stunthanger.com
Building Tips and technical articles. => Building techniques => Topic started by: Tim Wescott on July 31, 2012, 08:40:12 PM
-
So, does the world need another build thread? Particularly one that's for a plain old Fancherized Twister, from a kit even?
I dunno. But I'll start this one, and if folks seem interested I'll keep it up.
Here's the bellcrank and mount. Bellcrank's made out of 1/8" phenolic, whacked out of the sheet with a coping saw then sanded around the edges to make it purdy. It's four inch, with the control holes spaced the same as on a Sig 3" -- I'm not sure yet which hole I'll use for the pushrod; I'm leaning toward the outer one, with a good long arm on the flap.
-
Tim ... keep up the thread. I have a selfish reason cause I have a Twister kit that I am fixing the Fancherize also.....thanks for doing this..
Mike
-
Ditto....keep posting. I don't care how many times I see a Fancher Twister made....they are just flat out cool! H^^
-
Tim, inboard hole,, probably should be about .75 inches from the pivot. I strongly encourage you to use "standard" dimensions on all the control stuff, trust me I have overthought this many times,, and hated that I did later. go ahead and keep the thread up,, its not that you are showing off, but it sure will give us backseat drivers a chance to kibitz,, and hopefully keep you headed the right way!!! LOL
besides that I enjoy pickign on you,, even though onlookers may think I am being
"mean" to you,,, you know we are having fun,, right?
-
Cap strips on the ribs and a molded leading edge. 1/4" flaps and a stretched built up stab/elev, 22 inch span by 3/8" thick. Wing mounted landing gear with spats. Duplicolor acrylic enamel paint and clear. Simple one piece rounded wing tips with plastic slider. Buried slant wedge fuel tank. And hurry up.
-
Tim, I think you should listen to Mark about the controls. I drill mine and 5/8 to 3/4.
Derek
-
I strongly encourage you to use "standard" dimensions on all the control stuff
Tim, I think you should listen to Mark about the controls. I drill mine and 5/8 to 3/4.
I almost started a thread to ask about this, actually. All my concrete references are kits and plans from decades ago, and lots of web pages of "this is how I build a control system", so I'm not sure what really counts as "standard" today. The Twister kit has you using a Sig 3" bellcrank and nylon elevator horns on the flap and elevator, which seems barely adequate to me -- that's what motivated the phenolic bellcrank.
-
besides that I enjoy pickign on you,, even though onlookers may think I am being
"mean" to you,,, you know we are having fun,, right?
Yes, and in that spirit I want to assure you that I'm not making one single change from the Fancherized Twister plans.
(I mean -- the bellcrank and the tricycle landing gear already count as two -- right?)
-
Yes, and in that spirit I want to assure you that I'm not making one single change from the Fancherized Twister plans.
(I mean -- the bellcrank and the tricycle landing gear already count as two -- right?)
wait what! tricycle gear,, no really,, sigh
and the true spirit of the FAn twister is the moments, not the style,, excepting the shortened rudder with is to keep it from popping off.
that said do yourself a favor, do not sheet the leading edge, do not use cap strips, add the half ribs, and monokote the wing. Perhaps using spruce spars would be ok, I did. The real advantage for YOU ( and me when I flew this) is that the wing structure will absorb a lot of abuse when ,, uh,, if you bounce it on the bottom of manuevers. It will flex, pop the monokote/ultracote between bays on the wing, and most times with some 2 inch packing tape to patch the covering, you can be flying again. If you build the wing more rigid , sheeting and cap strips, it will shatter.
-
With the exception of the suspended 4" bellcrank and the trike gear mount, the wing is getting built exactly per Dr. Fancher -- for exactly the reasons you cite.
The trike gear is because my normal practice field is about as smooth and even as the backs of a herd of buffalo. There's about 20 feet of grass where, if you grease a landing like you ought to on pavement, the plane doesn't nose over. Everywhere else you need to bend the gear forward and do a tail-down full stall "plop to finish" landing. Takeoffs are just as bad: try for smooth and you either dig the prop in or you bounce up then bump. I don't think that I can fix takeoffs with anything short of tilling up the field and rolling it flat (and, since it's a state park, I don't think I can get away with that). I am hoping that trike gear will allow me to practice my landings without having to drive 40 minutes each way to Delta Park (or Salem -- it's actually not that much farther).
And besides, everyone who uses trike gear raves about how good it works. Clearly, if it were for everyone then everyone would use it. But just as clearly, it's good for some, so I ought to try it.
-
And besides, everyone who uses trike gear raves about how good it works. Clearly, if it were for everyone then everyone would use it. But just as clearly, it's good for some, so I ought to try it.
Yes, and a goodly number of those ravers changed their minds and never went back to trike gear. Fact.
The only possible reason I can see for such gear is packaging. That's why Paul was using trike gear on several eelecktrick models.
At the very least build model so you can improve it by fitting conventional gear without tearing up the structure. If a rough field is a consideration build model to allow for fitment of both way-forward gear (as seen on a great many OTS models) and proper setting for smooth fields.
Dan
-
At the very least build model so you can improve it by fitting conventional gear without tearing up the structure. If a rough field is a consideration build model to allow for fitment of both way-forward gear (as seen on a great many OTS models) and proper setting for smooth fields.
The landing gear block is very close to the CG, with the legs tilted back, and I'm going to put in a mounting block for a tail wheel. Remove legs, swap sides, turn toe-out to toe-in, plug in the tail wheel -- voila.
-
Can someone tell me why, a plane like the Fancherized Twister which, as far as I can ascertain, has become almost a modern day Ringmaster has never been kitted. I can only assume legal issues because, the plane is a modification, (albeit significant) of an existing design and rights may be involved.
-
Can someone tell me why, a plane like the Fancherized Twister which, as far as I can ascertain, has become almost a modern day Ringmaster has never been kitted. I can only assume legal issues because, the plane is a modification, (albeit significant) of an existing design and rights may be involved.
I think someone does offer a laser cut kit.
Legally, if Sig wanted to go after you for selling a kit like that called a "Twister" they could -- but in theory you could rename it ("Fancher trainer", if Ted signed up to you using his name) and sell it at will.
Morally -- I dunno.
If Sig ever decides to make laser cut kits and cast their eyes toward the Twister, they could do a lot wronger than making a Fancherized version -- who could resist a Sig "Twister-II", "Ted Fancher version"?
-
Hi Tim: You obviously don't subscribe to CONTROL LINE WORLD ...because if you did you would have already read two installments (10 pages each!) of the three part F(ancherized)/A(llenized) TWISTER PROJECT. I'm happy to send you a copy of the two installments already published this year....gratis! Specialty plans are available through Leonard Neumann (of STUKA STUNT). BTW...a "kit" is available through Tom Morris ENT. and Walter Umland. I'll be happy to answer any quetion(s) you may have. Regards, Bill Allen (PAMPA member)
-
Hi Tim: You obviously don't subscribe to CONTROL LINE WORLD ...because if you did you would have already read two installments (10 pages each!) of the three part F(ancherized)/A(llenized) TWISTER PROJECT. I'm happy to send you a copy of the two installments already published this year....gratis! Specialty plans are available through Leonard Neumann (of STUKA STUNT). BTW...a "kit" is available through Tom Morris ENT. and Walter Umland. I'll be happy to answer any quetion(s) you may have. Regards, Bill Allen (PAMPA member)
I am the one who deserves the Homer Simpson award here. LL~ Tim was just trying to help me out.
I could save face here by saying, I was not aware of the kit, (I was aware of the articles) because, I don’t involve myself in lowly profiles and that, I was deeply engaged in a high level project to alter the face of stunt across the whole known world. In addition, my collaboration with the scientists at CalTech, simply left me no time to properly investigate the ship.
Suffice to say all of the above is not true, and that I am simply just a stupid a!@ who should have done his homework first.
-
Hi Tim: You obviously don't subscribe to CONTROL LINE WORLD ...because if you did you would have already read two installments (10 pages each!) of the three part F(ancherized)/A(llenized) TWISTER PROJECT
It's worse than that, Bill -- we've had this conversation already, and you were kind enough to send me some material on the thing already, and it completely slipped my mind!
(Although, I did sorta kinda remember that there was a laser cut kit out there; I just couldn't remember who made it).
-
The landing gear block is very close to the CG, with the legs tilted back, and I'm going to put in a mounting block for a tail wheel. Remove legs, swap sides, turn toe-out to toe-in, plug in the tail wheel -- voila.
While the following is a bit (just a little bit) tongue in cheek, this is precisely why Mark and I worry about you: Over-thinking everything!!
The majority of the time you fly from a rough grass field and are already planning for toe-in/toe-out adjustments to the wheels! My man, this can in fact be a consideration for prim and proper takeoffs and landings. But compared to the whole of building, powering, trimming and practicing the pattern, adjustments to toe are at the very bottom.
Along with being concerned that a control horn is two holes too long and ought be trimmed back to save weight. That chosen fuel tubing clashes with your trim scheme. Or the pin on your glow plug has some stain on one side.
Dan
-
That chosen fuel tubing clashes with your trim scheme.
Dan
Uh I seem to remember some rather vivid colored fuel tubing on a certain dirt plane in years back,, chartruese perhaps,, though I am pretty sure it had nothing to do with color coordination, and more to do with making people wonder why there were two needle valves, three tanks, and only one wheel,, or something like that,,
.
But yeah, Tim, build it straight, reasonably finished, shrink wrap the wings, and fly the dagnabit thing, its a simple fast build, keep it that way,, do NOT do like I did and put a really really nice finish on the fuse,, just fill and lightly sand, paint, and fly fly fly,,
-
http://www.builtrightflyright.com/New_Web_Pgs/kits/FancherizedTwister/FTwister.htm
I have one of these kits, as well as a Sig Twister kit.
-
The majority of the time you fly from a rough grass field and are already planning for toe-in/toe-out adjustments to the wheels! My man, this can in fact be a consideration for prim and proper takeoffs and landings. But compared to the whole of building, powering, trimming and practicing the pattern, adjustments to toe are at the very bottom.
They're also quick and easy, and can be deferred until one is actively flying off of pavement. Or done as a matter of course before or after each flying session, since the ground tends to tweak my LG nearly every time and if left alone leaves me with pidgin-toed airplanes.
-
Tim, I had aluminium gear legs on my twister,, with 2.25 inch wheels,, The only grass I could not get off of was football feild grass and that was because it was so lush and thick I could not get any ground speed,,
My gear legs were designed so that by swapping left for right ( and right for left,,no I did not end up with both legs on one side,, sheesh) the gear was in optimum location for asphalt and when swapped it moved them forward about 3/4" which made for decent grass performance.. I am not a fan of wire gear on a utility practice, grass, learning airplane,,
-
Tim, I had aluminium gear legs on my twister,, with 2.25 inch wheels,, The only grass I could not get off of was football feild grass and that was because it was so lush and thick I could not get any ground speed,,
My gear legs were designed so that by swapping left for right ( and right for left,,no I did not end up with both legs on one side,, sheesh) the gear was in optimum location for asphalt and when swapped it moved them forward about 3/4" which made for decent grass performance.. I am not a fan of wire gear on a utility practice, grass, learning airplane,,
Cool idea. It's too late for this Twister, but presuming that I find out that I'm in the 90% that prefers taildragger gear, it's one that I can implement on damn near anything going forward.
Well -- until I start flying planes with wheel pants. Putting them on pointy-end-first may not look too good.
-
Cool idea. It's too late for this Twister, but presuming that I find out that I'm in the 90% that prefers taildragger gear, it's one that I can implement on damn near anything going forward.
Well -- until I start flying planes with wheel pants. Putting them on pointy-end-first may not look too good.
dude, really,, your worried about pointy ended wheel pants,, this from the guy who styled his stunter after a Waix,,, sigh,,
at that point pretty sure you wont be worried about changing your gear around when you get to the point of pants,, ( on the wheels dude, on the wheels) then you make two sets,, one with pants for asphalt,, and one without for off roading
-
Bill Allen will soon have his third submission of his Fancherized Twister in Control Line World published. Check him out on this.
Allen Brickhaus
-
this from the guy who styled his stunter after a Waix,,, sigh,,
Now what's the matter with semi-scale stunt?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b0/Colomban_MC-15_%22Cri-Cri%22_-_AirExpo_Muret_2007_0122_2007-05-12.jpg/800px-Colomban_MC-15_%22Cri-Cri%22_-_AirExpo_Muret_2007_0122_2007-05-12.jpg)
-
While I truly hate to bring this up, were I building an entry-level Pukey Profile such as this and flew from a rough field it would be to the way-back machine for me: looking for proven ways to incorporate drop-off landing gear.
One sheet aluminum strut, one wheel, single socket for plug-in gear, just enough stiction to require a bump or inside loop to get rid of it. Might even fit it with provisions to lock it in place for the odd Asphalt Experience.
Dan
-
Now what's the matter with semi-scale stunt?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b0/Colomban_MC-15_%22Cri-Cri%22_-_AirExpo_Muret_2007_0122_2007-05-12.jpg/800px-Colomban_MC-15_%22Cri-Cri%22_-_AirExpo_Muret_2007_0122_2007-05-12.jpg)
and its even piped,, and a twin at that
-
and its even piped,, and a twin at that
And it has a "Trike" LG! how could you go wrong?
