stunthanger.com
Building Tips and technical articles. => Building techniques => Topic started by: John KruziK on December 25, 2010, 11:38:04 AM
-
Would an LA 46 be a good engine for this plane? Or is there a better choice.
-
Ty is right, go bigger. I've always thought a Saito .56 or .62 would be fun to put in one.
-
I have never seen one without anything smaller than a .51. It is a big wing and lots of drag. I'd use a .60. FWIW. D>K
Ty,
One of the biggest problems with that design is there is no room for a decent tank size for a 60. Some have cut into the wing to get more room but structurally it isn't the best thing to do. A 60 ignition could do the old time stuff on 3 oz or fuel and your hard pressed to get a 4 oz into it.
I always said that I'd put a 46 dieselized into it and let it rip. In other words fly it like it was designed to do, 90 mph and wide maneuvers.3.5 oz would be more then enough. An 12/7 would probably get you an interesting flight.
Dennis
-
I built this one using a Dixon style foam wing a few years ago. La-46 for power, 4 oz tank, 46 ounces, seems to fly just fine with the LA. The model likes to fly fast, so a 5 or 6 pitch wood prop seems to do well on it.
-
Wasn't Tommy's the one in a Pre-War Navy silver/yellow scheme with the Felix the cat logo too? Very cool rendition. I'd really like to see more pictures of that one. y1
-
Ty,
One of the biggest problems with that design is there is no room for a decent tank size for a 60. Some have cut into the wing to get more room but structurally it isn't the best thing to do. A 60 ignition could do the old time stuff on 3 oz or fuel and your hard pressed to get a 4 oz into it.
I always said that I'd put a 46 dieselized into it and let it rip. In other words fly it like it was designed to do, 90 mph and wide maneuvers.3.5 oz would be more then enough. An 12/7 would probably get you an interesting flight.
Dennis
Hi Dennis,
While I would agree that cutting into the leading edge won't work for some, it is done on a frequent basis. I know of some NATS Walker Trophy winners that do it. Charlie Reeves Big Job has no leading edge designed into it, the forward spar is the first thing that goes through the fuselage. The FM plans show this. And the "Bob Hunt" P-51 I am finishing up is identical. No problems if done right.
Big Bear
-
I would point out that the original Stunt Wagon had the same problem. No leading edge inside the fuselage. It needed the room for the tank. Wait until you see the new kit that will be coming out in the future. The tank space forms part of the reinforcment for the missing leading edge. Neat. H^^
-
I would point out that the original Stunt Wagon had the same problem. No leading edge inside the fuselage. It needed the room for the tank. Wait until you see the new kit that will be coming out in the future. The tank space forms part of the reinforcment for the missing leading edge. Neat. H^^
Hi John,
I had to cut the leading edge to end at the inside of the fuselage side when I built my SW. Going to have to do it again when I build the SW 30! LOL!!
The spar is "the major" load bearing component I have been told. It's not hard at all to box in the structure, as you know, between the spar and fuselage sides. ;D
-
Yep a very accurate rendition of Fighting 7 if I recall. All the colors and numbers were Navy accurate, something not seen too often. Drives me nuts. Every color had a reason, as radios sucked in those days, radar an experiment, so the mark one eyeball ruled. 18 planes to a squadron, 3 to a division, thus 6 colors were used to ID each division. The tail colors designated one of the then 7 carriers. Very simple really and this during the depression when the military got zilch appropriations, so nothing was used if not necessary. A tad of subject, but his plane is just so neat. y1 #^ H^^
I've got a book, "The Official Monogram U.S. Navy & Marine Corps Aircraft Color Guide" Vol 1 1911-1939, by John M. Elliott Maj. USMC (Ret). On page 117 it has a large color artists rendition of an 18 plane squadron of F4B-4's showing all the planes as they would have been individually marked. It is a very interesting diagram to study, and really helps the understanding of how the colors and markings worked during the period. As Tommy demonstrated with his 'Wagon, just copying any of these pre-war schemes onto one of our models can easily result in a great looking airplane. They are relatively easy to do as well. I've wanted to build a Stuntwagon ever since I saw a picture of Tommy's, it just looks so "right" with that scheme on it.
If anyone is interested in this type of stuff I would highly recommend an Ebay search or something for this book. This one book is a virtual encyclopedia of info and is packed with lots of excellent photos and explanations of all the different markings up through 1939. It's even got color chips inside the rear cover. I got lucky and discovered my copy at a club swap meet for like 3 or 5 bucks, one of the best "scores" I've ever ended up with.
Does anyone have photos of Tommy's plane they could put up here? Once the fuel tank space issue gets solved by our "Skunkworks" kit supporters, we might just be seeing a great new kit of the Stuntwagon at some point in the near future. My name is on the list. y1
-
Isn't the saito much heavier than on la 46? Or fox 59?
-
Yes, quite a bit heavier, but you just put it on, go fly, and have fun with it. Too many here put too much into some of this stuff. It's a Stuntwagon, you're not trying to qualify for the World's with it, at least I hope not. ;D
Rules number one, two, and three:
(1) BUILD
(2) FLY
(3) HAVE FUN! ;D
-
McCoy Redhead .60 and get out of my way!
