Author Topic: Brodak tanager (Read 10250 times)

DanielGelinas · « **on:** March 07, 2012, 03:40:18 PM »

Hi Guys,

Whats the history behind the Tanager?
Who designed the plane?
Was it designed for the Fox .35 stunt or is it a newer design?

Thanks!
-Dan

Allan Perret · « **Reply #1 on:** March 07, 2012, 03:44:51 PM »

John Brodak told me it is a profile version of the Pow Wow.
I have had one for the last 10 years or so. Like it a lot.
Have used 4 different 40 engines on it.
Dont think a Fox 35 would be enough for it, unless you build it super light. (at least not for the pattern)
LA-46 would be sweet.

Mike Palko · « **Reply #2 on:** March 07, 2012, 04:29:36 PM »

Dan,

I was also told it is a profile Pow Wow. I never laid the plans on top of each other, but they are very close. I built and flew an Accentor which is the full fuse version of the Tanager. The Accentor flew very well with an FP .40.

The LA .46 would be a great choice for the Tananger.

Mike

Dennis Moritz · « **Reply #3 on:** March 07, 2012, 04:34:26 PM »

LA 46. Very nice plane. Step up from Twisters. In my opinion.

Dennis Moritz · « **Reply #4 on:** March 07, 2012, 10:04:28 PM »

I have been flying a Tanager for years in competition. Powered by an LA46 set very rich. The plane is a lightweight. 38 ounces. Bought it from Tom Hampshire years back. The thief. $30. Made to look like a JD Falcon profile. It has served double duty as a cheat Classic plane. (I confess!) Didn't matter too much, I am a mid pack Intermediate flier. Thank you. Much more of a stunt feel compared to the Twister I was using before. When I've put in the time to adjust tank height, keep filters clean, carefully needle engine, and check trim, it has proven very competitive in the class I fly.

DanielGelinas · « **Reply #5 on:** March 10, 2012, 04:55:45 AM »

So John designed it sometime in the nineties?
Glad to hear its a good flyer. I have a kit I'm looking forward to building.
Thanks for your input guys!
-Daniel

Glenn (Gravitywell) Reach · « **Reply #6 on:** March 10, 2012, 12:01:38 PM »

"I was also told it is a profile Pow Wow. I never laid the plans on top of each other, but they are very close. I built and flew an Accentor which is the full fuse version of the Tanager."

This just struck me as funny. If the Tanager is a profile Pow Wow, wouldn't a full fuse version be a Pow Wow not a Accentor? Am I the only one that sees some humour here?

Bill Little · « **Reply #7 on:** March 10, 2012, 01:04:01 PM »

Quote from: Glenn (Gravitywell) Reach on March 10, 2012, 12:01:38 PM

"I was also told it is a profile Pow Wow. I never laid the plans on top of each other, but they are very close. I built and flew an Accentor which is the full fuse version of the Tanager."

This just struck me as funny. If the Tanager is a profile Pow Wow, wouldn't a full fuse version be a Pow Wow not a Accentor? Am I the only one that sees some humour here?

Actually by changing the name and a few minor things, John would not have to deal with the rights from Veco/Dumas or Mr. Palmer,or anyone else.

BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM

Mike Palko · « **Reply #8 on:** March 10, 2012, 04:23:06 PM »

Quote from: Glenn (Gravitywell) Reach on March 10, 2012, 12:01:38 PM

"I was also told it is a profile Pow Wow. I never laid the plans on top of each other, but they are very close. I built and flew an Accentor which is the full fuse version of the Tanager."

This just struck me as funny. If the Tanager is a profile Pow Wow, wouldn't a full fuse version be a Pow Wow not a Accentor? Am I the only one that sees some humour here?

Tananger = profile Pow Wow
Accentor = full fuse Pow Wow

Both must have slight changes from the original Pow Wow. I mentioned previously that I never compared the plans to confirm.

