Author Topic: Brodak S. Hurricane/adj. lo position (Read 3132 times)

Steven Kientz · « **on:** December 21, 2010, 03:06:33 PM »

I'm getting ready to start my winter project, a brodak sea hurricane. I'd like to put brodak adj. leadouts on it. I assume you should center the ledouts on the location on the plan so you have fore and aft adjustment? Is there anything else that might need to be reinforced or changed on this kit? I plan on using a TT .36 for power.

Thanks
Steve

Wynn Robins · « **Reply #1 on:** December 21, 2010, 06:29:51 PM »

put the adjustable leadout guide as far forward as possible - this makes it easier for trimming later

the Brodak Warbirds are nice flying planes - if you want it to fly better - build the Zero - it is the best of the bunch

Leester · « **Reply #2 on:** December 21, 2010, 06:45:36 PM »

I have the Sea Hurricane and it flys great !! You'll love it. There's no need to change anything, I built mine by the instructions and with no adj. lead outs. There should be a page included that shows the adj. lead out installation. If you don't have it let us know I'll scan and post it for you. I have a Brodak 40 on mine but the TT 36 should do fine. Keep us posted on the build with pictures.

john e. holliday · « **Reply #3 on:** December 21, 2010, 08:02:16 PM »

I also have the Sea Hurricane by Brodak. Built per the book and the adjustable leadout page is in the back of the book. There is a referance to it where you start to build the wing tip. In my opinion, all the Brodak War Bird series are great flyers.

Bill Little · « **Reply #4 on:** December 22, 2010, 06:24:30 AM »

I guess everyone knows this, but when the late Mike Garmon was designing the first of the "Warbird Series", he used a Green Box Nobler wing cut down for them. Mike told me he left out R-1. His first one, the P-51B is still around and flies real well! It has a K&B .40 in it that is like the ones John Brodak sold for a while. John Tate, Mike, and Willis Swindell, the boy from Norfolk, did a lot of work on the K&B .40 for development of the ABC (non rnged version).

John Tate won an Advanced Class at Brodak's flying a white Sea Hurricane done in Russian markings a few years ago. Willis built a few different fighters that were not kitted based on that series if I am not mistaken. Maybe John, or Steve Fitton (he has Mike's original P-51B), will chime in with the facts.

Steven, like the others said, there should be a section in the plans booklet to show the installment of the adj. LO. I would copy it, but I never have had a plans booklet! LOL!! I built the prototype Zero using Mike's pencil drawings of the fuselage, stab/elev., and wingtips.

Big Bear

Jim Oliver · « **Reply #5 on:** December 22, 2010, 09:04:40 AM »

I have my Sea Hurricane in the assembly stage; it's gonna have normal Brit camo finish. B40 power, about 1.5 inches total dihedral in the wings.......

One of our guys flys the Zero with Saito .40; the plane flys fine, but he has a little trouble landing/nose overs. Couldn't be anything related to that big chunk of metal on the front, could it???

Jim

Steven Kientz · « **Reply #6 on:** December 22, 2010, 03:05:25 PM »

Thanks for all the advice, hadn't opened the kit yet. I bought it at the Nats in 2009. My TT 36 has an Evolution venturi and a Os Nva(i think).

Steve

Leester · « **Reply #7 on:** December 22, 2010, 09:54:20 PM »

Steve, you better hurry up and start building it. It'll be spring before you know it (wishfull thinking) and flying season.

john e. holliday · « **Reply #8 on:** December 23, 2010, 10:05:59 AM »

Quote from: Jim Oliver on December 22, 2010, 09:04:40 AM

One of our guys flys the Zero with Saito .40; the plane flys fine, but he has a little trouble landing/nose overs. Couldn't be anything related to that big chunk of metal on the front, could it???

Jim

Tell him to bend the landing gear forward a bit. If not enough prop clearance, may have to go to bigger wheels.

Bill Little · « **Reply #9 on:** December 23, 2010, 04:36:17 PM »

Quote from: john e. holliday on December 23, 2010, 10:05:59 AM

Tell him to bend the landing gear forward a bit. If not enough prop clearance, may have to go to bigger wheels.

WOW! A Saito .40 in the nose of a Brodak Zero? and the nose is the normal "kit length"? And there isn't 3 or 4 ounces of weight added to the tail? Will it do a loop with the top below 90*?

Merry Christmas!

Jim Oliver · « **Reply #10 on:** December 23, 2010, 08:58:31 PM »

Doc, he did bend the gear forward a "bit", helped some.....

Actually, it turns better than you would think. I would like to see it fly with an engine of "normal" weight---should be very good.

Steven Kientz · « **Reply #11 on:** December 24, 2010, 09:19:49 AM »

You wouldn't figure on lots of overtime in a auto parts whse @christmas time, but we have it. I have 3 days off at new years so that is the start date. Finish will be ultracoat and some rattle can paint, colors to be determined by the LHS and my paint shelf in the shop.
Should be a very busy spring, I bought my 1st R/c arf plane, still can't fly a full tank in c/l . Throw in the fact I'm learning to fly R/C mode 1, I'm definitely one of the outlaw at our club field. All but one of the old c/l guys in our club fly mode 1, i guess we are all of a different breed.

