Author Topic: Swinger! Nearly RTF (Read 4156 times)

Dennis Adamisin · « **on:** February 21, 2008, 05:19:09 PM »

I am not a Crook" - R. Nixon

"I did not have sex with the intern" - Slick Willy

"No new Taxes" - G. H. W. Bush

"No monocote on the Swinger" - Denny A

Forgive me Brothers in Balsa, for I have succumbed to the tantalizing temptations of light finish weight, time savings, durability, and indoor-friendly odorless application. I confess, when I saw the Swinger was in trouble for weight, I strayed from the narrow road and used moneycote!

"Moneycote on an I-Beam? There oughta be a law..." Ty M

Inspiration for the scheme was from some T-37 "Tweet" pix, some T-34 pix (remember the box-art from the Ace R/C T-34 kit) and a little (actually a LOT of) artistic license.

The Swinger was published in Jan '67 so I wanted this scheme to look like it came out of the 1967-68 time frame; strong RWB theme with NAVY on it to pander to the NATs judges! Linearized insignia (instead of aligned with the wing sweep) seemed to accentuate the swept wing more. The Swinger has a very small fuselage profile so I added as many stripes as I could to try to make it more visible. Different colors and/or trim schemes top and bottom as been an Adamisin trademark for... a very long time!

"Moneycote on an I-beam? Electric power? Hey boy, let's go for a walk out behind the woodshed..." - the RNMM
(Where did those dueling banjos come from?)

It is not in the cards for me to go to VSC. However, the Sheeks event gave me a plausible excuse to build a special design from one of my favorite designers of all time. I hope I can fly it for Jack some other time this summer...

Submitted for your review, here in; The Hanger Zone
(anyone else hear the tinkle-tinkle music?)

Bill Little · « **Reply #1 on:** February 21, 2008, 07:14:26 PM »

Hi Denny,

It turned out great looking!

Moneycoat on an I-Beam is nixed due to the lesser strength versus silk, or silkspan, and Dope.

Airacobra · « **Reply #2 on:** February 21, 2008, 08:27:58 PM »

That looks really nice Dennis, I hope to see it fly this summer.

Mike Gretz · « **Reply #3 on:** February 22, 2008, 07:47:10 AM »

Very cool Dennis! I like it!!!

Once you went electric, monocoat is a natural.
And while I understand the pangs of quilt you're feeling .. hey .. time marches on.

How'd the weight and balance come out?

Mike G

Jim Oliver · « **Reply #4 on:** February 22, 2008, 08:18:37 AM »

E-lectric??? MonoCote???

Oh the shame of it all!!

Seriously, Dennis, it looks great!! Hope it flys the same.

Cheers,
Jim

Randy Powell · « **Reply #5 on:** February 22, 2008, 09:33:37 AM »

Looks really good, Dennis. Since Monokote provides basically zero strength, I hope you reinforced the wing. Could be interesting that first square corner in the wind.

But hey, it looks good.

Bill Little · « **Reply #6 on:** February 22, 2008, 09:47:31 AM »

Quote from: Randy Powell on February 22, 2008, 09:33:37 AM

Looks really good, Dennis. Since Monokote provides basically zero strength, I hope you reinforced the wing. Could be interesting that first square corner in the wind.

But hey, it looks good.

Yeah, Randy, that was what I was trying to say, but I didn't want to jinx it!

Balsa Butcher · « **Reply #7 on:** February 22, 2008, 09:51:12 AM »

Looks great Dennis. I forgive you for the use of Monokote (but others may not

) Truth be know, the only reason I don't use it is because...I'm no good with it - just can't get it to stick, or unwrinkle, or not melt or...Yup, technique is everything and it looks like you have mastered it!

Tom Niebuhr · « **Reply #8 on:** February 22, 2008, 10:04:12 AM »

Denny,

Looks great inspite of your sins!

Looking forward to a flight report.

I started covering the "Sea Vixen" Last night.

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #9 on:** February 22, 2008, 10:26:26 AM »

Thanks, all for the commentary. It actually looks a little better in real life tha in the pix. BTW I left out the pix of the bottom so here's a couple more...

