Peter, the Pathfinder L.E. is designed for a pipe, and the trike gear. No need to make a tail dragger out of it to use a pipe. The wing uses a self jigging structure to build it, that winds up being part of the trailing edge shear webbing. It's designed to build on a flat surface quite easily, BUT, you will definately need the magazine article to build it, since, as far as I know, there is no construction guide with the kit.

If you decide to build one, contact the designer, Gordan Delaney, or myself here on the forum, so we can help point you in the right direction, as far as construction techniques go. It is a little different, to the point that it might become confusing to those unfamiliar with Gordan's building methods.

Here's a picture of mine. with trike gear, and a rear exhaust engine.

actually Ransy Smith still sells the foam cores for his kits - so you could do the SV-11 with foam.

other than that - the Legacy is a simple build using the levelling bar - I have built 3 of them that way and as John says above - the Pathfinder has the tabs on th ribs - so should be easy also.

Peter, the Pathfinder L.E. is designed for a pipe, and the trike gear. No need to make a tail dragger out of it to use a pipe. The wing uses a self jigging structure to build it, that winds up being part of the trailing edge shear webbing. It's designed to build on a flat surface quite easily, BUT, you will definately need the magazine article to build it, since, as far as I know, there is no construction guide with the kit.

If you decide to build one, contact the designer, Gordan Delaney, or myself here on the forum, so we can help point you in the right direction, as far as construction techniques go. It is a little different, to the point that it might become confusing to those unfamiliar with Gordan's building methods.

Here's a picture of mine. with trike gear, and a rear exhaust engine.

Very nice, I am starting to lean towards this model, Is a canopy included or is it just a outline painted on balsa? I would like to add cockpit detail. Also what is the weight, the nose gear must incur a penalty, I need to power this with a OS 46V not a PA61 or other 60.

The canopy is included. They have been powered by Stalker .51RE, (mine) PA.40UL, PA.51 that I  know of. Mine weighs in at 66 Oz's. It flies well, even at our altitude of 4600 ASL here in Salt Lake City. They are designed to have a nose gear, no penalty, as it's part of the design.

This is very encouraging, I will certainly be asking for tips. Now I will have to locate this magazine article you speak of. I must admit that RSM could do bettet with the kit description. They are not very descriptive about what constitites a deluxe control hardware. It is always good to know exactly what you are getting included in the kit, like the canopy. Will I be looking to replace the control hardware with tom morris items or are they of similar quality are hinges and other traditional items included? I hate asking all these questions when they should be included in the kit description, especially considering the $170 Price tag.

Found it

Flying Models - May 2009
May 2009
Item# FM-May2009

34 Pathfinder L.E. by John Miller/Gordan Delaney
The final installment of the successful Pathfinder C/L Stunt series


Arrrgh!! 4 to 6 weeks for delivery!!! dang I could be dead by then. I get better lead times for Shielded ISO electronics shelters for the DOD. It's only a magazine, what do they have to reprint the dang thing?  

RSM kits included all items you need to build the airplane - same as Brodaka and other manufacturers - obviously not wheels etc - which are your choice,

per most kits - they do not include ball links - so if you are wanting to use ball links you will need to buy those separately.  The deluxe hardware package includes
Bellcrank
Leadouts
Horns
Lucky boxes
Carbon Fibre Push rod system
Wire for pushrod ends
Wire undercarriage (or ali)
hinges
screws/nut/bolts etc (that pertain to the kit)

Erics kits are first class - you will not be disappointed by the kits or quality.

Thanks very much, I am putting together a shopping list as since I have to mail order everything It is good to have the list as thorough as possible. this way I don't have to interupt the building process for a week or more waiting on Mail ordered stuff. I would like to use an adjustable Ball Link system so Those items will have to go on the list. I really need to hook up with some guys out here on the Island when they make a hobbyshop run. Else pick up all the other stuff while I'm at home in FLA, which will be in July sometime.