Mike

Balsa Butcher · « **Reply #9 on:** March 10, 2012, 07:00:11 PM »

I was hoping Tony Drago might step in here but here's the scoop: Control Line Classics kitted the Pow-Wow. It was an excellent kit. In addition to the Classic legal Pow-Wow the plans showed a modern version, the Super Pow-Wow. It was not classic legal and had more modern moments IE: longer flap hinge line to elevator hinge line distance and a few other changes. It was a better looking airplane IMHO.
When John Brodak purchased the Control Line Classics line of kits he re-designed the Super Pow Wow and named it the Accentor. Its profile sibling became the Tanager. Sooo, the Accentor is a modernized Pow-Wow, the Tanager is a profile Accentor and neither are Pow-Wows although their ancestries can be traced back to the original CLC Pow-Wow kit.

Tony Drago · « **Reply #10 on:** April 25, 2014, 01:02:43 AM »

Well better late then never. Pete is correct. I started out with the Pow-Wow. Which was CLC's first kit. After two runs (400 kits) of the Pow-Wow. I came out with a Deluxe Pow-Wow kit,which you were able to choose which design you could build. I only made a run of 100 kits. When John Brodak started to produce the kits. He elected to go with the Super Pow-Wow and renamed it. Both designs as well as the profile version fly great. But any extra weight will hamper their proformance. Also the Profile Oriental is another good flying profile Plane.

55chevr · « **Reply #11 on:** April 25, 2014, 01:42:25 PM »

My son built an Accentor and it has a good look. we will know more if the weekend weather ever improves here.

Phil Spillman · « **Reply #12 on:** April 27, 2014, 05:40:43 PM »

Then Pow Wow was designed by Bob Palmer of Smoothie and Thunderbird etc. fame. I don't think that the Tanager nor the Acentor qualify per se as "Pow Wows". If you get a Pow Wow or a Super Pow Wow plan and make the necessary changes to make the models agree then you might have a bonafide Classic plane. I don't know if Bob Palmer designed the Super Pow Wow I know he did the Pow Wow!

john e. holliday · « **Reply #13 on:** April 27, 2014, 05:59:24 PM »

The Pow Wow was my first Classic plane at the very first VSC I attended.

steve bittner · « **Reply #14 on:** April 29, 2014, 08:48:02 AM »

Quote from: Tony Drago on April 25, 2014, 01:02:43 AM

Well better late then never. Pete is correct. I started out with the Pow-Wow. Which was CLC's first kit. After two runs (400 kits) of the Pow-Wow. I came out with a Deluxe Pow-Wow kit,which you were able to choose which design you could build. I only made a run of 100 kits. When John Brodak started to produce the kits. He elected to go with the Super Pow-Wow and renamed it. Both designs as well as the profile version fly great. But any extra weight will hamper their proformance. Also the Profile Oriental is another good flying profile Plane.

Tony, I have the plans for the Pow Wow from April 54 and your kit and they are quite different. How does this qualify for classic stunt? Measurements from flap hinge line to elevator is different and location of wing spars and leading edge sheeting. Im confussed Thanks. Kit box says Classic Pow Wow, on plans says 35 size super stunter.

Tony Drago · « **Reply #15 on:** April 30, 2014, 01:43:56 AM »

Quote from: steve bittner on April 29, 2014, 08:48:02 AM

Tony, I have the plans for the Pow Wow from April 54 and your kit and they are quite different. How does this qualify for classic stunt? Measurements from flap hinge line to elevator is different and location of wing spars and leading edge sheeting. Im confussed Thanks. Kit box says Classic Pow Wow, on plans says 35 size super stunter.