Joe
-
and lots of side area to help in the overheads too!! man this is looking better and better,, so Tim, is this the direction you are going with your twister kit,, it has the right wing planform!
-
and lots of side area to help in the overheads too!! man this is looking better and better,, so Tim, is this the direction you are going with your twister kit,, it has the right wing planform!
Hmm. Nah -- a T tail is too much work. Although, it would be a way to use the engines I have.
-
and its even piped,, and a twin at that
The problem with this plane, if you modeled it, you would be going into the stunt wars with a plane called the "Cri Cri".
-
Hmm. Nah -- a T tail is too much work. Although, it would be a way to use the engines I have.
This from the guy who completely rebuilt an ARF ART ( already to fly )donor Flite streak,, to much work,, LL~ LL~
oh yeah,, ok,, a T tail tomuch work
-
And hurry up.
OK, well, I'm failing at that. I seem to have lost August to a two-week business trip, recovering from the trip, trying to get caught up on all the work that didn't get done because of the trip, and getting distracted by a gift plane.
Got the control system done up today, though.
You'll note two tubing benders in there -- the first one put too small a radius on the tube, so it just wouldn't go in the bellcrank. The second opens things up a bit, and works better.
-
Tim, stick with the build thread, I'm finished with the S-1 and I'm taking a month off building to do more flying. But I have a twister sitting on my work bench with every intension of fancherizing it.
Jim Hayes
AMA 988835
-
I will be putter together a twister soon as well and will follow this thread closely.Cayou tell me about the benders were they came from are they single size specific,i have been looking not sure what to go with.
Thanks
Ron
-
I will be putter together a twister soon as well and will follow this thread closely.Cayou tell me about the benders were they came from are they single size specific,i have been looking not sure what to go with.
The benders came from my lathe. The big one bends about a 1/4" inner radius, and is fixed to the OD (3/32") of the tubing. These are tight bends, on purpose because the bent tubing needs to clear the wing ribs (which I had to cut out a bit for fit).
DuBro has a tubing bender, but I don't know specifics.
I'm not sure where to send you to look for benders. Take a look at MicroMark, Amazon Supply (they used to be Small Parts; I don't know what they're like now -- http://www.amazonsupply.com/), and eBay. I just looked at MicroMark and Amazon and didn't see anything -- now I'm not sure what to say to you.
-
Myself, I don't use benders to bend the tubing after it is on the cable. I run the torch until red hot and let it cool. Then cut to 1 or 1 1/4 inch lengths. Debur the ends and open the ends a little. Slide tubing over the cable to the position I want it, then put it thru the bellcrank hole and bend it after it is centered. Take needle nose or pliers and make it tear drop shape. On the leadouts or lines I wrap tubing around 1/8 inch drill bit or wire after inserting the cable. Then finish the way you want, wrap or swage.
-
OK, well, I'm failing at that. I seem to have lost August to a two-week business trip, recovering from the trip, trying to get caught up on all the work that didn't get done because of the trip, and getting distracted by a gift plane.
Got the control system done up today, though.
You'll note two tubing benders in there -- the first one put too small a radius on the tube, so it just wouldn't go in the bellcrank. The second opens things up a bit, and works better.
Dude! Nice line-term ends!
-
Man, I love CA glue. At least until I start having breathing problems as a consequence of too much fast building with Hot Stuff and plenty of baking soda, in my teens.
Anyway, used in moderation...
Here's the center section, all built (and four more ribs in after I took the picture!). I had the clever notion of gluing up the two center ribs plus the bellcrank carrier all as a unit before gluing it into the wing. Que the Dragnet theme (dumb da dumb dumb). I got things put together backwards three times, each one saved by recognizing what I'd done before the CA set completely and quickly ripping it apart again. The two ribs weren't quite straight when I was done -- I would have been better off gluing in the bellcrank carrier after the fact, or at least using SigBond on the carrier-to-rib joints, so I could continue to adjust until the ribs were glued into the wing.
Also, here's a picture of the wing jig thingie I'm using. The Fancherized Twister plans show a leading- and trailing-edge jig; I just ran with that concept and made something that catches both LE and TE at once. It seems to work, except that the TE is so floppy I'm propping it up straight as I add in ribs. I do prefer music wire wing jigs, I do I do -- I just couldn't figure out how to make one work with the kit ribs.
-
HI Tim,
I hope you passed your lead outs through the Adj. L.O. guide before you finished off the outer ends....... ?
BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM
-
HI Tim,
I hope you passed your lead outs through the Adj. L.O. guide before you finished off the outer ends....... ?
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!
One custom adjustable LO guide, coming up.
(@#$%)
-
IT'S A TWISTER! THE SIMPLEST FLAPPED PROFILE EVER DESIGNED!
-
Tim I guess I sound like a broken record but I hate CA glue. I didn't like what it did to my skin, my nose or my eyes. A couple of years ago, I spent a few days with Tom Morris to learn some things and one thing I learned from him is that he did not use CA glue at all. He uses Elmers white glue. I think there are a couple of places he might use epoxy but never CA. He even glues his wings in the fuselage with Elmers. After visiting him I started using Elmers and have never had a failure with it. It is cheap, non toxic and holds like you would not believe. I buy it by the gallon. Try it....you will like it.
Mike
-
Mike: Yes, I use SigBond a lot for that very reason. It's a bit better glue than white glue, and not all that more expensive.
But repetitive tasks like putting in wing ribs sure goes faster when your clamp is just your hand and a ten-count.
Dennis: I appear to be fixing that.
-
If I remember right the Twister had a aconstant chord wing lay out. Very easy to drill/bore for rod jigs.
-
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!
One custom adjustable LO guide, coming up.
(@#$%)
HI Tim,
It might be possible to simply unwrap the ends. That could save a headache.
BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM
-
John:
I wanted to see how things would come out with this jigging method. The answer: not as well as I'd like. In fact, I just whacked up a 1" square finishing board to prop up the trailing edge evenly, because it was all wiggly before. Fortunately, it seems to not be very rigid, so I think the trailing edge structure will hold it all nicely once it's done.
Bill:
Thanks for that observation. I have 100% faith that I would have thought of that -- after I'd done all the work on some weird split adjustable LO guide and failed to get it aligned in final assembly once or twice. In theory it should be easy to get things re-done, since the LO wire will be kinked and curved in all the right places, and will just need to be re-wrapped. I think you just saved me a hunk of time and trouble.
-
Hi Tim,
I have done that once before. I was updating an older model and adding an Adj. guide.
SO far I have been lucky on assembly of new models.
BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM
-
I just got the trailing edge finished, and the top spars put in. Soon I'll get the left wingtip finished, then I'll have nothing to save me from undoing those nicely finished ends so I can put the adjustable leadout together.
-
Something's wrong with this landing gear. Maybe I needed to go fuse mount after all?
-
Ahh. That's better.
I lost my old bender. Dangit. So I made a new one. This one is better because I made the other one without the flat, and it'd rotate around in the vice. A really cool one would be hexagonal -- but I don't have any hexagonal stock in my stash, and I ain't gonna make any!
-
I don't see any plywood half-ribs there, Tim. The gear block should stay in for the first takeoff, tho. D>K Steve
-
like Steve aid - you need to add a bit of structure to take the landing load. Ply 1/2 ribs on each end of the gear block, and some 1/16th vertical grain shear webs front and back to box the area directly below the gear legs will give it much more resistance to bending / rotational loading when you come in a bit hot and the grass is dragging hard on the wheels / gear.
-
I was worried about exactly that. I'll see if I can find any published articles that detail structure, and see what I can sneak in.
-
Just a box made of sheet balsa that tie the gear blocks to both upper and lower spars, and ply 1/2 ribs to strengthen the ribs where the blocks are anchored.
-
Well, thanks to you I'm adding a whole 1/3 ounce of wood to this airplane. Probably 1/2 ounce all up. You're looking at a pair of plywood half ribs, extended to catch the whole LG block right where it's stressed most heavily, and a pair of plywood shear webs that tie together the block, the new half ribs, and the receiver blocks for the LG wires.
I tested the structure, and I think I could have gotten away without it -- I can bend the LG wires up into the wing hard enough that if there were wheels on it they'd be poking into the covering, and I can bend them back and forth hard enough to tweak the wires, all without hearing a whimper from the wood. But now I think I could do a maximum-velocity pancake into the tarmac and have the LG retain its integrity, even if the rest of the plane will be in flinders.
-
Tim...You're putting in more than two of those half-ribs, right? Two per side is marginal, three per side is a good thing for a rough field, esp. with mole holes. H^^ Steve
-
and fuse mounted gear is even better yet,, the twister wing is a marvel of resilience,, it can take a lot of abuse and be easily repaired,, but poking gear legs through the center section sheeting is one of those fatal things for the wing,, IMHO,,
-
and fuse mounted gear is even better yet,, the twister wing is a marvel of resilience,, it can take a lot of abuse and be easily repaired,, but poking gear legs through the center section sheeting is one of those fatal things for the wing,, IMHO,,
I've been seduced by the notion of trike gear, and by the fact that I've only suffered from one pilot-induced crash this entire year, and only four overall (all, by the way, over the asphalt at Delta Park -- that place is cursed).
If the wing does sustain damage from the gear, it's most likely going to be the wheels poking through the covering and perhaps breaking the lower spars in a pancake landing. I'm pretty sure that the center section/gear assembly is now stout enough that anything that takes it out would have taken out most of the plane anyway.
I could do fuselage-mounted trike gear, but it'd have to reach way back from the front of the wing to the correct wheel location.
-
Weight box. Simple, easy to build, not too bad looking, you don't have to turn the plane over to add or subtract weight, etc.
It's sized to hold about 1.3 oz of standard steel 1/4" washers -- so there's no fumbling around looking for nice heavy-metal weights, either.
-
Simple cure for gear puncturing the wing, is to leave it off. LL~ LL~ Besides look how more ground clearance you have then.
-
Wing tips help.
-
Wing tips help.
I'm not sure if you're pulling my leg or not -- the Twister calls out 1/8" lite-ply plates, so in using 3/16" balsa I'm doing both a weight and aesthetic upgrade.
-
I'm not sure if you're pulling my leg or not -- the Twister calls out 1/8" lite-ply plates, so in using 3/16" balsa I'm doing both a weight and aesthetic upgrade.
Thicker plates at the wing tip can help to make your covering job easier. Gives you more surface area for the covering to lay down on. Something like 1/2 plates can make your life a little easier.
Obviously, this is not critical-just FYI. :)
-
I used 1" tips on both of mine, made covering easier yet.
Walter
-
In Philly we've built many a Twister, modified and straight up. The feeling is that wingtips, instead of the flat butt cutoffs, assist flight characteristics. Easy enough to do.
-
IIRC, the original Fancherized Twister utilized much thicker wingtips...maybe 1/2"--but were still flat with rounded corners "consistent with" the original. I believe there was a picture in the Model Aviation Columns of the wingtip undergoing covering with monokote. The edges of the wingtip block had been modestly rounded--maybe a 1/16" or so radius all the way round. Then the flat "tip" was covered with one small piece of monokote ironed "around" the corners and then trimmed with a razor blade with just 1/8" or so on the flat "airfoil" edge. This allowed the main covering to be applied to the "airfoil" edge of the tip with just a tiny overlap with the previously applied "tip" covering. The main surface covering was then trimmed neatly "even with" the very end of the wing. That left maybe 1/8" or so of overlap with that tip radiused piece. A hot iron gradually moved around the radiused tip left a nearly undetectable joint between the two but was permanently adhered.
This was a much easier and more elegant solution to attempting to cover the end of the tips with the same piece used for the top or bottom of the panel. I can't even imagine trying to do it that way!
Ted
p.s. I just verified that there are pictures of the process in the second of the three columns dedicated to the "FT". It was in the August, September and October 1987 ('87!!!!) issues of Model Aviation and should be viewable on the AMA website.
-
Next time I'll use the thicker material. At this point in the assembly I'd have to rip up a bunch of stuff and redo; I think I'd rather have a bit of hassle in the covering.
I'm planning on finishing the fuselage using the Polycrylic/Rustoleum system, and doing the wing tips at the same time. That should take care of most of the curved portion, and I'm pretty sure I can get Monocoat to go over the rest. Time will tell.
-
Tim,
Twister is looking good, I'll be starting on mine next month, looks like fun, I'm about 2/3rds of the way through my Voodoo build, I'm having a riot with this build, just building it for fun, not worrying about being to fancy, just a decent fun flyer. Can't wait to start on my Fanched Twister.
Jim Hayes
AMA 988835
-
One wing, out of the way. On to the stab.
-
I love watching a plane get over engineered.
-
I love watching a plane get over engineered.
How fortuitous. I love over-engineering airplanes.
-
Stab. Yes, I should just whack it out of 3/16". No, I ain't gonna. This is probably going to weigh about the same, but it should be loads more rigid in torsion.
-
Stab. Yes, I should just whack it out of 3/16". No, I ain't gonna. This is probably going to weigh about the same, but it should be loads more rigid in torsion.
Unless you cover it with plywood, I don't think so. The diagonal "ribs" only help in the fore/aft direction, not up/down or torsion.
Brett
-
Unless you cover it with plywood, I don't think so. The diagonal "ribs" only help in the fore/aft direction, not up/down or torsion.
