Author Topic: Brodak "FancyPants" ? (Read 1281 times)

Rob Killick · « **on:** January 28, 2007, 11:33:50 AM »

Hi

I'm considering , purchasing a Brodak "FancyPants" and was wondering if any of you could lend some insight or tips on the kits construction ?
I've built a couple of Brodak's kits and they are quite straight forward , but I'm sure that alot of you have ways of bettering the kit(s) .
I'm also wondering what size of engine might suit this plane ?

Thanks

Jim Oliver · « **Reply #1 on:** January 28, 2007, 11:49:34 AM »

One of my friends "had" a Fancy Pants with Fox 35--nice flying plane. Nose heavy with the Fox--I would use a Brodak 25 or similiar.

Jim

Bill Little · « **Reply #2 on:** January 28, 2007, 11:57:43 AM »

Hi Rob,

Like Jim said!

I did a Product Review in my Products Column of Stunt News when John introduced the kit. My son, Aaron, built it and flew it in Classic. We used a Fox 35 at first and fuel consumption vs. available room for a tank, made the pattern "iffy" at times. The Brodak 25 (first choice) or LA 25, or a similar engine, makes a great flying little plane.

It still lives and that is after having a LO break at the BC. Fortunately the plane came in inverted and "flat" with very little damage. The kid could do more than I thought!

That first kit had a metal BC, and we did nothing to alter anything since it was a "Product Review" and no modifications were the way to go.

I would still build it "right out of the box" with only *possible* substitution of wood if necessary. Make sure to bush the LOs!

Chris Brainard · « **Reply #3 on:** January 29, 2007, 07:08:13 PM »

I'm currently building my 7th one. At our elevation, one mile above sealevel, they need to be kept light. My lightest so far is 29 oz, the heaviest 31 oz. Stock 1:1 Flap/elevator makes mushy corners. I use 2:3. Most of my flying is from rough grass fields so I use a fuse mounted gear instead of the wing mount. I've flown with engines ranging from Veco .19 B.B. up to Brodak .40. In my opinion, a .25 size or smaller will give much better performance if using the allowed .012" dia. lines. On a model this small and light, the .015" diameter lines required for the larger engines imposes too much drag and weight. The thin wing works quite well in windy weather and the compact size makes it very easy to transport. It can be a delightful airplane to fly and has surprisingly good performance.
Chris

Bill Little · « **Reply #4 on:** January 29, 2007, 07:28:53 PM »

HI Chris,

We found the over all best performance to be with a 1957 issue Fox 25 (the one built in the 19 case) since it has almost the power of a Fox 35 Stunt, but weights a little less and uses less fuel. Using just a clear finish on the wings and dope on the wood surfaces, Aaron kept his at 27 oz. RTF built "box stock". Built light, with a light engine, gives the best performance, like you say.

At the East Coast Oldie Goldies one year, 3 of the top 5 in Advanced Classic were Fancy Pants!

Chris Brainard · « **Reply #5 on:** January 29, 2007, 10:29:30 PM »

Hi Bill,
I've seen several of your posts regarding how well the older Fox .25 runs. I have two of the older Fox .19's (3-bolt backplate) which are in excellent shape that were given to me but I have not flown yet. Do you know if they exhibit the same run characteristics as the .25? Also, have you tried to run this engine with a tongue muffler? If so, how does it perform. The Fancy Pants I'm currently flying has a modified O.S. .25 FP running the factory muffler (which has been lightened somewhat by grinding all the cooling fins off, removing the long bolt which runs through the muffler body and using J-B Weld to join the pieces together). It runs very quietly, and has allowed me to fly on the local Jr. High School football field without getting run off because of noise complaints. Some of my older engines aren't "happy" with a muffler. I'm very interested in hearing how the Fox .25 does with a muffler.
Chris

Bill Little · « **Reply #6 on:** January 29, 2007, 11:11:30 PM »

Quote from: Chris Brainard on January 29, 2007, 10:29:30 PM

Hi Bill,
I've seen several of your posts regarding how well the older Fox .25 runs. I have two of the older Fox .19's (3-bolt backplate) which are in excellent shape that were given to me but I have not flown yet. Do you know if they exhibit the same run characteristics as the .25? Also, have you tried to run this engine with a tongue muffler? If so, how does it perform. The Fancy Pants I'm currently flying has a modified O.S. .25 FP running the factory muffler (which has been lightened somewhat by grinding all the cooling fins off, removing the long bolt which runs through the muffler body and using J-B Weld to join the pieces together). It runs very quietly, and has allowed me to fly on the local Jr. High School football field without getting run off because of noise complaints. Some of my older engines aren't "happy" with a muffler. I'm very interested in hearing how the Fox .25 does with a muffler.
Chris

Hi Chris,

As to the run of the "old" Fox 19, it runs "like a Fox"!

Haven't had to use a Muffler on the old 25 yet.

Bill <><

Author Topic: Brodak "FancyPants" ? (Read 1281 times)

Rob Killick

Brodak "FancyPants" ?

Jim Oliver

Re: Brodak "FancyPants" ?

Bill Little

Re: Brodak "FancyPants" ?

Chris Brainard

Re: Brodak "FancyPants" ?

Bill Little

Re: Brodak "FancyPants" ?

Chris Brainard

Re: Brodak "FancyPants" ?

Bill Little

Re: Brodak "FancyPants" ?