Author Topic: Best bang for your dollar of these old favourites (Read 14437 times)

Glenn (Gravitywell) Reach · « **on:** March 16, 2010, 04:55:15 PM »

This is just for fun....so no bashing....unless its funny bashing!

Personally I choose the Shoestring, just cause I learned to fly on that one, bashed it in so much my wife thought transport in trash bags was mandatory! It became so fuel soaked that it hit hard once and the wing popped out of the fuselage intact! I built another fuse and flew it for another couple of years before handing it off to a young man at the field.

oh yeah...if anyone has a pdf or gif of the Bust or Shoestring that they could send me, I would appreciate it!

john e. holliday · « **Reply #1 on:** March 16, 2010, 05:13:07 PM »

I picked the Ringmaster as it was only $3.95 at the time. The Firecat was a dollar more and Goldberg hadn't come out with control line planes yet. I started in the mid 50's. PM your address as I have the kit plans if you want them for the Shoestring.

Wynn Robins · « **Reply #2 on:** March 16, 2010, 05:30:58 PM »

not old enough to have seen these any cheaper than they are available now......so NONE

Steve Helmick · « **Reply #3 on:** March 16, 2010, 05:38:43 PM »

Quote from: Wynn Robins on March 16, 2010, 05:30:58 PM

not old enough to have seen these any cheaper than they are available now......so NONE

Jeez, Wynn...and I thought you were a nice guy. Well, bugger off!

Steve

Wynn Robins · « **Reply #4 on:** March 16, 2010, 06:10:06 PM »

oh come on Steve - dont have to be old to be nice...

Juan Valentin · « **Reply #5 on:** March 16, 2010, 06:26:25 PM »

None of those, The one that gave me the bang for the buck was the Top Flite Flite Streak. I built it stock with an OS 35 Combat special. I also used the wing of a few other kits to do a Bearcat and a Mustang in 1970.
Juan

Steve Helmick · « **Reply #6 on:** March 16, 2010, 06:38:34 PM »

Quote from: Wynn Robins on March 16, 2010, 06:10:06 PM

oh come on Steve - dont have to be old to be nice...

Just tweeking you, Wynn...don't take me seriously.

Regarding the kit choices, I built a Ringmaster for an early Veco .29 I traded for. I left off the "canopy" (wood, maybe balsa, maybe not!). That would have been during the summer before my Sr. year in HS, I think. It flew pretty well, and so I half looped to inverted and got a lap or so...oopsy! Not my favorite...crumby kit.

In the late 80's, we had a new racing class in the PNW that was interesting...NW Sport Race, and "The Drizzle Circuit" series of races during Winter. Fox .35 Stunts, with a variety of kit designs...Ringmasters, Flite Streaks, Goldberg's kits. I got a screamin' deal on a CG Buster kit from Dick Peterson (Flying Tiger 747 Freighter co-pilot)...he thought there were some parts missing. Turned out that there weren't any parts missing. I'm suspecting now he knew that! Anyway, I did some pretty thoughtful mods to it, and made it into a fairly good racer. It had an elevator only on the outboard side, slow controls, a VERY stiff fuselage, etc. At the time, (before APC came on the scene) the Robbe 9-6 was my standard prop for it. As fast as any wood prop I could find (RevUp Pylon racing stuff), but more durable and more flywheel. Wish it'd been a Shoestring, tho. The Fox .35 Stunt is a crappy racing engine.

Steve

Larry Wong · « **Reply #7 on:** March 16, 2010, 07:00:03 PM »

My Ringmaster was $2.95 + $ 15.95 for a Fox 35 and .25 cent tube of glue, Perfect wheels and 4oz tank.