I mostly agree with you on the ribs not helping in the up/down direction -- that strength depends mostly on the spars. If the ribs were chordwise they wouldn't contribute at all -- but if you bow the stab downward at the tip, all the fibers in the tops of the ribs will be in tension, and all the fibers in the bottoms of the ribs will be in compression. I don't think they contribute to any significant degree, however. But, ignoring the ribs, the stiffness (not breaking strength) of a beam goes as thickness cubed, and the surface is twice as thick (3/8 vs. 3/16). So if you ignore the leading edge, the trailing edge alone is eight times as stiff per unit of chordwise depth, which means that they're as stiff up and down as a slab of 3/16" material with a 3" chord.
Ignoring the material that's going to get beveled off for hinging. And unless I flubbed my math.
As far as the ribs helping in torsion -- they do. Honest. After trying to think my way through your comment without writing anything down I'm a lot less sure just how much they participate, or if my "more stiffer" comment holds, but if you fix the center of the stab and twist a tip, the fibers in the tops and bottoms of the ribs will be put in tension or compression; this will resist torsion on the stabilizer. My gut feel is that it'll contribute at least as much torsional stiffness as the spar(s), but I couldn't prove that without doing a bunch of math, and if you took into account the fact that wood is an anisotropic material that's stiffer along the grain than it is across it, the ribs are going to look a lot better if you take that anisotropy into account than if you don't -- and I'm not that much of a structures guy.
-
Tim, how thick is the stabalizer of the "KISS!"? I know the ribs are diagonal, and since the covering has been baggy and loose for a few years now, you should be able to get a read on the torsional stiffness of it and use that as a reference. y1 Steve
-
Tim, how thick is the stabalizer of the "KISS!"? I know the ribs are diagonal, and since the covering has been baggy and loose for a few years now, you should be able to get a read on the torsional stiffness of it and use that as a reference. y1 Steve
It's about 1/4" thick, and checking is a good idea.
-
The 21" span stabilizer is just as stiff in torsion as the 18" span stabilizer that came with the kit. And the kit stabilizer pencils out to being made of 22 pound wood (no kidding -- the thing weighs 1.8oz). So my stab is bigger, nearly half as heavy, and just about as stiff (although more likely to shatter in a bad crash).
Here's the elevators, all framed up waiting for the glue to dry so that I can sand them to shape.
-
You are going to video this machines first flight, aren't you?
-
I have no intention to. But I promise wreckage pictures if I crash it.
-
Make the nose an inch longer than the Blue Meanie! H^^ Steve
-
Make the nose an inch longer than the Blue Meanie! H^^ Steve
I was planning on building the fuselage hollow, for lightness. Mike said something about plywood doublers on the fuse all the way back to the tail, which makes me think that maybe I'll get away with it.
But...
I hate the "will it balance" stage of fuselage construction.
-
Tim, I'm not sure if the aft end is hollow or not, and also not sure if it's 1/64" or 1/32" plywood. Ask Mike! When you build the 'hollow' fuselage, do NOT use any sort of white glue or other water based glue, 'cause it'll warp. CA or epoxy is good. FWIW, I built a CG Buster for NW Sport Race with 1/64" ply on the sides of the kit 1/2" balsa...like an oak plank in stiffness. Maybe overkill for a stunt model? The tail surfaces didn't vibrate at all, even with the Fox .35 wound up tight on a 9-6. :X Steve
-
Tail feathers more done. Still need to bevel & hinge.
-
Tail feathers put aside, even if I don't have them hinged yet.
Steve, when you recommend not using water based glue on a hollow fuselage, I assume that was from grim experience. How did you clamp the fuse up? On a board with plenty of weights, "in the air" or what? My two experiences with this have been positive -- but then, I do this by gluing it all up, then stacking every available heavy thing I have on top and leaving it alone for a day or two.
Fuselage sorta-started. At least the plans are slapped down. Aesthetic changes have been made in honor of Bob Hunt's 1976 Nationals win (and it makes the build easier, too). I'll be using a 1/2" framework with 3/32" sides -- that pencils out to being just as stiff as a solid 1/2" fuselage, although more susceptible to breakage.
-
Tim, suggest some triangular gussets inside the tail area where the top and aft come together,, its a weak spot,, and the picture makes it look really short,, LOL,, I know its just angular distortion,, looking good man,, are you going to make Salem?
-
Yes, I'm going to make Salem.
I'm not sure if it's clear from the foreshortened and sideways plan, but the last three or four inches of the fuselage -- following the plan of the Genesis -- are behind the elevator hinge line. So I was kind of thinking of them as "fin", and scheming on ways of taking structure out, perhaps by shortening the actual fuselage laminate and replacing the back end with sheet.
Lots of structure around the stab mount has to be a good idea, though.
-
Hmm. My nifty supposedly-light hollow fuselage is going to come out heavier than Sig's. Dangit. Sooner or later I'm going to run out of all my rock-hard balsa; maybe I'll start building lighter then.
I will not make tapered hollow profile fuselages, I will not make tapered hollow profile fuselages, I will not make tapered hollow profile fuselages, I will not make tapered hollow profile fuselages, (repeat 500 times).
Steve, I hope that this isn't how you made up your fuselages that warped -- 'cause I didn't think I could get that all placed and weighted down before my 30 minute epoxy started kicking off, so I used Sig-Bond. I'm planning on leaving it in the press for at least 24 hours, maybe 48. We'll see.
-
Remember, Tim, that fuselage design will really emphasize square maneuvers. The hard straight lines really show "flat" areas of the pattern. The rounds may not present as well as another shape, but the experts can overcome it. Just make sure you work on those squares! ;D
BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM
-
If you had used a Ford starter you could have straightened the fuse with a hammer.
Later
Richard
-
Richard:
I don't have a Ford Adjuster -- my hammers top out at two or three pounds. But then, three out of four of the derelict vehicles on my property are GM, while only one out of three of the working ones are GM.
Bill:
I know -- Dick Mathis discusses fuselage shape and it's effect on judges perceptions in his book "How to Fly U-Control". He sings the praises of a soft, swoopy fuselage shape to make mistakes on the straight lines less obtrusive. To further his point, he has a very Mathis-ish drawing of a Chizzler on the same page.
So I built exactly the wrong thing for my skill level. But that shape's been riding me for the last 25 years (since the August 1977 Flying Models, as a matter of fact), and I'm going to get it out of my system!
If I really wanted a fuselage shape to cover all of the flying sins at my skill level, it would have to look like this, but I ain't gonna build it:
-
Richard:
I don't have a Ford Adjuster -- my hammers top out at two or three pounds. But then, three out of four of the derelict vehicles on my property are GM, while only one out of three of the working ones are GM.
Bill:
I know -- Dick Mathis discusses fuselage shape and it's effect on judges perceptions in his book "How to Fly U-Control". He sings the praises of a soft, swoopy fuselage shape to make mistakes on the straight lines less obtrusive. To further his point, he has a very Mathis-ish drawing of a Chizzler on the same page.
So I built exactly the wrong thing for my skill level. But that shape's been riding me for the last 25 years (since the August 1977 Flying Models, as a matter of fact), and I'm going to get it out of my system!
If I really wanted a fuselage shape to cover all of the flying sins at my skill level, it would have to look like this, but I ain't gonna build it:
I resemble that Tim
-
I'm out of harf-inch balsa! Egad!
I'm laminating the left side nose cheek (ply & two sheets of 1/4") separately. Then tomorrow when it's all set up I'll carve & sand it to a nice looong taper so it meets the fuselage smoothly, as Mike Haverly taught me (by the simple expedient of building the Kiss some time ago).
I like house jacks. Not only can you jack up houses with them, but they make half of a nice clamp (with the Earth being the other half).
-
Been there and done that. Also with bricks, cement blocks and stacks of encyclopedias.
-
Yup. I was wishing for some cast-iron "bricks". Maybe I should make some cement weights with handles for this kinda stuff.
-
Or I could send you some of my broken fuselage parts. Not only would they be heavy enough, but fairly pretty as well!
Joe
-
In order: Some spacers to go through all the layers on non-maple between the motor and the mount, the nose mocked up ready for gluing and, the airplane mocked up for the Very First Time.
-
Progress has been made. Noses have been shaped. Spinners have been fit to. Nose gear has been bent. Subjunctive case has been used.
Unfortunately, the wire that I thought was just barely long enough for the nose gear is just barely too short -- and I'm just about out of 1/8" music wire. Ah well, off to Le Shop du Hobby to fling my hard-earned cash at someone.
-
If this flies like utter crap I'm really not going to be happy with myself.
-
I like the south end of the fuselage. You can just shove it in the ground to have the airplane stand up for engine work. VD~
-
If I need tail weight I'll replace the tip of the fin with tool steel!
-
There. Nothing makes a project magazine-ready like suspension parts that are hand milled from solid billet aluminum.
If anyone needs me, I'll be sitting right here by the phone, waiting for the editor of Street Rodder to call.
-
Tim......?.more flying less machining
-
It was dark outside, Mark.
And all my planes have at least one hand-machined part hiding someplace. It's a requirement.
And besides: I couldn't figure out how to make it from wood.
-
The tail weight box. There's not a whole lot of room -- but hopefully I won't need much weight in there.
And, if the KISS is any indication, it'll be empty and I'll be putting lead in the nose.
-
Mark, it's going to be a long Winter for us. This thing should have been finished 3 weeks ago, as of last Saturday. With a trike gear, it almost requires twin fins or a V-tail...watch for it. :'( Steve
-
What, you don't think the fuselage profile is enough? Jeeze.
I'm thinking of doing a semi-scale stunt Beech Bonanza next, though.
-
Interesting fuselage shape. Will it get a rudder?
-
More like a dorsal fin. That's next.
If you can dig up any pictures of Bob Hunt's 1976 Genesis -- that's where the profile comes from.
-
Looking good Tim. Looks like you've done a good job recreating the Genesis profile shape. Below is a view of the original.
-
I'm following the construction article in the August 1977 Flying Models, while retaining the wing and tail of the Fancherized Twister plans, and trying to make sure that the overall effect of fin and fuselage add up to roughly the same as that of the Fancherized Twister.
-
Fuse done. Time to hinge surfaces, then start painting.
-
Definitely overwrought.
I haven't had much working time lately, but I just got the flap blanks done. I'm gluing in 1/8" brass tubing to receive the horn, with 1/32" plywood patches top and bottom to help prevent break-out. Now for a bit of epoxy on this, then I'll be ready to hinge the flaps.
I may even get this done before spring. If I'm lucky.
-
I've been busy-busy with real work, haven't had much time for modeling.
I have gotten the surfaces hinged (not shown), and the flap & elevator horns made.
I'm going with ball links all around, with fixed geometry at the flap horn and a slot in the elevator horn -- either to make sure I have fine enough adjustment, or an opportunity for my airplane's trim to go all to hell at contests, I'm not sure which.
-
Tim,
Looks a little weird having the input to the wires not centered. But then maybe differential flaps and elevators are part of the plan.
Dan
-
Hmmm... Expected at least some sort of response, even if not directly from Tim. Especially as there has been no Sekrit Trap laid for the unsuspecting.
Clearly it is time to invoke WWBWD (What Would Bob Whitely Do).
"Tim, you cretin, you low-life, you pathetic poser, you pitiful acocolyte of Ted's, why can't you simply build models to my standards, some of the highest standards on this planet?! Those control horns absolutely suck!! Were I in your shop at this very moment my boots would be stomping these horrible bits into oblivion! And yet you are so stinkin' proud of them not only were pictures taken, said pictures were introduced to the Internet! And don't even think about powering your next OT or Classic model with an electric git-up as that will result in my next missive to you using harsh language!"
(For those lacking in the appreciation of humor, please stand by while we adjust your set.)
Dan
-
Hey, Dan, you're criticizing a lot of folks' design choices here, not just mine. I'm going by the rule that "if it's on the KISS then its OK on Sister Jenny" -- and the KISS has horns that are offset on the wires, and the wires appear to be 3/32", just like mine (I could be wrong on the diameter, but not the offsetedness).
(And the KISS is, by far, the nicest plane that I've ever flown. This probably says more about how many different planes I've flown than anything else, but I think my score jumped by at least 10 points just flying the KISS for the second and third times at the August contest in Auburn).
And it's not that I'm necessarily proud of what I'm doing, just that I'm trying to document more or less everything per the responses to my very first post in this thread, which was "should I bother posting another build thread?".
So instead of undirected negativity, could we have pictures of what you do and an explanation of why it's better? The only thing that I can think of is that you center the horn on wire link, then offset the wire in the surfaces so that the horn isn't smacking into the fuselage.
-
Tim, I see no similarity between the "KISS!" :-* horns and these pictured, except for the 3/32" wire size! It has two levers on the flap horn (cleaner install on a profile), and one on the elevator. Steel is heavy; avoid it if possible. Longer levers (1.5") would be my choice, and I think I'd opt for close hole spacing at the elev. horn instead of the slot.
The "KISS!" is somewhat handicapped by a 3" BC, but mostly by excess pork in the hindquarters. y1 Steve
-
Tim, not to criticize, but... if you had looked a little more closely at said "KISS" you would have noticed bushings to support the horns, of course they are probably buried in the fuselage. Without the bushings you put all of the load on the hinges. Not too late, but you will need to use split bushings to get past the bends. Just don't skip it.
