Author Topic: Flying Fool back in rehab. (Read 4254 times)

Paul Smith · « **on:** January 10, 2013, 08:28:59 AM »

I guess I'll settle for this board since the Fool isn't old enough for OTS. Actually it doesn't come very close to doing any pattern. As posted before, i took this plane in as a rescue puppy that was dumped off at our meeting. I refinshed it and got it flying for a while with the original Fox 35 Stunt and fuel tank it came with.

Paul Smith · « **Reply #1 on:** January 10, 2013, 08:38:41 AM »

After some tweaking of the leadout guide I was able to do inside and outside loops, lazy eights, inverted, and reverse wingovers.

Unfortunately the old Fox bulked off up top and just about dropped the plane on my head. I was able to back peddle enough to settle for a 30 degree impact which broke the model down to it major subassemblies. It's back in rehab again. In addition to patching damages it will get an OS 25 with a hefty dose of outthrust.

Jim Kraft · « **Reply #2 on:** January 10, 2013, 09:32:02 AM »

Well bummers Paul. A pretty neat plane after you redid it. We will be looking forward to the double rehab. I flew the one I had many years ago till my son said "let me try that". I never got around to repairing mine. I wouldn't mind building another if I could find the plans cheap. They are a lot of fun.

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #3 on:** January 10, 2013, 11:58:26 AM »

Quote from: Jim Kraft on January 10, 2013, 09:32:02 AM

I wouldn't mind building another if I could find the plans cheap. They are a lot of fun.

You'd have to fake it on the fuselage, but: http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1482313

Glenn (Gravitywell) Reach · « **Reply #4 on:** January 10, 2013, 12:42:50 PM »

Is there anyone out there that happens to have a tracing of the original bulkheads? I have never been able to find a fuselage drawing and if I could get a set of bulkheads, I could draw a fuse for distribution.

Paul Smith · « **Reply #5 on:** January 10, 2013, 01:40:28 PM »

I'll get some measurements while mine's apart.

This sort of like Perky speed, the Super Ringmaster, and hollow log stunt. A challenge to get it to work at all.

Glenn (Gravitywell) Reach · « **Reply #6 on:** January 10, 2013, 02:08:11 PM »

That would be great. Its not the best flying plane in the world, but man, everyone has fun memories of her.

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #7 on:** January 10, 2013, 03:09:40 PM »

I suspect that it'd do better if you forgot to put in the rudder offset, and slapped in an adjustable leadout guide.

Paul Smith · « **Reply #8 on:** January 10, 2013, 03:19:39 PM »

I have rudder offset and an adjustable leadout guide. It's not the traditonal slider, but a bolt-on unit that can move vertically as well as fore-and-aft. I ended up moving it quite a bit up get the plane dialed in.

The bolted interplane structs were handy for assembly and alignment, and now, repair.

Bill Little · « **Reply #9 on:** January 10, 2013, 04:28:04 PM »

Hi Paul,

Good luck with the repair/refinish. The FF isn't a top grade stunter for sure, but it is a great sport flier and different! Of course, as you know, it will fly somewhat different with the .25FP.

BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM

Avaiojet · « **Reply #10 on:** January 11, 2013, 08:43:00 AM »

Quote from: Glenn (Gravitywell) Reach on January 10, 2013, 12:42:50 PM

Is there anyone out there that happens to have a tracing of the original bulkheads? I have never been able to find a fuselage drawing and if I could get a set of bulkheads, I could draw a fuse for distribution.

Glenn,

Someone produces a kit. Not sure who?

It's on my "Before I die." list.

I actually had a kit and sold it.

Charles

Duke.Johnson · « **Reply #11 on:** January 11, 2013, 09:18:29 AM »

Quote from: Glenn (Gravitywell) Reach on January 10, 2013, 12:42:50 PM

Is there anyone out there that happens to have a tracing of the original bulkheads? I have never been able to find a fuselage drawing and if I could get a set of bulkheads, I could draw a fuse for distribution.

Pat King has a kit and plans, I'm not sure if it the original bulkhead or not. Pat would know. Check out the Vender section

Glenn (Gravitywell) Reach · « **Reply #12 on:** January 11, 2013, 11:26:13 AM »

I am aware of Pat's kits and from what I've heard he makes a very good one. Unfortunately I can't afford kits. Otherwise I'd be flying a Flying Fool! LOL

Duke.Johnson · « **Reply #13 on:** January 11, 2013, 12:54:36 PM »

I've bought just the plans from him if that helps.

Dan Bregar · « **Reply #14 on:** January 11, 2013, 04:45:59 PM »

I've seen 3 or 4 Flying Fools fly over the years, and only one flew well. The issue of performance has always been hampered by the terrible wood in the Sterling kits, so they are overweight and fly like it. The one good one I saw was powered by a Fox 25 and the builder replaced most of the kit wood with good light wood, and that made a big difference. It flew very well. Weight is our enemy.

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #15 on:** January 12, 2013, 08:00:00 AM »

Saw the title and did not immediately recognize that it is about an AIRPLANE!

All seriousness aside, it was a tough break, but I'm sure "Biplane Paul" will get this one airworthy in no time...

What Dan said is right on target - too much structure and too much heavy wood makes it tough to build a really good FF from the kit. I think Pat King improved the structure and nudged some of the critical dimensions to improve the chances of success. Pat also has a reputation for putting out really good kits.