Steve Holt · « **Reply #8 on:** March 16, 2010, 08:47:10 PM »

The Goldberg Shoestring used tabs on the ribs to help build a straight wing. It also had better wood than Sterling so I think it was the best "bang for the buck" at the time. I now fly a Ringmaster so I'm not opposed to those who like the "Ring" it is just that Sterling was so poor with wood selection and die cutting.
Steve

Bill Heher · « **Reply #9 on:** March 16, 2010, 10:02:07 PM »

My 1st "Big" plane was a S1 Ring with a K&B Stallion .35 , perfect tank and built in a week in the summer of '75. I thought it was the best flying plane in the world- run almost flat out with a 10X6 Top Flite nylon prop. ( at least my dad taught me to back the needle off a few clicks from full lean- the engine lasted quite awhile).

I've had at least 1/2 dozen more since then with everything from a Fox .29 to an O.S. .35 on the front. Favorite combo now is stock with a long elevator horn, inside hole on the bellcrank, and an O.S. 25 for power.

That said- the 3 Shoestrings I've had / have all seem to fly better with that big fat wing, current one has an old Fox .29 or .35 Rocket case based motor, mix and match the parts from mine and Big Irons junk barrels. Love the way it sounds, love the way it flies, and it just looks right.

I have another one on the bench, trying to make it light enough to use a good Fox .19 Stunt, just to see if it will really fly with one ( box / plans say it will).

So - I vote for the Shoe- but still have a soft spot for the Ring!

minnesotamodeler · « **Reply #10 on:** March 17, 2010, 03:00:37 PM »

I'm with Juan, the Flite Streak outflies them all...

George · « **Reply #11 on:** March 17, 2010, 05:21:41 PM »

In the mid fifties, after the $1.95 Scientific models came a $1.95 Ringmaster Jr. (second one was $2.50), then a $2.95 Flite Streak Jr. I expanded from 1/2A to include "A" size planes.

George

FLOYD CARTER · « **Reply #12 on:** March 17, 2010, 05:37:10 PM »

Let's see. Back in 1952, at the USAF base PX, the Sterling P-51 or Yak kit was $3. The Fox 35S was $10. The club there built them and we all flew combat. The Yak was best for combat (don't know why). We built them and crashed with great regularity.

Floyd

Bill Adair · « **Reply #13 on:** March 18, 2010, 12:52:25 AM »

Well, what can I choose, but the venerable Ringmaster!

Built my first Ringmaster when I was stationed in Denver with the AF, and powered it with a Fox 35 stunt. Took that one on a TDY to Baltimore MD in 59, and couldn't believe it was the same airplane! It flew so much better at sea level, that I hated to bring it back to Denver.

Next was a CG Shoestring, powered with a McCoy 35 red head, which must have lasted a whole weekend (the McCoy that is), because I ran any fuel that was on sale.

Built 3 or 4 more Ringmasters over the years, and powered them all with Fox 35 stunt engines. I don't think any two of them flew the same, as the Sterling wood weight, and my crude brush paint jobs, made them plus or minus a pound at least.

Someday........

Bill

The last Ringmaster I built was never flown (by me), as I sold it to a friend who wanted to teach his wife to fly control line.

afml · « **Reply #14 on:** March 18, 2010, 06:58:41 AM »

I voted for the CG Cosmic Wind. It was the first BIG PLANE I ever built. Slobbered over that one for weeks at the Hallmark Card Shop. They had all three of the CG BIG kits. But the Cosmic Wind was the biggest of the three. Saved up my Birthday money and brought it home! Dad said "see what you can do with it & I'll help you when I get home from work." Well....It was all framed up and together when he got home that evenng.!

Painted it just like the picture on the box. No creativity in painting EVEN NOW!!

Boy do I need help in that catagory!!

Learned to fly inverted with it and many other "tricks". Did all the costomizing on the plans too! Dad would always test my building skills by doing his best "Figure 9" maneuver!

He was a FF & speed flyer. 126.4mph back in the late 40's. McCoy, Anderson, and Hornets were his tools. This "stunt" thing and Fox & McCoy Red Heads were new territory for him. I guess it payed off as he became a memeber of the "Flying Circis" at John Brodaks and flew with his old buddy and former combat champ Frank Bellotti. Jim Hunt was also a member of the group. He even mastered the loop without the "Figure 9"!!

I've rambled on too long...

"Tight Lines!"