-
Tim, not to criticize, but... if you had looked a little more closely at said "KISS" you would have noticed bushings to support the horns, of course they are probably buried in the fuselage. Without the bushings you put all of the load on the hinges. Not too late, but you will need to use split bushings to get past the bends. Just don't skip it.
Oops. I knew that. Really I did.
-
Clearly humor didn't work as predicted, even though it is thought my caricature of Mr. Whitely was pretty funny and pretty good.
As Tim has chosen to be on the defensive and I helped in putting him there we will ignore his comments.
Less one: I do not regard it as criticizing anyone's design choices, especially when merely pushing around the margins, when striving for a better solution to a problem. However, should that be the case here the situation is easily resolved by pointing out that Derek Moran and I are horribly offended (insert satirical icon of choice here) by your criticism, shown by a refusal to even consider it as viable when it comes to a small piece of hardware used in our control systems.
While we are here I wish to point out there is a reason the tag "Pukey Profiles" met with quick acceptance. In general, the things really are trashy. More than one design flaw even though the flat-plate fuselage represents the biggest challenge. But a quick-and-dirty approach also hurts a great many PPs. As in, "It's just a profile; this piece of crap (choose a component, any component) is good enough."
This is totally understandable but the fact is that if one is intent on building a really decent model for CL Stunt all of the details are at least as important as in something like an Impact. And in some cases, fuselage design and fabrication for example, they are more important.
Nearly anyone can assemble a passable and adequate Impact fuselage. Only a few can achieve the same, or even similar, results with a Pukey Profile fuselage.
Dan
-
Just reviewed thread from beginning to end although my attention was focused on built-up structure(s).
For Tim and many others I used to have some faith in built-up horizontal stabilizers, elevators, and fuselages, mainly as I enjoy building with a nod to FF models.
No more! These parts simply are not, cannot be, stiff enough for our application. And built-up pieces aren't even enough lighter to be worth the trade-off. Brett gave it a good shot when discussing the stabilizer pictured upstream a bit and possibly his response needs review.
For the fuselage it's a similar deal, although in my case it was Derek who demonstrated the folly of my ways in years ago fabricating built-up fuselages with strips and bits of balsa for an outline and zig-zags of more balsa strips arranged in a manner which would indicate light-and-stiff.
But it doesn't. In between all those neato pieces the unsupported sheeting used to bring the fuselage together flexes whenever given the chance and does so to a remarkable degree.
If unsupported sheeting is the primary problem one merely needs to give it some support. Plain ol' white foam as used in cutting wing cores helps some. Same white foam in a higher density would no doubt work better. But they both are a little shifty in actual use, primarily due to narrow width of fuselage.
Best profile fuselage I have ever built used SpyderFoam as the core. This stuff has a grain to it like wood and so it can be cut to orient the grain from one fuselage side to the other. It's easy to work with, as light as most white foams.
There aren't many tricks to a foam-core fuselage although Derek suggested that gaps between balsa structure and foam be limited to thickness of the sheeting to be used. Turns out this is a factor in stiffness, making those huge gaps in a built-up-and-skinned fuselage all the more daunting.
Finally, I used balsa inserts positioned so that when wing and stab cutouts were made there was left a strip of balsa about 3/8" wide around both wing and stabilizer. This on a 500-inch version of the Wimpact series which also uses a conventional foam wing. And a foam-cored stab, sheeted with 1/32" 10- to 12-pound balsa.
Dan
-
Dan:
I really would like your views on just how much I'm giving up by not having the horns centered in the (insert noun here -- cross-bar? tie rod? thingy?). I get the fact that you feel that there'll be a difference in stiffness from the bellcrank to each flap -- but, how much difference do you see in practice? And if I do go to fix that, are you suggesting a monstrously wide tie bar that goes into the flaps (and elevator) off center?
-
How did we ever get a plane to fly with the old Veco horns, that is a profile type plane? With the speed the profile stunters fly at, I think the standard horn with the arm moved over to clear the fuselage is adequate. Just have to drill the horn arm holes in a different place. And with the cloth hinges it didn't matter where the arm was. This is just for all round stunt/sport flying. Not the high zoot stunter some people have.
-
Tim, not to criticize, but... if you had looked a little more closely at said "KISS" you would have noticed bushings to support the horns
A rescue, a rescue!
I learned this technique from the ARRL Handbook, as a way of making heat sinks for transistors, and only thought of applying it to elevator/flap horns last night. So I dunno how much it's used for CLPA. But I just tried it here, and it seems to make a dandy bushing for a horn. Not only can I put it on after the fact (whew!), but I get a tab of whatever dimensions I want to stick into a hinge slot for even more strength.
The order of operations is to cut out a blank, wrap it around the horn into a 'U', then (here's the trick, as far as I can tell) clamp it in a vise with sharp-edged jaws, just above the centerline of the wire. This will make the vise tend to pull the sheet down around the wire as it closes the bushing. Then hold the bushing down while tightening the vise. When you're done, you should have a nice bushing.
I'm not sure about using tin can for the bushing material -- but all my brass stock is either really thin or really thick, so I had to either improvise or go visit the LHS.
Hey! I'm actually making progress again! I probably won't get it done in time for the new year's flying at Delta Park, but I might have it done by the Tune Up.
-
I have tried that after the flaps/elevators were hinged. Could not get it to work. I just put a peice of plywood or use Kevlar thread to hold the horns in place.
-
The order of operations is to cut out a blank, wrap it around the horn into a 'U', then (here's the trick, as far as I can tell) clamp it in a vise with sharp-edged jaws, just above the centerline of the wire. This will make the vise tend to pull the sheet down around the wire as it closes the bushing. Then hold the bushing down while tightening the vise. When you're done, you should have a nice bushing.
That's basically how many of us fabricate such a part. The difference is that we are forming a clip which in turn holds a brass bushing in place. What you are doing might work even though I wouldn't tolerate such a lash-up even in a Pukey Profile.
Dan
-
Dan:
I really would like your views on just how much I'm giving up by not having the horns centered in the (insert noun here -- cross-bar? tie rod? thingy?). I get the fact that you feel that there'll be a difference in stiffness from the bellcrank to each flap -- but, how much difference do you see in practice? And if I do go to fix that, are you suggesting a monstrously wide tie bar that goes into the flaps (and elevator) off center?
The span of 3/32" wire joiner on W500 is about 2 1/4 inches as is span of joiner on elevator. Narrower parts would probably have been preferred but with them being fabricated by Derek in the Santa Barbara area, me in the NW, we both allowed for some leeway with these parts. If these pieces were viewed as "monstrous" they would not have been used.
Also of note is that flap and elevator horns bushed both left and right of upright. Right bushings centered in fuselage, left units hanging out in the breeze.
As to your central question: I do not know how much difference left and right is seen in practice. But that's the whole point: Not seeing any difference at all, no possibility of same in a rather critical part of control system.
Instead, let's look at what nearly all of us do know.
We know forces on CL Stunt control systems quite a lot higher than would seem to be the case (thanks again, Ted, for pointing this out so many years ago!) from merely looking at a fairly lightly-loaded, relatively small, certainly slow-flying model aircraft.
If this were not the case all of us would happily be fitting Du-Bro Kwik-links to our linkage when this is known to be the Kiss of Death for any CL Stunt model. Note that larger, heavier, faster RC ARFs get away with even cheesy D-B knock-offs with acceptable reliability.
We know that based upon what works in an RC Pattern model our use of 1/8-inch joiners for flap horns seems silly. I envision an accomplished Pattern flier (not you-know-who, maybe someone like Chip Hyde) being taken on a tour of an Impact, something I have actually done. Universal reaction to such hardware is one of disbelief.
We know that "tweaking" flap horns to get our wings level to the lines is a simple matter of using nothing more than finger pressure to net rather big changes, meaning mild pressure gets the job done. I think this is what one could call a clue...
We know that joiner material from coat hanger wire won't work. Not stiff enough.
We know that if we mock-up a flap horn installation that is fitted with two vertical pieces, one centered and one off to the left end, force applied to the centered vertical will certainly result in equal forces (or very nearly so remembering joiner has been heated during assembly) applied to each end of joiner. In our case that portion of the joiner which drives the flaps. Can't say the same thing when applying force to vertical on the left; there simply must be a difference from one end to the other of what is essentially a torsion bar.
Ah, but how much? We don't care to know, nor ought there to be much value in knowing, because...
We do know that with the vertical centered on flap and elevator joiners the best shot at equal flap/elevator movement has been incorporated into the linkage.
And so when out at the field, trying to bitch-slap the thing into trim, seeing a wee bit of roll in maneuvers, the last thing which potentially needs addressing--and is also one of the most difficult to fix--is differential drive to movable control surfaces.
So proceed as you see best, but with existing horns in need of proper bushings anyway the choice is fairly obvious from here.
Dan
-
Thanks for the insight, Dan. I hadn't thought it through - you have some excellent points, presented in your tactful way. I'll try to follow through on my next builds.
-
Better yet, we can do some actual calculations. All we need to know is differential line tension. I shoulda showed you my test rig, but we were talking vegetables on your last visit.
-
Tim, I suggest building a Faraday cage around your shop to block out the Danny Dirt mind-manipulating waves from getting in there. Otherwise he will send you over the edge on this build. n~
-
Steve: I'm finding that a tinfoil hat works pretty well, but I could just be making things worse: http://berkeley.intel-research.net/arahimi/helmet/ (http://berkeley.intel-research.net/arahimi/helmet/).
-
Steve: I'm finding that a tinfoil hat works pretty well, but I could just be making things worse: http://berkeley.intel-research.net/arahimi/helmet/ (http://berkeley.intel-research.net/arahimi/helmet/).
I wonder if Brett is one of the co-authors of that study. LL~
-
Tim...Don't forget the zerk fittings! LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~ Steve
-
This thread is making crazy. Murderous. Serial murderous. It's a TWISTER! Dammit.
-
This thread is making crazy. Murderous. Serial murderous. It's a TWISTER! Dammit.
It's an over-analyzed Twister, that's for sure.
-
DATELINE May 30th 2015.
In a remarkable incident today at the NW Regionals Tim Wescott flew his oft reported on "Twister". After telling this reporter that the plane flew fairly well for its first time in the air he was not pleased and noted that he was going to "try another approach". He also went on record to explain that the Twister had just been finished the day before the contest. The long delayed finishing of the plane was a result of numerous rebuilds, particularly the final painting which was started last Fall. It appears that Mr. Wescott could not find the proper molecular pattern of the paint he wished to use and had spent many hours searching through Doctoral theses trying to find an answer. As he was about to leave the field this reporter asked if he was having any fun. He did not answer the question.
(All in fun Tim)
Joe
-
Joe:
Hey, progress is being made. And in spite of pressure from outside, I'm not going back to revise much unless I think it's really wrong. I expect that I'll be flying it at the Regionals on May 25, 2013, or I'll have a report on the crash.
Here's the control rod from the flap horn to elevator, with rod ends that are Hand Machined from Solid Billet Aluminum. Again, if this were 1985, and the plane a street rod, it would be insufferably cool. (If it were 2000 and a street rod I'd have to paint it with black or gray primer, with red-oxide primer flames, to be cool. And if I happened to be cursed with perfectly straight, solid sheet metal, I'd have to put in some dents and maybe some simulated rust-out. I'm not sure what's cool today, but I'm sure it's not going to tempt me to build any street rods).
((Come to think of it, I wonder how many appearance points you'd get with a carefully "rat-rodded" CLPA ship -- the key, after all, to building a rat rod isn't to throw a car together for as little money as possible and go have fun with it. The key is to make it look like you did that from ten feet away, while making it clear on close inspection by the "in" crowd that it was built in a pro shop after they received boatloads of money.))
-
Dirtmobile #2 was a rat rod in every way. Acceptance and appreciation was mixed, to say the least. One of my best-flying ARF Flite Streaks.
Dan
-
This thread is making crazy. Murderous. Serial murderous. It's a TWISTER! Dammit.
Yes, and while I understand the sentiment, wouldn't discourage anyone from holding to this view, it is also this sort of thinking that makes "Pukey Profile" an apt description of so many profiles.
There are other ways to approach building a profile which flies quite well and none of these are difficult in any way although more time is of course involved.
With two Wimpacts and now the W500, Derek's Wimpact, he and I have proven this to our satisfaction and it might be time to remind some of you that none other than Brett Buck agrees. (Brett is the only person other than myself to fly my second Wimpact and it ought be self-evident why he was enlisted to do so.)
Dan
-
Joe:
And in spite of pressure from outside, I'm not going back to revise much...
Got it: "pressure" from outside. That's good to know and I will be sure to keep it in mind.
Dan
-
I'm not sure what's cool today...
Jive Combat Team Consulting Services makes a lot of money helping people with this issue.
-
Jive Combat Team Consulting Services makes a lot of money helping people with this issue.
LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~
-
With two Wimpacts and now the W500, Derek's Wimpact, he and I have proven this to our satisfaction and it might be time to remind some of you that none other than Brett Buck agrees. (Brett is the only person other than myself to fly my second Wimpact and it ought be self-evident why he was enlisted to do so.)
Is there an article on the Wimpact published somewhere? Or posted on the web? "How to build the ultimate profile" maybe?
-
Jive Combat Team Consulting Services makes a lot of money helping people with this issue.
Being a tightwad, I guess I'll just have to remain Seriously Uncool.