Steve

Steven Kientz · « **Reply #12 on:** January 24, 2011, 03:31:31 PM »

I'm going to change the gear from wing mounted to fuselage mounted. Reason being my landings(when and if they happen) are pretty rough. Not to mention our circle isn't all that smooth either. I'm going to put some hardwood in the fuse for LG straps. Should the wheels be as close to the Cg as possible?

thanks
Steve

Bill Little · « **Reply #13 on:** January 24, 2011, 10:34:11 PM »

Quote from: Steven Kientz on January 24, 2011, 03:31:31 PM

I'm going to change the gear from wing mounted to fuselage mounted. Reason being my landings(when and if they happen) are pretty rough. Not to mention our circle isn't all that smooth either. I'm going to put some hardwood in the fuse for LG straps. Should the wheels be as close to the Cg as possible?

thanks
Steve

HI Steve,

Extrpolate the location of the gear to a fuselage mounting point, keeping it somewhere close, but a slightly forward location will be better for rough fields. I don't remember the plans, but is the LG location shown on the fuselage side view? Generally, the gear will come out being mounted right near, or just behind, the LE on fuselage mounted gear profiles. If the location is too far forward (a problem on some OTS designs) then smooth landings, with out bouncing, are tough to do.

I don't believe it will be too critical for a "non contest' plane, just don't get them "behind" where they are located in the wing. That would be a "no go".

Big Bear

Steven Kientz · « **Reply #14 on:** January 25, 2011, 02:47:27 PM »

I believe I can get them close to the original location. Just didn't want to cut on the fuse without being sure of the location.
Thanks
Steve

john e. holliday · « **Reply #15 on:** January 26, 2011, 12:36:36 PM »

Was kind of told that 15 degrees forward rake for the wheels from the CG is the ideal position.

Dennis Saydak · « **Reply #16 on:** January 26, 2011, 02:28:46 PM »

One of our club members built one. It was a nice flyer and looked great in the air.

Bill Little · « **Reply #17 on:** January 26, 2011, 03:36:38 PM »

IIRC, John Tate from Norfolk won Advanced at Brodaks in the past year or two with a Brodak Sea Hurricane. And I don't mean in the "Profile Class", either. Anyway, I know John has successfully flown his at several local meets.

All the "modified Nobler wing" Brodak Warbirds that Mike Garmon drew up, and I have seen, fly very well. I felt honored to build the "Prototype" of the Zero for Mike, and it was an excellent flying model. The others are no real difference, just side views, wing tips, and such, changed. Built at a decent weight, with any good .35-.40 size engine, they will be more than "pattern adequate".

Big Bear

Steven Kientz · « **Reply #18 on:** January 26, 2011, 04:41:59 PM »

At what weight would this plane be considered heavy? If it comes out "heavy" would a 46 LA be a better engine than a TT36 or Evo 36? the reason I ask is the LG change and that I'm adding a shear web. I would like to finish it without using 'cote, but i don't think I'm up to the task of a dope finish. My shop is in the basement and i doubt my wife or I could put up with the fumes. Any suggestions?

Bill Little · « **Reply #19 on:** January 26, 2011, 04:53:56 PM »

Quote from: Steven Kientz on January 26, 2011, 04:41:59 PM

At what weight would this plane be considered heavy? If it comes out "heavy" would a 46 LA be a better engine than a TT36 or Evo 36? the reason I ask is the LG change and that I'm adding a shear web. I would like to finish it without using 'cote, but i don't think I'm up to the task of a dope finish. My shop is in the basement and i doubt my wife or I could put up with the fumes. Any suggestions?

Hi Steven,

Maybe 40 oz., and that should be really doable. Why the shear web (just curious?)? Never had a problem with the "Kit" set up, or know of one. And you are moving the gear out of the wing.....

The TT 36 or Evo 36 should be plenty. You will have to get to the "prop clearance" thing with the LA .46, and I ain't so sure a good prop and the stock set up would be compatible..

I think of at least an 11 1/2"-12" prop on the .46LA. Maybe others have used less and can comment.

Build it on up, monocote should work really good, Mike covered all his originals with $cote. And I remember at least one of his (P-51) was a touch "overweight", but still flew great and still does..

Big Bear

Steven Kientz · « **Reply #20 on:** January 27, 2011, 02:47:35 PM »

I've added a shear web to every plane I've built so far(Skyray35, Twister & my original Doink). I'm not an accomplished flyer, lucky to loop several times a season(sometimes its even on purpose), so typically my airframes take a beating. Not to mention goading R/Cers into flying after they tell me what they use to do or try to give me advice. It's all in fun, usually end up making someones day. There are several club members who actually fly pretty good,considering most haven't touched a handle in 20+ years.
Now if I can just get them to build/buy something of their own to fly!! Several want larger stuntships after spending a day at the NATS. I'm thinking that new EDGE 540 profile might be the ticket.

Thanks
Steve

Bill Little · « **Reply #21 on:** January 28, 2011, 11:14:46 AM »

Hi Steve,

The Edge Profile certainly looks like a good one! Looks like Dennis used a ST G.51 on the prototype build.

Big Bear

Steven Kientz · « **Reply #22 on:** January 28, 2011, 02:06:57 PM »

I bought a ST 51(itailan) at a swap meet several years ago. RC version looks NIB. May have finally found a home for it. Found out this afternoon there is no Ot this weekend, should be close to finishing the wing by sunday evening if nothing comes up.

Steve