Wes

Mike Lauerman · « **Reply #15 on:** March 19, 2010, 07:47:06 PM »

The New Ringmaster! (well, new to me in '55.) I bought a nice one that a friend crashed, wing came apart, not much damage...I gave him $1 for it, borrowed the engine, (McCoy .35, not quite broken in) then gave him another $3 for the engine and tank. Perfect wheels and Aerogloss metallic maroon paint, some silkspan, Ambroid, and clear dope. Total cost: around $8! Admiration at the field: Unanimous! I had moved the canopy back, like a 'racer', and reshaped the stab and rudder to match the wing. Very pretty.
I was new to big Ukie building, and made an error on the pushrod bend at the bellcrank...I left 1/2" going 'down', soldered the washer, and planked it up. On my first loop, the 'up' stuck as the pushrod stub locked securely on the edge of the bellcrank platform...21 loops, and it landed hard, tore my new silkspan when the outer wing swept forward...
It was an easier fix than the first!
My Mom got me a new Flight Streak for my birthday, and at my bud's suggestion, a new K&B Allyn Torpedo .35!
It was too much airplane all at once. Fast? Oh yeah...Sensitive? I couldn't imagine how it could change direction with such a small elevator!
I really learned to repair on that airplane! I did it enough...LOL
But, 'Bang for the Buck'? The Ringer, hands down. I still like 'em. They're like the '32 Ford of C/L!

Paul Smith · « **Reply #16 on:** March 19, 2010, 07:54:48 PM »

I just built and flew a Cosmic Wind. Very disappointing performance.

I think the Ringmaster is the most over-rated product in history, overall - not just model airplanes.

The Top Flite Flite Streak originally $3.95, is by far, the best airplane in this category.

Though not as famous, at $4.95, the Scientific Giant Stunt Master is better than all those on the menu, too.

Glenn (Gravitywell) Reach · « **Reply #17 on:** March 19, 2010, 09:26:21 PM »

So what is it with people that enter a POLL and don't do anything but trash whats there and then only give thumbs up to something that isn't a part of the poll? If UI wanted to know about Flight Streaks (possibly the ugliest model in all history as far as I'm concerned) or any other plane, I would have put them in the poll. This is supposed to be fun, but its obviouse that some just don't get that part. Sorry I started it.

john e. holliday · « **Reply #18 on:** March 20, 2010, 12:07:46 PM »

Come on now Glenn, don't get the britches all uptight. You have to under stand some people on the forum like me. They have to stir the pot no matter what. I already think I stated my preference was the reliable Ringmaster. There is no other kit that has as many sales as that one. Also the rebuilds were easy. When I got back to the city for competition the Flite Streak was coming out for combat and stunt training. Didn't last long went the VooDoo's came on the market. Ringmaster is still king of profile fun/sport and all around airplane in my book.

Glenn (Gravitywell) Reach · « **Reply #19 on:** March 20, 2010, 12:25:52 PM »

My comment was not directed at anyone in particular Doc....sorry if you thought so. It was not intended.

Terrence Durrill · « **Reply #20 on:** March 20, 2010, 12:56:05 PM »

The Sterling S-1 Ringmaster was my second "big" airplane. The year was 1955. This Ring was powered by a K&B Torpedo .29 Greenhead....later by a "sandcast" Fox .29 stunt.....and later still by a K&B .35 GH. I loved that airplane...its looks and the way it handled in the air. Since 1955, I have built 4 more S-1 Ringmasters, two of which I still have and occasionally fly today. From 1955 and 2010, I have always had at least one flyable S-1 Ring in my collection. Currently, one is powered by a 1955 Fox .29 stunt and the other by a Fox .35 stunt engine. I have three Sterling S-1 Ringmaster kits on the shelf in my shop just in case I live long enough to get them in the air (I will be 70 years old on June 20 of this year, so that is a tossup). The old S-1 Ringmaster was and still is, an all time classic design and loads of fun to fly........definately my all time favorite plane in your list from the 1950's/1960's/1970's era. So, Doc, I agree with you on this one.