-
...Seriously Uncool.
That's perfectly adequate for most engineering purposes.
-
Got it: "pressure" from outside. That's good to know and I will be sure to keep it in mind.
I have my hat on.
-
And so when out at the field, trying to bitch-slap the thing into trim, seeing a wee bit of roll in maneuvers, the last thing which potentially needs addressing--and is also one of the most difficult to fix--is differential drive to movable control surfaces. Dan
Why "the last thing"?
How about segmented inboard flap tips? Segments can be made moveable or fixed.
Any videos of actual planes being bitch-slapped available?
-
Why "the last thing"?
How about segmented inboard flap tips? Segments can be made moveable or fixed.
Any videos of actual planes being bitch-slapped available?
Yes. But only by special request. We have anti-porno rules which must be respected.
Dan
-
Is there an article on the Wimpact published somewhere? Or posted on the web? "How to build the ultimate profile" maybe?
Derek and I have discussed generating an article and a set of plans from material already at hand. (Derek likes to draw stuff out in detail prior to making parts.)
We decided the considerable effort was clearly not worthwhile. There are far too few people actually interested in a Rite-Way Profile such as we developed. Piped 25FP for power; 425 to 450 square inches; sheeted foam wing, stabilizer and fuselage; scaled Impact. In short, we were only seriously interested in the journey although the destination has been a nice bonus...
And while I do not wish to be harsh, the truth is that responses such as yours to just 2 or 3 features incorporated into the Wimpact series serve well to reinforce our decision to simply build and enjoy our models.
(Hint: Seriously reconsider the value of built-up stab and fuselage on your new model. Or don't, it's clearly your choice, your model.)
Dan
-
Better yet, we can do some actual calculations. All we need to know is differential line tension. I shoulda showed you my test rig, but we were talking vegetables on your last visit.
That merely reinforces my view we had our priorities straight on that day. My "pumpkin" pies, actually made from the same Sweet Meat squash split with you, were very good. I trust you can say the same even if Marilou was primary baker.
Dan
-
Dan, I think you tend to misinterpret "I'm not going to drop everything and take twenty steps backwards from where I am now so I can go forward on your path" as meaning "your path isn't good". 'cause I'm gonna be lucky to have this plane for the tune-up as is. I'm just not going to stomp on half the pieces and trash them for some incremental improvements. If what I have flies as well as the KISS -- great, that's my goal. If it flies better, that's just a bonus. If I show up at the Tune Up with the KISS and excuses about how I'm still reworking Twisted Jenny based on advice I've been getting in the fora, that's failure. And I'm certainly not going to fail on purpose.
I would very much like to see such an article so that the next time that I build a plane, I can make an informed decision before I set out on a path, and maybe end up in a better place than I did with this one.
-
Jive Combat Team Consulting Services makes a lot of money helping people with this issue.
Indeed. I am sorely tempted to get into this subject even if this particular thread is probably not suited to same.
Maybe next week we can have some fun with it.
Warning: While there are some pictures of Dirtmobile #2 out there I won't be posting any of them. This is regarded as proprietary information after all.
Dan
-
Dan, I think you tend to misinterpret "I'm not going to drop everything and take twenty steps backwards from where I am now so I can go forward on your path" as meaning "your path isn't good". 'cause I'm gonna be lucky to have this plane for the tune-up as is. I'm just not going to stomp on half the pieces and trash them for some incremental improvements. If what I have flies as well as the KISS -- great, that's my goal. If it flies better, that's just a bonus. If I show up at the Tune Up with the KISS and excuses about how I'm still reworking Twisted Jenny based on advice I've been getting in the fora, that's failure. And I'm certainly not going to fail on purpose.
I would very much like to see such an article so that the next time that I build a plane, I can make an informed decision before I set out on a path, and maybe end up in a better place than I did with this one.
The best I can do is suggest a search on SSW as there are a few pictures there even though I didn't post them and there is also (limited) discussion as to certain details.
Or assuming I can drag my butt out to 2013 contests you are welcome to watch it fly, look it over at your convenience, and ask questions which I will try to answer.
Oh, and there are some pictures on Flying Lines site, although possibly none of W500.
Dan
-
Just don't touch it, Tim.
-
Tim, (and all)
Thank you for continuing this build thread. I have read it in its entirety tonite with great interest. I am a retread, trying to learn the beginner pattern. I can do the inside & outside loops, horizontal 8's ( as opposed to lazy 8's). I haven't tried the vertical or overhead 8's. I do attempt the inside squares, (they don't look to square). I have at times needed more ground clearance than available. My mentors , Mike , Dennis , and Brad , all want me to use Twisters to continue my learning curve. I like the way they fly. I usually use an LA.46 , as they are user friendly. I have some second hand Twisters that need various repairs , refitting.
I also have the plans for Ted's Bash. I am a fan of the "Tadpole" Genesis (looks) . I hope your plane flys as good as it looks. I also have two new Twister kits in the box - not started yet. I will use some of the ideas presented here for sure. I'm looking forward to the rest of the build postings.
Thanks again , keep up the good work!
Scott
-
The build is in abeyance right now because I'm trying to get a couple of Reniger-style ET1 trainers done for nephews.
Scott:
I hope that it flies at least as good as it looks, too. Or maybe I should hope that it flies as well as the build has been long -- that should guarantee me success.
Good luck with yours.
-
When building these die-cut kits (assuming that the ribs are still die-cut), take the time to stack the ribs so that they are as similar as possible, and mark them so that you keep them all "same side up". I like to take the stack and put a Sharpie mark across the bottom of the top spar notches. The mark will be covered when you add the top spar. I found they are not exactly the same on top and bottom, tho each rib is very close to identical. If you ignore this step, warping is virtually assured. Also, if you are going to use a transparent finish, film or whatever, use "Correction Fluid" (typists will know) to cover them. There is a "beige" color that matches balsa pretty well. D>K Steve
-
When building these die-cut kits (assuming that the ribs are still die-cut), take the time to stack the ribs so that they are as similar as possible, and mark them so that you keep them all "same side up".
Wow. I always just make sure to get the first few ribs right, then pay attention to the fact that the spar doesn't fit right if you get the rest in backwards. Actually marking things out. Hmm...
-
Back on track! Finally!
I hung this thing up toward the end of November in order to make a pair of Christmas Planes for nephews. Then I went and spent "just a bit of time" making a gift Banshee ready to fly.
Then, day before yesterday, I grabbed the fuselage off the wall where it had been hanging and found a humongous warp. >:(. It weren't like that when I done hung it up!
I moistened the sides behind the doublers, then put it on my bench with support on the ends and weight in the middle. That seems to have straightened it up, although only time will tell. My shop is only heated by what it gets though the wall, so any balsa that's not left flat tends to take a non-flat set to it: I'm hoping that's what happened to the fuselage.
At any rate -- it got the first coat of Polycrylic just now. Assuming that it gets no irreparable warps I'm planning on Polycrylic, Polycrylic, Silkspan held down with Polycrylic, then Polycrylic + talc until it's good and smooth. Then I'll assemble, put on fillets, final sand, paint the base coats, monocoat wings and tail, paint trim, and fly.
At the rate I'm going, I should have it ready for the Fall Follies in October.
-
Then, day before yesterday, I grabbed the fuselage off the wall where it had been hanging and found a humongous warp. >:(. It weren't like that when I done hung it up!
At the rate I'm going, I should have it ready for the Fall Follies in October.
what did you use to laminate the fuse? PLEASE tell me you did not use waterbased glue,, aliphatic resin ( carpenters glue)
Fall Follies,, which year Tim LL~
-
what did you use to laminate the fuse? PLEASE tell me you did not use waterbased glue,, aliphatic resin ( carpenters glue)
Right after I had it all glued up with yellow carpenter's glue, I saw Steve's post about water-based glue. So I let it sit on my bench for a week, all weighted down.
That could well be it. Or, it could be the fact that just about anything left in my shop and not forcibly held flat will warp.
-
You should have used the Gorilla glue. Yes it gets ugly as it expands and oozes out, but it sands easily and makes for a very stiff fuselage.
If the curve to the fuse is to the outside and not too severe don't worry about it. You are still learning.
-
what did you use to laminate the fuse? PLEASE tell me you did not use waterbased glue,, aliphatic resin ( carpenters glue)
Three days after I straightened it and it still shows nice and straight when I sight down the dorsal fin (at 1/8" by two feet, it shows as being note entirely straight, but pretty close -- and never exactly the same twice. It'll be interesting to see if it stabilizes after the paint is on).
I got fillets on the dorsal fin yesterday. I'd show a picture, but I don't think I can make the fillets show!
There are some building operations that I do about once every year or two, and regret bitterly that I was dumb enough to try. Then I take a good long time forgetting, and for one reason or another I get tempted again. Wooden fillets is one of those. So the dorsal fin has a wooden fillet on side (lots-o-work), and epoxy with microballoons on the other (lots less work so far, and less filling needed, to boot).
I should get the fillet stuff that Randy Powell uses, but it'd be yet another mail ordered thing in my flammable liquids cabinet, taking up space and only getting used on one operation on each plane.
-
Spackle, sand, Polycrylic, spackle, sand, polycrylic.
Why is it that I can eyeball an airframe until my head caves in, yet as soon as I casually pick it up to put on another coat of primer I see dings? Old dings, that have obviously been there since the day I put the stupid thing together?
-
Gremlins! They moved from England at the end of WW2 as many of us remember.
Joe
-
No visible warps in the fuselage, even after starting in on the (water-based) Polycrylic finish.
I wish I could say the same about the wings. I messed up on the construction of those, and built in a nice little time bomb that went off when the Polycrylic hit it.
I distinctly remember really cramming on the skins in front of the spar, happily thinking "no gaps!". Apparently while I was doing that I was also failing to glue the skin down well onto the ribs. At any rate, when the Polycrylic hit it, I got these humongous warps except -- just to prove that it was my lack of workmanship in the wing, not my use of Polycrylic -- along two ribs where the bond with the skin was good. So. @#$%. Cut a horizontal line in the skin; peel the skin up so I have access to the ribs. Cut a very small section of wood out of the skin so that it'll lie flat. DO NOT PUSH HARD TO MAKE IT SEAT.
I'm pretty sure that this wasn't because of the Polycrylic, because I've used it on wings before, and because the sections behind the spar are just fine. I think I would have had this go sproing! at some point no matter what, very possibly the first time I left it out in the sun for a good long time.
All better now. Back to sanding and brushing and sanding and brushing. One day, perhaps even before I die, I'll be ready to shoot primer (I hate this phase, even without the boo-boos. Can you tell?)
-
Yes, there is an art to doing the sheeting on leading edges. I use a lot of maskng tape, pins and a few words when doing the sheeting. A little secret for me is using Elmers White glue on the ribs. Even on 3/32 sheet I can get it to stick with the Monokote iron after the glue has dried.
-
Helpful sanding tip: sandpaper lasts longer if you refrain from dripping wet paint on it.
-
Yes, there is an art to doing the sheeting on leading edges. I use a lot of maskng tape, pins and a few words when doing the sheeting. A little secret for me is using Elmers White glue on the ribs. Even on 3/32 sheet I can get it to stick with the Monokote iron after the glue has dried.
Doc
What temp do you set the iron to?
-
As hot as it takes to do Monokote. Sometimes you may have to hold the iron in place to get the glue to activate. Then hold til it cools.
-
This thread reminds me of one of the funniest lines to be uttered during Howard & Marilou's brunch a couple weeks ago.
Talk was of Howard's next Impact and Gary Letsinger was considering the suggestion that rear of fuselage be lengthened 2 inches.
I believe it was Steve Helmick who blurted out, "A Fancherized Impact!"
Dan
-
Sooo, a basketball center is a Fancherized guard?
-
Argh. More warps on the wing, this time on the sheeting on the top behind the spar. I've done three planes before this using Polycrylic as the base coat, and had no sign of problems. Now I'm doing a plane that will actually fly nice and be eligible for appearance points, and the damn thing warps up. I almost pulled the "it's just a profile, finish it out" card, but decided that I just couldn't do that. So -- lift up that sheeting and reglue, and put in filler, and sand, and redo the silkspan and AAUGH!!
At least so far I've successfully resisted the urge to drill a bunch of holes in the fuselage, mount half-formers, and add a planked fuselage "slipper" to my pre-existing perfectly good profile. I'm not quite sure how I've managed this feat, but I rather suspect that when I get this plane done it'll still be a profile.
-
At least so far I've successfully resisted the urge to drill a bunch of holes in the fuselage, mount half-formers, and add a planked fuselage "slipper" to my pre-existing perfectly good profile. I'm not quite sure how I've managed this feat, but I rather suspect that when I get this plane done it'll still be a profile.
Good move, Tim. Have a plan, stick to the plan, build a plane, fly a plane. Above all, don't ask for advice, receive good advice, and then totally ignore that good advise. That tends to discourage people from giving good advise and get them pretty browned-off, OBTW. Just a passing thought... LL~ Steve
PS: Clear dope is good stuff!
-
I have used the water based poly-crylic paints in the past. Yes the surfaces do look like they are warping. I paint like I do with dope. Paint a couple of rib bays, flip plane over paint matching rib bays plus a couple more and reverse the plane again. Looks like a mess until the material has finally cured out. Never paint one whole wing panel and then do the other side at one time.
