Author Topic: stunt plane suggestion for a .15? (Read 19187 times)

Target · « **on:** December 29, 2016, 01:41:01 PM »

I have a Thunder Tiger .15 collecting dust, and I thought it'd be nice to build something to get it in the air. It's an Asian engine, not a lighter weight Cox, Novell, or Fox. Weights 3.9 oz before muffler, plug, and venture/needle.
Prefer a profile design, flapless, and actually a kit would be nice.

But as long as it's quick build, short kit or even plans is ok. I could vacuum bag a foam/carbon wing for it if needed.
I want something that flies GREAT, with proper tuning.
Thanks in advance.

Was wondering about the small Magician or Shark, or ?

HNY,
Chris

rustler · « **Reply #1 on:** December 29, 2016, 02:07:03 PM »

Maybe not the first design which comes to mind, but Blue Pants by Henri Stouffs (Belgium) is a bit of an eye opener.
Listed in some places as the 1954 World Champion, powered by a 2.5cc E.D. Racer.
Plans easily available, and a kit from Belair Kits in England.
The Racer has a superb pedigree, having won World Champs in Stunt and Speed, and been the engine of choice in 2.5cc T/R, until superseded by the Oliver Tiger. Quality deteriorated over time, the magnesium case ones are usually a safe bet. They were available in glow, diesel, and ign. format.

Brett Buck · « **Reply #2 on:** December 29, 2016, 02:28:38 PM »

Quote from: Chris Behm on December 29, 2016, 01:41:01 PM

I have a .15 collecting dust, and I thought it'd be nice to build something to get it in the air. Can't remember what make it is, but it's an Asian engine, not a lighter weight Cox, Novell, or Fox.
Prefer a profile design, and actually a kit would be nice, but as long as it's quick build, short kit or even plans is ok.
I want something that flies GREAT, with proper tuning.
Thanks in advance.
Was wondering about the small Magician or Shark.

Depends on which 15. For a OS baffle piston 15 (Max III or similar), the Shark 15 would be my first choice (and was - I had 4-5 of them, all with the OS20 or 25-S).

For a 15FP or similar, a Ringmaster or something about that size is right. Not a Ringmaster Jr. , a regular Ringmaster for a 35. A problem is that there aren't many very good airplanes in the necessary size range (320-350 square inches). A Flite Streak scaled down a little bit would work, but not the Junior Flite Streak - too small.

Brett

Target · « **Reply #3 on:** December 29, 2016, 02:55:12 PM »

Even a (gasp) foam winged combat based plane would be ok with me. Just to muddy waters more.
Priorities-
1. Flies well, similar to a larger plane.
2. Easy/quick build.
3. Profile preferred.
4. Cost is of little consequence.

Dennis Moritz · « **Reply #4 on:** December 29, 2016, 03:10:37 PM »

Peacemaker profile. Barry Baxter lists it under combat planes. You would be building from plans. Different from the full fuselage plane sold by Brodak. It has a 36" wing. Similar design to Flite Streak, which has a 42" wing. Looks like a model in between a full size Flite Streak and a Flite Streak jr. Depends on what you want to do. I've built a few jr Flite Streaks powered by FP15s. They were flown with engines set to scream max power. Great fun. All needed at least a half ounce in the tail to balance and make turn. I also had a few powered jr. Streaks with Enya 19s, baffle piston engine. Sluggish in turns. Heavy engine needed too much tail weight. These days I'm looking to make one of these with an Enya 09 or FP10. No weight in the rear. I think will be a better balanced plane. The Peacemaker profile would probably be in balance with a either a 15 flat top or baffle piston engine. I'd build it light.

eric rule · « **Reply #5 on:** December 29, 2016, 05:44:50 PM »

Take a serious look at Ron Burn's P51-15. This is a really great performing model (Larry Renger, who flies Advanced, scored a 531 with it at last years Golden State Championship). It can be powered by any .15 glow or even a .15 size electric motor.

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #6 on:** December 29, 2016, 05:51:17 PM »

Chris, since the engine type matters so much, can you post a picture? If it's an old baffle-piston engine then an Akromaster should be good. If it's a new Schrnuerle-ported engine, then what Brett said.

Mike Griffin · « **Reply #7 on:** December 29, 2016, 05:53:14 PM »

Quote from: eric rule on December 29, 2016, 05:44:50 PM

Take a serious look at Ron Burn's P51-15. This is a really great performing model (Larry Renger, who flies Advanced, scored a 531 with it at last years Golden State Championship). It can be powered by any .15 glow or even a .15 size electric motor.

I am building my second one of these. Great little model and flies really well. Both of mine are/were electric.

Mike

Target · « **Reply #8 on:** December 29, 2016, 05:57:36 PM »

I'll check which engine I have when I get home next.
Thanks gents.

Steve Helmick · « **Reply #9 on:** December 29, 2016, 07:08:30 PM »

The P-51 Eric mentioned would sure be worth a look on the RSM website, depending on what .15 you've got.

Steve

wwwarbird · « **Reply #10 on:** December 29, 2016, 09:47:43 PM »

I'll wager that you will not find a better flying, more capable .15 size stunt design than the Challenger .15 designed by Keith Sandberg. Plans and laser cut rib sets are available from Walter Umland here on the forum.

http://stunthanger.com/smf/open-forum/challenger-15-done-and-rtf/

Target · « **Reply #11 on:** December 29, 2016, 10:34:32 PM »

Thanks all, and thanks Wayne. This looks ideal, I like that it's flapless. I can vacuum bag a composite wing for it if I get the urge.
Regards,
Chris

louie klein · « **Reply #12 on:** December 30, 2016, 09:11:29 AM »

I have a 15 Challenger and this plane flies great! .I have a Fox 15 on it with no problems. An expert friend of mine put it through the whole pattern---Cool!--Fun, Louie

Chuck_Smith · « **Reply #13 on:** December 30, 2016, 01:47:58 PM »

Quote from: Chris Behm on December 29, 2016, 01:41:01 PM

I have a .15 collecting dust, and I thought it'd be nice to build something to get it in the air. Can't remember what make it is, but it's an Asian engine, not a lighter weight Cox, Novell, or Fox.
Prefer a profile design, and actually a kit would be nice, but as long as it's quick build, short kit or even plans is ok.
I want something that flies GREAT, with proper tuning.
Thanks in advance.
Was wondering about the small Magician or Shark.
HNY,
Chris

Many years ago I built a Jr. Magician with an OS .15. It was a great flying airplane. Easily flew the pattern on 52' lines. I'd take it on vacations since it was small and portable. Then I put a .36 on it and used it as a combat ship.

Chuck

Target · « **Reply #14 on:** December 30, 2016, 05:57:41 PM »

I was considering the .15 magician as well, but I like the tail moment on the challenger...

wwwarbird · « **Reply #15 on:** December 30, 2016, 07:55:21 PM »

Quote from: Chris Behm on December 29, 2016, 10:34:32 PM

I can vacuum bag a composite wing for it if I get the urge.

