Author Topic: Kostecky Formula S & American Eagle (Read 4139 times)

Dennis Adamisin · « **on:** September 05, 2007, 04:37:16 PM »

Posted this last night but it got lost in the server crash, so I 'll try again

Here's one for the hanger historians.

Brother Arch was going through some old pix and ran across this slide that was sent to him by Jim Kostecky early in 1968. Of course you all recognize the bird in the foreground as Jim's legendary Formula S. From looking at a blow-up of the slide it appears that it has not net even been clear-coated - so this is an early pix.

However, the more notable bird in the upper/background. This may be the only pix around of Jim's American Eagle. Note that it has the Talon's wing construction and shape, but the fuselage looks more angular, more
like the F-S, and he fitted it with a trike gear. Jim brought the Eagle to Detroit in early 1968 and crashed it when he picked up the handle upside down! The wing was broken and a disgusted Jim left the airplane in Detroit. Arch had the wing reattached the same evening and gave it back to Jim the following week when we met at another contest. However, I do not know if Jim ever completed the repair (repainting) and he was soon flying the Formula S. The American Eagle vanished...

...except for a persistent rumor that it resurfaced as the Tropicaire!

Arch took some pix of the repaired Eagle, and he is looking for them. Meanwhile I wonder if anyone in the Hanger has any other pix of it or of the Tropicaire?

Airacobra · « **Reply #1 on:** September 05, 2007, 06:05:44 PM »

Dennis, that is a very cool picture. I wish more guys who were so heavily involved with Stunt at that time would dig out some of their old photographs and post them. There is something about the planes of that period that still get my blood flowing. Thanks for taking the time to post a unique picture.

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #2 on:** September 05, 2007, 06:58:27 PM »

Keith
I think one of the very special things about CLPA is the rich heritage of designs and designers. Jim Kostecky was one of those very gifted people who just had and eye for great shapes and proportion. SOMEWHERE I have pix of what I think was his last stunt model, the Lancelot.

But so far no can find!!!

James Mills · « **Reply #3 on:** September 05, 2007, 07:39:11 PM »

Here is a pic of the Formula S as it is now hanging in Shaffers Hobby Shop in St. Louis.

James

Airacobra · « **Reply #4 on:** September 05, 2007, 10:10:42 PM »

Dennis, you are exactly right about Jim Kostecky, he really did have an incredible ability to set his planes apart from others. Over the years I have enjoyed looking through all of the magazines and seeing the airplanes of the top guys and just wishing I could see them in color. I never had the opportunity to participate in contests as a kid, but my Dad did take us to a few contests to watch. I have a picture of one of your V-Tail jobs at Dayton. Right now the name slips my mind, but it was Yellow with a red, white and blue trim on the wing. (It wasn't Rabbit was it?) Thanks for posting the picture, sure hope you can find the Lancelot photo.

Do you think todays models have the same Pizazz?

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #5 on:** September 05, 2007, 10:36:52 PM »

Keith:
Don't suppose THIS is the one? I am in the process of trying to restore it to flying condition. The built-in tank was bad and there was some serious oil seepage around the landing gear. Got all that fixed, now I have to strip the paint...

Do modern birds have the same pizazz? Some do. Its easy to remember the Kostecky, Dave Gierke, & Jerry Worth airplanes from the past, but there were a lot of less stellar birds out there too. I think elimination of Originality and Realism points in the early 1970's leeched a lot of the individuality of the designs.

I think modern birds are not as diverse as those of the Classic era, and I think THAT is why Classic stunt is so enjoyable to watch and participate in!

Airacobra · « **Reply #6 on:** September 06, 2007, 06:47:52 AM »

Yes Dennis, that is the one, I will dig up my picture of it soon and see if I can get it scanned in. Where in the world did I get the name Rabbit?

I think you are correct about the removal of the originality and realism points removal hurting the creative nature of many of those involved in CL stunt. Like you, I recognize there are some very talented and creative guys/gals presently, but I just have not seen a plane that catches my eye like some of those mentioned in this thread. Thanks for the pictures of the Tristar, Keith

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #7 on:** September 06, 2007, 07:17:57 AM »

Quote from: Airacobra on September 06, 2007, 06:47:52 AM

Yes Dennis, that is the one, I will dig up my picture of it soon and see if I can get it scanned in. Where in the world did I get the name Rabbit?

Two possible ideas:
1. Generically people referred to the Adamisin V-Tails as "rabbits"

2. AFTER the TriStar, I actually NAMED one of my V-tails "rabbit" The only contest that flew at as the 1977 Team Trials, and there was 1 picture of it published

TriStar is 33 y.o, so after restoration I'm tihinking of calling it 33-peat. Also want to nickname it "rabbitual offender"..!