'cote added about 5 oz. Some will argue that 'cote makes it a second class bird - well for 5 oz finish weight a doped finsh would have been REALLY 2nd class too. So Thats kinda damned if I did or damned if I didn't.

I had over $100 invested in 3 grades of silkspan, Nitrate clear, butyrate clear, Lite-coat clear and thinner and did not use them! Had not yet purchased colored dope. By contrast I used a little less than 2 rolls of moneycote for a total cost of around maybe $25 and went from bare wood to what you see in a couple days.

Bill & Randy:
I think you will be amazed at how strong the wing is - I know I am. As you know an I-Beam has nearly no torsional strength until it is covered. With the 'cote this wing stiffened up extremely well - comparable to a C-tube. Note that a swept wing reacts to bending by twisting - the tips want to wash-out when you flex it so the torsional rigidity was my quest. Note also an electric in governor mode should be able to RESIST speed build-up in the wind, thus keeping the structural loads a bit safer. At least I think I've sold myself on the idea!

The I-Beam is built stronger than the plans show - is it enough? Frankly if the wing folds I think it will be because of a structural mistake in my I-beam construction - not due to the $$$cote.

Mike G:
Looks like 51oz RTF and balance should be close. This is WAY heavier than a lot of folks are doing, but it is the same weight as Jack's original (as spelled out in his article). I should have substituted thinner sheet wood in more places and been a lot pickier about what I used. Jack did not show a CG so I constructed it based on MAC etc. I have about 2" to slide the battery pack, and might be able to get away with the next size shorter motor - for a 1 oz save there. It will be close enough to fly but of course I'll adjust to my own tastes. If its Tail heavy I may have to do unspeakable things to move the CG forward - but I'll first try handle spacings & such...

So I guess I can say that I met a goal in that it is (or soon will be) finished in time for VSC - even if I cannot attend. If Mother Nature would just help a little we might be test flying HERE by then!

Bill Little · « **Reply #10 on:** February 22, 2008, 11:27:43 AM »

Hi Dennis,

My comments have nothing to do with the type of covering used on the plane, only the lack of strength in this application using monocoat.

I hope you are right. I have seen exactly one I-Beam covered with $cote. A good builder and pilot, and after the second fight,.............. 2 halves of an I-Beamer. Folded better than my wife does my shirts. Not a builder's problem at all. A case of where the monocoat seemed to split.

Randy didn't listen to me, and his was much more than 2 pieces and that was while it was still in the air!

Please, be gentle with it. We all know that monocoat has zero strength in this application. It just seems to *pop*. Hopefully you will be fine.

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #11 on:** February 22, 2008, 12:38:16 PM »

Hmmm, maybe before I try any squares I'll shout out "Hey evr-body WATCH THIS!!!"

Or like Apollo Creed said about Rocky "Everybody watch, he's going down! Get your cameras ready, he's going DOWN!"

All seriousness aside it seems a lot stronger/stiffer than the last Adamisin I-beams my brother built back in 1964 or so (!!!) I remember he could take his bird, suspend it a the wing tips and bounce the fuselage like a ball! I have ALWAYS prefered sheeted wings so this is a REAL leap of faith for me.

I honestly do not know what to expect out of the swept wing. The very few I ever saw seemed to fly well. Jack says they fly real stable - does that mean it will tolerate an aft CG?

The surest bet is that I am PUMPED to fly this thing!

Bill Little · « **Reply #12 on:** February 22, 2008, 01:16:47 PM »

Can't wait to hear flight reports! Good luck

Randy Powell · « **Reply #13 on:** February 22, 2008, 01:38:12 PM »

I certainly won't go into my experience of using substandard covering on an I-Beam. Still hurts to think about it. Tell you what, Dennis. Stick it in a crate and ship it to Tucson. I'll pick it up and fly it instead of my less than sterling Cobra. I'll let you know how it does in the wind.

john e. holliday · « **Reply #14 on:** February 23, 2008, 09:20:03 AM »