Paul Smith · « **Reply #21 on:** March 20, 2010, 01:13:12 PM »

I went ahead and voted in this poll.

But I feel within my rights to comment that the menu of airplanes was stacked to provide the intended result.

Glenn (Gravitywell) Reach · « **Reply #22 on:** March 20, 2010, 01:16:10 PM »

Paul....are you seriouse? The intended result was to have a bit of fun and reminisce a bit about long ago. Thats all.

john e. holliday · « **Reply #23 on:** March 20, 2010, 01:33:33 PM »

Quote from: Gravitywell on March 20, 2010, 12:25:52 PM

My comment was not directed at anyone in particular Doc....sorry if you thought so. It was not intended.

Did I mention any names??? I have been accused of that before and the person is not around anymore since he opened his mouth to tell the world who he was. I mean this is a big country and I love every bit of it, some of it more than the other. I also stick my foot into also.

Hoss Cain · « **Reply #24 on:** March 21, 2010, 09:17:41 PM »

Just had to throw in a vote for the Ringmaster. Way back when, that was the only profile model I ever built. Kind of wrong for the poll since I never built one of the others. Most all my models were full fuselage, first to hide the coil and batteries, and with glow, because I thought profiles were not the proper thing for a modeler to play with.

I did enjoy flying that Ringmaster for several years using a Fox 29, 4 head bolt.

In the late '60s I finally built a Flite Streak but that was mostly for my son. I had built my own profile designs, if there was such a thing as "design",

for early fun-combat flying, and they all flew OK. When I was fairly active with CL Stunt, I did build a Midwest Profile ME-109 for breaking in engines. Fun to fly but definitely not my choice for the stunt pattern.

Norm Faith Jr. · « **Reply #25 on:** March 21, 2010, 10:24:44 PM »

I learned to fly on the "Ring" with a "redhead," but the Shoestring; built better, looked better ("cheek-cowl") and at the time, (1961-63) was something different. I believe it allowed me to fly better...It too had a redhead...Loved that plane, I've got a new one in the box. Hope to build it soon.
Norm

Louis Rankin · « **Reply #26 on:** March 22, 2010, 03:44:55 PM »

Rings Rule!!!!!

Glenn (Gravitywell) Reach · « **Reply #27 on:** March 22, 2010, 03:54:43 PM »

OMG!!! That os soooo funny!

Bill Mohrbacher · « **Reply #28 on:** March 22, 2010, 04:33:00 PM »

My first big plane was a Ringmaster, Fox 35 stunt. It flew OK. I went through Clowns, Sterling P51s, Combat Flite Streaks, and then a Shoestring, Fox 35 Stunt of course. The Steak and Shoestring were way better than any of the PDQs or Sterlings, the streak probably best of all. But the Shoestring was beautiful flew very well indeed. And Goldberg kits were always a joy to build. Carl and his guys knew how to design and engineer a kit. I flew the Shoestring for years!

John Hammonds · « **Reply #29 on:** March 23, 2010, 04:30:41 PM »

Well, I voted for the Buster, first model I ever seriously flew any recognisable manoeuvres with. It would probably be considered under powered considering the usual choice of power plant, mine had an Oliver Tiger MK IV up front and weighed around 19oz but still flew a respectable pattern if memory serves correct. After a 34 year break I re discovered control line and it was found in the attic. After a conversion to electric power last year it is again giving sterling service down the field on sunny afternoons. It's like that old pair of sneekers you will be very sorry to throw away when the time comes...

TTFN
John.

Glenn (Gravitywell) Reach · « **Reply #30 on:** March 23, 2010, 05:20:45 PM »

Now thats cool John....I wonder if the builder still looks that good, or does he need recovering as well! LOL

I also find it rather neat that the vote for the Shoestring is almost exactly 50% of the Ringmaster vote.

Mike Griffin · « **Reply #31 on:** March 23, 2010, 05:49:02 PM »

Ringmaster. Just sumtin kinda special about it

Mike

Bill Heher · « **Reply #32 on:** March 23, 2010, 11:49:14 PM »

I love the old pic ( 1962) of Bill M. and his Shoestring- and I really like the Combo Gun Rack / wing holder mounted above the bench!