The next project will be building a transit case of some sort for the model, can't hand carry it on a plane as much as I'd like to. Come to think about it procuring fuel is going to be problematic.

Unless Eric has changed his hardware pack it does NOT include hinges or the screws,nuts and bolts.

Unless Eric has changed his hardware pack it does NOT include hinges or the screws,nuts and bolts.

See this is what I mean, I really need to know what is in the kits, Most recent kits all had the hinges inuded, So I shoul put a package of dubro hinges on the shopping list as well?

Pictured is the hardware pack from my Oriental Plus: The carbon tube, BC,lucky boxes,tip box,adj lead out,lead outs with crimp sleeves,push rods,dowells, unbent horns and bearings and tail wheel wire. This is/was the deluxe hardware pack.

Hi Peter

Since I'm more than a little familiar with Gordy's PF L.E. design, and know Eric pretty well, let me suggest that you talk to him when you order. He usually answers the phone when calls come in, and is very willing to work with you for special orders. For instance, explain your concern over the control system components. I wouldn't be suprized if he either has Morris parts available, or he'll offer the kit without the small parts.

As to pricing, I realize it seems a lot to pay for a kit, but, for comparison, The Biplane I'm currently building, cost me about the same, for the wood and lazer cutting only. Wood has gotten more expensive, and all the lazer cutters charge about the same rate. I believe Eric's pricing is in line for the quality of kit he delivers.

Gordan left yesterday to go to SoCal for a contest in the L.A. area. His L.E. went with him. He'll be back early next week. You can e-mail him via PM from right here on this forum. Same goes for me.

Were you able to get a copy of the artical yet? 

Hi Peter

Since I'm more than a little familiar with Gordy's PF L.E. design, and know Eric pretty well, let me suggest that you talk to him when you order. He usually answers the phone when calls come in, and is very willing to work with you for special orders. For instance, explain your concern over the control system components. I wouldn't be surprised if he either has Morris parts available, or he'll offer the kit without the small parts.

As to pricing, I realize it seems a lot to pay for a kit, but, for comparison, The Biplane I'm currently building, cost me about the same, for the wood and laser cutting only. Wood has gotten more expensive, and all the laser cutters charge about the same rate. I believe Eric's pricing is in line for the quality of kit he delivers.

Gordan left yesterday to go to SoCal for a contest in the L.A. area. His L.E. went with him. He'll be back early next week. You can e-mail him via PM from right here on this forum. Same goes for me.

Were you able to get a copy of the article yet?  

Thanks for the update John, No I have not been able to get the article yet. Carstens (Flying Models) has a 4 to 6 week delivery time on the issue which the article is in. Other that getting a back issue of the mag, I have now idea how I can get a copy of the article only.

As far as the control components, It is not at all clear that what others posted above is what is included in the Pathfinder kit. Seems like different model get different items in the hardware package if you read through the product descriptions. The Thunder Gazer is stated to have different components than the Trivial Pursuit, which has different components than the Pentastar. The Pathfinder kit makes NO mention of the type of control hardware it comes with. I can't see how a experienced kit supplier would provide what looks to be a 3 inch, thin nylon bellcrank for a model the size and weight of the Pathfinder, as shown in one of the photos that were posted above.

Thanks for the update John, No I have not been able to get the article yet. Carstens (Flying Models) has a 4 to 6 week delivery time on the issue which the article is in. Other that getting a back issue of the mag, I have now idea how I can get a copy of the article only.[font=Verdana]I can scan it to you[/font]

As far as the control components, It is not at all clear that what others posted above is what is included in the Pathfinder kit. Seems like different model get different items in the hardware package if you read through the product descriptions. The Thunder Gazer is stated to have different components than the Trivial Pursuit, which has different components than the Pentastar. The Pathfinder kit makes NO mention of the type of control hardware it comes with. I can't see how a experienced kit supplier would provide what looks to be a 3 inch, thin nylon bellcrank for a model the size and weight of the Pathfinder, as shown in one of the photos that were posted above.