Wow, that would be some serious overkill for a .15 size model. If you do do it, make sure and give us some info.

Target · « **Reply #16 on:** December 30, 2016, 09:47:41 PM »

I have a butt load of carbon spread tow fabric (the big checker board looking fabric) and 3/4oz glass, and mgs epoxy from Germany. No reason not to do a composite wing, and without flaps would make it not need wood on the TE at all. Pretty simple layup, especially if I want squared wing tips for a adjustable lead out...
And no stinking servo pockets to grind out!
I have wanted to do one for a while. Figured it might be safer on a smaller wing to start with. Probably would do a foam stab also, but might have to test a skin hinge, for simplicity.
R,
Chris

Pat Chewning · « **Reply #17 on:** December 30, 2016, 11:28:29 PM »

Sig Akromaster is a good kit and flies well on an OS LA 15. The recommendation is to make the wing slightly longer by not cutting the LE, TE, and spars -- leave them full length.

I have 2 of these and they fly pretty well with the OS LA 15

Target · « **Reply #18 on:** December 31, 2016, 01:13:55 AM »

Thanks Pat!

TigreST · « **Reply #19 on:** December 31, 2016, 01:27:46 AM »

How bout a Brodak "Cub". Maybe a little more involved then a profile build and yes it's got flaps (I guess you could glue them at 0/0). Bob Z's pictures attached. A bit more chat on it here:

http://stunthanger.com/smf/open-forum/new-offering-from-brodak/

Skip Chernoff · « **Reply #20 on:** December 31, 2016, 02:56:42 AM »

Thanks for the info on the Brodak Cub. That sure is a fine looking model.

Target · « **Reply #21 on:** December 31, 2016, 12:38:15 PM »

I had actually looked at the Cub a long while ago.
I read where John Brodak or one of his "team pilots" said it should be powered with a .20-.25, actually. Plus, it really is more than I would like to build right at the moment. If I were to build a full fuselage plane, it would be-
1. Full sized, 550 sq inches or larger.
2. Electric powered.

I've sort of decided that I want to go with glow for profiles, and E-power for full fuselages. I can't really explain why, it just makes the most sense to me for some reason.

Thank you for all the suggestions. The Cub is definitely on the radar, but it would probably be e-powered.

R,
Chris

TigreST · « **Reply #22 on:** December 31, 2016, 01:38:18 PM »

Interesting. I've got a pair of Cubs and opted for the Brodak .25 as a possible power upgrade.

Target · « **Reply #23 on:** December 31, 2016, 01:40:37 PM »

Did you fly one on a .15?
BTW, your link links back to this thread....

TigreST · « **Reply #24 on:** December 31, 2016, 02:32:15 PM »

Nope have not built either one as yet. The power choice was some what inspired by an Ozzy that put a .60 in Nobler some years back. I'll fix the link in a bit.

TigreST · « **Reply #25 on:** December 31, 2016, 03:20:09 PM »

The link is fixed (above). The one issue, as ever, with IC power "how much fuel can you carry to feed the motor. This is mentioned in the link regarding .25 power in the Cub. a custom tank may be the order of the day. I have not done any engineering toward making the .25 work. Brodak .15's wait in the wings as back up power choice.

Target · « **Reply #26 on:** December 31, 2016, 05:03:04 PM »

Thanks for fixing the link, Tony.

UPDATE-
The engine that I have is a NIB Thunder Tiger .15V, it weights 3.9oz without muffler, glow plug, or carb/venturi.
The supplied muffler is pretty heavy, as it is 1.2oz. I could probably go with a tongue muffler and delrin venturi to come in about 4.5oz.

Happy New Year, all.

I'm likely to either get the challenger kit, or maybe just plans and make a composite wing and tail, and profile fuse.
Alternately, I could think about the Cub wing with a profile fuse.

Regards,
Chris

Steve Scott · « **Reply #27 on:** December 31, 2016, 05:38:18 PM »

Shame the U-Key series is no longer available. I had one in each of the 3 sizes they offered - 15, 35 and 40. The 15 size was a hoot to fly. I flew it with an FP 15 and a Norvel 15.

Keith Sandberg's Challenger design is a good bet.

My first 'stunt' model was the Top Flite 15 Flite Streak with a baffle Fox 15X and a simple silkspan/dope covering. Learned inverted flight with that combo. The Asian schneurle 15s are a bit heavy for most of the early designs meant for the baffle (non-schneurle) motors.

Target · « **Reply #28 on:** December 31, 2016, 06:26:06 PM »

Quote from: Brett Buck on December 29, 2016, 02:28:38 PM

Depends on which 15. For a OS baffle piston 15 (Max III or similar), the Shark 15 would be my first choice (and was - I had 4-5 of them, all with the OS20 or 25-S).

For a 15FP or similar, a Ringmaster or something about that size is right. Not a Ringmaster Jr. , a regular Ringmaster for a 35. A problem is that there aren't many very good airplanes in the necessary size range (320-350 square inches). A Flite Streak scaled down a little bit would work, but not the Junior Flite Streak - too small.

Brett

So, Brett, with the engine being a NIB Thunder Tiger .15, would you still recommend the wing area be in the range of 320-350 sq. inches?

I could always scratch build my own, something like a Primary Force (with a longish tail moment) but scaled down? Any design rules I will need to observe for the smaller planes?

Thanks and Happy New Year.

Chris

john e. holliday · « **Reply #29 on:** December 31, 2016, 11:24:37 PM »

The Brodak site says .15 - .19 for the Cub. Kit CLB-91.

Now go read the post, New Offering from Brodak.

Target · « **Reply #30 on:** January 01, 2017, 02:38:36 AM »

I have read that thread already....
Thanks John! And Happy New Year.

Target · « **Reply #31 on:** January 01, 2017, 01:26:15 PM »

Quote from: eric rule on December 29, 2016, 05:44:50 PM

Take a serious look at Ron Burn's P51-15. This is a really great performing model (Larry Renger, who flies Advanced, scored a 531 with it at last years Golden State Championship). It can be powered by any .15 glow or even a .15 size electric motor.

I'll look at Larry's yellow p51 the next time we are all at Whittier...

Do you know if the Delrin venturi you offer at rsm for a "Magnum .15 will fit my Thunder Tiger .15? Does it come with a nva? What size is the bore? No rush on info Eric. Happy New Year!
Kind Regards,
Chris

Brett Buck · « **Reply #32 on:** January 01, 2017, 02:02:30 PM »

Quote from: Chris Behm on December 31, 2016, 06:26:06 PM

So, Brett, with the engine being a NIB Thunder Tiger .15, would you still recommend the wing area be in the range of 320-350 sq. inches?

Unfortunately, I don't know, since I haven't ever seen one run. I assume that it is more powerful than ancient baffle-piston engines like the Fox or the OS Max III, but that is an assumption.