John Hammonds · « **Reply #33 on:** March 24, 2010, 05:20:01 AM »

Quote from: Gravitywell on March 23, 2010, 05:20:45 PM

Now thats cool John....I wonder if the builder still looks that good, or does he need recovering as well! LOL

LOL, Well I have to admit the builders covering has gained a few wrinkles and gone a bit slack in a few areas but the biggest problem is the weight gain over the years.

You might say I'm built for comfort not for speed.

TTFN
John.

Glenn (Gravitywell) Reach · « **Reply #34 on:** March 24, 2010, 11:03:34 AM »

Maybe a few hours under a heat gun will tighten that loose covering! LOL I have got to go find a LARGE heat gun!!

FLOYD CARTER · « **Reply #35 on:** March 24, 2010, 05:16:22 PM »

In terms of popularity and number built, the Ringmaster would probably be #1. I must confess, I have 3 of them right now!
2 are scratch-built S-1 types, but much lighter; the 3rd is a slightly reduced size electric powered--had to make it a bit smaller to fit the motor I had.

Floyd

Glenn (Gravitywell) Reach · « **Reply #36 on:** March 26, 2010, 07:53:59 PM »

I don't know Ty....I would have to see video evidance of you besting Lew in a slow combat match to say the Flite Streak was anything but a balsa donor for a good Ringmaster or Shoestring!

Of course I've never seen or flew a Flight Streak so I'm still prejudiced for the RM and SS.

This has sure been a fun poll. Looks like the Ringmaster may be a winner. She is edging out the Shoestring by just a few!

Chuck Feldman · « **Reply #37 on:** March 28, 2010, 11:25:11 AM »

Even with the hard balsa the Ringmaster was the number one choice for many years. Its toughness was so high many lasted for years. I remember well when the Flightstreak came out and it flew the pants of the Ringmaster. I actually disliked the Flightstreak for doing that. But it was obvious the end of the Ringmaster was here. Even lighter wood could not overcome the Flightstreak. However there is no group like the Ringmaster boys have for the Streak so it has to be the better plane?

I have a Ringmaster from plans and I am doing a make over on it now. This is with wheels, not many in the old days had wheels on them. I was using a Fox 35 on the original but I threw that fuselage away and the new one will use an OS 25 S. I'll try a 9x6 rev up for starters. Any tips you want to pass on please do.

Andrew Borgogna · « **Reply #38 on:** March 28, 2010, 12:51:20 PM »

My first biggie back around 1963 was a PDQ Clown with a Johnson .35, I still have the engine and fly it on a Voodoo. The Clown was soon followed by a S1 Ringmaster. Then came a Flite Streak with a Fox .36x, that I still fly today (or will if I ever fly the plane) on a Sneaker. And as the saying goes the rest was history.
Andy

Bill Heher · « **Reply #39 on:** March 28, 2010, 03:48:34 PM »

Chuck,

Ring with an OS .25 FP-S is a good combo, a 9X6 may be a bit too much pitch, pick up a 9X4 and a 9X5 to try also. O use a Hayes 3oz plastic tank with a clunk pick-up that doesn't quite touch the back wall, and muffler pressure. make the engine mount beams longer- you can taper and drill lightening holes in the rear portion to shave some weight.

The short nose on the Ringmaster limits tank room, and with the muffler the OS is heavier than a Fox .35 Stunt so I always end up with lead stuck under the stab. Still flies great.

Use a long elevator horn, middle or inside hole for the pushrod at the bellcrank and narrow line spacing at the handle to slow the controls down and help limit the elevator throw. It has a big elevator and you don't need 45 degrees of deflection to fly - too much elevator throw will stall it.

Kim Mortimore · « **Reply #40 on:** March 28, 2010, 04:10:53 PM »

Quote from: Bill Heher on March 28, 2010, 03:48:34 PM

......use a Hayes 3oz plastic tank with a clunk pick-up that doesn't quite touch the back wall, and muffler pressure........Bill Heher

Bill,
Does your .25 FP lean out toward the end of the flight with this fuel setup?

