Upcoming Test on Two Twisters

[Bill Little]

Hi All,

OK, I have ended up up two NIB Twister kits.  Since these can be built quickly (compared to a full blown NATS stunter! ) I hope to  build one as box stock and the other as a Fancherized version.  Not completely settled on engines I will use but they will probably be new "modern .36s". (but no Aero Tigers, they only go into full fuselage "nice" stunters! LOL!! ) probably Magnum .36XLS and either an Evo .36 or a Randy Smith TT .36.  Also have an excellent Byron Barker OF .40FP.

But anyway, I want to see just how much difference can be expected between the two different builds.  I know the Fancher version is much more "modern numbers" so I am going in with certain expectations.

How many of you have flown completely stock Twisters  and also Fancherized versions?  What was you take on the performance differences?  (please list set up of each)

I have until May 2016 to get these done.

BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM

[Steve Scott]

Never built or flown a stock Twister.  My first was modded per the 1st Fancherized version which appeared in the Model Aviation series of articles.  Flew it with an FP 25.  It did better than I could fly it.  I just latched onto a Walter Umland kit which is the updated version Bob Kruger redid.  Not started with the build yet.

Curious why the photos on Walter's site has the old version shown.

[Tim Wescott]

To really compare just the airframes you should make both for one motor, or make both so that you can swap motors in and out.

I've taken to using 3/8" by 3/16" by 2" aluminum pads bolted to the bearers, drilled & tapped for the motor screws.

[Avaiojet]

I built this model from a modified Twister wing kit.

[Sean McEntee]

   I had several stock'ers, but that was well before my time of competitive flying.    I'll save dad some keystrokes and recount the story of John Garrett, a local St. Louis flyer.   John took THE SAME box stock twister from his first contest in beginner, all the way through to several placings in Expert.  To say that it had 4000 or so flights on it would probably be close.  His story is a case study in spending less time building and more time practicing and flying.

   My first two "serious stunters" started off with a Twister wing, stab and Ted Fancher's numbers and were cosmetically altered to look like Charlie Hillard's "Spinks Akromaster".  First was was a rabe-nosed profile; the second a full fuselage verison, both with OS40FPs for power.  I flew both in the 2001 and 2002 Senior Nat's, and kept other kids flying Dreadnaughts, SV11s, and other modern designs honest with it.  It was a very good flying airplane, even with my limited knowlege of building stunters--both models were built with dad over my shoulder telling me what to do, and with me not knowing really why I was doing it.  I'm really thinking hard about reprising that model, knowing what I know now, and having a few tricks that I wish I had back then 

   One suggestion to add, if interested, is sand the "nitch" cut into each rib for the TE sheeting off.  Then build the wing with LE sheeting and cap strips.  This will allow for a bit thicker airfoil and will allow you to blunt the LE a bit.  This was done to both Akromaster models. 

[Randy Cuberly]

A number of years ago my brother built both types when he was in intermediate class.  I helped him trim both of them so flew them quite a bit.  The stock one trimmed out and flew OK but was very Old School on the controls and while it could be flown through a descent pattern, with real concentration, it's tracking ability was compromised if the CG was far enough back to get good square corners.  Still, for an intermediate flier it was fairly easy to fly and forgiving (with the CG set to be stable but not as responsive as an experienced flier might like).  I should mention that both airplanes had relatively modern control systems; meaning 4 inch bellcranks and long control horns, adjustable weight boxes and adjustable leadout guides.  It seemed to fly a little heavy on the controls but I noticed my brother actually liked that feel better until he became more experienced.  a couple of years later when he first went into the expert class He stated one day that he flew the Twister and couldn't believe that he had liked it at one point!  I would attribute that to the smaller tail volume etc.

The Fancherized Twister was a much better flier for an experienced flier.  It was very responsive and tracked very well.  Corners were as good as anything.  It was a little more difficult to trim as it responded to changes in CG and small tweaks in flap etc as well as leadout position.  The larger Stab and Elevator added stability and responsiveness coupled with the longer "moments".  It also had 1/4 inch thick stiffer flaps covered with 1 oz glass cloth instead of the somewhat thinner ones on the stock build.  I suspect that alone accounted for some of the increased stability and responsiveness to trimming.  As I recall it was about 4 oz heavier than the stock one but flew very much better in spite of that.  Just as a personal opinion it was very much nicer to look at on the end of the lines from inside the circle also!   

Both airplanes had LA46's for power.

Certainly none of this is surprising stuff.  We have learned a little more about what makes a good stunt plane in the past 50 years or so, and Ted Fancher was one of the guys that taught us that!
Those who don't agree with that need to fly an Impact or a Trivial Pursuit etc, etc, etc.

Randy Cuberly

[Jim Roselle]

To really compare just the airframes you should make both for one motor, or make both so that you can swap motors in and out.

I had that same thought.

[Bill Little]

To really compare just the airframes you should make both for one motor, or make both so that you can swap motors in and out.

I've taken to using 3/8" by 3/16" by 2" aluminum pads bolted to the bearers, drilled & tapped for the motor screws.