What is it that makes people think that Monokote has no strength? One of my flying partners was having trouble with it and I invited him in so I could show him how I do it. For one a lot of people do not use enough heat to shrink it. If it is not tight it will flex and that is when trouble starts. I know the instructions say the temp should be such and such, but, on lesser coverings I burn holes in them. The plane looks great and reminds me of Carl Shoupe AMA plane. From 10 feet I swore it was a painted finish. Even up close I had to run my hand over the surface to see that it was an iron on. Again the plane looks great and if you don't ship it or have someone take it with them to VSC, how about if we kid nap you and your plane. DOC Holliday

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #15 on:** February 23, 2008, 07:10:37 PM »

Pete:

Re-read what Doc said. You MUST get it hot and shrink it tight then REALLY get it hot and shrrink it again. ! The other thing is practice. While I was away from stunt I was building a bunch of RC models ioncluding sailplanes. You use 'cote enough you learn how to handle it. The sailplanes showed me that the structures could stiffen up nicely after you shrounk them tight. Also, you could puprosely add in warps (like for washout) or take it out at will.

Ultracote is supposedly easier to get a great result with - but I already have a stash of Monocote so I standardized on it. Same idea as with dope finishes where you standardize on one brand then do not waver.

I'm looking forward to seeing one of Louis Rankin's 'cote jobs - he's got a reputation for being the BEST.

Randy Powell · « **Reply #16 on:** February 23, 2008, 11:48:45 PM »

I suppose this is one of those areas where we will not agree. My experience has been that zero structural strength is gained from Monokote. I suppose others feel their experience is different. I can say that I would never try plastic on an I-Beam. The structure has very little torsional stability. All of it is gained from the covering and plastic isn't likely to provide it. But, I'm sure others feel differently.

Bill Little · « **Reply #17 on:** February 24, 2008, 09:51:35 PM »

Hi Dennis,

The Swinger looks awesome!

Quote

I'm looking forward to seeing one of Louis Rankin's 'cote jobs - he's got a reputation for being the BEST.

Louis does an absolutely fabulous job on Monocoat. But Walter Umland *might* have him beat! LOL!!

Kinda of a case of which great one is greater.........

BTW: I am not of the camp that takes away points for monocoat. (only painted on canopies! LOL!!!!!!)

gary tultz · « **Reply #18 on:** February 25, 2008, 07:04:02 AM »

Dennis, when I was out of Stunt from 72 to 90, I flew quite a lot of Freeflite.I Mcoated a lot of towliners, unlimited Rubber ships ( these have incredibly high initial power bursts) and AMA power ships, 1/2 A to class C. Had a lot of miss trimmed, wildly corkscrewing, tight looping mishaps. Never had a wing fold from stress, always impact.Not saying your beauty will not eventually fold but with your R/C experience,I think it'll be fine. Hows Dad?

Gary T.

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #19 on:** February 25, 2008, 10:32:52 AM »

Hey Rainman!
Big Art is doing great, he's currently up to his ears in building Chief's - TWO of them!

I think at worst the 'coted Swinger might exhibit "flexible airplane" syndrome, but it really stiffened up when the
'cote was applied. The folks here might be right but I do not expect it to explode when I do a corner like some have predicted!

BTW, at my brother Arch's suggestion (actually he said do this or I won't coach you!) I added a stylized "JS" to the fin. Big improvement (that'll swell his noggin). Also added a few more stripes to the top of the fuselage...

John Miller · « **Reply #20 on:** February 25, 2008, 12:26:58 PM »

Dennis,

I love your Swinger. It's a shame that you won't be making it to VSC this year. Perhaps this year would be the one I might have a chance at the Sheeks award, since so many who built Sheeks designs, are not going to make it. I didn't ge tanything done on the Torino, except the plans. Hmmm, I do have a Staggerwing in WW2 London Embassy colors though.... No, I'll wait until next year when I can bring the Torino.

For what it's worth, You might be alright with your plastic coated plane, since you know that the covering has to be shrunk very tight. The original full bodied PathFinder was a modified I-beamer, it used flully lofted ribs with an I-Beam and no sheeting. It was also covered in Monokote and held up well until recently. I believe that some thing cracked inside, and it's now flexing more than I am comfortble with. It's a wall hanger now.

My latest Classic ship, which flies very well, is of similar construction. The wing is Monokote over silkspan, and it is very stiff and strong. I think you'll be alright.