What are the measurements form hinge line to hinge line. Also what is the front nose to leading edge measurements. If they are both longer then the 54 then the kit could be the Super Pow-Wow which is not classic legal.

steve bittner · « **Reply #16 on:** April 30, 2014, 01:06:10 PM »

Quote from: Tony Drago on April 30, 2014, 01:43:56 AM

What are the measurements form hinge line to hinge line. Also what is the front nose to leading edge measurements. If they are both longer then the 54 then the kit could be the Super Pow-Wow which is not classic legal.

Thanks for the response Tony, 7 1/4 nose, 32 1/2 overall length. I know why the changes to fuse mounts etc, but wing spar placement not original location. Thanks Steve

Balsa Butcher · « **Reply #17 on:** April 30, 2014, 02:24:11 PM »

I'll give Tony an assist here: The vast majority of classic reproduction kits have had changes made to the original model plans for strength, ease of building, to make kitting easier, or to accommodate modern (superior) hardware. As long as these changes do not change the looks and aerodynamics of the design they will not affect the eligibility of the model for Classic competition.

The main purpose of Classic competition is to get these older designs back in the air. They don't have to be 100% authentic to the smallest detail. Heck, they can even be powered by elecric motors! No one is going to nitpick small items such as a different spar location. CLC Pow-Wows have been seen many times at VSC and other classic competitions. If you build the standard "Pow-Wow" from the kit, (not the Super Pow-Wow or Tanager) you will have a good flying classic legal stunter that is welcome at any competition in the country.

Glenn (Gravitywell) Reach · « **Reply #18 on:** April 30, 2014, 07:07:03 PM »

My very first, built-from-plans airplane was the Squaw. I had some basic flying skills (sport flier here!) and the plane could easily out fly me. I crashed the poor girl and she was a total write-off. I have always wanted to build another.

Randy Cuberly · « **Reply #19 on:** May 01, 2014, 12:34:14 PM »

Quote from: Glenn (Gravitywell) Reach on April 30, 2014, 07:07:03 PM

My very first, built-from-plans airplane was the Squaw. I had some basic flying skills (sport flier here!) and the plane could easily out fly me. I crashed the poor girl and she was a total write-off. I have always wanted to build another.

Hmmmm...that brings to mind a lesson I learned a long time ago. At a contest about 1959 or so I doffed my Nobler in practice...not a lot of damage but too much to fix immediately. So I borrowed my girlfriends Squaw to fly in the contest...Well to make a long story short...I crashed it and boy oh boy let me tell you...never crash your girlfriends airplane. Hooo Boy!

Randy Cuberly

Cliff Henke · « **Reply #20 on:** May 09, 2014, 03:21:32 PM »

Speaking of Accentor's, what build weight is acceptable with an empty tank ready to fly?
Thanks in advance.

Steve Helmick · « **Reply #21 on:** May 09, 2014, 06:43:59 PM »

Quote from: Randy Cuberly on May 01, 2014, 12:34:14 PM

Hmmmm...that brings to mind a lesson I learned a long time ago. At a contest about 1959 or so I doffed my Nobler in practice...not a lot of damage but too much to fix immediately. So I borrowed my girlfriends Squaw to fly in the contest...Well to make a long story short...I crashed it and boy oh boy let me tell you...never crash your girlfriends airplane. Hooo Boy!

Randy Cuberly

Never, ever, borrow anybody else's squaw!

Steve

Motorman · « **Reply #22 on:** May 10, 2014, 08:40:18 AM »

http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php?topic=32655.0

MM

Dennis Heckel · « **Reply #23 on:** May 10, 2014, 10:51:01 AM »

Quote from: Randy Cuberly on May 01, 2014, 12:34:14 PM

Hmmmm...that brings to mind a lesson I learned a long time ago. At a contest about 1959 or so I doffed my Nobler in practice...not a lot of damage but too much to fix immediately. So I borrowed my girlfriends Squaw to fly in the contest...Well to make a long story short...I crashed it and boy oh boy let me tell you...never crash your girlfriends airplane. Hooo Boy!

Randy Cuberly

Randy, did you end up marrying her?

Dennis Heckel