350 square inches should yield a flyable model in any case, and if you have to, you can put a 15FP in there instead.

Brett

Target · « **Reply #33 on:** January 01, 2017, 03:17:43 PM »

Thanks Brett.
As far as I can tell, the tt 15 is schnurle ported, not a baffle engine. I assume it should run with more power than a Fox.
I'll let you know when I find out.
HNY,
Chris

TigreST · « **Reply #34 on:** January 01, 2017, 06:59:06 PM »

Just thought I add a few more pictures to this thread. Here's a bit of a photo camparison of three of the motors mentioned here.

Thunder Tigre Pro .15/ABC R/C

Brodak .15 c/l

Brodak .25 c/l

FWIW,

Target · « **Reply #35 on:** January 01, 2017, 10:13:49 PM »

Thanks Tony.
I believe my tt is the non ball bearing, "GP" version. Just glanced at it the other day. I've been spending the holidays with the new squeeze. She's back to work tomorrow, me Tuesday.
I'll double check tomorrow. Maybe even post a picture.
Regards,
Chris

Trostle · « **Reply #36 on:** January 02, 2017, 10:24:16 AM »

deleted

Target · « **Reply #37 on:** January 02, 2017, 11:38:52 AM »

Quote from: Trostle on January 02, 2017, 10:24:16 AM

deleted

Unless it was a post reply to the wrong thread, please add your thoughts Keith!
Happy New Year.

Regards,
Chris

Trostle · « **Reply #38 on:** January 02, 2017, 01:05:54 PM »

Quote from: Chris Behm on January 02, 2017, 11:38:52 AM

Unless it was a post reply to the wrong thread, please add your thoughts Keith!
Happy New Year.

Regards,
Chris

OK, I just commented that the 296 sq in listed for the Brodak Cub seemed a bit small for a .15. A good 1/2A stunt ship with an .049 will have 200 to 215 sq in and could be more. However, I am sure the Cub with a light .15 can be a capable and enjoyable airplane. It would seem a good .09 like a Cox Medallion would be a better fit. I am not casting aspersions on the Brodak Cub.

Keith

Target · « **Reply #39 on:** January 02, 2017, 01:19:17 PM »

Thanks Keith.
So then you are of the similar opinion to Brett that 320-350 squares is a more appropriate area for a .15 sized stunter?
And, care to share any pearls of wisdom on wing profile (airfoil) and aspect ration for these smaller sized stunt models?
If I am going to scratch build something, I would like it to be a decent flier.
Still considering the Challenger plans built, with a composite wing/horizontal/fuse, or something close to that one.

R,
Chris

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #40 on:** January 02, 2017, 01:52:35 PM »

In the absence of a lot of solid data on what makes a good 15-sized plane, I suspect that you should just start by scaling down a good "40-sized" plane until it has 350 square inches of area -- for example, make an 80% scale Fancherized Twister (that gives 325 squares, but 80% is a rounder number than 82.8%). I wouldn't bother with flaps -- lightness is going to be goodness in this case, and flaps do add weight.

And -- don't be surprised if you don't end up building another one. About once every third time I make an original design that just "flies off the board". Sometimes two iterations is all it takes to find nirvana, sometimes it takes five or six.

Air Ministry . · « **Reply #41 on:** January 02, 2017, 02:53:56 PM »

INDEED .

Looking at the 1/2 a TD etc Versions of the Spectrum , mirage , pinto etc etc , if you haf One Metre Wood There , Youd be under way - Just Add Tips - for a .15 size sleek Ace Aeroplane .

A Clunkers a differant story . Plenty of atrocious thin wing junk in English Magazines Past .

Most Thin Winged ' awkward ' THINGS .

A ' BASIC ' ship might be 3 foot ( sheet/ strip ) plus tips . 8 in chord , or Avg Chord . Anything much under that and its going to be a stone .

This Things Minimilist Weight , Maximalist Area , Maybe . Put the end bits so it looks like Lucille Ball .

Um , whatever you like .

Has a Sensable Rib / Airfoil .

A Oriental Rib ( 8 in ) & 36 in sheeted Le + tips , so its 40 or 44 o/a , and the notorious H C Queck mustang , FW 190 , P 40 & Zero , if real light
should do , like a slightly downzized miss BJ .

Scale to 36 in ' plank ' and leave inner flap te sq 2 Fuse .

i vill hunt for zer Queck drgs .

TWO .15s and a Oriental Wing , and it would be excellent . on hipocket . free download full size .

Air Ministry . · « **Reply #42 on:** January 02, 2017, 03:25:26 PM »

This thing dates back to near the Great War . So is OTS legal . Has a THICK wing . Olver Tiger 2.5 cc . MENTIONS ' STUNT ' in the Heading , despite no wheel . How do you get around that .

Is on Hipocket , so liberates Full Size , Free .

Apparently Some Things ARNT what they Used to Be .

1957 .

Air Ministry . · « **Reply #43 on:** January 02, 2017, 03:45:33 PM »

oops. something was playing up . see my first pic. parrently theres two . flapped & un . f .

Need a rework to get top line .

Oor the Winner of the 1954 World Champs . Judges arnt what they used to be. Theyve BANNED drop of Undecarrages !

download on outerzone .

Trostle · « **Reply #44 on:** January 02, 2017, 04:29:58 PM »

Quote from: Tim Wescott on January 02, 2017, 01:52:35 PM

\
(Clip)

About once every third time I make an original design that just "flies off the board".

(Clip)

It is impossible to have an airplane model that just "flies off the board." There was a finite number of that type of airplane models in the universe and they were all used up by 1952.

(That is why many fly in the Old Time Stunt event. They are still looking for some remnant of those airplanes. At least that is a partial explanation of how I understand things.)

Keith

TigreST · « **Reply #45 on:** January 04, 2017, 08:29:01 AM »

Quote from: TigreST on December 31, 2016, 02:32:15 PM

Nope have not built either one as yet. The power choice was some what inspired by an Ozzy that put a .60 in Nobler some years back. I'll fix the link in a bit.

Here it is. PJ Rowland did a Gieseke Nobler with the Stalker 61 for power.

Yeah, picked up on this in the other Nobler thread:

http://stunthanger.com/smf/open-forum/new-offering-from-brodak/

And here's a bit of info on his build:

http://stunthanger.com/smf/classic-planes/new-gieseke-nobler-(-now-with-finished-pics-)/

Yesterday I opened the box on the Brodak Cub to have another look. What prompted this was Keiths info about the wing area and wing span. There are different numbers depending on where you look. The kit box info states 40" span and 297sq/in area. The plans measure out to around 36 3/4" span or so and a rough calc of 292sq/in. (which does not take into account the area covered by the fuselage). I'm not sure but I think it was mentioned you might sqeeze a few more sq/in's out of it if you do not trim the LE, TE and spars and simple adjust the rib spacing. I expect it would not be difficult to simply replace the span-wise runs of wood with longer and add a rib or two and maintain the original space I guess? When looking at the plans it appears that the 15. will be enough (fits very well in the fuselage, based on the side view). But I still wonder how the .25 might work if one tweaked the wing area a bit. Hmm very interesting.