Bill Little · « **Reply #21 on:** February 25, 2008, 03:09:15 PM »

Quote

My latest Classic ship, which flies very well, is of similar construction. The wing is Monokote over silkspan, and it is very stiff and strong. I think you'll be alright.

Why *over silkspan*, John?

LOL!!!!!!!!!!

John Miller · « **Reply #22 on:** February 25, 2008, 03:45:37 PM »

Norm Whittle is the one who turned me onto this style of finishing.

The final product winds up being stronger than either one by itself, makes it easy to do multiple trim colors, is extremely durable, resisting damage when other systems often fail, and the MonoKote seldom, if ever, needs to be re-shrunk.

Oh, and I almost forgot. When you do really crash it hard, you've got a colorful plastic bag to haul it all away in.

gary tultz · « **Reply #23 on:** February 25, 2008, 05:11:44 PM »

Arch Adamisin · « **Reply #24 on:** February 25, 2008, 08:53:08 PM »

Ok Denny,
It's time to leave this one alone. I think Jack will approve of what you did, I think it looks terrific. Now's the time to start the new DA design. You know the one I mean. And no one sees that one until it flies. Your Much Older Brother says so.

Arch

Bill Little · « **Reply #25 on:** February 25, 2008, 09:04:04 PM »

Quote from: Arch Adamisin on February 25, 2008, 08:53:08 PM

Ok Denny,
It's time to leave this one alone. I think Jack will approve of what you did, I think it looks terrific. Now's the time to start the new DA design. You know the one I mean. And no one sees that one until it flies. Your Much Older Brother says so.

Arch

I think it is a beautiful plane from the pictures, and I know I would not be disappointed in person. Knowing what little I do about Jack, only having talked with on occasions, I know HE would be very proud of it!

(deleted)

Aw, what the heck.... WHAT"S THE PROBLEM , ARCH?

?? Cause with a post like that, I know I'm outta this one from now on.

Like the old song said, "I ain't quite as dumb as I seem...."
Bill Little

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #26 on:** February 25, 2008, 09:49:05 PM »

Big Bear:
I now have the Gassie Spitfire and the Electric Swinger for Classic wars - I should be set there. Arch & Archie have been coaching me on a new design (actually several) for regular CLPA - we narrowed it to a favorite. They have been patiently letting me finish the Swinger before starting on the "real" bird - but now its time.

For the next couple months at least, "Big Brother" will be taking over where the RNMM left off! Arch has coached 14 NATs champs in several different events in FF, RC, & CLPA; when Big Brother speaks I REALLY should shut-up and pay attention...

...and I think you will like the new bird too!

...and I'm still picking on Arch to get busy on his Jack Sheeks "Knight"!

He always builds lighter than I do, with what we learned on the Swinger, I think he'll be able to shave a few more ounces off.

Bill Little · « **Reply #27 on:** February 25, 2008, 10:20:26 PM »

Quote from: Dennis Adamisin on February 25, 2008, 09:49:05 PM

Big Bear:
I now have the Gassie Spitfire and the Electric Swinger for Classic wars - I should be set there. Arch & Archie have been coaching me on a new design (actually several) for regular CLPA - we narrowed it to a favorite. They have been patiently letting me finish the Swinger before starting on the "real" bird - but now its time.

For the next couple months at least, "Big Brother" will be taking over where the RNMM left off! Arch has coached 14 NATs champs in several different events in FF, RC, & CLPA; when Big Brother speaks I REALLY should shut-up and pay attention...

...and I think you will like the new bird too!

...and I'm still picking on Arch to get busy on his Jack Sheeks "Knight"! He always builds lighter than I do, with what we learned on the Swinger, I think he'll be able to shave a few more ounces off.

Hi Dennis,

I respect Arch, no problem. Just a *gag order* seemed a *little* harsh.

I said what Billy Werwage told me. Randy P. didn't listen and he needed a broom, it was in a thousand pieces with out any contact! (from what I heard). I don't want to wish that on a plane as nice as you have done.

Sorry.....
Bill

P,S, BTW: I coached three MLB pitchers (one was a starter in the All Star Game), a couple of guys who made to the NFL, another in the Arena League, and a golfer who spent 5 years on the PGA tour, does that count?

ROTFLMBO!!!!!!!!!!!