Really???  how about you click on the More info tab and read that......pretty self explanitory.   Also suggesting that the hardware is unsuitable - from a mere observation it ludicrous.  The Bellcranks Eric provides are either Phenolic -
 or carbon - both of which are more than up to the task and do suit the model size and expected weight.
RSM kits are top notch - so buy one - build one and then make comments - as with ALL kits - the builder has the choice to add/change hardware to suit their personal preferences - and $189 is CHEAP when you consider what you get in the kit and the quality  of the cutting etc.

Really???  how about you click on the More info tab and read that......pretty self explanitory.   Also suggesting that the hardware is unsuitable - from a mere observation it ludicrous.  The Bellcranks Eric provides are either Phenolic -
 or carbon - both of which are more than up to the task and do suit the model size and expected weight.
RSM kits are top notch - so buy one - build one and then make comments - as with ALL kits - the builder has the choice to add/change hardware to suit their personal preferences - and $189 is CHEAP when you consider what you get in the kit and the quality  of the cutting etc.

If you take a look at the photo provided by leester as the typical deluxe hardare kit for RSM kits, you will see clearly a Nylon bellcrank suitable for 35 to 40 sized models. I made my comments from what I saw in that photo, as it was presented to me. Remember that I have no experience with these kits and can only go by what others say. Considering you were able to purchase a SV-11 ARC for the same price, and from reports it is a exceptional quality model in ARC form, I would expect a un-assembled model in kit form to be of much greater or at least equal quality. I have built several Brodak kits in the past, the Vector right out of the box is exceptional, now that is cheap yet what a killer model.

If we can get such exceptional quality from a more traditional mass produced product from Brodak, then the level of expectation is much greater from a lower volume specialty manufacturer. Just as I would expect even greater quality from BuilitRight, or Randy Smiths kits.

I have since contacted Eric at RSM and this is the reply. For anyone who would like to know the details of what is in the Pathfinder LE kit here is the list.

Hello Peter:
 
The Pathfinder LE has the same hardware as the Pentastar. (The Pentastar is listed as having the Carbon Fiber Bellcrank)
 
All of our kits come with hardware. The only difference is that the top line kits (most expensive) include a Carbon Fibre 4" Bell Crank. The hardware package contains the following additional items:
2 pcs 3/32 music wire (for push rod ends)
1 pcs 1/16 music wire (for tail dragger models only) landing gear (either 1/8 wire or formed Duralloy depending upon the kit)
1 pcs Arrow Shaft for push rod
2 pcs hardwood dowel for push rod
1 elevator horn (either 1/8 or 3/32 dia depending upon kit)
1 flap horn (either 1/8 or 3/32 dia depending upon kit and whether or not the model has flaps)
1 pcs adjustable lead out guide
1 pcs wing tip weight box
2 pcs Lucky Box (depending upon whether or not the plans show this item)
1 pcs .027 X 6' lead out wire kit (including sleeves and eyelets)
2 pcs Medium Weight Silk Span covering

I give ERIC a 10 out of 10 for his fast and informative reply. He also mentioned that his are builders kits, that is the expectation is that the builder is experienced in construction as there are no assembly guides included. Which is why I need to find a reprint of the Gordon Delany article. Not that I absolutely need it but I've got a feeling it will be immensely helpful.

Interesting, I am leary of the nose gear attachment scheme, having it mounted to the cowl which is not secured to the fuse by two dowels and a screw seems rather flimsy.It would put a lot of stress to those mounting points and not a very stable platform. Also I think I'll make built up flaps, ala the tail feathers sheeted with 1/32 balsa. That should lighten things up a bit. I am going to need some pointers on how to mould the leading edges.

Trust me Peter, the method used in mounting the nose wheel is well tested. The PF is the third plane this method of mounting to the cowl has been used. The first one endured a mishap that should have ripped it out.