Sorry about the thread jacking.

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #46 on:** January 04, 2017, 11:00:14 AM »

Quote from: Trostle on January 02, 2017, 04:29:58 PM

It is impossible to have an airplane model that just "flies off the board." There was a finite number of that type of airplane models in the universe and they were all used up by 1952.

Well, clearly not in my experience! By "flies off the board" I mean an airplane that needs no major modification and whose trim is good enough on the first flight that you know that will be true. Granted, it happens more often with sport planes where the performance bar is lower, but it does happen to me.

TigreST · « **Reply #47 on:** January 04, 2017, 12:16:18 PM »

Back in the day "Flys of the board" we took to mean anything that survives the maiden flight, ha ha. Everything after that is gravy As a kid our expectations were very low and little to nothing was done to trim out a plane as we did not really know how, other than c.g. concerns. Sport flying only of course.

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #48 on:** January 04, 2017, 01:02:37 PM »

Hey Chris! You are going to share what you build with us, yes? Whether it flies off the board, or comes off the field on a board?

John Rist · « **Reply #49 on:** January 04, 2017, 02:20:34 PM »

I have a Ringmaster 307 by Pat Johnston that flies great on a 15. I don't know if the kit is still available. The is one of Pat's looks like a Ringmaster but is Ringmaster in looks only. It has a different airfoil ets and flies as good as any modern airplane. A little discision on Brotherhood of the ring:

http://www.brotherhoodofthering.info/mbbs22/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=2298&posts=10&highlight=Ringmaster%20307&highlightmode=1#M28834

It's a quick build, a great flyer, and it qualifies for the Ringmaster Fly-A-Thon

PS Pats eMail is patsplans@yahoo.com

Target · « **Reply #50 on:** January 04, 2017, 11:44:20 PM »

Quote from: Tim Wescott on January 04, 2017, 01:02:37 PM

Hey Chris! You are going to share what you build with us, yes? Whether it flies off the board, or comes off the field on a board?

Yes Tim, I will share what I build.
More and more I'm likely to "go nuts" and do a vacuum bagged foam wing. The only hitch in my giddy-up is I'll have to decide on a wing profile first... I've trolled for suggestions in this thread, but no biters yet. I'd definitely like to keep this design flapless because it will be a lighter, stronger, simpler and cleaner bagged wing. Doing the internal bellcrank will be trouble enough....who knows,.maybe a top or bottom of the wing would work for the first attempt.
I hate making foam cutting templates, and I also am too almost divorced to buy a cnc cutter... But I'm a pro with a gravity cutter anyway. You'll see that. I'll likely make all the parts vacuum bagged foam, even the fuselage, with some wood reinforcements up forward.
It should be interesting....
And thanks to ALL OF YOU, for the suggestions on which design to build. It's appreciated!
Very Respectfully,
Chris

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #51 on:** January 05, 2017, 09:41:49 AM »

Hey Chris:

I'd taper the wings maybe about 25% (by 25%, not too 25% -- make the tip chord 75% of the root). For flapless I'd sweep the LE almost not at all, ending up with a sharply swept-forward TE, like a foam combat plane.

I've got a cartoon-scale Mooney that I built for my wife that mounts the wing on the bottom of the fuselage with the bellcrank on top. I can't tell the difference from running the leadouts inside, and the building (and repairing) was certainly vastly simplified. As a bonus, since the leadout guide is external it was dead easy to make it adjustable up and down, which meant that I didn't have to try to guess the vertical CG ahead of time -- I just adjusted for it after the fact.

(And just for chuckles, the plane in question uses Phil Cartier's wing cores and SLC covering, with 1/8 x 3/8" balsa spars. It's plenty strong enough for anything except the full-on impacts with the ground that it's been experiencing, and it's easy to repair from those.)

Here's a picture of the thing. It's close to having flown off the board, except for a nasty tendency to go slack on takeoff, which I adjust to so automatically that I then forget and hand the handle to her, then she crashes it in less than half a circle and has words with me. We both need to get out flying more...

The picture is from this build thread. If I was going to do what you're planning, I'd just scale this down -- or use the concept, but do a cartoon of some other low-wing airplane, like a Beech Bonanza (straight tail if I'm building for a beginner, or a V if I want to get the locals going again).

Target · « **Reply #52 on:** January 05, 2017, 01:02:41 PM »

Thanks Tim.
So, essentially you're suggesting a forward swept wing planform, vice a straight 1/4 chord or swept back 1/4 chord.
That moves the cg forward at the wing root.
Other than the ability to do this due to the lack of flap hingeline to deal with, what's the reason?
I assume this slightly extends the tail moment the amount of the cg shift, but other than that slight weight and structure freebie, any other reason?
I seem to recall that a swept forward planform is marginally harder to stall, but also like building in anhedral, right? That probably doesn't apply much in control line, I would think (the dihedral effect with sweepback, I mean).
I think it's better to have a buddy teach your wife to fly. I'm not an authority, since I'm no longer married, LOL.
My ex did me a favor though, I have a great new gf that works hard and appreciates me. What a concept!
Thanks for posting the picture.
Vr,
Chris

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #53 on:** January 05, 2017, 01:09:49 PM »

The number one single biggest reason I suggest that planform is because Howard Rush said that it works well for combat, and should work well for flapless stunt (something about having good yaw characteristics in the wind). In the same thread he was also quick to point out that a swept-forward flap line was Bad News, so if you're using flaps, use the "normal" wing sweep of a typical stunter.

It's what came with the wing cores on that Mooney, and it works well -- it's also more or less what a Flight Streak looks like, and they make good stunters when you set them up right. So not only do I have Howard's word on it, my personal experience with flapless stunters says that it works good.

George · « **Reply #54 on:** January 06, 2017, 07:19:21 AM »

Quote from: Chris Behm on January 01, 2017, 10:13:49 PM

...I believe my tt is the non ball bearing, "GP" version. Just glanced at it the other day.

If your control line GP is like mine it has a large sprinkler venturi (note the offset needle valve).

George

Target · « **Reply #55 on:** January 07, 2017, 08:20:07 AM »

Quote from: George on January 06, 2017, 07:19:21 AM

If your control line GP is like mine it has a large sprinkler venturi (note the offset needle valve).

George

It's an rc-v version with a carb (at least it is for now)

Allan Perret · « **Reply #56 on:** January 07, 2017, 09:00:32 AM »

Quote from: TigreST on January 04, 2017, 08:29:01 AM

Here it is. PJ Rowland did a Gieseke Nobler with the Stalker 61 for power.