Arch Adamisin · « **Reply #28 on:** February 25, 2008, 10:50:01 PM »

Bill,
My comment was more meant to remind him it's time to get serious. You know the "focus grasshopper". Denny now has 2 real nice models for Classic, not including the electric Oriental, which is flying extremely well. I was just trying to remind him in the usual "Big brother" way, that it now time to get the game face on and if we're going to be ready for the Nat's, we've got to get started. Both Denny and Archie are going to need new models for the Nat's and we're going to need to focus our efforts in that direction. That's all I was trying to say.
Anyone that's been around Big Art and the rest of the family know, we don't have any secrets, we've tried to honestly share any and all of our exoeriences, both good and bad, with anyone who's asked either for help or advice.

Arch

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #29 on:** February 25, 2008, 10:53:04 PM »

I'd have to say YOUR coaching career sounds incredible - share names???

My earlier post: I'm just really proud of Arch's "coaching" career too. (and thankful for all he has done for me - so far!

) BTW Arch's coaching methods involve steel toe boots and a big 2x4!

Bill Little · « **Reply #30 on:** February 25, 2008, 11:20:17 PM »

Quote from: Dennis Adamisin on February 25, 2008, 10:53:04 PM

I'd have to say YOUR coaching career sounds incredible - share names???

My earlier post: I'm just really proud of Arch's "coaching" career too. (and thankful for all he has done for me - so far! ) BTW Arch's coaching methods involve steel toe boots and a big 2x4!

I suspect Arch gets the job done....

James Baldwin was the All Star game starter. He was with the White Sox at the time.

He spent a long time in the Show, last team was Milwaukee a couple years ago, I believe. Came out of HS in '91 and the Sox drafted him and Fernandez at the same time.

Tim Maples was another. #1 pick of the Orioles in '79.

Ernie Purnsley was with the Chiefs ,IIRC, a strong safety out of Wake Forest in the early '80s. A couple others here and there.

Bobby Cooke was the PGA Tour player. He spent 12 years making a living playing professional golf. European, Asian, Nike Tour, and the PGA. Kept his card but couldn't putt quite well enough to be a winner. He averaged a little over a stroke more per round that the leaders did, putting. Hard to spot tour players 4 strokes when you tee it up on Thursday!

Dave Adamisin · « **Reply #31 on:** February 26, 2008, 08:16:40 PM »

Hi guys. I'm the engine guy in the family so my input to the this covering dicussion will focus on that part. I think the wild card for Dennis is that the electric motor has a much lower impact load on the structure. I remember some data taken with accelerometers on a couple pylon planes. Parts of the structure were seeing over 20 g's b4 they even left the ground. The slimers hit the prop hard once a turn. The electrics usually have 10 to 14 poles and so hit it significantly less hard more often. I think the structure will be seeing much lower mechanical loads. As for Dennins's skillset with the covering I can say that he has used it successfully many times. I think that he also didn't build "your father's I-beam". Look at some of the early construction pics. He triangulated the beam with a (I think) very clever bellcrank mount that gave it some very impressive bending moment enhancement. He also added "blade" spars near the rear of the ribs to give them crush strength and diagonal struts from the tips to the beam outer section. It had much greater than normal torsional strength b4 it was covered and the $cote made it "stiff as a board. I know I will be keeping my eye on it.......................

Arch Adamisin · « **Reply #32 on:** February 27, 2008, 09:43:09 AM »

In as much as my meager attempt at some mild humor has failed so miserably, I think it's time for me to do what I do best, step back and fix whatever problems arise.
Best wishes to all.

Bye, Arch

Bill Little · « **Reply #33 on:** February 27, 2008, 10:49:51 AM »

Quote from: Arch Adamisin on February 27, 2008, 09:43:09 AM

In as much as my meager attempt at some mild humor has failed so miserably, I think it's time for me to do what I do best, step back and fix whatever problems arise.
Best wishes to all.

Bye, Arch

ARCH! Don't you go anywhere! [I really don't want to have to come that far North this time of year (but I would love to see Big Art and you guys!) to straighten you out!]