Paul Smith · « **Reply #16 on:** January 12, 2013, 03:44:07 PM »

I think the long nose is more of a problem than heavy wood. The engine & tank are so far up front it needs tail weight to do anything. I dealt with this to some extent by going to a 25 and moving the landing gear back. Of course the limited wing area is the root cause problem.

Paul Smith · « **Reply #17 on:** February 12, 2013, 07:35:01 AM »

I got it back together.

My permanent fix to the old Fox bulking off is an OS LA25, with some outthrust added. It weighs in at 29.5 ounces which is basically what a Sterling kit Fool will weigh.

I think the limit of this design is the lazy eight, loops, and inverted. After closer inspection I feel that shorter nose and lighter engine is the only way to upgrade performance. Efforts to lighten up what that will only enhance nose-heaviness.

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #18 on:** February 12, 2013, 03:52:25 PM »

Nice job, looks like the patient survived. How does the 29.5 oz weight compare with the BEFORE condition? Does the LA move the CG back very much compared to the Fox? Will you dare add any tail weight just to see if that improves the flight manners?

Paul Smith · « **Reply #19 on:** February 13, 2013, 10:50:07 AM »

I'll have to check the weight. I think I took a fraction of an ounce off the engine mass at best.

I've always felt that the total weight penalty for tail/tip weight is a price you have to pay.

Joseph Lijoi · « **Reply #20 on:** February 15, 2013, 04:01:31 PM »

Paul

If talking about susbstance abuse issues on stunthanger helps you in recovery then I am all for it and support you.

. I might have issues with that Veco Chief you had a while back with the quotes from Chief Pontiac written all over it, but I think your flying is far from foolish.

Paul Smith · « **Reply #21 on:** February 17, 2013, 12:09:48 PM »

Thanks,

The Fox 35 I took out weighed 6.5 ounces and the OS 25 is 5.9 ounces. So it was a baby step in the right direction.

Glenn (Gravitywell) Reach · « **Reply #22 on:** February 17, 2013, 12:15:26 PM »

Personally I don't care how heavy they are or how little of the pattern they will do....they are just a beautiful looking old girl that deserves to be built and flown. I'm glad you shared your planes rebirth with us, thank you.

phil c · « **Reply #23 on:** February 19, 2013, 07:51:51 PM »

You nearly got a silk purse out of a sow's ear there Paul. Redesigned with some of the changes mentioned an enlarged it would look a lot like the Brodak P-38(?) which flys a better.

The Flying Fool was the worst plane I've ever flown, until the top wing flew off. Then it got worse.

john e. holliday · « **Reply #24 on:** February 20, 2013, 08:51:59 AM »

Paul, I am glad you rebuilt the Flying Fool again. I had one that had a Veco .35 for power. Too fast and too heavy. It would do loops and inverted okay, but not a pattern plane. A crowd pleaser, yes.

David_Ruff · « **Reply #25 on:** February 08, 2014, 08:15:32 AM »

I have a Sterling Flying Fool kit I will build someday. Planning to run a .19 or OS 25 in her.

Doug Burright · « **Reply #26 on:** February 11, 2014, 05:34:09 PM »

I hope you don't mind if I put a picture of my Sterling Flying Fool on here, that I just completed. No pilot installed, yet.

I changed the airfoil to a fat one, and am using a Fox .35 for power. With a 34 inch wingspan, this will be the smallest plane that I've put the .35 onto.

55chevr · « **Reply #27 on:** February 11, 2014, 05:38:49 PM »

I built a Flying Fool from a Sterling kit ... not a lot of wing for stunt. It flies but it is not very aerobatic.

john e. holliday · « **Reply #28 on:** February 12, 2014, 10:03:12 AM »

In my opinion the Flying Fool was a plane for flying fun and getting spectators. May have to build another one once I get done with what I am working on. Doug, your Flying Fool looks great.

Avaiojet · « **Reply #29 on:** February 12, 2014, 02:05:21 PM »

Quote from: 55chevr on February 11, 2014, 05:38:49 PM

I built a Flying Fool from a Sterling kit ... not a lot of wing for stunt. It flies but it is not very aerobatic.

Chev,

How is the top wing constructed? Ribs with a center spar front and rear?

55chevr · « **Reply #30 on:** February 12, 2014, 02:33:44 PM »

Charles ... I built it 30 years ago ... cant remember the construction. I flew it a half dozen times and traded the Flying Fool and the Fox 35 I had on it, even up for an OS 35 motor.

Bill Little · « **Reply #31 on:** February 12, 2014, 04:09:25 PM »

Quote from: Avaiojet on February 12, 2014, 02:05:21 PM

Chev,

How is the top wing constructed? Ribs with a center spar front and rear?

Hi Charles,

Expand the first picture in Paul's 1st post and you will see the original construction. That model was built from a Sterling kit.

BIG Bear

Mike Keville · « **Reply #32 on:** February 12, 2014, 05:52:25 PM »

Typical Sterling wing construction, used on all of their 'C'-series Scale kits. In 1967 I built one of their Waco Cabin kits. Weighed only slightly less than my Volkswagen, as I recall.

wwwarbird · « **Reply #33 on:** February 12, 2014, 09:49:20 PM »

Quote from: Doug Burright on February 11, 2014, 05:34:09 PM

I hope you don't mind if I put a picture of my Sterling Flying Fool on here, that I just completed. No pilot installed, yet.

I changed the airfoil to a fat one, and am using a Fox .35 for power. With a 34 inch wingspan, this will be the smallest plane that I've put the .35 onto.

That's a great looking 'Fool Doug, how about a new post with some more photos?