stunthanger.com
Building Tips and technical articles. => Building techniques => Topic started by: Gary Anderson on March 17, 2008, 11:43:15 AM
-
Hi guys,
Mr. Cunninghan has designed a very nice buildup profile fuselage. I build one three years ago, worked out great and love the looks of the plane in the air. I decided to use Mr. Cunninghams fuse design, used a shark 45 wing, magnum flaps, smoothie tail and rudder and the super chipmunk elevator. Plane flys great, different and of coarse ugly but its mine (I'm sure no one else would want it anyway) ARF are fun plane and I'm glad we have them but man isn't it fun making your own junk. Just wondering how many people have build Mr. Cunningham fuselage or complete plane? Have a great day and keep them in the air, Gary
-
Hi Gary. Based on all the assimilated parts, you could call it the "Borg". A gent in the Salt Lake City area used to do the same. Combine parts of wrecks and came up with some winners. H^^
Ty,
You nailed that one, good for 40 points!! LL~
Cheers,
Jim
-
I'm in the finishing stages of my first Mo Best, using the built up fuselage with 1/64th ply from the nose doublers back. I have another one almost finished (fuse that is) where the entire fuselage has 1/64th ply nose to tail, then the nose doublers on top of that. Either one has a very stiff fuselage.
-
Hi Gary. Based on all the assimilated parts, you could call it the "Borg". A gent in the Salt Lake City area used to do the same. Combine parts of wrecks and came up with some winners. H^^
Hi Ty,
I believe Mr. Cunningham calls his design "MO BEST", I call mine "MY MESS" Ha Ha, just having fun. Thanks for the response. The gentleman with the picture of the plane, WOW, looks great, do you have a name for her? Should be WOW, Gary
-
Leester does a very nice job of building. y1
-
I haven't built a Mo Best (yet - even though I have the plans and ahve studied the pampa articles carefully) but I have built two of his fuselages.
I have to say I like them, rigid and light (air is ligher than wood after all)
My first attempt was a small Sukhoi aerobat for an LA25 which flew rather well. I don't bother with his approach for smaller than 25 sized models. I built my (now defunct) trophy trainer using the same philosophy and it flew rather well I thought.
I can't see any reason not to build a profile model any other way any more.
-
Is it generally agreed that 1/64 ply gives a better strength:weight result than 1/16 or 3/32 angled grain balsa on built-up profile fuseloogies?
Kim
-
Is it generally agreed that 1/64 ply gives a better strength:weight result than 1/16 or 3/32 angled grain balsa on built-up profile fuseloogies?
Kim
That is my understanding, Kim. ???
-
Hi guys,
Mr. Cunninghan has designed a very nice buildup profile fuselage. I build one three years ago, worked out great and love the looks of the plane in the air. I decided to use Mr. Cunninghams fuse design, used a shark 45 wing, magnum flaps, smoothie tail and rudder and the super chipmunk elevator. Plane flys great, different and of coarse ugly but its mine (I'm sure no one else would want it anyway) ARF are fun plane and I'm glad we have them but man isn't it fun making your own junk. Just wondering how many people have build Mr. Cunningham fuselage or complete plane? Have a great day and keep them in the air, Gary
Hey Guys,
This has always bothers me a little about built up profile. I don’t want to step on peoples toes but a built up profile is as much work as a full fuselage model. When I designed the Sig Fazer, it had a fuselage built up in the same manner on the first prototype. I was trying to keep the fuselage really light and strong. It worked but it seemed to me that it was self-defeating the concept of the simple profile fuselage. Consequently, years later I found that laminating two pieces of ¼” balsa was lighter and stronger than a solid ½” plank of balsa and much easier to find in lighter weights. Like I said I not trying to step on toes and this is just my opinion, but it is a least something to consider.
Later,
Mikey
-
Hey Guys,
This has always bothers me a little about built up profile. I don’t want to step on peoples toes but a built up profile is as much work as a full fuselage model. When I designed the Sig Fazer, it had a fuselage built up in the same manner on the first prototype. I was trying to keep the fuselage really light and strong. It worked but it seemed to me that it was self-defeating the concept of the simple profile fuselage. Consequently, years later I found that laminating two pieces of ¼” balsa was lighter and stronger than a solid ½” plank of balsa and much easier to find in lighter weights. Like I said I not trying to step on toes and this is just my opinion, but it is a least something to consider.
Later,
Mikey
Hi Mike,
I agree, I built your magnum fuselage in about the same amount of time. You have a lot nicer looking plane with the built up fuse and I believe its stronger. The profile I have isn't as strong as the magnum fuse. Its just fun having different toys to play with. I believe when most of them meet the ground they surrender and you have to build another one, Ha Ha. Thank you for your input, Gary
-
Hey Guys,
This has always bothers me a little about built up profile. I don’t want to step on peoples toes but a built up profile is as much work as a full fuselage model. When I designed the Sig Fazer, it had a fuselage built up in the same manner on the first prototype. I was trying to keep the fuselage really light and strong. It worked but it seemed to me that it was self-defeating the concept of the simple profile fuselage. Consequently, years later I found that laminating two pieces of ¼” balsa was lighter and stronger than a solid ½” plank of balsa and much easier to find in lighter weights. Like I said I not trying to step on toes and this is just my opinion, but it is a least something to consider.
Later,
Mikey
Hi mikey,
You are correct (as usual! LOL!) in the extra time to build a *built up Profile* being very close to a full fuselage plane. But, they don't allow full fuselage planes in Profile Classes. VD~ n~ :## LL~
As an aside, I believe carving and hollowing blocks is the big difference in the two fuselages as regards to build time.
Bill
-
Hi mikey,
You are correct (as usual! LOL!) in the extra time to build a *built up Profile* being very close to a full fuselage plane. But, they don't allow full fuselage planes in Profile Classes. VD~ n~ :## LL~
As an aside, I believe carving and hollowing blocks is the big difference in the two fuselages as regards to build time.
Bill
Hi Bill,
You can alway mold the parts, instead of carving them out of blocks. Its fun to mold, reasonably priced and easy. Have a great day, Gary
-
Hi mikey,
You are correct (as usual! LOL!) in the extra time to build a *built up Profile* being very close to a full fuselage plane. But, they don't allow full fuselage planes in Profile Classes. VD~ n~ :## LL~
As an aside, I believe carving and hollowing blocks is the big difference in the two fuselages as regards to build time.
Bill
Hi Bill,
I was thinking in my head (well maybe my butt) about all of the Green Box Noblers I built over the years with no blocks hardly at all. They would built up really fast (some just over night) even with Ambroid glue. My only point was a simple built up fuselage is just as fast as a built up profile.
The molded parts are way cool and do speed up the process by a factor of three if the bucks are already on hand. My molding bucks are from solid balsa blocks (or pine) and covered with epoxy, they last a long time. I've used them many times for different models as well.
Later,
Mikey
-
HI Mikey,
Molding is a great alternative to carving blocks! Especially as the *good* wood is getting harder to find, it seems. I'm looking at molding a turtle deck using one of my lost foam leading edge bucks! (it's about perfect) ;D
Bill