Landing in the wind at the '95 Nat's. Greased the landing, and near the end of the roll out, the plane struck a full scale aircraft tie down. It was thrown almost 10 feet into the air, where with next to zero airspeed, it came down with the nose gear taking the full brunt of the force. The only damage was a slight elongation of the hole the gear exited the cowl. The cowl did not come loose, the plane bounced a few times, and stopped. The nose gear wire was bent back , but after bending it forward to the original location, and checking the nose section thouroughly, it was put back up in the air for the next flight.

Built up flaps will work fine, just make sure they don't twist easily, as you already know.

If you are not able to make the forming bucks for the leading edges, consider the method first written about by Bob Hunt, and illustrated in my thread starting construction on the 2 Bits Bipe, of forming leading edge caps.

I can see you are putting a lot of thought into this project. You should end up with a gr3eat plane with this project.

Trust me Peter, the method used in mounting the nose wheel is well tested. The PF is the third plane this method of mounting to the cowl has been used. The first one endured a mishap that should have ripped it out.

Landing in the wind at the '95 Nat's. Greased the landing, and near the end of the roll out, the plane struck a full scale aircraft tie down. It was thrown almost 10 feet into the air, where with next to zero airspeed, it came down with the nose gear taking the full brunt of the force. The only damage was a slight elongation of the hole the gear exited the cowl. The cowl did not come loose, the plane bounced a few times, and stopped. The nose gear wire was bent back , but after bending it forward to the original location, and checking the nose section thouroughly, it was put back up in the air for the next flight.

Built up flaps will work fine, just make sure they don't twist easily, as you already know.

If you are not able to make the forming bucks for the leading edges, consider the method first written about by Bob Hunt, and illustrated in my thread starting construction on the 2 Bits Bipe, of forming leading edge caps.

I can see you are putting a lot of thought into this project. You should end up with a gr3eat plane with this project.

Thanks for the update on the nose gear, at first glance, it seems a bit dodgy. Gear attached to a structure that is subsequently attached to another.  The built up flaps, should be plenty stiff, with the box section created by the balsa skin. Normally that is stiffer than a single sheet flap. Besides believe it or not they are easier to sand to a even tapered shape that way. Thanks for the heads up on moldinh the leading edges, I'm off to read the thread you suggested. I like to have all my ducks in a row before selecting, and starting a project. That way there are no surprises or dissapointments. If something gets screwed up the it's because I didn't do my homework.

I think we all have techniques for building that we have developed over time. When I build a kit (seldom), I usually dump the kit scheme on certain things in favor of my own method that I both understand and know to work well. Same with hardware. I have certain ways I tend to build, for instance, control systems. I will usually use hardware from a kit, but I modify it to specs that I am comfortable with. A good example is, I'll never build another plane that doesn't have independently adjustable leadouts. I've just had too much experience that says that it's a vital trim tool. If a kit comes with a leadout slider, I'll either modify it for independent adjustment or chuck it for a different unit.

Independent adjustable leadouts increase adjustability by a whole order of magnitude. I feel that this degree of adjustability is a two edged sword. We should remember back in the day where adjustable leadouts did not exist, adjustable wing tip weight boxes were not used (well people did stick clay out there) Control throws and ratios were fixed. Just about all you did was stick on nose or tail weight. Yet did the experts fly lower average scores in contests. There were no trim tabs, Rabe Rudders etc.

Heck many did not even use flaps. If your airplane flew crappy is because it was built wrong. Seems like it's become a design and build by the seat of your pants and put in enough adjustability to fix any blunders built in. Many features that provide all this adjustibility also present points of failure. Being adjustable by it's very nature introduces compromises and weaknesses in a design. In traditional engineering practice, such fixtures are used in the development and prototype phase where a item is test and tweaked until the optimum performance is achieved and then the production model has the adjustability features removed and the hardware manufactured and locked down at the specs determined during the prototype / field trial phase. This thus removes the potential points of failure inherent with the adjustable components.