Airacobra · « **Reply #8 on:** September 06, 2007, 08:18:16 AM »

I have been searching my own head trying to figure out where I would have got the name Rabbit from, thank you for clearing it up. I like the V-Tail concept you guys used. In one of the earlier threads I posted a picture of my son with a V-tail profile I built. I like the looks of it on the ground and in the air, a very unique look. I don't know of many others that utilized the V-Tail, did you find any abnormalities with it?

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #9 on:** September 06, 2007, 05:17:45 PM »

Ty:
Right on I think it was the east coasters who first hung the rabbit moniker on it.

Query, if a V-tail is a Butterfly stab then how come the airplane is a rabbit???

Keith:
I flew my first V-tail in 1970 and flew them exclusively from 1971-1979. By brother Alan and I won NATs-Sr age division from 72-74, and I won the Walker Cup in 72. Thus I think the performance record bears out. There's a few quirks, mostly related to building the dual control horns in a narrow rear fuselage. But heck anything you build has some issues.

Airacobra · « **Reply #10 on:** September 06, 2007, 06:22:52 PM »

Dennis, there is no doubt your record certainly does speak for itself. I was looking for any issues that the V-Tail created in trim differently than a conventional setup. It's obvious you guys were able to make it work. I know in building the profile it was fairly obvious how I needed to hook up the controls, it would be interesting to see how you guys completed your connections. Were your controls in those ships adjustable as todays setups?

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #11 on:** September 06, 2007, 09:02:33 PM »

Keith:
Re-reading my last post, I have to apologize. I got a knack for getting full of myself!

We used self-centering Y-bellcranks, so we had adjustable neutrals. We used strip aileron horns on the elevator. Technically these were adjustablefor throw, but I never used that.

Later, when I built the Orange Crate (last of the V's) and the flat-stab Eclipse's I RETAINED the dual strip aileron horns for the elevator and DID adjust throws as well as neutrals.

We used 30 degrees dihedral each side (120 deg. included angle) and the projected area of the tail was same as normal stab. If the side area balance was off, some of my V's exhibited some "roll-up" in high winds due to weathervaning of the tail in a crosswind - like with a tall rudder/fin. Thus tried to use large wheel fairings or wheel pants to get side area UNDER the stab.

Airacobra · « **Reply #12 on:** September 06, 2007, 09:30:04 PM »

Dennis, not necessary to apologize, you earned your place in stunt history and I look forward to seeing some of your ships in the air again. The V-tail is a neat concept, you should start a new thread out there discussing it. Thanks for the clarification on the setup.

RandySmith · « **Reply #13 on:** September 07, 2007, 08:15:31 AM »

...except for a persistent rumor that it resurfaced as the Tropicaire!

Arch took some pix of the repaired Eagle, and he is looking for them. Meanwhile I wonder if anyone in the Hanger has any other pix of it or of the Tropicaire?

Hi Dennis

I have pictures of Les's Tropicaire and we are doing plans for it, I will scan the photo and post it soon,the Tropicaire Les had was built from scratch, and has the 595 sq in Stiletto wing in it.
It was not a rebuilt plane.
It is a Modified Formula S, with the sub fin gone the wing changed, cowling, LG, Stab-elevator and a couple of other minor tweeks.

Regards
Randy

Randy Powell · « **Reply #14 on:** September 07, 2007, 04:24:23 PM »

>>Later, when I built the Orange Crate (last of the V's) <<

I could have sworn the Orange Crate was a flat tail. No?

The plans from Flying Models show it as a flat stab, but as we've seen, that may not mean much.

Airacobra · « **Reply #15 on:** September 07, 2007, 05:11:51 PM »

Randy, the Orange Crate was a V-tail as well although not near as dramatic as the TriStar. I just dug out my Flying models magazine article. Based on the plans, I don't know how Dennis ever got the controls hooked up on such a tight fit.

John Miller · « **Reply #16 on:** September 07, 2007, 05:21:11 PM »

Arch and Randy, I'm wondering if the Vee Tails aren't good candidates for a pair of lucky boxes. We used them on Gierkes AAE, and though the angle isn't as great, it works real smooth.

I might have to lay out the geometry on the computer and see just what it would take. Using only one horn and pushrod is a great advantage.

