stunthanger.com
Classic Designs => Classic Planes => Topic started by: Dennis Toth on April 13, 2012, 10:54:20 AM
-
Guys,
Was there a version of the Barnstormer that had coupled flaps that is classic legal? Seem I remember that Andrews had one with coupled flaps anyone have any information (plans) on this model?
Best, DennisT
-
I have the "remains" of a set of plans for the Barnstormer II. I haven't checked for a copywrite date, but they are mid '50s from the magazine ads. So, yes, the flapped Barnstormer IS Classic Legal.
BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM
-
Bill,
Can you tell if the moments were changed on the Barnstormer II vs the original?
Best, DennisT
-
Bill,
Can you tell if the moments were changed on the Barnstormer II vs the original?
Best, DennisT
HI Dennis,
I *think* the moments are unchanged, but I don't have normal Barnstormer plans, only the "Cheek Cowl" plans and the Barnstormer II.
Bill
-
Bill,
I have the cheek cowl plans so how does the moments compart to that?
Best, DennisT
-
Ty or Bill,
With the change to the sub rudder does it add a tail wheel? Do you think you can modify the Barnstormer I kit? Anyone have a picture to post?
Best, DennisT
-
Guys,
I came across the attached ad from the October 1952 issue of Flying Models showing a Barnstormer Gullow's kit with a smooth shaped nose into a spinner. It shows clear flaps but does not say if they are movable. Is this a Mark II?
Best, DennisT
-
Dennis
No, that is the original version of the Barnstormer. The MK II had moveable flaps, and came out a year or two later. :)
-
Charles,
The root and tip airfoil heigth is 1 1/2" and length is 8 3/4" with 2 1/4" flap which is tapered at the wing tip to 1/2" if you were to have full span flaps.
~Roger
-
Dennis,
That is a picture of kit box of the original Barnstormer. I had a Barnstormer at the 1st GSCB OTS contest. It had Banner wheels.
If I were to build another 'stormer I would be tempted to make the nose as shown on the box, and dare someone to challenge it! I talked to John Miske about this once. I don't recall his reaction, I think he said OK . Then add wheel pants that were on many of Lew Andrew's Barnstormers. Many people added the wheel pants. They really dress it up.
BTW I talked to John today. Actually he called me about the Curtiss Swift article in the March/April Stunt News. He is doing well. His speech is still slurred and he uses a walker, but he is still kicking.
Next time we talk I will ask him again about the 'stormer nose.
-
Guys,
After a little searching I found the attached photo from the Sept_Oct 2008 issue of SN that shows Wes Dick holding two full flapped Barnstormers in 1952. Wes has written several articles for SN and I sent him an email asking for more details and if this was a modified original Barnstormer (also looks like it has the shaped in nose to spinner). Dave Cook indicated in an email to me that Lou Andrews was experimenting with the full function flaps in the 1950 - 52 time frame and had conversion kits available that had solid flaps. Dave didn't know how they were sold or what it consisted of other than the solid flaps.
Best, DennisT
-
Guys,
After a little searching I found the attached photo from the Sept_Oct 2008 issue of SN that shows Wes Dick holding two full flapped Barnstormers in 1952. Wes has written several articles for SN and I sent him an email asking for more details and if this was a modified original Barnstormer (also looks like it has the shaped in nose to spinner). Dave Cook indicated in an email to me that Lou Andrews was experimenting with the full function flaps in the 1950 - 52 time frame and had conversion kits available that had solid flaps. Dave didn't know how they were sold or what it consisted of other than the solid flaps.
Best, DennisT
Now THAT is a nice pice of diggin! Wes also wrote a piece on Don Still in the March-April 2012 issue of Stunt News, indicating that Don built two Barnstormers with full span flaps prior to 1952.
-
How about the cheeked cowl Barnstormer.
and it's OTS legal too!
-
Thanks for showing those pans, Walter! That is the version I will build when I get to building a Barnstormer!
BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM
-
Thanks for showing those pans, Walter! That is the version I will build when I get to building a Barnstormer!
BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM
I was thinking of making a conversion kit for the B.S.
but with everything else I have to do there's just a bit
to much that would need to be done on it so I decided
to pass on that project.
-
This made me go out and check one of mile collection "piles" and I have a real nice MK-@ Barnstormer kit. Haven't opened it in a while and may check it out tomorrow.
Hey Ty, does that make four that you have heard about???? <=
HAPPY THANKSGIVING!
Dan McEntee
-
How about the cheeked cowl Barnstormer.
and it's OTS legal too!
Walter, (or anyone who might have the answer),
When was this design known to the public?
Reason for question:
One of my childhood flying buddies, I believe in 1952/53(?) (yeah, I am that old!) built a cheeked cowl Barnstormer. I always thought it was his idea, now i wonder!!!!!