Ward-O
BTW the original plan shows a long nose and a short nose version.
-
Another word of advice...
Add another inch or so to the top block where it attaches to the Fuselage sides on the nose! And glass it!
W.
-
McCoy Redhead .60 and get out of my way!
Ward-O
BTW the original plan shows a long nose and a short nose version.
HI Ward,
Funny you should mention that set up! The first "Big Plane" (bigger than 1/2A) I ever saw fly was a Stuntwagon on lines close to 100'! definitely flying in the 90mph+ range. ;D Loved it!
Bill
-
I would point out that the original Stunt Wagon had the same problem. No leading edge inside the fuselage. It needed the room for the tank. Wait until you see the new kit that will be coming out in the future. The tank space forms part of the reinforcment for the missing leading edge. Neat. H^^
Well actually the original did have the L.E. through the wing, but that was before anyone tried to install a tank... ~~>
Anyhow we have delt with that in our kit and hope we have solved a couple of the problems with the design.
Here's a preview of the top view. Prototype to be started very soon and building photos will be posted, so keep a watch
-
The Stuntwagon has proved to be a successful plane in OTS with various engines and construction methods. I'm not sure i have seen one with 1/4" fuselage sides in a LONG time, nor the 1/8th' ribs and sheeting in the wing.
Looking forward to seeing you kit, Walter! Who's building the prototype?
Thanks
Bill
-
The Stuntwagon has proved to be a successful plane in OTS with various engines and construction methods. I'm not sure i have seen one with 1/4" fuselage sides in a LONG time, nor the 1/8th' ribs and sheeting in the wing.
Looking forward to seeing you kit, Walter! Who's building the prototype?
Thanks
Bill
Because of the things we had to address on the Sw.
I need to have a handle on things, you know... "just incase",
so I will be doing the prototype.
-
I don't recall, what's the wingspan on this version?
-
I don't recall, what's the wingspan on this version?
It's either 58" or 60", I don't remember exactly. ;D
-
Just measured wingspan 57.5"
-
Taken from the original plans, the wing span is listed as 58". Area is 667 Sq. inches, though that may not be accurate with todays computer measurements. There were two nose lengths shown, a short one for engines over 13Oz's, and the longer one for 11-12 Oz's.
-
I've never seen a full size Stuntwagon in person, but I remembered them as being on the larger side. Will the new kit show and/or allow building either version for the nose length? I've been on the list for one since it was first announced and I've been thinking I'd use a nice Veco .60 I've had for years that needs a home. I've also thought about a Saito .56 too, dunno for sure yet. I'll probably have to get it all in front of me before I decide.
-
How about a Glow Devil .60 VD~
That's what my grandfather used in his.
-
Yep; If I remember right the original one flew with an Atwood Super Champion. They were pretty popular C/L engines back then.
-
Hi Jim.
You are absolutely correct. The "Smokestack" Atwood was the original powerplant and is every bit as loud as the Fox 59. I still have both and they are very similar in noise level!! Either will move the Stuntwagon with authority.
I know he is going to hate me for saying this but I really wish Charlie Reeves would do an article in Stunt News about the Fox 59 in both the front and rear intake version.
Don Boka.
-
Me to Don; Maybe Charlie doesn't want to give away his secrets. LL~ Actually, I have gotten quite a bit of info from the master Fox 59 guy. But I don't quite get the magnificent runs of the master. He sure knows how to make those long shafts run. Maybe if we talk nice, Charlie will do an article for us.
-
Does anyone have photos of Tommy's plane they could put up here? Once the fuel tank space issue gets solved by our "Skunkworks" kit supporters, we might just be seeing a great new kit of the Stuntwagon at some point in the near future. My name is on the list. y1
Here is a photo of Tommy's Stuntwagon taken at the 2001 KOI. It was superbly done, as are all of his planes.
The military color scheme I believe belongs to a original design that Tommy did recently.
Cheers.
Warren Wagner
-
Thanks Warren, but that's not the one I'm thinking of. The one I'm looking for was definitely a Stuntwagon and it was done in a 30's era military scheme with what appeared to be a silver fuse and yellow wings (black and white photo) with period insignias including "Felix the Cat" VF-6 squadron markings. I think the photo I saw was in a long lost issue of Stunt News. It was one of the coolest models I've ever seen. y1
-
By Jove, I guess you are correct. This is what Google found for me. Obviously, Tommy built more than one "StuntWagon".
Cheers.
Warren W
-
Thats really nice !!
-
By Jove, I guess you are correct. This is what Google found for me. Obviously, Tommy built more than one "StuntWagon".
Cheers.
Warren W
Thanks again Warren, that's the one. If anyone else has pics of this plane please share 'em here! ;D
-
By Jove, I guess you are correct. This is what Google found for me. Obviously, Tommy built more than one "StuntWagon".
Cheers.
Warren W
Actually, Warren, Sir Thomas of Luper has been known to refinish a plane every now and then, as well as build another one.......... ;D
Big bear