RandySmith · « **Reply #17 on:** September 07, 2007, 07:07:47 PM »

Quote from: Dennis Adamisin on September 05, 2007, 10:36:52 PM

Do modern birds have the same pizazz? Some do. Its easy to remember the Kostecky, Dave Gierke, & Jerry Worth airplanes from the past, but there were a lot of less stellar birds out there too. I think elimination of Originality and Realism points in the early 1970's leeched a lot of the individuality of the designs.

I think modern birds are not as diverse as those of the Classic era, and I think THAT is why Classic stunt is so enjoyable to watch and participate in!

Dennis

I agree with you just about 1000% with a couple of exceptions, by the way I too really liked the Orange crate and the Tri Star.
Jerry Worth had one of the best eyes for stuntship design of most anyone I know as far as Jet type models go.
I will look forward to seeing some of your designs fly again

Randy

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #18 on:** September 07, 2007, 11:39:47 PM »

Whew: got some catching up to do!

Randy S
Tropicaire Plans? Cool! Any chance that willl lead to Tropicaire KIT??? That sounds WAY cool! Also looking forward to seeing the pix. I cannot pin down the source of the rumor of the Kostecky-Tropicaire link - but I have heard it at differnet times from different sources. Certainly Les soon moved on to the Stilletto's. I vaguely remember seeing the Tropicaire once, I think in Lexington KY...? They say the memory is the second thing to got (I forget what's first)

Randy P:
Orange Crate had a very slight V, only an inch or two per side. Originally it was supposed to DROOP, but when I first slipped it all together I decided I did not like it as much that way - so I flipped it and the horns over!

Keith:
Over the course of several V-tails I was able to, with practice, keep getting the horns closer together and then hollowing out the fuselage sides for clearance.

Your suggestion about doing a thread on setting up V's is a good idea, but hard to do without some pix to tell the story. I'll have to work on that...!

John M:
Not sure what you mean by "lucky boxes"

If you mean boxes that capture the wire tangs on a conventional horn then I agree it would work for small V angles like the AAE and Orange Crate. For the 120 deg. V's - I don't think they would work - but really cannot say why!

Back to Randy S:
YES! Jerry Worth had "the eye" for great modern design. For me airplanes like the Mirage and the Apterix were kind of a meld of the jet look with the classic look - creating a new class of design. BTW many of the early Adamisin designs used Mirage airfoils on a different planform: My Dad's Canberras, Arch's "Blue Jet" and my Swea Pea published in 1972. On mine I took advantage of the 3/4" rib spacing and sheeted the wing with 1/32" I liked mine the best because it never split the covering!

...and yes I am looking forward to flying my OWN airplanes again! Who knows, maybe after the Next Team Trials I'll even offer them up to a RANDY test, just like you flew all those birds last weekend!

RandySmith · « **Reply #19 on:** September 08, 2007, 09:11:34 AM »

"""Randy S
Tropicaire Plans? Cool! Any chance that willl lead to Tropicaire KIT??? That sounds WAY cool! Also looking forward to seeing the pix. I cannot pin down the source of the rumor of the Kostecky-Tropicaire link - but I have heard it at differnet times from different sources. Certainly Les soon moved on to the Stilletto's. I vaguely remember seeing the Tropicaire once, I think in Lexington KY...? They say the memory is the second thing to got (I forget what's first)"""

HI Dennis

This is what is really interesting, I was always under the impression that the Tropicaire was first followed by the Stiletto.
I was wrong Les built the Stiletto first and won the 1970 KOI with it. But he was not happy with the performace of the ship. He then the next year built the Tropicaire , using the Formula S as the basis for the plane ,But he used the Stiletto wing , Also at this time he discovered why the first Stiletto wasn't as good as he wanted....It was a 595 sq in ship but had a FOX 35 for power.
He had just "discovered" the OS Max 35S. This engine help tremendously when he replaced the FOX 35 in his ships
The OS gave the much needed power increase to Les's planes, with obvious results.

Regards
Randy

Archie Adamisin · « **Reply #20 on:** September 08, 2007, 09:58:10 AM »

Wow, it is good to see that picture of the Blue Jet. I would have loved to see Dad fly it in his Prime. I know he has a set of ribs, spars, fuse sides, crutch, stab, & rudder ready to assemble for a new Classic ship. It would be a great candidate for (1) of his many Big Art FP-40's he has stashed.

As for the V-tail discussion, I have to say that a thread on unconventional tail configurations would be a great constructive thread to start. Just imagine the creativity that could come out of a discussion of that nature.

I designed & flew the Gemini Mk1 (620 sq. in @ 51 ozs.