Adjustibility also makes it equally easy to introduce errors as fixes in operation and performance. It almost seems like we are endlessly fiddling, and perhaps that is the attraction. Personally I subscribe to KISS, you'll live longer.

My first obstacle to overcome.

How to make a BUC for the molded leading edge. I read how you can use one of those preformed bals leading edges, but there is always the possibility (Rather Large one at that) that the available pre-fromed leading edges are the wrong size or profile. Which leads to the second option, some how making one out of some easily fabricated material. I have access to some foam, but no way to cut it. So I am cycling through the different things that I can get into the shape I need to creat the BUC. So far I'm shooting blanks.

I've had too many planes with a yaw issue that was solved by being able to adjust ONE leadout. Do what you like, but I won't build another plane without this adjustment. Besides, Paul Walker told me to.  

Oh and on the buck: If you can't cut on out of foam with a foam cutter (easy to make, BTW), You can use structural foam to carve it then block sand down. If you do this, make sure you use a hard backing so the foam does't flex while you're sanding it down.

Thanks Randy, I jave a feeling that I'll just get myself in to whole heap of trouble with split leadout adjusters. But as I think of it, all you really achieve is changing the spacing of the up and down lines....... I don't know, I'll just be ignorant and be as blissful as a shellfish in my ignorance.

Foam Cutter....... Easy to make...... I know, I've butchered up a few in my time (Mostly for my dad to use) But through hard learned experience the construction of such required more than a phillips screwdriver, needle nose pliers and a adjustable wrench. Which is my complete tool inventory at the moment. I would have had a whole stash of tools at my disposal at work, but we shipped them all to Japan for our installation crew to use for the next 6 months. I might be able to scrounge up an exacto knife though. I do have an old mop handle, which is aluminum or some junk tube steel.

My first obstacle to overcome.

How to make a BUC for the molded leading edge. I read how you can use one of those preformed bals leading edges, but there is always the possibility (Rather Large one at that) that the available pre-fromed leading edges are the wrong size or profile. Which leads to the second option, some how making one out of some easily fabricated material. I have access to some foam, but no way to cut it. So I am cycling through the different things that I can get into the shape I need to creat the BUC. So far I'm shooting blanks.

The profile does not have to be exact, just close. There is enough flexibility in the balsa to conform to tighter or looser fits. I suppose one could use a perfectly round tube, or a large hardwood dowel to form with, and it would work out.

Anpther option would be to have Bob Hunt cut you a forming buck. I would be happy to send him the files to make it with.

Cheers, John

You actually wind up augmenting the thrust in the same direction this way. We've done it on the last 4, or more designs, and they have all proven out. I'm aware of the debate over the issue, that was me right in the middle of it all. It works, I, and those I fly with use it, many who were hotly debating the issue, have never tried it I suspect.

Peter, the design work on the Pathfinder was carried out to work, and work well, by people who have spent a lot of time building, flying, and figuring why our planes do what they do, and how to make them do it better. Gordan Delaney is a great designer, builder, and pilot. He is respected by those at the top for his ideas and abilities.

This is one of my pet peeves, Those who redesign a perfectly good modern stunter. Of course, when it doesn't fly right, and they have problems trimming it out, it becomes the fault of the design.

Now that I've gotten that off my chest. you certainly can build the plane any way you desire, after all, it's your plane.

Don't mind me and my surley attitude. Today has not been a good day for me. I'm afraid I have blown out half the wiring in my house due to an accident, where I was nearly electrocuted. Lucky to be alive.

I am not changing anything, except going with built up flaps. I was just curious as to the reasoning behind it, It is the first model I am building with this design feature. I was thrilled with the performance of the Vector 40, That design could turn a razor corner, and not ruffle a hair. Which is why I wa even considering one of the SV-11 arcs. But I expect that if I build carefully to keep the weight at the 55 to 60 oz range, and with the power available from the OS 46 vf on the pipe, I don't think I'll be dissapointed. I am the last person to mess with a good thing, and considering the number of years of continuous development of this model, it would have been abandoned long ago if it were bad. I am just surprised that it had not gained more notoriaty than it has.