Randy Powell and I went through a deal a year or so ago. Randy built a derivative of the USA-1 and it exploded in mid air. My instructions (for lack of a better word) were to use GM or SGM silkspan. He used 00. We let it get here about the I-Beam, and I really meant no harm.

It is MY FAULT, not yours.

Billy told me years ago what to do, and not do, with an I-Beam build. Plastic covering was on the list of BIG no no's. I feel confident Denny knows what he is doing, and I don't expect any problems. Sorry!

Internet writing leaves a lot to be desired and a lot is often missed.

So, get your butt back over here!

Bill

Randy Powell · « **Reply #34 on:** February 28, 2008, 09:26:20 PM »

Man, there's a lot of Adamisins around here. We're crawling with 'em ... How cool.

Bill Little · « **Reply #35 on:** February 28, 2008, 09:33:04 PM »

Quote from: Randy Powell on February 28, 2008, 09:26:20 PM

Man, there's a lot of Adamisins around here. We're crawling with 'em ... How cool.

Yep, Randy, we have almost the entire *First Family of Stunt*! (they'll get use to us.... we're really harmless....... except for the RNMM!

)

EddyR · « **Reply #36 on:** February 29, 2008, 09:50:14 PM »

Dennis I have been building I/Beams since the 50's and I have covered a couple with plastic coat if I had to have the plane done in a week. I covered the wing with tissue, even Jap tissue. Then two coats of dope and then put the plastic covering over it.They came out smooth and never got loose in high heat. It is hard to get the covering to pull down between the ribs as doped tissue does. If your Swinger wing has twisting problems in flight remove the covering leaving some around the edge and put tissue on it and then replace the plastic covering.Tissue under Monokote is the only way to keep the covering tight in the summers in Florida. I believe I first tried this in the early 60's on a RC plane.
Ed PS When Monokote first came out many RC planes were done this way.

Wynn Robins · « **Reply #37 on:** March 06, 2008, 03:19:39 PM »

one of the guys here in New Zealand has been flying an airplane with a film covered I-beam wing for as long as I have been flying - which is only 5 years - but it still proves a point.

Your plane looks great and I am sure you will have MANY MANY years of good flying-

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #38 on:** March 07, 2008, 09:11:05 PM »

Wynn
Hey thanks for that vote of confidence.

My brother said he thought the structure would hold, but then he also said he'll be watching /coaching from the UPWIND side of the circle - the better to avoid the fall-out!!!

One way - or the other - it will all work out fine..!

john e. holliday · « **Reply #39 on:** March 15, 2008, 04:50:34 PM »

What Ty didn't see was the Ringmaster was a take apart. Nothing to do with Monokote. It is the construction in the center section which has part of the bottom of the fuselage. DOC Holliday

Randy Powell · « **Reply #40 on:** March 15, 2008, 05:38:28 PM »

Dennis,

Wish you were hear. We missed you.

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #41 on:** March 15, 2008, 09:28:02 PM »

Quote from: Randy Powell on March 15, 2008, 05:38:28 PM

Dennis,

Wish you were hear. We missed you.

Brothers I missed you all not being there. Maybe next time but I've been saying that for too long too...

THANX for all the running commentary on all the goings on out in AZ. I've hangin on every post here and SSW...!

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #42 on:** March 17, 2008, 03:09:26 PM »

Quote from: Ty Marcucci on March 15, 2008, 12:06:47 AM

Today, Friday the 14th, several of us at circle two observed a gent from Brazil fly his monocote covered Ringmaster. The sun heated the cote enough for it to wrinkle a little bit. As the plane flew , we could see the wings flap. A Ringmaster!!! It had dihedral one maneuver then anhedral the next. Most interesting. Many bets went on. But he made it to earth ok. Monocote...bah.

Just thought of this: if he HAD crashed would have broke into a Brazilion pieces???

Bill Little · « **Reply #43 on:** March 17, 2008, 06:39:48 PM »

Quote from: Dennis Adamisin on March 17, 2008, 03:09:26 PM

Just thought of this: if he HAD crashed would have broke into a Brazilion pieces???

Boo..... all those comedians out of work and Dennis tries to be funny!

(hmmmm..... bazillion.... *Brazilion*..........

)

Author Topic: Swinger! Nearly RTF (Read 4156 times)

Dave Adamisin