to move up the ladder, and it will help if all the airplanes handle and trim the same so you don't have to figure out any strange bad habits as you progress.  If you figure out or discover something about the airplane as you progress, it's easy to incorporate that into the next model. And this doesn't mean it has to look like a Stuka either. Like Keith mentioned, the numbers and general construction are what is important, you can shape the fuselage and wings to look like anything you like. Make the model straight, pay attention to alignment of parts, keep the weight reasonable and strive for consistency in your pattern. When trimming, make only one change at a time to avoid confusion on what you needed and what you did to correct it. Any one specific model won't make you necessarily a better flyer, but any one model that is built correctly, and a good coach will work wonders for you. Everyone is different. It took me 17 years to go from beginner to expert class. That's a long time but i had a TON of fun along the way! You will too, if you have the patience to just enjoy the journey.
  Type at you later,
   Dan McEntee

[Bootlegger]

  Where can a set of plans for the Mathis stuka be found??   Thanks a lot

[George Albo]

Check your mailbox

[Dennis Leonhardi]

I flew one of Mathis's Excaliburs for a few years.  The one thing I've seen in my own experience and with others building/flying this and similar designs is "flexing" of the fuselage between the trailing edge of the wing and the tail feathers.

Simply splicing a basswood or pine strip - even 1/8" thick, but better 1/4" - improves the stability of that section quite a bit.  Well worth the slight weight increase in my opinion.


Dennis

[Dan McEntee]

I flew one of Mathis's Excaliburs for a few years.  The one thing I've seen in my own experience and with others building/flying this and similar designs is "flexing" of the fuselage between the trailing edge of the wing and the tail feathers.

Simply splicing a basswood or pine strip - even 1/8" thick, but better 1/4" - improves the stability of that section quite a bit.  Well worth the slight weight increase in my opinion.


Dennis

   Dennis;
    Can you describe that a bit more? On the top, bottom or in the middle?
  Thanks a lot,
  Dan McEntee

[wwwarbird]

The engine I have in mind is a EVO 36 but I also have a standard unmodified Thunder Tiger 36 that uses the same mounting pattern.

 Between those two, go with the TT36.

[Randy Cuberly]

I agree completely with Wayne.  The TT is a far better choice.

Randy Cuberly

[Brett Buck]

 The Dick Mathis Coyote is another flapless design you may want to consider, and might share some specs with the Stuka. Some one of the cottage industry kit makers kitted this airplane recently, I think. At your stage of development, I recommend that if you really like this airplane, and it performs like you want, stick with it for a while.

   I agree with the mass production approach!  However, I think you can do a lot better than a Coyote. I think the airfoil is too pointy compared to some of the alternatives (Skyray 35, Flite Streak, and particularly the Medic).

    I also think it doesn't need a 36. Some of the original small engine experiments was done using Ted Fancher's Coyote, and the 25FP was *plenty* of power. In fact, that was where we first discovered the tuning effects of the OS E2030 Muffler  - because with a 10-4, the airplane always tried to go just a hair too fast, regardless of the needle setting. A cleanly-built Coyote will be around 30-32 ounces, and a 20FP has no problem with that sized airplane. I think engine tweaks or modifications will be required to get a decent speed with a 36-40 sized schneurle engine and any commonly-available prop.

    Brett

[David M Johnson]

Ok here is what I have so far. The engine is a unmodified Evolution .36 with a tonge muffler the covering is SIG coverall glued with Minwax Polycrilic which was then painted with rustolium. Lest anyone fret that I'm missing out on appearance points be assured that those are the least of my worries at this stage in my flying development. 

[Avaiojet]

David,

I think you did a great job with your Stuka. 

I have this thing for Stukas, great German engineering and a fine platform for what they were designed for.

I made these vinyl graphics for a model that I won't be using. No, not the model, the stickers. 

If you could use them I'll put them in the mail on Monday.

PM me with your address if you would like them. No strings attached.

Great job with that Stuka!

Charles

[Steve Helmick]

For what it's worth, our own John Thompson (aka "JT") has been flying a stock TT .36 in an ex-Don McClave "Blackbird" and an Evo .36 in a modified Profile Cardinal. The Blackbird formerly flew well with an Aero Tiger .36 (TT .36 with AAC piston/cylinder and other Randy Aero magic). The Blackbird's stock TT .36 has not been nice for either JT or Bruce Hunt, the interim owner. The Evo .36 seems to work fine.

I'm not real familiar with the Mathis Stuka, but seem to recall it has moveable flaps. If it does, that's extra weight and drag and more weight aft of the CG. Add to that the heat and altitude where David lives (Phoenix, AFAIK), then the .36 is fine. I would definitely try the TT 11 x 4.5 prop. Rumor has it that ZZ Prop will be offering a CF copy, probably available this Winter. Mike Hazel is ZZ Prop, and is District 11 CL/FF Contest Coordinator, so if you want to contact him, it's in your fine AMA magazine, Model Aviation.    Steve