) published in Flying Models August of 1991 in the Nationals from 1989 thru 1991 and was very happy with the v-tail. That was the baseline that I used to build the Gemini III which had the fiberglass fuse and plug in wings. It was bigger than the Mk 1, but used the same airfoil templates. The stab was inverted to anhedral and a rudder added because I felt that it would score better. (Luckily I was right because I won advanced that year!!) If I wouldn't have screwed up on the weight of the Gemini III (670 sq. in. @ 75ozs

), it would have been a great comparison of V tail versus anhedral. Both airplanes flew well on Big Art FP-40's regardless.

Straight and light are still the most important!! Bent doesn't have an adverse effect.

Archie Adamisin (The Kid)
Muncie, Indiana

Mark Scarborough · « **Reply #21 on:** September 08, 2007, 02:48:45 PM »

"(670 sq. in. @ 75ozs "

REALLY and I was worried about my 570 inch 54 oz plane flying on an FP, me thinks perhaps I was overcautious.

Randy Powell · « **Reply #22 on:** September 08, 2007, 06:16:41 PM »

Heck, I may pull out my Dangerous and stick more power in the nose and see what I get. Hmmm...

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #23 on:** September 08, 2007, 07:52:49 PM »

Quote from: RandySmith on September 08, 2007, 09:11:34 AM

HI Dennis

This is what is really interesting, I was always under the impression that the Tropicaire was first followed by the Stiletto. I was wrong Les built the Stiletto first and won the 1970 KOI with it. But he was not happy with the performace of the ship. He then the next year built the Tropicaire , using the Formula S as the basis for the plane , But he used the Stiletto wing , Also at this time he discovered why the first Stiletto wasn't as good as he wanted....It was a 595 sq in ship but had a FOX 35 for power.
He had just "discovered" the OS Max 35S. This engine help tremendously when he replaced the FOX 35 in his ships The OS gave the much needed power increase to Les's planes, with obvious results.

Regards
Randy

WOW - I'm with you, never new about Stilleto that preceded Tropicaire - I ALWAYS thought it was the other way around.

Sheesz next you're going to tell me that U-Mich doesn't know how to play football (huh???)

Randy/Mark:
Yes, young-Arch was very successfull with the 75oz Gemini 3, but even he will acknowlege that is a "don't try this at home" excercise! Still, from what I read here, I think folks underestimate how much power is available from a given engine...

Randy Powell · « **Reply #24 on:** September 08, 2007, 11:26:39 PM »

Dennis,

Yea, I thought Michigan was supposed to win the National Championship this year. Looked like Oregon did for them today.

Hey Mark: UW 24 Boise State 10. Woo Hoo!

Airacobra · « **Reply #25 on:** September 09, 2007, 07:37:30 AM »

As an Ohioan there is nothing better than Big Blue getting stomped in their own Big House!

Mark Scarborough · « **Reply #26 on:** September 09, 2007, 09:06:21 AM »

Hey Randy,, um its BOISE STATE< remember the dogs are a Pac 10 school they are supposed to beat up on em,, oh and Cougs 45 -San dieago state 17,,As for the whole power issue, I know I had some shake their head when I showed up with the Obese P-40 in Portland especially when I told em how much it weighed,, that is till they saw it fly. I was even shocked lol,,, This winte will see if i learned my lesson,, Probably not because I have a new finish technique I want to try,, wanna start takin bets Randy? lol

Randy Powell · « **Reply #27 on:** September 09, 2007, 10:24:55 AM »

Mark,

Bosie State Beat Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl last year. Finished ranked 5th. Was ranked 22 in tha nation. Hmmm, well, before yesterday.

And next week Ohio State comes into the Doghouse. that should be interesting. Wonder if Alex Brink's arm is sore today.

Now, back to the regularly scheduled topic:

Dennis, any chance that some plans for the V-Tails that are classic legal could be produced? Be nice to have some new blood in Classic.

Archie Adamisin · « **Reply #28 on:** September 09, 2007, 07:56:54 PM »

Well, there were a lot of things that helped the Gemini III; clean aiframe being the biggest help. It flew best with some wind (5-10mph). The FP had a .312" venturi, ran on 10% nitro with 18% straight Ucon oil (synthetic) mixed by Logie Brothers (Pro-Power). The head was set @ .012" and the fox miracle plugs only lasted 6 flights. I used an Eather 10.5 x 5 square tip 3-bladed prop which spun up @ 9200-9300 rpm. 63 ft lines. Lap times of 5.5-5.6 were where it flew the best.

