Author Topic: Sig Biplanes (Read 1968 times)

Russell Shaffer · « **on:** March 07, 2006, 07:26:26 PM »

Anybody ever build one of Sig's profile bipes, the Fokker or the Spad? Plans are available. For some reason I have always liked two wings. I, and I guess this dates me, built two of Sterling's Flying Fools, crashed them both, and I would like to try again. In 1960, I thought the Sterling's were heavy and the McCoy 35 couldn't keep the lines tight overhead. Slack lines and into the dirt. No grass where I lived. Russell

john e. holliday · « **Reply #1 on:** March 08, 2006, 07:18:26 AM »

I had the Spad back when they came out with them. Our club was going to do demo combat with them. I was the only one to build one. It was a great sport plane and would do the pattern of you did not push it. Little LA 25 would be perfect for either one if kept light. By the way, double check the struts in the center section. I didn't and had to notch them for the wing to fit. Keep us posted on the construction. Later, DOC Holliday

Bill Little · « **Reply #2 on:** March 08, 2006, 05:09:06 PM »

Many years ago I built the Fokker, covered it with red silk/dope (the "translucent" red wings looked "cool"!) and powered it with a McCoy 35 RH. Very thin wings and not a lot of area.
Like Doc said, don't push it, or else fly it FAST! Tended to stall if hard corners were attempted. Fine for sport and some "fun" combat.

Russell Shaffer · « **Reply #3 on:** March 08, 2006, 05:27:59 PM »

Funny you should mention the McCoy. I still have mine from the early 60's, the $5.95 one and that is exactly what I had in mind. What do you think my 4000 foot altitude will do to the flying qualities? Maybe I should scale it up just a little? Russell

Bill Little · « **Reply #4 on:** March 08, 2006, 07:23:26 PM »

Quote from: Russell Shaffer on March 08, 2006, 05:27:59 PM

Funny you should mention the McCoy. I still have mine from the early 60's, the $5.95 one and that is exactly what I had in mind. What do you think my 4000 foot altitude will do to the flying qualities? Maybe I should scale it up just a little? Russell

It could stand more wing area and *maybe* a fatter airfoil. As designed, the wings don't produce a lot of lift. If you don't mind flying a pretty fast lap time, then you could be ok with the stock set up. Mine was pretty decent at about 4.5 on 60' eye to eye lines. Problem is that I don't think I can fly with ANY 'precision' that fast any more! hahahahaha

Russell Shaffer · « **Reply #5 on:** March 08, 2006, 08:49:50 PM »

Actually, I'm probably getting way ahead of myself. I haven't flown ANYTHING for 20 years, so it should be an experience. When I was a kid, I built a T-Square and crashed it so many times that I made aluminum engine bearers for it. I could take them off and pound them straight. Tough airplane. Hope I don't have to go through that much learning again. Russell

Author Topic: Sig Biplanes (Read 1968 times)

Russell Shaffer

Sig Biplanes

john e. holliday

Re: Sig Biplanes

Bill Little

Re: Sig Biplanes

Russell Shaffer

Re: Sig Biplanes

Bill Little

Re: Sig Biplanes

Russell Shaffer

Re: Sig Biplanes