stunthanger.com
Building Tips and technical articles. => 1/2 A building. => Topic started by: Vincent Corwell on September 05, 2008, 12:38:27 AM
-
Hi everybody
Is Brodaks F82 twin mustang aerobatic ?
thinking of 2 x AP 061 motors
What props will be best for this ?
Someone has done this before
Any photos of finished models ?
Vincent ;D
-
The Twin Mustang is definately NOT aerobatic. Even with ONE engine, the wing area is overloaded. With two, it's purely a speed plane. This is the Scientific model, not the Brodak.
Currell Pattie's plane won a hollow log speed contest at 66 MPH with two Fox .049's. The best single around here did 63 with one Black Widow.
If you get two healthly 1/2A's going at the same time, you have a .10. Build it with that in mind.
-
Thanks for the reply Paul
The Brodak version is profile fuse/built up wing
and with a little more area= lighter loading
I am a little bored waiting for kits that are
still out of stock, thought I might make one
of these for amusement, but would have to
be capable of lazy eights at least ............
rather fly than build but the weather man here
has been saying no way since July!!!
Vincent
-
Bob Whitely built and flew a Twin Mustang for Mike Keville's 1/2 A Profile Scale contest last October. This had about a 40 inch wing span, built up wing and had two Norvel .061 engines. I do not know if Bob felt it would be capable of any loops or wingover, but you might want to contact him.
A picture of this shows up in the Feb 2008 Flying Models coverage of this event and also on the SSW forum at
http://www.clstunt.com/htdocs/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=288682&mesg_id=288682&listing_type=search
Bob posts on these forums as alfadawg. You might want to contact him.
Keith
-
I appreciate your reply Keith
I am too lazy to undertake that type of build though
and not keen on scale, thought the Brodak kit could
yield a quickly built fun twin, but it has to aerobatic
as that is all I fly nowadays
My main question is will the Brodak F82 do some stunts?
Thanks also to Robert , our host who makes this possible
Vincent
-
I haven't built the Brodak F-82 but have made a couple of the single engine designs. They do basic stunts ie: loops, wingovers, sloppy triangles and squares as well as inverted flight, quite well with a black widow engine. My kid learned to many of the basic maneuvers with the Wildcat design - much more crash resistant on grass than a "full" sized trainer. I see no reason why the F-82 would not perform at least as well as the singles. Stick to Cox engines and a light finish. They are a blast to fly and can be constructed in two evenings.
-
I built the F-82 Brodak twin mustang. I and several club members loved this airplane. Its very aerobatic. In fact its a great airplane. I can tell you that two .061 's is two much power. The Big mig Norvel's in the .049 would be a terrific match. This plane would just tear out on a launch with the black widows.I was flying it on 42' lines eyelet to eyelet. I actually flew on .008 52' lines with plenty of line tension. The biggest problem was the black widow consistency. When the engines were on it was an awesome plane. A club member called John Brodak one day while we were flying it to comment on it. I lost the plane due to an engine out on the downside of a wingover. The plane needed about 3/8 oz of tail weight to balance with the black widows. I purchased another in hopes to build it very soon. Some of the changes I originally was going to provide was ply doublers in the front with 1/4 maple bearers to install the engines traditional profile style. The gear was bending on me quite frequently so I was going to modify it as well. In addition I was going to mount 1 oz metal tanks on the fuse halves. I have had great success with the Cox Sure Starts. I've done a bit of hopping up on them and seriously considered using these engines in place of my Norvels. One reason is, the mount Brodak provides allows a direct fit for the Sure Start backplate as well as the radial mounts. The shorter nose might just pull the balance point back enough so no tail weight is needed. In addition I wouldn't be using any ply up front. I would highly reccommend this plane to anyone that loves 1/2 a. For those interested in using the stock black widows, I would just make sure you use the best of the bunch. I had several instances were I just couldn't seem to get them both in synch. This caused 2 crashes which were more than I really wanted to repair. Ken Cook
-
Have the engines in stock
breaking them in one at a time in
a Baby Flite Streak....great fun
will design my own twin stunter
as the pattern is my target
Keen on having fun above all
Vincent
-
If you really want an aerobatic F-82, do as I did - - Ask Larry Richards to laser-cut a Veco P-51 with an extra fuselage, then add a 13" center-section to the wing between the fuselages. Power should be two old-style OS MAX S-.30's, or a pair of .25FP's (I'm using two Saito .30's). You'll also need to cut a new stabilizer and elevator, and rig linkages to the flaps. but this stuff is relatively minor.
Ralph
-
thanks Ralph
He does not ship to Europe
I have half built an own design twin
for the 2 AP 061 engines
for a larger twin I already a Mosquito
with Enya 30 engines....flies well
will post photo in due course
Vincent
-
Scribble up a twin baby flite streak F-82 erised.
Same asa Bf 109 Z.
-
If you really want an aerobatic F-82, do as I did - - Ask Larry Richards to laser-cut a Veco P-51 with an extra fuselage, then add a 13" center-section to the wing between the fuselages. Power should be two old-style OS MAX S-.30's, or a pair of .25FP's (I'm using two Saito .30's). You'll also need to cut a new stabilizer and elevator, and rig linkages to the flaps. but this stuff is relatively minor.
Ralph
That is such a cool idea, Ralph! You have GOT to bring it to VSC. Classic legal I'm sure, I saw one in the 60's!
Chris...
-
I built the F-82 Brodak twin mustang. I and several club members loved this airplane. Its very aerobatic. In fact its a great airplane. I can tell you that two .061 's is two much power. The Big mig Norvel's in the .049 would be a terrific match. This plane would just tear out on a launch with the black widows.I was flying it on 42' lines eyelet to eyelet. I actually flew on .008 52' lines with plenty of line tension. The biggest problem was the black widow consistency. When the engines were on it was an awesome plane. A club member called John Brodak one day while we were flying it to comment on it. I lost the plane due to an engine out on the downside of a wingover. The plane needed about 3/8 oz of tail weight to balance with the black widows. I purchased another in hopes to build it very soon. Some of the changes I originally was going to provide was ply doublers in the front with 1/4 maple bearers to install the engines traditional profile style. The gear was bending on me quite frequently so I was going to modify it as well. In addition I was going to mount 1 oz metal tanks on the fuse halves. I have had great success with the Cox Sure Starts. I've done a bit of hopping up on them and seriously considered using these engines in place of my Norvels. One reason is, the mount Brodak provides allows a direct fit for the Sure Start backplate as well as the radial mounts. The shorter nose might just pull the balance point back enough so no tail weight is needed. In addition I wouldn't be using any ply up front. I would highly reccommend this plane to anyone that loves 1/2 a. For those interested in using the stock black widows, I would just make sure you use the best of the bunch. I had several instances were I just couldn't seem to get them both in synch. This caused 2 crashes which were more than I really wanted to repair. Ken Cook
I was looking around at the prices of the Brodak ship and was shocked to see how inexpensive it is right now. I am not affiliated with Brodak in any way but if things were better for me financially I would definitely buy one!!! One dealer has it priced under $25.00! initl
Robert