Thanks, Tim, it would make my comparison more valid if I flew them both with the same engine.  Something I did not think of.  And also using a period engine on the stock version and a modern engine on the "F" Twister.  This would give me another insight on the two.  I have built and flown some very good modern full blown piped stunters and I flew the state of the art stunters back in the '60s.  I expect to see much of the same differences in the stock and "F" Twisters.  About the only Classic era stunter I have had and flown that can compare to a modern stunter is the USA-1.  But that model was well ahead of most all others of that day in moments, etc..  I also used a Tom Lay ST G.51 which was quite a power plant improvement.

Thanks for the reminder!
Bill

[Dane Martin]

I too have a little experience in this exact question, although my flying ability might not be up to the comparative results. Here's what i felt,
The twister pic I'm including is completely box stock, minus the landing gear. Original sig 3 inch bell crank and all ( bell crank bushed and leadouts above on bearings instead of through the hole). Powered by an OS30 four stroke. This thing flys rock solid. Compared to the modified version, the biggest difference is the turns. When you're straight and level, and hit a corner, during that initial turn movement, the plane feels heavy. The corner is not as sharp. I've tried moving the elevator horn for a little more deflection, but that didn't help. Its not the overall throw. It just rounds the corners. Not bad of course. The twister is an amazing airplane. But the Fancherized version gives a very sharp corner without the plane pulling harder in the movement.

[builditright]

Never built or flown a stock Twister.  My first was modded per the 1st Fancherized version which appeared in the Model Aviation series of articles.  Flew it with an FP 25.  It did better than I could fly it.  I just latched onto a Walter Umland kit which is the updated version Bob Kruger redid.  Not started with the build yet.

Curious why the photos on Walter's site has the old version shown.

Hi Steve,
the reason for the photo of the old version is to show the F.Twister beginnings and also
sadly I have not received any "finished" photos from anyone with the kit yet.

[Perry Rose]

 One suggestion to add, if interested, is sand the "nitch" cut into each rib for the TE sheeting off.  Then build the wing with LE sheeting and cap strips.  This will allow
It's easier and faster to use 1/8  trailing edge pieces. That way the cap strips  mate to the trailing edge. I've built one Twister with molded leading edge and cap strips and wing mounted gear. I built the wing normally then glued it to the fuse. then added the leading edges and cap strips. It saved me from opening the wing hole and probably messing the alignment up. LA.40 power but a balsa hating tree re-kitted it.

[Sean McEntee]

It's easier and faster to use 1/8  trailing edge pieces.

And heavier, and unnecessary...

[Bill Little]

Thanks guys for all the great ideas, and reminder.  These "tests" will not be very scientific, just mainly feeling.  I expect certain qualities from the stock kit and certain characteristics from the Fancher version.  I will set up the models originally to use the exact same engine.  Being profiles, field swaps will not be difficult.  Next will be two popular "modern engines" (Magnum .36 XLS on Fancher, Leo .37 on stock.) a different one for each, then a baffle piston iron/steel engine in the stock kit.  This will give three different views of the two models.  The very best trimming that we can do will be performed on each model to attempt to take that equation out of the picture.  I am very interested in seeing if my expectations come through the test flights!  The best one might do triple duty at the Huntersville meet!

Thanks, again!
Bill

[MikeyPratt]

Thanks, Tim, it would make my comparison more valid if I flew them both with the same engine.  Something I did not think of.  And also using a period engine on the stock version and a modern engine on the "F" Twister.  This would give me another insight on the two.  I have built and flown some very good modern full blown piped stunters and I flew the state of the art stunters back in the '60s.  I expect to see much of the same differences in the stock and "F" Twisters.  About the only Classic era stunter I have had and flown that can compare to a modern stunter is the USA-1.  But that model was well ahead of most all others of that day in moments, etc..  I also used a Tom Lay ST G.51 which was quite a power plant improvement.

Thanks for the reminder!
Bill

Hi Bill,
I've built more Twisters & Banshee's than I would like to admit (alter all I worked for Sig 18 years).
In stock form, they are very capable when built straight and powered correctly.  And yes, they will perform better with Ted's suggested mods.   But for the up & coming stunt flyer I always recommend staying with the stock version for ease of repair and getting replacement parts.  Once you are ready to move up in ability and class, then do the mods.

The last Twister I built was a stock version with the Sig 4" bell crank.  It was covered with yellow ply span tissue with and the fuselage was painted with Sig Cub yellow dope.  Power was provided by a O.S. 25 FP, four ounce tank, 9"x4" prop, and weighed in at 36 ounces.  Great flying model that was easy to fly and tracked very well.  I flew it in many contests in the Midwest and always did very well with it.  In a freak accident, the wind blew it up and over (about 15 feet in the air) and snapped the wing off.  I repaired it a gave it away to a new modeler.

The mods on Teds twister work really well however, I still feel it is better to fly and practice with a stock version, then build the next one for better performance as skills dictate.

Later,
Mikey