Any thoughts on whether this would be possible or not.  I saw a Fokker tripe ARF on the Tower Hobbies site but it is designed for an electric motor and RC.  29.5 wingspan and 300 sq. in. of wing area.  This would be an awesome plane to turn into UC.  I'm thinking it would need about a .15 or a .20 glow engine.  I'm seeing a problem with getting the ailerons on the top wing tied into a bellcrank assembly.  It would probably be okay without them if it couldn't be worked out.  Maybe the whole idea is way out of bounds.

http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXPZT9&P=7

http://manuals.hobbico.com/gpm/gpma1142-manual.pdf

I built a Sterling DR1 years ago and it is a hangar queen.  Never had the guts to fly it.  I got too much time into it and would hate to lose it.  Besides that I can wring out a profile stunter and when I lose it it is not too big of a deal.  Here's a picture of my Sterling DR1.

I would take a real close look at those strut attachments.  Sooner or later you are going to flip over on landing and a plane so short with a wing so high is likely to do several forward flips.  Or even tumble sideways - happened to me last week with a Streak bipe but all I broke was a small piece of elevator.  The time before that the top wing came off and damaged the bottom wing pretty severely, but it is a lot stronger now.  I now have the plywood struts epoxied to the spruce spars.  On the other hand, if those attachments (they look like plastic?) are fastened to balsa structure they might just pull out without damaging the wing structure.  Not a real big deal as long as it happens on landing.  I think you should cut a little hole in the top wing and see just what the struts connect to.  After all this, I think you should build it because it looks so good.  Just be sure to let us know how it progresses. 

Hi Jerry. It would make an interesting UC model, but I think it will need a lot more engine than a 15 or 20, even though the total area is 300 sq in. There is a lot of drag here. I would guess a 35 if going with a traditional engine like a Fox, or a bit smaller if a modern ABC engine.

In the Musciano 1/2A meets, I have seen a couple of triplanes, with Fox or Cox 049s. Getting them airborne was a bit tricky, but they flew tolerably well. Currell

         Jerry, I built the same plane. Mine is also 20 plus years old. I never flew mine because it looks as nice as yours. My silkspan split on the top wing. Fortunately, I never had the cross insignia put on. I just recovered it and still had the original decals and it looks brand new. Decals still worked and I even used the same dope I had from years back. I'm going to fly mine this spring. I can't see it sitting there. I removed the heavy wooden wheels and went with a Guillows plastic wheel for their freeflight jobs. I painted the centers white and installed them. I saved a good bit of weight there alone. My biggest concern is the tiny wing over the gear. I think this is going to cause a sever tripping hazard on grass. I'm going for the concrete flight. I figure if its going in its a goner. I've carefully checked everything. I installed a brand new Babe Bee on it in the eighties. I just took it apart to freshen the gaskets and make sure it was clean. This one has the dual bypass ports. I'm excited about it. My dad just said you have to fly that one and I want to be there when you do it. Ken

Here is a YouTube video of a small control line Fokker Triplane flight. The flight results are probably typical of what the Sterling triplane might have experienced.



DennisV

Here is a YouTube video of a small control line Fokker Triplane flight. The flight results are probably typical of what the Sterling triplane might have experienced.



DennisV

That makes me glad my Sterling Fokker Tripe is still hanging from the ceiling in my bedroom.  I have a lot of time in it, it's a silk and dope finish.  It's fine where it's at and that's where it will stay.  There's a picture of it towarda the top of this thread.