Yeah, picked up on this in the other Nobler thread:

http://stunthanger.com/smf/open-forum/new-offering-from-brodak/

And here's a bit of info on his build:

http://stunthanger.com/smf/classic-planes/new-gieseke-nobler-(-now-with-finished-pics-)/

Yesterday I opened the box on the Brodak Cub to have another look. What prompted this was Keiths info about the wing area and wing span. There are different numbers depending on where you look. The kit box info states 40" span and 297sq/in area. The plans measure out to around 36 3/4" span or so and a rough calc of 292sq/in. (which does not take into account the area covered by the fuselage). I'm not sure but I think it was mentioned you might sqeeze a few more sq/in's out of it if you do not trim the LE, TE and spars and simple adjust the rib spacing. I expect it would not be difficult to simply replace the span-wise runs of wood with longer and add a rib or two and maintain the original space I guess? When looking at the plans it appears that the 15. will be enough (fits very well in the fuselage, based on the side view). But I still wonder how the .25 might work if one tweaked the wing area a bit. Hmm very interesting.

Sorry about the thread jacking.

Hey Tony: Opened my Cub kit today and seeing same thing as you, measuring span off the plan I get 37".
Brodak's website and label on box both indicate span 40".
In the other thread referenced above, John Miller said he got OK from Brodak to increase span to 40, wonder what happened with that ?
So I am planning to increase rib spacing as necessary to get span out to 40".
I will be using B-15 or Enya 15CX for power. The B-15 w/muff is 1/2oz lighter than Enya w/muff.

Target · « **Reply #57 on:** January 07, 2017, 04:54:29 PM »

Back to topic, Looks like my TT .15V (RC) is a baffle engine.
See attached pictures.
If the plane that I build needs more power, I could swap this for the engine on my combat wing, a Magnum .15, which seems to have some "nuts".

Randy Cuberly · « **Reply #58 on:** January 07, 2017, 06:23:44 PM »

Quote from: Trostle on January 02, 2017, 04:29:58 PM

It is impossible to have an airplane model that just "flies off the board." There was a finite number of that type of airplane models in the universe and they were all used up by 1952.

(That is why many fly in the Old Time Stunt event. They are still looking for some remnant of those airplanes. At least that is a partial explanation of how I understand things.)

Keith

If by "Flies right off the board" means that it needs absolutely no trimming to be competitive I definitely agree. However a good thorough "Bench trimming session" before taking the thing out to fly it can result in an airplane that is capable of safely stumbling through most of the pattern maneuvers on the first or second flight. Even I have managed that many times thanks to Jim Hoffman introducing me to Bench trimming sometime in the 1980's.

I certainly do believe any and all competitive stunters are more or less always being trimmed one way or another. Even some trimming sometimes occurs between two competitive flights in the same day!

I want to make it very clear that by saying this I'm not disagreeing with what Keith said in any way. I just wanted to clarify things a bit by adding the "Bench Trimming" situation into the mix. All the expert level fliers I know (including Keith) certainly know that their airplane is going to fly reasonably straight and happy on the first flight. However short tanking the first flight is never a bad idea "Just in case".

There used to be a pretty good thread on bench trimming on this forum but I'm not sure it still exists. "Stunt News" has also had at least one good article on doing it, Probably more than one!

Randy Cuberly

paw080 · « **Reply #59 on:** January 07, 2017, 08:35:19 PM »

Hello Chris Behm, Make things simple for yourself and get an old Top Flite or a repo

kit of the Flite-Streak. Build it as light as you can, trim it effectively and you will

have a perfect profile model that will out fly anything previously mentioned; except

for an FAI Combat ship. What is little known, or remembered, is that in the early

ads for the FS, George Aldrich himself recommended a .15 be used for a stunt model

trainer. There were not many .15 engines that were really suitable then, other than a Torp .15, so he may

have been thinking of using a diesel engine such as the Oliver Tiger mkIII or a Webra Mach 1.

I'm sure your TT .15 has power equal to a strong mid 1950's diesel.

Barry Baxter flew several Flite Streaks with PAW, Marz and other 1980's .15 diesel engines,

all on 60' X .015" lines. Come to think of it, I saw the late Dennis Lien fly a FS on 60' lines

using an MVVS Junior(.12 cu") diesel.

If you find a lighter tongue muffler or fly without that heavy TT version, the finished ready

to fly weight of your Flite Streak should be less than 23.5 ozs. Good luck;

Tony

Target · « **Reply #60 on:** January 07, 2017, 11:10:24 PM »

Thanks for the suggestion Tony.
Vr,
Chris

wwwarbird · « **Reply #61 on:** January 07, 2017, 11:12:55 PM »

Quote from: paw080 on January 07, 2017, 08:35:19 PM

Hello Chris Behm, Make things simple for yourself and get an old Top Flite or a repo

kit of the Flite-Streak. Build it as light as you can, trim it effectively and you will

have a perfect profile model that will out fly anything previously mentioned; except

for an FAI Combat ship.

Tony

Not a terrible idea, but I'm betting 10 bucks that Tony here has never built and/or flown a Challenger .15.

Dane Martin · « **Reply #62 on:** January 07, 2017, 11:21:56 PM »

Quote from: Chris Behm on January 07, 2017, 04:54:29 PM

Back to topic, Looks like my TT .15V (RC) is a baffle engine.
See attached pictures.
If the plane that I build needs more power, I could swap this for the engine on my combat wing, a Magnum .15, which seems to have some "nuts".

Planes are planes, you've got many good suggestions here. But on that engine, I wouldn't be worried about power. Yes, it's a baffle piston, but all my enya .15's are baffle piston. And I wouldn't hesitate to put them in any plane these great folks have listed here.

Trostle · « **Reply #63 on:** January 08, 2017, 12:45:08 AM »

"It is impossible to have an airplane model that just "flies off the board." There was a finite number of that type of airplane models in the universe and they were all used up by 1952."

Quote from: Randy Cuberly on January 07, 2017, 06:23:44 PM

If by "Flies right off the board" means that it needs absolutely no trimming to be competitive I definitely agree.

(Clip)

Randy Cuberly

I guess my attempt at a bit of humor did not come across that way. My comment was slanted to the articles published "back in the day", like prior to 1952, where the designers/authors would write that their design "flew right off the board". Such comments are a bit more rare now, so I was suggesting that maybe there is/was a finite number of airplanes in the universe that could fly "right off the board", they must have been used up "back in the day". I was going to draw a parallel to the fixed number of models in the universe that can fly off the board to entropy which my limited understanding is also fixed in the universe, but I have a really hard time getting my mind around the concept of entropy and unavailable energy.

Another favorite statement "back in the day" is that their design "can do everything in the book". Many of those designs, though Old Time Stunt legal, often present a challenge to do even the most rudimentary maneuvers.

I apologize for getting off on this tangent on this thread.

Keith

Target · « **Reply #64 on:** January 08, 2017, 02:20:49 AM »

No apology necessary, Keith.
Regards,
Chris

paw080 · « **Reply #65 on:** January 10, 2017, 03:08:50 PM »

Quote from: wwwarbird on January 07, 2017, 11:12:55 PM

Not a terrible idea, but I'm betting 10 bucks that Tony here has never built and/or flown a Challenger .15.