He was a great builder and could have modified a kit if he had seen a picture or ?????
thx,
Roger Vizioli
-
Hi Roger,
IIRC, the story as I heard it was that Lou Andrews flew it at the NATS, maybe in 1952?? Either way, it was flown in some major meets. Could have shown up in a magazine of the period. It was before 1953.
BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM
-
Isn't this the version that Jim Lee has been flying the past couple years?
...just answered my own question, Walter's post, above reply #17, looks like the version Jim has been flying.
-
The cowling on the II seems to be different than on the original or the cheek one. Very interesting.
-
Hi Dan. Five now, actually. Three kits and two planes. Rare as "hens teeth". D>K Your kit, mine and one up in Seattle. H^^
Ty Make it 8. I owned two Kits back in the day. Plus John Brodak has one in his collection. How is the wood in your kit. Mine was least to say on the heavy side.
-
I have always felt that the Original Barnstormer should be built with the stitched canopy and geodetic fixed flap, otherwise it is not a Barnstormer.
The Mark II was mostly ignored since it was surpassed by more advanced designs.
That being said, the pictures on the Mark II box sure makes it an appealing project! The canopy appears to be larger and still has the feel of the stitched canopy and not like a rounded bubble, which would not look as good, and in my opinion looks horrible on the original Barnstormer. The paint scheme is also sharp. Add wheel pants and it is a real looker.
Since it is possibly legal for OTS and certainly for Classic, I hope that we will see the Mark II in contests. With what he has shown us flying a Ringmaster, Dave Fitzgerald would be unbeatable with this airplane!
Certainly better that the endless parade of Jamison and Humongous.
-
That being said, the pictures on the Mark II box sure makes it an appealing project! The canopy appears to be larger and still has the feel of the stitched canopy and not like a rounded bubble, which would not look as good, and in my opinion looks horrible on the original Barnstormer. The paint scheme is also sharp. Add wheel pants and it is a real looker.
Since it is possibly legal for OTS and certainly for Classic, I hope that we will see the Mark II in contests. With what he has shown us flying a Ringmaster, Dave Fitzgerald would be unbeatable with this airplane!
I wonder if it flew any better than the original? With more flap than elevator travel, and no additional tail volume, it may not fly any better, and possibly worse.
Brett
-
Brett,
I don't disagree with you.
The flaps taper to nothing at the tips but I would think that decreasing the flap movement would help. As I said above, the Mark II was behind the developments being made at the time. It would still be an interesting project. I hope that someone will build one.
-
I have always felt that the Original Barnstormer should be built with the stitched canopy and geodetic fixed flap, otherwise it is not a Barnstormer.....
=========================================================
Amen, Tom! Also do NOT take the LE sheeting back to the spar......and NO capstrips. Keep it real! mw~
-
Looks like the plans for the Cheeked Barnstormer has 1/4" spars, "C" tube construction and 1/4" cap strips... I wonder if that is really correct or was it "improved" when it was drawn????
Just as an added note: When I built my Barnstormer for the very first OTS meet. Oct 1970, the leading edge sheeting is in the correct place as Uncle Mikey mentioned above. Since it is legal to strengthen the wing if it does not show, I made a "D" tube spar web between the main spars. I also added center section sheeting, and that was deemed legal by John Miske. This eliminated the inherent weakness of the original construction.
I would build it the same way if I built another 'Stormer. I would probably use the blended in nose as on the box, (John Miske told me that would be acceptable) and add wheel pants.
Here is a picture of Linda and me at that first contest.
-
Please go to the Old Time Stunt thread about legality of current kits
-
If the contestant has plans with him, no argument.
-
I've got a Trixter Barnstormer built from a Brodak kit with the RSM electric motor and system. I also have an 10 year old Barnstormer Mark 2 built from plans with a Fox.35.
It's often windy here on Oahu so I wanted the best plane to handle the wind and tried several other designs that were good but the Barnstormers fly a little better for me. The Trixter flies the old time pattern fine but not good squares.
The one with flaps does super tight loops and 8's and has good line tension in overhead 8's and 20 mph wind.
I'm now building a new Mark 2 with the RSM power package.
-
/Users/tomhackett/Desktop/IMG_1176.JPG
This is my new one with the RSM 35 system. 38oz. with battery. my lightest yet.
-
Here's the new one.
-
I just ran across the 'Stormer thread. Mine is the original version with built-up trailing edge, stitched canopy, and proper L.E. sheeting. Power is a 1950 Orwick 29, in keeping with the "period" concept.
It seems to me that the later version with flaps would not be a good idea without also lengthening the tail moment. As it is, the short-coupling would cause too much interaction between flaps and elevator. Perhaps that could be lessened by reducing flap movement. Brett said that flaps could make it worse. Based on my own experience (long ago) designing planes with short coupling and flaps, I certainly agree with that.
Floyd
-
Floyd's 'stormer is period-correct in all respects. All others are NOT.
-
Yes, indeed! More than one "killer" airfoil was designed by tracing around a tennis shoe! (don't laugh: it works!)
Floyd
(a NACA kind of guy)