-
Argh. More warps on the wing, this time on the sheeting on the top behind the spar. I've done three planes before this using Polycrylic as the base coat, and had no sign of problems. Now I'm doing a plane that will actually fly nice and be eligible for appearance points, and the damn thing warps up. I almost pulled the "it's just a profile, finish it out" card, but decided that I just couldn't do that. So -- lift up that sheeting and reglue, and put in filler, and sand, and redo the silkspan and AAUGH!!
At least so far I've successfully resisted the urge to drill a bunch of holes in the fuselage, mount half-formers, and add a planked fuselage "slipper" to my pre-existing perfectly good profile. I'm not quite sure how I've managed this feat, but I rather suspect that when I get this plane done it'll still be a profile.
Tim,
Those warps you have in the wing. Do you have a swimming pool?
Charles
-
The wing is on! The sanding suddenly took a turn for the better -- the last two models I did I tried using Polycrylic, on the wood, then an acrylic primer. This one I went back to using silkspan applied with Polycrylic, then sanding sealer made with Polycrylic and baby powder. Things sanded out much easier than expected.
So, now the wing is glued in there with epoxy that has just enough microballoons added so that it'll stay put. Fillets next!
-
Fillet up.
Epoxy + microballoons + balsa dust. I have both phenolic and glass microballoons, and I always use a bit of the phenolic. It's mostly to make sure that I've mixed the two parts thoroughly (I pre-mix the microballoons with both the resin and the hardener), but it's also to color match. I missed this time. Less than 1/4 ounce of epoxy to do the whole wing!
Procedure:
- sand the end of a bit of balsa (3/32") to a 90-degree point, then sand it to the desired radius
- weigh out epoxy into separate cups.
- mix a teeny bit of 99% isopropyl alcohol into each (this is an experiment -- if you see me with fallen-off fillets, you'll know how it came out)
- mix a bit of phenolic microballoons into the hardener
- mix a lot of glass microballoons into both the resin and the hardener, until both are at the consistency I want for the result
- mix the two together until it's all one color
- goober it on with your mixing stick -- you have to kind of shove it at the surface to get it to stick
- sweep off the excess with your shaping stick. It won't be perfect, but get it fairly good
- put on a latex glove, dip your finger in 99% isopropyl alcohol, and smooth the fillets out
-
You go, Tim. I like the pushrod ends. This is what happens when you have a lathe and time on your hands.
-
Paint! Paint, paint, paint! Finally!
Of course, as soon as it was all white and shiny, the boo-boos that managed to get by me in the sealing-and-sanding phase just jumped out at me. I close my eyes. I close my eyes.
It's ready for a tiny bit of sanding to knock down the ridge where the masking tape was, then it'll be Monocoat time.
It took me a while to think of a color scheme that would be easy and not too boring. I'm sure of the easy part -- we'll find out about the boring part when I'm done. It'll be one of those basic "top one color, bottom another color, white in the middle" things that let you mask off the fuselage without trying to keep the tape stuck to the wing fillets as you spray.
Or, maybe I'll just fly an all-white plane. D'ya think if I cut out my AMA number from white Monocoat and stick it on the wing that it'll satisfy the rule for identifying the plane?
-
Wings covered. That's enough for tonight -- tomorrow I'll see if I can get the flaps and tail covered.
I had hoped to get the last coat of paint on by mid-month, so that I could start flying in early March. Obviously that won't be happening. Given that you need to give Rustoleum two weeks to harden before flying, that'll leave me with precious little flight time before the Tune Up. Oh well, I have this nice Banshee...
I had originally planned on painting the wingtips, but changed horses in midstream and decided to cover them instead. It turned out to be a not-bad idea. I was surprised at how well the Monocoat stretched to conform to the weight box hole in the right wing, although it managed to wrinkle a bit on the leadout exit on the left (not shown).
I also managed to screw up my clearances on the weight box cover: I thought I had allowed plenty of room for paint, but found when I put it on that it fits tightly. Ah well -- hopefully I won't end up ripping anything apart just to tune the airplane.
-
Tim,
WOW!
Your weight box is absolutely great. Kudos!
You didn't buy that at Brodaks. ;D
If you don't mind and if you could, I'd like to see what's under that fine fitting lid?
Great work, model is shapping up.
Charles
-
Tim,
WOW!
Your weight box is absolutely great. Kudos!
You didn't buy that at Brodaks. ;D
If you don't mind and if you could, I'd like to see what's under that fine fitting lid?
Great work, model is shapping up.
Charles
Look back through this thread -- it's all there. But basically -- it's just a plywood box with a T-nut on the inside end.
-
Tim,
Thanks, I see it!
I also noticed you have a rear weight box. Great idea! Are many builders adding weight boxes to the rear of their models?
Real neat application!
Also, I knew a modeler who used iron on covering so well, it looked like paint.
You did a great job with the covering also.
Trim ideas?
Charles
-
I spray blue tomorrow. Red Saturday. Black or gray or sky blue Sunday.
Masked with 3M green tape for the straight lines, friskit for the triangles on the wings.
-
Hey Tim, your wing covering looks kinda sloppy in the last picture,, do you need a new iron to shrink it with? LL~ LL~
-
All that work for four lousy triangles and a stripe. And when I go to mask for the red, I'm just going to do it again, for four more lousy triangles and a stripe.
Old hands will probably roll their eyes at this "revelation", but I burnished the edges of the frisket and the green tape where it defines the painted edge, and I have significantly fewer "leak unders", and those way smaller, on this than I've ever had before. I don't know if this was just luck or a trend, however.
The paint's still tacky -- this is an Allen Brickhaus thing: he recommends that for Rustoleum you take the masking off after an hour or so, so the paint has flashed off but has not yet cured. Then you go over the thing with a Q-tip and fix up any boo-boos where the paint bled under the tape. I did still have a few, particularly where I cut triangular holes in frisket and over-cut the apexes: there were a couple of places where there was a thin tail at the triangle apex where the paint bled into the crack.
-
Tim,
Your Twister is shaping up!
Stab? Where's the stab?
Also, do you scuff the Monokote before spraying paint?
The model has a nice profile, I like it!!
Almost there.
Charles
-
#^ #^ #^ #^
Marcus
-
- Burnishing the edges of the tape helps, but I got quite a few "leak unders" on the red. Grr.
- I pulled up some paint close to the canopy area when I peeled off the masking tape. I think I didn't pull it off correctly, but still. Grr again. The picture is after feathering out the spot then brushing white into the hole -- the divot is still visible.
- All that masking, for about six square inches of paint!!!
I just sprayed the black. We'll see if I pull up my 24-hour paint over my divot, if the black leaks under, etc. I don't think the canopy is going to look as good as I'd like -- but it'll be an identifiable canopy, so it won't be all bad.
-
Also, do you scuff the Monokote before spraying paint?
Yes. It's the first model that I've done so, so I can't say how much it'll help (greatly, I'm told). I've got a bunch where I did not scuff the 'coat (Mono- and Ultra-), and after about a year it chips a bit. To date this has not been an issue, because my airplanes simply haven't lasted that long. Now, I gotta pay attention.
-
One canopy. Or, maybe a slug died and turned black. This one won't win an award unless there's a prize for "most awkward looking canopy". The Genesis fuse profile doesn't really have a canopy in it, and I needed to do a better job with the red if I wanted to make it look like that plane's canopy.
(Bob Hunt actually did a pretty good job with his canopy, even if when you look at it objectively it's just a black ellipse painted onto the fuselage with a couple of white stripes through it).
-
Something I've done in the past and even today is to brush a coat of clear along the edge of the tape. The canopy looks a lot better than what I have done. Looks great.
-
One of the drawbacks to the Rustoleum system is that they don't have a clear. There may be some clear that would be compatible, but I don't know what it is, and doing a bunch of experimentation doesn't get me to saving time and money by using paints from the hardware store.
My long-term plan is that when I start really feeling held back by the appearance points, or when I get to the point where I'm not crashing at least once a year then I'm going to start learning how to finish with dope.
I'm actually wondering if the reason I had better luck with the blue was because I did a thin fog coat all around, then waited for it to dry, then painted. The red came out of a rattle-can instead of a paint gun, so it just went on thicker the first time around, and the black was going onto such a small area that even though I held off on purpose, I probably didn't do the "let dry then paint over" thing as well. "Thin fog then paint" isn't as good as a coat of clear, I know -- but it's something that I can do!
-
Tim, two part polyurethane AKA "death paint" would go over rustoleum, but then it will go over about anything!
-
Tim, two part polyurethane AKA "death paint" would go over rustoleum, but then it will go over about anything!
Hi Mike,
You beat me to it! And there is a "2 part" available in a spray can. Eddie Ruane has used it and posted about it. It looks great when applied!
BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM
-
I would also feel pretty safe in applying MinWax Polyurethane clear (in the black can) over Rustoleum. Test a small area first just in case, but there should not be anything in the MinWax which would attack the Rustoleum. The black spray can IS NOT the "Polycrylic". ;D
BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM
-
Here's another picture, just because I had to show it to the vinyl guy to get letters cut.
I probably should have primed and painted the stab, glued it into the fuse along with the wing, and had nice fillets. I just plain wimped out -- but I may actually make it to the Tune Up with this thing!
-
dude, if you are talking about Portland,, heck thats a month and a half away,, I plan on making it there with my new bird,, ( which I have not even started on yet!)
-
I will probably show up with my profile. I doubt anything else will be done or even near done.
-
I keep thinking the Tune Up is the first weekend in April, not the 3rd.
That's good. That gives me a month to work on trimming between the paint drying and the contest. I think I trim about as quickly as I build. But it's better that I figure this out now, after driving myself to get the last bit of paint on. If I'd figured it out earlier then I would have slacked off.
You catalyzed paint people get to start your projects so late.
-
Playing with the lettering sizes. I realized that I can't do this right without getting the flaps, and their visual weight, on the plane.
-
It's great to see "some" progress, Tim. I was beginning to think that at my age I may never get to hear the flight reports...................
BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM
-
Great thread! I've been talking about building one of these for over 6 months and this info is invaluable. I read the thread and opened the box this morning. I have the fuselage extended and the 1/2" nose "tripler" mostly roughed out. I'm using 4-40 inserts for the engine mounts and it's my first time not using blind nuts. Sure hope it works out! I have my choice of OS 35S, OS 40FP or OS 40LA (blue) to power it. Any thoughts?
-
It's great to see "some" progress, Tim. I was beginning to think that at my age I may never get to hear the flight reports...................
Me too, Bill.
-
Great thread! I've been talking about building one of these for over 6 months and this info is invaluable. I read the thread and opened the box this morning. I have the fuselage extended and the 1/2" nose "tripler" mostly roughed out. I'm using 4-40 inserts for the engine mounts and it's my first time not using blind nuts. Sure hope it works out! I have my choice of OS 35S, OS 40FP or OS 40LA (blue) to power it. Any thoughts?
Read this thread, it's all the answers to my question "what should I use in a Fancherized Twister": http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php?topic=26808.0 (http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php?topic=26808.0). The advise is contradictory, so you will have to decide on your own. The OS 35S is a lot less powerful per cubic inch than either a 40FP or a 40LA (or a 25LA, for that matter, which is suggested in the thread I mention by people who I know to build light and fly well).
I have a Tower 40 and a Magnum 36, both seem to have more than enough power for that sized plane, without tending to run away too much.
At one point I naively thought that a 40LA was just a smaller 46LA. When I expressed this thought here I heard Many Bad Things about the it tending to run away. So -- no personal experience, but it seems that it's finicky to useless until it's rebuilt. OTOH, I've heard that a 46LA just works. I dunno about the 40FP -- maybe someone with experience will say?
I want to try an OS 25LA in a plane this size. Maybe if I built faster...
-
Tim,
The lettering size looks good! Are you going with red?
The "USA" are you putting "AMA" there or keeping the USA?
Stab?
Charles
-
There's a stab around here someplace, I just haven't glued it in yet.
(I suppose that if I wanted to go for maximum "ahh" factor I would have primed and painted the stab center section, then glued it in with the wing and fillited it and all that stuff. I just couldn't see doing the work when I was already feeling under the gun, and it is just a cruddy old profile that I'm probably going to crash).
-
Tim,
You're making me feel bad. :'(
"Sister Jenny" looks like a fine model and I'm sure it will fly well. Profiles are great! CL started with profiles, didn't it?
BTW. My offer still stands on that PM.
Sister Jenny looks really good!!
Charles
-
Tim, thanks so much for the referral to the engine post. Again, I learned a bunch.
-
Great thread! I've been talking about building one of these for over 6 months and this info is invaluable. I read the thread and opened the box this morning. I have the fuselage extended and the 1/2" nose "tripler" mostly roughed out. I'm using 4-40 inserts for the engine mounts and it's my first time not using blind nuts. Sure hope it works out! I have my choice of OS 35S, OS 40FP or OS 40LA (blue) to power it. Any thoughts?
personally, I would avoid the .40 LA,, though some people like them,,
the .46 LA is the prefered choice in my opinion,,
as to what you have, the 40Fp,, which one is it? newer or older? do you have a picture,, it does matter,,
-
Tim,
You're making me feel bad. :'(
"Sister Jenny" looks like a fine model and I'm sure it will fly well. Profiles are great! CL started with profiles, didn't it?
BTW. My offer still stands on that PM.