Welp wwwar, save your 10 bucks. It's true I haven't built nor flown a Challenger .15; but my observation is

based on the possible specs of the model. So, please help me judge the model by it's actual specs; such as what

the wing area is, and also what is the percentage of the airfoil used. This way I can calculate what the wing loading

would be for a 25 oz model. If I like the potential wing loading, I can decide to possibly build a Challenger .15 in the

future. Thanks in advance for the Challenger .15 specs.

Tony

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #66 on:** January 10, 2017, 03:30:04 PM »

Quote from: Trostle on January 08, 2017, 12:45:08 AM

... like prior to 1952, where the designers/authors would write that their design "flew right off the board".

If I've told my kids once, I've told them a million times: don't fall into the trap of using hyperbole.

john e. holliday · « **Reply #67 on:** January 11, 2017, 09:38:08 AM »

Quote from: paw080 on January 10, 2017, 03:08:50 PM

Welp wwwar, save your 10 bucks. It's true I haven't built nor flown a Challenger .15; but my observation is

based on the possible specs of the model. So, please help me judge the model by it's actual specs; such as what

the wing area is, and also what is the percentage of the airfoil used. This way I can calculate what the wing loading

would be for a 25 oz model. If I like the potential wing loading, I can decide to possibly build a Challenger .15 in the

future. Thanks in advance for the Challenger .15 specs.

Tony

Do a search for challenger 15 as from what I've read Walter Umland had a kit and I thought I seen where Mike Griffith may have had one.

paw080 · « **Reply #68 on:** January 11, 2017, 06:18:17 PM »

Hi John E. Holliday, I want to thank you for the search suggestions;

So Thank You!

I did find what I was looking for;

Tony

paw080 · « **Reply #69 on:** January 11, 2017, 07:15:13 PM »

Quote from: wwwarbird on January 07, 2017, 11:12:55 PM

Not a terrible idea, but I'm betting 10 bucks that Tony here has never built and/or flown a Challenger .15.

Well WWWarbird, I did checkout the specs on the Challenger .15. First of all,

I think you did a lovely job on the thoughtful finish of your Challenger .15 however,

I learned that the model has a wing area of only 220(or is it 230) sq"s. Sorry but

that is a bit small for most modern .15 engines. Please heed my advice on wing loading,

Your Challenger .15 is close to the same size as a Jr Flite Streak, But you have taken

your model to 15.72 ozs/sq'. That is in the Mini Elephant category(I know, I've built a few mini elephants myself).

best of luck. Tony

Hi there Chris, I tried to find performance reviews of your TT .15 mk V.

I couldn't find any, so I can only guess based on similar engines.

If your TT .15 mk V has decent power for a bushed baffled engine,

it should be right at home with a 250-300 sq" wing area design. So, if the

TT .15 is on the mediocre power side, you still have a lot of profile designs

and a few kits to consider as suitable.

For a mediocre power .15, I suggest you try to stay below 9ozs/sq'. Here's a few examples

of some of my profile models that are under 9 ozs/sq': Jr Flite Streak 11 ozs, Veco

Tomahawk 20.5 ozs, Full size Flite Streak 20.8 ozs . Keith Trostle is serious when he

says that most good flying 1/2A stunt models have 230-250 sq"s of wing area. I play

with a Ringmaster Jr that is modified(placed on a diet) for being powered by a Paw .049sbr

diesel the has a ready to fly weight(sans fuel) of 7.2 ozs. It fly's fast and is very aerobatic

on 44' X .008" lines. Yet, I can tell that it will fly much better with 30 more sq"s wing area.

So, ending this tome, I suggest choosing from the many good suggestions with 250-320 sq"s

of wing area. Best of luck;

Tony

Target · « **Reply #70 on:** January 11, 2017, 08:11:41 PM »

I'm leaning towards @ 325-350 sq. in for wing area.
I have the other Schnurle ported .15 on my combat wing, and if for some reason I need more umph, I can either swap the engines, or trim the wing tips a bit as needed (providing the plane isn't a lead sled).
I plan to use foam and vacuum bagging for most all of the components, and the plane will be an exercise in applying what I know about bagging sailplane wings to U control parts.
So the first one might be either too heavy, or too flimsy, but I will be OK with that, using it as a learning tool.

Might be a while before I can get to this anyway.

Kind Regards,
Chris

Air Ministry . · « **Reply #71 on:** January 12, 2017, 06:51:31 PM »

Those'r a clone of the OS max 15 , I think . Engine Test the OS pulls surprising rpm on a 9x4 in comparison to the 20 & 25 .

Yoursll need a bit of run in of course , so a 8 x 4 there . But see if its happy on a 9x4 when its had half a imperial gallon thru it .

wwwarbird · « **Reply #72 on:** January 14, 2017, 08:29:12 PM »

Quote from: paw080 on January 11, 2017, 07:15:13 PM

Well WWWarbird, I did checkout the specs on the Challenger .15. I learned that the model has a wing area of only 220(or is it 230) sq"s.

Tony

I'm not sure where you think you found the specs Tony, but the Challenger .15 wing is 320 square inches.

Target · « **Reply #73 on:** January 14, 2017, 09:16:43 PM »

You two are a crack up...
Yes, the challenger has 320 squares and a 35" span as per Walter's website. So a little more than a 9" chord average.
My plan will likely be closer to 40" span, and 9" root with 7" tips, I'm planning. That gives me 320 squares, and a 5:1 aspect ratio.

Planning on external (top) bellcrank for the first one, so I can just do a one piece wing layup. Following the K.I.S.S. plan for the first one. Fuse mounted landing gear legs, probably carbon for the exercise. Likely a combo wood/foam/glass/carbon layup for the fuse, and probably all foam and glass tail pieces.
That is my plan for now. More to follow.

wwwarbird · « **Reply #74 on:** January 14, 2017, 10:07:16 PM »

Quote from: Chris Behm on December 29, 2016, 01:41:01 PM

I have a Thunder Tiger .15 collecting dust, and I thought it'd be nice to build something to get it in the air. It's an Asian engine, not a lighter weight Cox, Novell, or Fox. Weights 3.9 oz before muffler, plug, and venture/needle.
Prefer a profile design, flapless, and actually a kit would be nice.

But as long as it's quick build, short kit or even plans is ok. I could vacuum bag a foam/carbon wing for it if needed.
I want something that flies GREAT, with proper tuning.
Thanks in advance.

Was wondering about the small Magician or Shark, or ?

HNY,
Chris

I was just getting the facts straight back there Chris.

Going back to the very beginning of this thread, it was my original understanding that you're looking for a GREAT flying, fairly simple and quick to build .15 size design to use for blowing the dust off your 'ol Thunder Tiger. As usual though, with most things here, it all got overly complicated very quickly.
We're talking about finding a good .15 size airplane here, not the next "Igor Beater". Initially you were even wondering about the .15 size Magician or Shark. They're both neat old models, but are nowhere near the performers that the easy building Challenger is.