Sorry for the off topic. I now fly that motor in my Kostecky Talon with a .281 venturi, .016" head clearance, and 5% nitro all synthetic fuel. This combo is really well matched. The Talon is a fairly large airplane for it's day (625 sq in). It weighs 44 ounces. The FP isn't even working hard to fly it.

PS.. The Wolverines won't win as long as Lloyd "LOSER" Carr is the coach

........ GO BUCKEYES!!!!!!

(I can't believe I have to say that....lol)

Randy Powell · « **Reply #29 on:** September 09, 2007, 09:20:41 PM »

Arch,

So, are any of the V-Tails classic legal?

The Buckeyes come into the Doghouse on Saturday. UW is still rebuilding, so I don't expect them the beat Ohio State, but it should be an interesting game.

Airacobra · « **Reply #30 on:** September 09, 2007, 10:05:45 PM »

Randy, Ohio State is rebuilding this year as well, that explains the two weak opponents up front. Washington should be a good game.

Dennis, lets see some more of the Classic airplanes you got pix of. Those are great.

RandySmith · « **Reply #31 on:** September 09, 2007, 10:17:36 PM »

Dennis

The Blue Jet is a cool looking ship...is it still around?
what was in it for power and how did it fly?

Randy

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #32 on:** September 09, 2007, 10:45:40 PM »

Randy:
The Blue Jet was powered by an ST 40, (G-21). VERY cool looking ship and flew very well. Designed/built by big brother Arch (not to be confused with BigArt or nephew Arch!) Original bird was sold around the time he went into the Army. Note date on pix!

He still has plans and is planning on putting in CAD. This is one of those classic birds that would really benefit from modern power and (I feel) would be completely competitive today.

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #33 on:** September 09, 2007, 11:11:34 PM »

Randy P:

Quote from: Randy Powell on September 09, 2007, 10:24:55 AM

Dennis, any chance that some plans for the V-Tails that are classic legal could be produced? Be nice to have some new blood in Classic.

My first V-Tail competition ship, the Swea Pea was flown in 1970, then showed up at the 1971 NATs & Team Trials. It was not published until 1972. So unless we can get a rolling 25 year formula...

Arch's Blue jet DOES have a droop stab, and later he built the GT-1, a T-tail with a mild V... see pix.

Archie Adamisin · « **Reply #34 on:** September 10, 2007, 07:54:14 AM »

I believe that dad's Blue Jet was new in '67. The GT-1 was new in '68. The GT-1 will be my new classic project. It had a 58" wing w/580 sq in (HIGH AR)

. I'm going thru the butcher paper plans and going to put it on cad. The blue jet had a big impact on the Gemini III droop stab

(Mom & Dad are on an Alaskan cruise right now so the dates could be clarified when he returns.)

I believe there was a "V-tailed" super-chief that was built that could be classic legal.

Archie Adamisin (The Kid)

Muncie, Indiana

AMA 13817

Randy Powell · « **Reply #35 on:** September 10, 2007, 10:38:23 AM »

Looks like the Blue Jet could be a really neat project. Not sure what my recent facination with jet styled planes is, but it seems I'm building a lot of them lately.

Peter Nevai · « **Reply #36 on:** September 14, 2007, 08:15:33 PM »

The fasination with the jet styles may be due to so many of the newer designs over the past 25 yrars or so mainly look like sig magnums (not that the magnum was a ugly plane). They went out of favor mainly I think that proper canopies went out of production, needle nose spinners went soon after. I mean when was the last time you saw a stunt model with a fully detaailed cockpit. Those were required equipment in the days of the jet style stunter, to have a block painted cockpit / canopy back in those days was considered unprofessional. Today it is mostly about Slab sided functionality, there are exceptions of course like the TP, a work of art by any standard, but I think thoise jet designs were built to be looked at as much as to be flown. IMHO ditch the BOM and bring back originality points.

Randy Ryan · « **Reply #37 on:** September 15, 2007, 08:05:38 AM »

"IMHO ditch the BOM and bring back originality points."

How the heck would you do that??!

Peter Nevai · « **Reply #38 on:** September 15, 2007, 12:06:44 PM »

Easy a plane does not have to be built by the pilot to be different. It just has to be different. Of course there would be no penalty if the pilot actually built it himself. It is only a change of semantics. It says that you can fly a arf, but you'll get extra points for originality. Consider this. The Bom is harder to prove and disprove. A plane that is significantly unique is uuuum, rather easy to spot. Even if it is a ARF bashed design it would take some significant work to get full originality points. It actually gives greater encouragement for people to get in there and construct something. It is a better incentive to encourage craftsmanship than the BOM.