Sister Jenny looks really good!!
Charles
Charles,,
again a bit of research,,
Control line started with a full house full fuse cabin type airplane, it did not start with a profile,,
see Oba St Claire,, ( in Model aviation magazine commemorating his accomplishments)
-
Charles,,
again a bit of research,,
Control line started with a full house full fuse cabin type airplane, it did not start with a profile,,
see Oba St Claire,, ( in Model aviation magazine commemorating his accomplishments)
Mark,
Thanks for that.
I actully asked it as a question, see the question "?"
"CL started with profiles, didn't it?"
Some of that stuff is important to know. Never know when one will have a conversation with an interested party.
Did you know Brodak is putting togher a model Museum?
Charles
-
Mark,
Thanks for that.
I actully asked it as a question, see the question "?"
"CL started with profiles, didn't it?"
Some of that stuff is important to know. Never know when one will have a conversation with an interested party.
Did you know Brodak is putting togher a model Museum?
Charles
Yes Charles I knew Brodak is putting TOGETHER a modeling museum,, its been an ongoing project for several years.
as to your phrasing,, yes of course I saw that it was a question,, THATS WHY I ANSWERED IT,,, odd I thought thats what you did with questions?
-
Stab in. Measured every which way for center, square, and level with wings. The tape wrapping up around the tips are to keep it level with the wings while the glue sets.
I managed to do a fairly tidy job of it. I had neglected to silkspan and sand out the center section of the stab so that I could glue it in with the wing and do fillets. Since I was feeling under the gun (and it is just a profile) I just 'coated it and glued it in. But it's a moderately tidy glue job for all that.
Glue is epoxy with just enough microballoons to keep in in place. This is just the second time I've done this, and I like how it works out. I cut out the 'coat in the center section, got the thing mostly in and the elevator horn located, then slathered the bare wood with glue. Then I slide the thing in, cleaned up the glue around the edge with rubbing alcohol, and cursed, bitched, and moaned for about 10 minutes as I measured, squared, tilted, found out that I'd moved it, centered again, squared again, etc.
That long not-rudder did make it easy to square up the stab -- I could measure back to the sharp end of the fuselage instead of forward to the wing/fuselage joint like I usually do.
-
Tim,
Well there ya go!
Do you know how long I waited for that stab to get placed?
Hey! I have an idea.
About that area around the stab and fuse. How about I send you some white and red vinyl and you can make farrings.
Stuff could go out in Tomorrow's mail.
Let me know.
Charles
-
Tim,
looks pretty good there sir,, hope it survives till I get to see it this year,, LL~
Honestly,, you are where I was a few years back,, soon you will be at that point where breaking planes is in the back of your mind,,, instead of the front,, I promise
-
Tim,
looks pretty good there sir,, hope it survives till I get to see it this year,, LL~
Honestly,, you are where I was a few years back,, soon you will be at that point where breaking planes is in the back of your mind,,, instead of the front,, I promise
Man, I hope so. The last unforced crash I had in 2012 was at the Tune Up, when I pulverized my Skyray. I was feeling pretty cocky in early January, then I crashed twice in as many weeks. So I'm a bit deflated.
-
Man, I hope so. The last unforced crash I had in 2012 was at the Tune Up, when I pulverized my Skyray. I was feeling pretty cocky in early January, then I crashed twice in as many weeks. So I'm a bit deflated.
yeah, I had a span of two years where I broke at least one airplane at every contest,, only crashed once during that time away from a contest,, ok, twice thinking about it
your doing fine,, and this twister build and the skyrays, are the best thing you can do to get past it,,
-
Hinged! I used the method that Steve Helmick outlines here http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php?topic=29880.0 (http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php?topic=29880.0), except I was going on memory for the wings and forgot the part about how yes, with CA you still need to put Vaseline on the hinges. Thankfully, I use one long pin per surface, between that and solvent I was able to de-goo the flap hinges. Then I re-read Steve's post, smacked my forehead soundly, and the tail went as smooth as silk.
Wheeled, too! The closeup shows my currently preferred wheel attach method. You get some 5/32" tubing (which slips over the 1/8" music wire), drill a hole in the end, cut the wire a bit short of the end of the wheel, solder it all up with a washer, and now you can take wheels off if you want, with no unsightly wheel collars.
Yes, I can solder on washers -- I just don't like it.
And, finally, a pic of the almost-completed plane. Alas, I have one Tower 40 and two airframes that accept it. I'm probably going to just swap the engine around in the short term, and see if I stumble on one for cheap in the longer term.
-
Tim,
Nice and great method!
Got a photo of the other side of the wheel?
Thanks,
Charles
-
Interesting approach. At least take offs and landing will be less exciting.
-
Randy: You mean the trike gear? I hope so. Dirty Dan thinks I'm going to be disappointed. He may be right -- but if I'm gonna waste time on a trike gear plane, better now than when I'm flying Advanced or Expert, no?
Charles: Here's a pic of the axle sans wheel.
-
Tim that is one cool looking airplane! And the axle/keepers is an idea that one sees then smacks their forehead and says "Now why didn't I think od that!" H^^
-
Glenn: I can take credit for neither of those, though. The axle/retainer idea came from a fellow Northwest Fireballs member after I complained about not being able to figure out how to retain wheels without solder or ugliness; the aesthetics of the plane are pulled directly off of Bob Hunt's 1976 Nats-winning Genesis.
All I did was take Bob's Genesis fuse profile, mate it to a Fancherized Twister wing and tail, and make it trike gear.
-
Tim,
WOW! Neat/clean soldering. Kudos!!
I like it and may possibly steal the idea.
Your model looks really good!
Thanks again.
Charles
-
Thanks for the reply and I totally forgot to tell you that I am totally digging on the Genesis idea. H^^
-
Randy: You mean the trike gear? I hope so. Dirty Dan thinks I'm going to be disappointed. He may be right -- but if I'm gonna waste time on a trike gear plane, better now than when I'm flying Advanced or Expert, no?
Hi Tim;
Tricycle gear won't be a waste of time. Once you get used to the way the model flies and handles when the engine quits, you'll have a slight advantage to sticking the landing and eliminating bouncing. The mains just need to be in the correct location in relation to the balance point so lift off is predictable. The Jecto Shark .45 has been my main airplane for both PAMPA and classic for a lot of years and I kind of prefer three wheel gear now. The best compliment I ever got was from Bill Zimmer at VSC the year I first flew my first Shark ('92,94?). I was about in the middle of the flight order,Bill was one of the judges, and I grooved a near text book take off, and completed the flight with an almost as good landing. I don't remember what the rest of the flight was like, but as I was carrying the airplane off the circle and walked by him, and he said, "way to go McEntee, we've been looking for a take off and landing like that all day." If you don't know or have never met Bill Zimmer, he was a top judge for a lot of years, and pretty much held fast to the rule book. If you got a good score from Bill, that was what you flew that day and could take it to the bank, and the comment still means a lot to me. Three wheels might not get you 35 point or higher take offs and landings every time, but it can help you get some consistency while you are working on the rest of the pattern, and the rest of the details for take offs and landings.
Nice looking model. The answer to the power plant question is simple. If the initial test flights go well, and the model is close to being in trim, put your best engine in it, what ever it is.
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee
-
I like that!!!!
When it has the engine/spinner on it'll look even cooler!!
Don't forget to make that video....
Marcus
-
I built a tank, uniflow, from a peach can (some fruit and juice cans are galvanized on the inside; with the tin on the outside it makes for very easy soldering). It's a bit ugly because of the metal used -- real tin plate would have come out nicer, because the sheets would have started out flat.
This is my first metal tank in a while; I've been using Hayes tanks with my FP-20 and LA-25 after having trouble with my hand-built tanks flowing fuel correctly. The Tower 40 that's on this plane speeds up toward the end of the run and it's not just heat, and I'd like to improve on that. So I'll see if a uniflow tank will work, and hold out through a whole flight.
-
Here's the tank mounted on the plane -- just some tubing and some tip weight, and it's ready to go!
The last time I made a screw-on tank I neglected to fuel-proof the screw holes, and I just let the tank slide around on the paint. The result was scratched-up paint that's showing signs of fuel ingress (the primer coat on this plane is Minwax Polycrylic, which is not fuel proof). So I made pads for the tank feet from the top of a yogurt container, then I dipped each screw in 5-minute epoxy and screwed it in. This should result in a nice tight fit to the screw, and a fuel-proof hole.
And I can fly it this weekend!!
-
Looking good Tim. As an alternative to the epoxy in the hole method consider thin CA in the hole. Run the screw in and out a few times then remove. Drop some thin CA in the hole and let it sink in. It will harden the thread pattern you just made in the wood as well as fuel-proofing the hole. Just another way of doin' things. 8)
-
Also, if you want some cheap tin for making tanks, go to your local autobody shop and ask for a few empty thinner tins. They work great. Just make sure you (do this outside!) take the caps off and turn them upside down for a few days to make sure the thinner is gone as well as the vapours. H^^
-
I have plenty of empty thinner cans. And they are lighter than soup cans.
-
OK, maybe I'm a little slow, but aren't the tanks I get from Brodak good enough? I applaud anyone who can cut bend and solder a tank, but I'm a newbie werkin on my first kitbash Twister. I didn't like the initial "noodle shaped" trailing edge before I steamed it straight and engine selection would have been rough before I read a hint to a different thread for that here, but I'm just trying to get a grip on a plane that I can build and enter at the beginner level...so would a 4 oz Brodak uniflow work with a OS 40.LA with the rear needle valve? BTW, I'm a 57 YO returning to the fold, so have patience?
-
Hi Justin;
Yes, that Brodak tank and engine will work just fine to get you started. If the needle settings get to be finicky with the LA.40, try changing out the O-ring on the needle. They tend to leak air. The typical up grade is to replace the plastic back plate (if it has one) with a metal back plate, and install a through the venturi needle valve assembly in place of the rear needle set up. To me, there is nothing wrong with the rear needle concept, and the needle valve assembly they used on the FP series when that first started worked quite well, but OS keeps going back to that O-ring sealed needle for some reason. Just keep changing them until you find one that seals better. Search around the vender corner for Randy Smith, Jim Lee, and several other venders that sell after market needle valves and venturis. Pick up an extra head shim or two, Glow devil R/C Long or Thunderbolt or other known hot glow plug, some 11-4 props ( I like the APC 11.5-4) and some fuel that is 5 to 10% nitro and at least 18% total oil that you can add castor oil to to get to around 22% total oil. Types of fuel and availability varies in different parts of the country, and if you can only get typical R/C fuel like Morgen's Omega, get that and some castor oil to add to it. Around 4 ounces to a gallon of fuel gets you in the ball park. You'll probably going to use muffler pressure also. Do a search on the list here and in the engine section on the LA.40 and you'll find lots of variations on the set up, but for beginner, this should get you going with some consistency. Since you are what I like to call a "retread" you'll find out through research and experience that some things haven't changed much, but some things have. Tanks are one of those things that you can stay up late into the night and drink a lot of beer talking and arguing about, but experience is the best teacher. Once you get a good foot hold back into the hobby, making your own tanks can be a quite beneficial skill to have. Fred Krueger, up in the Chicago area, has a design for a profile tank that is easy to make, and I think works better and more consistent than off the shelf tanks. it's a taller, but lower profile uniflow/chicken hopper style tank, and a search here may turn up a drawing, or maybe some one can send you a file for one. The Twister will serve you well, and I advise sticking with it and refining your building and trimming techniques with one type of airplane. If this number one airplane comes out nice and flies well, start in on number two as soon as possible and try to duplicate it, and add any other little changes you might decide on. You can make a Twister look different each time you build one, but by keeping the same basic design will make each new model fly like the last one did.
Well, that's more than the short answer you were probably looking for, but I tend to do that at this hour of the night! Just watch the little details, and the big details tend to take care of themselves.
Good Luck and Have Fun,
Dan McEntee
(I'm 57 years old also, just never quit since I was 12 years old!)
-
Thanks for the info, Dan! I actually got back into C/L a few years back for awhile when one of the "Circle Burners" near Chicago sold me a used Ringmaster for $5 that I flew a few times with a Fox .35! Now I'm back with a vengeance (and more time, planes and more accepting mate).
-
OK, maybe I'm a little slow, but aren't the tanks I get from Brodak good enough?
Justin, I just like building my own tanks. A Brodak tank should be plenty good enough, and better looking to boot.
Do make sure that you have enough room between the wing LE and the engine -- the Brodak tank that pops up first in their search is four inches long, which is almost exactly the measurement between the rear of the cylinder and the wing LE. The tank I made was 3-1/2 inches long, and when I actually set it in place and thought about feet I wished it were 3-1/4. Brodak has tanks that should fit, if you dig a bit.
While you're thinking about fit, make sure that the tubes coming out of the tank will fit, too.
And finally, the motor run I get from that Tower 40 with a Hayes 4 ounce plastic tank is acceptable, I just want to try a uniflow to see if I can do better.
-
Tim, your plane looks great and really got me going on my own build. I can't wait to read the flight reports!
-
Tim, your tank looks great and I think the corogations give it character. Setting up uni-flo tanks is not that big of a black art. You have to really set the needle by how the engine behaves in the air. Also setting up the tubes on a hard tank you have to remember to have the vent ahead of the pick up in the tank. I set mine at about 1/4 to 3/8 inch. When set up right the tank will tell you when to level off as the last three or four laps on mine the engine leans out.