I'll stick with my original suggestion, I guarantee you wouldn't regret it, and I hope you have fun with whatever you end up choosing to build.

Target · « **Reply #75 on:** January 14, 2017, 10:56:55 PM »

And if I were going with something to buy, it would probably be the Challenger.
But it sounds like Walter may still be down, and not producing kits currently? Unless you know otherwise?
Regardless, I sort of want to give this idea I have a shot, and a simple, smaller profile is just the ticket.
If you want to lose your Challenger plans and mail 'em west, I'll be glad to use the dimensions on my composite construction.
One thing I don't quite understand, is if and/or why there needs to be a flat stock behind the actual thicker part of the airfoil on the wing, since there are no flaps. It seems to add square inches, and you could easily have them hinged as active flaps, I guess. But why have the double reflexed profile shape? It seems prevalent in many stunt planes of yore.
Speaking of Igor, I think his smaller designs actually skip that mentioned feature. Combat wings don't usually have it either. In all accounts, combat wings turn sharply. Hmm. I'd sure like to know about that.
I didn't mean to ruffle any feathers, not yours or anyone's. Just got a chuckle out of your banter with Tony and his with you. Clearly you both want to assist me in my original request, and I believe you both did in reality. So thanks for that.
Respectfully,
Chris

paw080 · « **Reply #76 on:** January 15, 2017, 01:50:07 PM »

Quote from: wwwarbird on January 14, 2017, 08:29:12 PM

I'm not sure where you think you found the specs Tony, but the Challenger .15 wing is 320 square inches.

Hi War, now I actually feel better that the Challenger is 320 sq"s and not 230sq".

this makes a big difference in performance. I misread the spec details on the pdf plans

on Walter Umland's site. But, please do not assume that I don't know what a good flying

.15 powered profile is like. To start with, I've flown Fast, F2d, and 1/2A combat, in the

TD .049 35' lines days. I've built and flown .15 powered profiles that have a bit more

wing area and are all lighter than your Challenger .15. These models are all powered by

sport or high performance(for 1980s...) Diesel engines. So, now that rant is over with;

I can add your Challenger .15 to the list of models that I recommend for Chris Behm's

TT .15 mk V engine. Good luck;

Tony

wwwarbird · « **Reply #77 on:** January 15, 2017, 08:16:52 PM »

Quote from: Chris Behm on January 14, 2017, 10:56:55 PM

One thing I don't quite understand, is if and/or why there needs to be a flat stock behind the actual thicker part of the airfoil on the wing, since there are no flaps. It seems to add square inches, and you could easily have them hinged as active flaps, I guess. But why have the double reflexed profile shape?

Chris,

It's designed that way with the idea of keeping the overall design simple, aka "K.I.S.S.". That additional flat T/E stock is commonly known as "fixed" flaps. Designing a wing this way keeps the wing construction "simple" and easy to build because the ribs are all the same dimension, except of course for the center few ribs which are 1/16" smaller all the way around to allow for the center sheeting.
"Hershey Bar" is also a nickname for this type of wing design, because viewed from above it's essentially just a long rectangle, like a Hershey Bar. The Challenger's fixed flaps could be hinged and made to work but are completely unnecessary in this "K.I.S.S." design. In this case, and on a LOT of other designs, they are more for cosmetic appearance and design with an added bonus of a bit more wing area.

Also, I'm pretty sure Walter is up and running again. Maybe not at full speed yet but Keith did order some more Challenger rib sets just the other day.

And Tony,

I'm glad you feel better.

Target · « **Reply #78 on:** January 15, 2017, 10:15:18 PM »

Thanks for the explanation. I had the same discussion with a control line flying buddy and he says the same thing, word for word mostly.
I'd just think that having that concave kink in the airfoil would be detrimental on a fixed section. I can see where on active flaps, when the top of the profile and flap are smooth, you'll get a tremendous boost in generated lift by the cambering of the profile generated.
So, other than making the plan view more pleasing, and keeping the ribs the same (and machineable in a "stack"), I don't see the reason to do this. Especially if any other parts are going to be laser cut (in which case, you'd might as well make the wing with a proper taper).
Building a foam wing, I don't see a need to add a flat section to accomplish the trailing edge sweep. I can with balsa construction for the reasons you mentioned though.
Maybe I'll ping Walter for some plans.
Thanks!
Chris

Keith Renecle · « **Reply #79 on:** January 15, 2017, 11:26:00 PM »

Hi Chris,

When you mentioned combat wings it reminded me of my project some years ago to find an easy to build cheap model. A friend mentioned the he would like a plane that flies well enough to practice lower bottoms without worrying abut writing off an expensive plane. I took a combat style wing and built a very basic model around that. I built it for a .25 to .30 size engine and called it the Eze 25. The prototype had an Enya .30 SS in it and it flew well enough for some decent practicing. Eventually I made a smaller .15 size version with a MVVS .15 in it and later a .40 size as well. The .40 size did not fly well and I think that the ice cream cone airfoil did not work well when scaled up and flown at the slower stunt speeds. However the .15 size and .25 size flew great. I can mail you the plans and how to make the leading edged foam parts if you like. I still have your email address, so just let me know.

Regards,
Keith R

Keith Renecle · « **Reply #80 on:** January 15, 2017, 11:27:59 PM »

Here are a few pics.........

Target · « **Reply #81 on:** January 16, 2017, 12:16:31 AM »

Emailing me a pdf of plans would be fantastic, Keith, thank you.
I'll probably go a bit off trail, but having a known performing wing profile and plan form for the size plane I want to build is a great head start. Thanks.
Regards,
Chris

Keith Renecle · « **Reply #82 on:** January 16, 2017, 10:37:49 AM »

Hi Chris,

I'll do that for sure and I had a few more requests as well, so I'll just add a bit to the basic plans with some extra photos and diagrams etc. I'll sort that out by tomorrow.

Keith R

Target · « **Reply #83 on:** January 16, 2017, 11:30:06 AM »

No rush, thank you!

R,
Chris

Randy Cuberly · « **Reply #84 on:** January 16, 2017, 04:55:59 PM »

Quote from: Keith Renecle on January 15, 2017, 11:26:00 PM

Hi Chris,

When you mentioned combat wings it reminded me of my project some years ago to find an easy to build cheap model. A friend mentioned the he would like a plane that flies well enough to practice lower bottoms without worrying abut writing off an expensive plane. I took a combat style wing and built a very basic model around that. I built it for a .25 to .30 size engine and called it the Eze 25. The prototype had an Enya .30 SS in it and it flew well enough for some decent practicing. Eventually I made a smaller .15 size version with a MVVS .15 in it and later a .40 size as well. The .40 size did not fly well and I think that the ice cream cone airfoil did not work well when scaled up and flown at the slower stunt speeds. However the .15 size and .25 size flew great. I can mail you the plans and how to make the leading edged foam parts if you like. I still have your email address, so just let me know.