Thanks,
Kim

Randy Ryan · « **Reply #41 on:** March 28, 2010, 05:01:25 PM »

Kinda surprized the Buster scored so low. Its tho only one in the bunch with th straight wing making it the easiest to build. It was my first "big" stunter and I flew it to death.

Terrence Durrill · « **Reply #42 on:** March 28, 2010, 07:11:57 PM »

Mmmmmmmm,

The Ringmaster is the only plane in the list with a higher approval rating than Obama. I am sure that there will soon be others in the list which will have a higher approval rating than our esteemed President. (not necessarily from them going up, but from him going down). Anyhow, the Ring is a great classic and will remain so as long as there are control line fliers.

john e. holliday · « **Reply #43 on:** March 29, 2010, 08:07:37 AM »

Quote from: Randy Ryan on March 28, 2010, 05:01:25 PM

Kinda surprized the Buster scored so low. Its tho only one in the bunch with th straight wing making it the easiest to build. It was my first "big" stunter and I flew it to death.

Yeah, the Buster would have been my sons choice as he won a lot of trophies with it flying sport race, slow rat and what ever racing event they would let him fly. He was only ten or eleven, maybe younger back then.

George · « **Reply #44 on:** March 29, 2010, 01:22:39 PM »

I remember a guy posting years ago about the Buster being his first big plane. He said it was appropriately named because at first, every time he'd take her up, he'd "buster".

George

Bill Little · « **Reply #45 on:** March 29, 2010, 06:01:00 PM »

Well, I voted for the Coamic Wind simply because I liked the looks of mine the best!

It seemed to be a smoother flier than my Shoestring, which was my first big plane, complete with a McCoy 19 RH. I learned to actually fly inverted with the 'string. The plane that lasted the longest and was always my *old stand by* was a Ringmaster. I am building a lite weight version of the Ring now, using some of Dee's super light molded leading edges. Haven't decided as to whether I will use a sand cast Fox .35 (thanks to Billy G!) or a '57 Fox .25........ leaning towards the .25.

Big Bear

Glenn (Gravitywell) Reach · « **Reply #46 on:** March 29, 2010, 06:12:43 PM »

I am surprised myself that the Buster wasn't a bigger seller way back when. With that straight wing it was a cinch to build and a half decent flier if I remember correctly.

YakNine · « **Reply #47 on:** March 31, 2010, 01:07:15 PM »

I have a related question for you guys with old "CG" and new "Brodak" shoestrings, I have an original Shoe String Kit new in the box that I have had for almost 30 years I am just getting back into flying after 28 years of wife, Life ,Kids ,and now ex-wife, and soon to be new wife! I have an old Sterling Yak 9 that was given to me after it crashed and I just got the Brodak plans for it so I can build a new wing for it and get it back up in the air. I plan on building the String next winter for Foxberg events. My question is do you notice any difference in the air between the new and old wings in the String in the air, The Brodak wing design for the Yak is definitely lighter and stronger looking than the original though it is definitely more complicated to build. I vote for the String even though I have never flown any of the planes in the survey only because it reminds me so much of my beloved Lil'Jumpin Beans from my youth. T.J.

Chris McMillin · « **Reply #48 on:** March 31, 2010, 04:50:51 PM »

I won a Cosmic Wind in a raffle when I was abut 6 years old. I never got to build it, though. Dad traded it for a Magician ( a Midwest kit ) that I built with a Stallion 35.
I learned to fly with a Ringmaster Jr.
Chris...

Mike Keville · « **Reply #49 on:** March 31, 2010, 05:56:20 PM »

For sentimental reasons, the Ringmaster. Had one of the first kits when Sterling released them in '52 ($2.95). But for "stuntability" I'd have to go with the Goldberg Shoestring.

Author Topic: Best bang for your dollar of these old favourites (Read 14437 times)

Mike Griffin