Hope I got this clear enough as my brain runs faster than my fingers and the key board.
-
I have my tank set up the way you describe, Doc. In case anyone is wondering, if you get the vent too close to the pick-up then you pick up the bubbles from the vent and get a terrible engine run. Getting the feed mixed up with the vent is even worse.
With a Hayes tank I can get fairly consistent lap times from one end of the run to the other, but the engine run goes from mostly 4-stroke to mostly 2-stroke over the course of the flight. Setting the needle valve is fairly critical. I'm hoping that I can get a dead-steady run with the uniflow, which should give me much more leeway on the needle.
-
Tim
also keep in mind that the oil content will affect the run potentially towards the end,, on my FP 40s,, I ended up adding a splash of castor , a couple ounces, to a gallon of 10/22 to get it to be happy after mid point in the pattern,,
-
Tim
also keep in mind that the oil content will affect the run potentially towards the end,, on my FP 40s,, I ended up adding a splash of castor , a couple ounces, to a gallon of 10/22 to get it to be happy after mid point in the pattern,,
I'm using fuel that's 20% castor, and about 3% synthetic.
-
Graphics on! These are from a member of my local RC club who has a vinyl cutter. I emailed him a drawing, then I went over today and we made labels.
So, it's all done but the trimming. Hopefully that won't take too long, although with spring weather it's hard to know for sure.
I had planned on the maiden flight for today, but we got rained out -- maybe Monday.
-
On the question of OTS legal profiles, there are not very many. The Sterling Mustang and Yak, the Flying Clown and a similar one that I can't recall the name of. The Frank Ehling Easy has a built up fuselage, too thick for modern definition. There was the Schulman Invader, and perhaps a Navion. There was a British airplane called the Panther. Both the Invader and the Panther have cheek cowls and outboard faring which doesn't look right for a profile. The Trixy profiles just came to mind. Actually more profiles that I had thought there were.
-
Tim, the graphics look great and really sets that plane apart from the rest. #^ #^
-
It flies! It's still in one piece! There was some question about this latter in the second half of the reverse wingover of flight #3 -- flight #2 was way too lean, and I richened it up way to much for flight #3 expecting it to lean out after the first couple of laps, which it never did. It did speed up through the first half of the reverse wingover, but on the second half it went slack on the lines to the accompaniment of some short words and fast backpedaling (and I flew the rest of the flight level).
I'm still learning the right way to adjust this tank/engine combination, but I'm getting there.
-
On the question of OTS legal profiles, there are not very many. The Sterling Mustang and Yak, the Flying Clown and a similar one that I can't recall the name of. The Frank Ehling Easy has a built up fuselage, too thick for modern definition. There was the Schulman Invader, and perhaps a Navion. There was a British airplane called the Panther. Both the Invader and the Panther have cheek cowls and outboard faring which doesn't look right for a profile. The Trixy profiles just came to mind. Actually more profiles that I had thought there were.
And don't forget the Ringmaster.
So, what thread did you think you were responding to?
-
It flies! It's still in one piece! There was some question about this latter in the second half of the reverse wingover of flight #3 -- flight #2 was way too lean, and I richened it up way to much for flight #3 expecting it to lean out after the first couple of laps, which it never did. It did speed up through the first half of the reverse wingover, but on the second half it went slack on the lines to the accompaniment of some short words and fast backpedaling (and I flew the rest of the flight level).
I'm still learning the right way to adjust this tank/engine combination, but I'm getting there.
is this with the Carb on the tower 40? what is the choke area of the carb and or venturi you are using,,
-
Also don't forget to try different props. The big thing is not push it to hard and wind up with peices. Windy Urtnowski had a great write up years ago about getting planes set up for the pattern. His main thing in the article besides level wings was engine run. A lot of level laps upright and inverted, plus eights and loops. None of what we call hard manuevers until engine and plane was okay. Also I hope you have several sets of lines.
-
I built this thing with wheel hold-downs in lieu of straps, then made the World's Ugliest Things to do the job. So I fixed that. One of the guys at my RC field has been showing up with these beautiful scratchbuilt old-time freeflight planes converted to RC, with engine-turned aluminum on the cowls. So I copied it.
-
oh those are pretty wheel hold down things,, H^^
-
Randy: You mean the trike gear? I hope so. Dirty Dan thinks I'm going to be disappointed. He may be right -- but if I'm gonna waste time on a trike gear plane, better now than when I'm flying Advanced or Expert, no?
Charles: Here's a pic of the axle sans wheel.
Tim,
I don't think you are accurately stating my comments. I am quite sure you will like the trike gear. Very much in point of fact, as it will pretty much do what you expect.
It's later that questions come to the fore.
1. Am I really getting superior takeoffs and landings? It seems to jump off the ground or it seems to not rotate willingly.
There is a lot more involved than just getting the model to sit on three wheels.
2. Why have I added to the drag of this model, especially with said drag so far from the CofG?
3. Why have I added weight to this model?
If as trimming progresses you begin to notice model tends to snap into outsides while being a little lazy to insides, think of me. Yes, there are reasons for this tendency beyond screwed-up drag and totally whacked additions of mass (and a heavy muffler hanging down). But there is a good chance the fixes won't fix the problem. That's when I really want you to think of me!
4. Here's the real test: When having gained experience with trike gear, let's see what style gear your next model employs. You know where I stand on that issue...
Dan
-
Tim,
I don't think you are accurately stating my comments. I am quite sure you will like the trike gear. Very much in point of fact, as it will pretty much do what you expect.
It's later that questions come to the fore.
1. Am I really getting superior takeoffs and landings? It seems to jump off the ground or it seems to not rotate willingly.
There is a lot more involved than just getting the model to sit on three wheels.
2. Why have I added to the drag of this model, especially with said drag so far from the CofG?
3. Why have I added weight to this model?
If as trimming progresses you begin to notice model tends to snap into outsides while being a little lazy to insides, think of me. Yes, there are reasons for this tendency beyond screwed-up drag and totally whacked additions of mass (and a heavy muffler hanging down). But there is a good chance the fixes won't fix the problem. That's when I really want you to think of me!
4. Here's the real test: When having gained experience with trike gear, let's see what style gear your next model employs. You know where I stand on that issue...
Dan
Dan, let me guess, you advocate RETRACTABLE trike gear right LL~ ( oh and the smiley emoticon was just for you buddy )
-
Dan, let me guess, you advocate RETRACTABLE trike gear right LL~ ( oh and the smiley emoticon was just for you buddy )
I would rather use a single wheel and tip skids than trike gear. Which is what I did with at least two ARF Flite Streaks and my Soup Combat Streaker.
Such comes from experience gained in actually building and flying a trike gear model many years ago. Never again...
I hate you for dumping in the emoticon.
"Leave me alone I know what I'm doing." And last weekend this was more true than ever, was it not?!
Dan
-
well,, the emoticon was just one of those "have to moments,,,"
as to last weekend,, looks like there may actually be some old teams with new speed as well,,, was good to see the "I know what I am doing" guy ,, show that he knows what he is doing,,
what thinks you about Hamilton,, can he make a diff on that team?
sorry Tim,, F1 distraction,,
-
what thinks you about Hamilton,, can he make a diff on that team?
sorry Tim,, F1 distraction,,
Hamilton driving for Merc:
1) He will be making a lot more money.
2) He will have much more free time.
3) He will no longer have to commission replicas of trophies won.
4) He will be marginally quicker than Rosberg.
5) He will prove vastly superior to Schumacher in helping to develop chassis.*
6) He will still be a punk.
Dan
*N.5 is a joke! dan
-
Hamilton sucks... JMHO though...
F1 is not even the shadow of what it once was.
Marcus
-
Hamilton sucks... JMHO though...
F1 is not even the shadow of what it once was.
Marcus
Agreed on Hamilton. One will sometimes hear that competition breeds character. It is my view that competition reveals character. And Hamilton is the proof.
What an odd comment about F1! Please tell me when the peak of F1 took place so I can better chart the changes (decline?!). Granted, F1 has changed over the years. Very much of this change has been positive.
Dan
-
Tim,
I don't think you are accurately stating my comments. I am quite sure you will like the trike gear. Very much in point of fact, as it will pretty much do what you expect.
It's later that questions come to the fore.
1. Am I really getting superior takeoffs and landings? It seems to jump off the ground or it seems to not rotate willingly.
There is a lot more involved than just getting the model to sit on three wheels.
2. Why have I added to the drag of this model, especially with said drag so far from the CofG?
3. Why have I added weight to this model?
If as trimming progresses you begin to notice model tends to snap into outsides while being a little lazy to insides, think of me. Yes, there are reasons for this tendency beyond screwed-up drag and totally whacked additions of mass (and a heavy muffler hanging down). But there is a good chance the fixes won't fix the problem. That's when I really want you to think of me!
4. Here's the real test: When having gained experience with trike gear, let's see what style gear your next model employs. You know where I stand on that issue...
Dan
I just looked here for other reasons, and thought that a one-year-after answer may be just the ticket:
1: YES! YES YES YES! The plane practically takes off and lands itself. The only bad habit it has is that if I land too slow it'll bounce badly -- it has to be greased in. That gear gets me at least 5-10 points a flight if I don't try to do a carrier landing like I did (twice!) this past weekend at Puyallup.
2: See (1)
3: Because if it wasn't over weight, people may not believe that I made it.
4: My next model will be conventional gear, for comparison purposes. The real question is what is the gear on the model after that.
-
I was just going to mention that I don't recall ever seeing Tim's "Sister Jenny" do a decent landing on its trike gear. But nevermind, I won't bother. S?P Steve
-
well I did my trike gear plane,,
and no my displeasure was not the reason it splatted in Salem,,
my new profile will not have trike gear,,
-
that said do yourself a favor, do not sheet the leading edge, do not use cap strips, add the half ribs, and monokote the wing. Perhaps using spruce spars would be ok, I did. The real advantage for YOU ( and me when I flew this) is that the wing structure will absorb a lot of abuse when ,, uh,, if you bounce it on the bottom of manuevers. It will flex, pop the monokote/ultracote between bays on the wing, and most times with some 2 inch packing tape to patch the covering, you can be flying again. If you build the wing more rigid , sheeting and cap strips, it will shatter.
Sorry to the world for reviving this old thread but -- see what I get for following Mark's advice? I have never crashed this plane in 2 1/2 years of flying (over 500 flights, I'm pretty sure), but I'm always tweaking the flaps to make up for the wing squirming around!
The worst damage to it was as an innocent bystander when Bruce Hunt had a motor break off of his airplane in ground testing at the Regionals.
-
Sorry to the world for reviving this old thread but -- see what I get for following Mark's advice? I have never crashed this plane in 2 1/2 years of flying (over 500 flights, I'm pretty sure), but I'm always tweaking the flaps to make up for the wing squirming around!
The worst damage to it was as an innocent bystander when Bruce Hunt had a motor break off of his airplane in ground testing at the Regionals.
So do you feel the lack of wing structure, (no sheeting and cap-strips) the cause of the wiggly wings?
-
So do you feel the lack of wing structure, (no sheeting and cap-strips) the cause of the wiggly wings?
When you leave out sheeting and cap strips the wooden structure of the wing is very weak in torsion, and not terribly strong in fore-aft shear. Once the wing is covered, however, it is fairly rigid.
This is both a blessing and a curse: it's a blessing because it makes the plane very resilient in a crash, and it's a curse because if the covering moves, the wing moves.
The crash resiliency is nice: if you doink the airplane, instead of the wing shattering, or breaking in two at the root and crushing balsa in the fuselage, the covering bursts, the wooden structure flexes, and with luck you have a repair job that consists of a few dots of glue and new covering on the wings.
I think I recovered my Skyray 35 three times because of crashes, with very little damage to the wing structure. Then I handed the thing off to someone else and they flew it some more.
-
Sorry to the world for reviving this old thread but -- see what I get for following Mark's advice? I have never crashed this plane in 2 1/2 years of flying (over 500 flights, I'm pretty sure), but I'm always tweaking the flaps to make up for the wing squirming around!
The worst damage to it was as an innocent bystander when Bruce Hunt had a motor break off of his airplane in ground testing at the Regionals.
dude, really,,
when I gave that advice you were still flying intermidiate,, somehow I dont think my advice was intended to carry through when you made the LEAP to expert ,,
Note on that,, hey I didnt finish last in my first expert contest,, and,, Now that I am finally able to fly again on a regular basis,, I am gunning for you!<, you may want to finish up the Legacy,, and the Atlantis,,,
-
dude, really,,
when I gave that advice you were still flying intermidiate,, somehow I dont think my advice was intended to carry through when you made the LEAP to expert ,,
Well, yes, but a chance to yank your chain is not to be wasted. If you look to the post right after yours I'm heartily agreeing with you.
Note on that,, hey I didnt finish last in my first expert contest,, and,, Now that I am finally able to fly again on a regular basis,, I am gunning for you!<, you may want to finish up the Legacy,, and the Atlantis,,,
Robin crashed the Fright Streak in practice today, and I declared the Ringmaster dead last night (dorked motor mounts). Since it's going to be rainy for a good long time the plan is to get the Atlantis in the air and let her crash practice with Sister Jenny -- so maybe we'll use that wing construction after all.