Regards,

Keith,
Hmmmm...That "Ice cream Cone" airfoil scaled up to 650 square inches pretty good for the Trivial Pursuit and works just fine! It does suck up power like a sponge and needs plenty in front of it! It supports a heavy ship with lots of power however! Mine weighed 74 ounces and still flew very well with a PA65, and a RO Jett 65. Ted's flew well enough to win the Nationals with a RO Jett 65! I think it weighed very near 70 oz.
I don't think the problem was the airfoil! Maybe all those electrons get in the way!

Randy Cuberly
Keith R

wwwarbird · « **Reply #85 on:** January 16, 2017, 05:46:24 PM »

Quote from: Chris Behm on January 15, 2017, 10:15:18 PM

I'd just think that having that concave kink in the airfoil would be detrimental on a fixed section. I can see where on active flaps, when the top of the profile and flap are smooth, you'll get a tremendous boost in generated lift by the cambering of the profile generated.
So, other than making the plan view more pleasing, and keeping the ribs the same (and machineable in a "stack"), I don't see the reason to do this. Especially if any other parts are going to be laser cut (in which case, you'd might as well make the wing with a proper taper).
Building a foam wing, I don't see a need to add a flat section to accomplish the trailing edge sweep. I can with balsa construction for the reasons you mentioned though.

Wow. That's a LOT of thinking for a .15 size plane Chris, severely overthinking IMHO. I guess your K.I.S.S plan has disappeared somewhere, carry on.

Target · « **Reply #86 on:** January 16, 2017, 09:06:34 PM »

Thinking before acting costs nothing but time and saves time in the long run.
And at this time, I need this diversion.
R,
Chris

Keith Renecle · « **Reply #87 on:** January 16, 2017, 10:42:49 PM »

Hi Randy,
The Trivial Pursuit airfoil is not the "ice-cream cone" section I'm talking about. I'm referring to the normal section used on the Russian style combat wings. The power on the .40 size Eze was a slimer in fact!

When I sawed the snout off and electrified it, it was still not a nice plane like the smaller ones. It did however improve a lot if flown faster, so it was quite interesting.

There was a good discussion on this in the engineering section http://stunthanger.com/smf/engineering-board/ice-cream-cone-airfoils/

Keith R

Keith Renecle · « **Reply #88 on:** January 17, 2017, 08:53:45 AM »

O.K. Here is a basic plan in pdf format. I've left certain parts in colour to show differences, and I must stress that it is a rough plan right now, but you can get an idea of how it goes together. I've also added an old file to let you print the parts on an A4 printer and then join them together. There is also a file for the Eze 25 on my website here at http://www.keithrenecle.co.za/files/Eze%2025.pdf. This shows how to cut the foam cores and there are a few photos from the original build. If you do want to actually build one then I do have more info so just mail me.

Keith R

Target · « **Reply #89 on:** January 17, 2017, 06:11:58 PM »

THANKS A LOT, Keith!!!

Vr,
Chris

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #90 on:** January 17, 2017, 06:51:37 PM »

Quote from: Keith Renecle on January 17, 2017, 08:53:45 AM

O.K. Here is a basic plan in pdf format. I've left certain parts in colour to show differences, and I must stress that it is a rough plan right now, but you can get an idea of how it goes together. I've also added an old file to let you print the parts on an A4 printer and then join them together. There is also a file for the Eze 25 on my website here at http://www.keithrenecle.co.za/files/Eze%2025.pdf. This shows how to cut the foam cores and there are a few photos from the original build. If you do want to actually build one then I do have more info so just mail me.

Keith R

FWIW this gets my seal of approval. Nice, basic, light, what more could you want?

Keith Renecle · « **Reply #91 on:** January 17, 2017, 10:43:09 PM »

Thanks Tim!

Just a little more info. You will notice the lack of nose doublers. I just figured that it was not worth worrying about with the low life expectancy. The pine nose section adds quite a bit of strength and also holds the bellcrank in place rather well. The original model was pranged into our tar circle and it looked quite bad as you can see in the pic below. It actually repaired quite easily and still flew for a few years more until someone eventually totalled it.

Our club also got our local good builder Roy Harvey to build a bunch of them to sell to beginners and he did not like the straight lines too much so he curved the wing trailing edge and tapered the stab and elevator. I still have the checkerboard pattern one although it has taken a beating. Just btw, that little Enya .30 SS is such a great engine as well. The others were powered by the Enya .15 plain bearing engines.

Keith R

john e. holliday · « **Reply #92 on:** January 18, 2017, 11:18:44 AM »

That trailing edge does help the looks.

Mark Romanowitz · « **Reply #93 on:** March 17, 2017, 10:37:34 AM »

Not that I'm partial or anything, but here is another suggestion.. Basically a re-worked Shark .15

https://store.flying-models.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=21&products_id=82

Don Jenkins · « **Reply #94 on:** March 24, 2017, 03:56:23 PM »

I'm probably a bit late to the party, but I built this Brodak Flite Streak Junior in 6 days to teach my daughter and granddaughter to fly. I used an old Fox .15 for power and surprisingly the little plane flies the full pattern quite well! It also survived several training flights, and my girls did like the "pink silk" covering!

Don

Target · « **Reply #95 on:** March 24, 2017, 10:30:41 PM »

Thanks Mark and Don for the suggestions.
I'm pretty certain I'll use this build as a composite test bed before possibly doing a bigger one....
R,
Chris

Target · « **Reply #96 on:** April 01, 2017, 04:02:26 PM »

I picked up a Walter Umland .15 sized Magician that might be used to break in the TT .15 before I build my composite wonder....

frank mccune · « **Reply #97 on:** April 07, 2017, 11:29:56 AM »

Hello:

May I suggest that you try a Shark .15 and/or a full sized Flite Streak.

I have flown many flights on a Shark .15 with Fox baffle .15, and a ST G 15 glow and
a diesel and it was a very good combination. I think that it has 270 sq. inches of wing.

At present I am flying a full size Flite Streaks with ST G20/15D or ST G20 .23 glow engines on 60' lines. I got a RTF FS that is very light and is powered by a ST G20/15D and flies very well. This plane is easy to get in the air and will fly very well. I also have a few ST G20/.23 glow engines that will drop in place of the other ST engines if I feel a need for more power. The G20/.23 is a really sweet engine! Of course, I have a Brodak .25 that I do not use that may be the hot set up for the Flite Streak. So many choices, so little time! Lol

Try the above suggestions and have a ball.

Perhaps an older Sterling Ringmaster or Mustang would also fly well if built very lightly. Start with 52' lines to determine how well the planes fly. You can go to 60' lines after you get things dialed in. I flew my Shark 15 on 52' lines and it was a great performer.

Good luck,

Frank