Seems to me people are hooked on other designs as their first choice, which is just fine by me as I don't like to be another clone of what everyone currently thinks is hot, and the pathfinder certainly looks different from the latest line of SV lookalikes. (But they do turn like the dickens).

The profile does not have to be exact, just close. There is enough flexibility in the balsa to conform to tighter or looser fits. I suppose one could use a perfectly round tube, or a large hardwood dowel to form with, and it would work out.

Anpther option would be to have Bob Hunt cut you a forming buck. I would be happy to send him the files to make it with.

Cheers, John

From my experience, especially wit wet balsa, if it is not a close fit you risk getting waves or hills and valleys in the balsa sheet between the ribs, just like you get when covering open bays with silk span or film.

No I'll figure this out, It only has to work once, I'll figure out a way to cut some foam, actually I don't even need to use a hot wire just a thin wire with some tooth to it. I think perhaps if I can find somr guitar string long enough, I could saw the shape out.  Auto windsheild installers use it to cut tbe gasket material that holds wiindsheilds in place.

No I'll figure this out, It only has to work once, I'll figure out a way to cut some foam, actually I don't even need to use a hot wire just a thin wire with some tooth to it. I think perhaps if I can find somr guitar string long enough, I could saw the shape out.  Auto windsheild installers use it to cut tbe gasket material that holds wiindsheilds in place.

why are you fixated on using foam as your buck?  cut some ribs out (to the shape of the LE) glue them at the correct location on a template of the spar - fill in between them with expandable foam - cut and shape, then sand to match the profile of the LE.  use lightweight spackle (if you are anal aboutno sags) tofill pits and void - sand again  when dry you can use directly (for the 2 Leadign Edes you need) or poly it and use it again later.

more than one way to skin a cat. 

Peter if you would take the time to go to the top of this section of the forum, you will see a locked post by Bob Hunt.  He tells in detail how to mold a leading edge.  There is even pictures to go along with it.  Also it amazes me how people can take a well known design and then make so many changes in it that it will not even fly like the original.  But, it is your money and your kit once you pay for it so I guess you can do what you want.  I have built kits from RSM, Brodaks, SIG and several of the small vendors.  If you have very little in building experience get a kit with a building manual like Brodaks put in their kits.   

Where is everyone getting the Idea I'm making all these changes. I will only be going with built up flaps, the molded leading edges are reccomended in the construction article. I've read Bob Hunts article above.  It amazes me that people who do not know the context of a conversation, make comments as if they do. So to enlighten those who did not follw the progression of this thread, here is the blow by blow.

1. The construction article in FM, reccommends two techniques for the LE. Doing split sheeting, or molded LE cap. The latter prefered.
2. Bob Hunt in the article above suggests that cut foam BUCs are the most accurate way of molding sheet LE
3. I currently do not have a way to hot wire cut foam, I really can't afford $50 or so to have Bob cut any.
4. I was looking for alternatives that woul yeild as accurate a BUC as a foam cut one or how to create a foam one in less time than it would take to build the kit itself.

Good idea Randy. When Gordan made his forms for the Tony, He did about the same thing, except he used blue foam to fill in between the plywood bulkheads. It worked great.

Good idea Randy. When Gordan made his forms for the Tony, He did about the same thing, except he used blue foam to fill in between the plywood bulkheads. It worked great.

Now here is a Idea, I can cut ome play templates at a few stages along the wing (4 should be planty) glue those to  a base 3/16 inch balsa X 30 inches or so. Fill in the spaces with rectabgular foam pieces then sand to shape with a block just longer than the span between the plywood templates. Of course the challange is to get foam pieces the proper size with 3 sides flat and square. Never mind finding it in small quantities. I have to look and see how small a piece I can find as I only need around 60 inches of 2" X 2" foam.