Blue Max composite ARF

[Ralph Fichtl]

In my search for information on the Blue Max I found that the composite will be available in a few weeks and the K77 is available now.

I'm not sure if it is the Enternal of not.  I do not know the difference.

Here's the information I received.

Blue Max will be available for international shipping in 2 weeks.
The plane is made entirely of composite materials.
Removable wings, removable stabilizer.
The landing gear is mounted on the fuselage.
The plane is made for the K77 or Stalker 81.
The resonance pipe cannot be installed. Only a muffler.
Under the resonance pipe and the landing gear on the wings, Blue Max will be ready for shipping in one month.
The plane is ready to fly, unpainted, completely white and ready for painting. Packed in a wooden box made of 4 mm plywood for international airmail only.
 The price of the plane in a shipping box is $ 1800, shipping to the USA - $ 150.

[Motorman]

I think I'd need a little more info before I shell out $2000.

[Brett Buck]

I think I'd need a little more info before I shell out $2000.

   I haven't seen it in person, either. But if Kaz is doing it, it will be *correct*, $2000 is about half what a Yatsenko Shark costs (last time I checked), and probably is a better design. A K77 would probably not be my first choice for engine. Although it would pain me briefly to cut into the fuse, a 40/46 VF, PA61/65/75, RO-Jett 61 "Brett version", 67LS, etc, would all be good choices.

    Kaz is one of a select few master modelers that I would trust to get it right, sight unseen.

      Brett

[Ralph Fichtl]

Not me selling these items.  Just found this information interesting in my search.

Maybe Ruslan Kurenkov will post more about it.   This is where I received the information from.

[EricV]

I am thinking these are nothing new, maybe they are just announcing a new batch, or a these are improved production run.

The reason I say this is I've handled at least 2 Blue Max composite ARFs and know of a 3rd that came in-country years ago. Bill Rich bought 2 to "play with" and pretty sure Gene Martine bought the 3rd... there may be many more, but those are the ones I was personally acquainted with.

My impression at the time is that the shell was very nice, it was quite light, and the hardware, well, I wasn't impressed. The leadouts were THIN, not much heavier than your .018 lines, and the connection to the BC was iffy for the take apart. The flap horns were some VERY soft metal, I guess you could spin it positive that they were tweakable, but if you are used to standard 1/8" hard horns, these would remind you more of a Midwest horn, without the nylon upright at least. The horn ends were interesting too... instead of just a straight wire to go into the flap, they folded it back on itself into a tight U turn, doubling the width of the wire going into the flap. I guess this was to aid in surface area inside the flap pocket... engineers can have fun debating that one.

The take-apart screws were small, metric and fiddly (don't ask me sizes, been too long). I'd have preferred something a little beefier with an Allen or Torx head in SAE but coming from overseas, well, you get what you get. I am sure there was an emphasis on lightness, and part of it was an attempt to keep it super light, which they succeeded. I don't know if Bill ever torture tested it in the wind with those controls, but I always wondered how it would do.

The pictures below are from 3/7/2010 and Bill's maiden flights on his Blue Max freshly painted and assembled on our CL take off runway at MCRC field, if that gives you any idea on how long these ARFs have been available. I do miss Bill, he was one of a kind and practiced more than anyone I've ever seen before or since. He just flat out loved to fly.

EricV

[Brett Buck]

   To amend my previous statements - after some research and a tip-off from a fellow stunthangar subscriber,  I have every reason to believe that Kaz *is not* directly involved in the production of this ARF/RTF. I haven't quite tracked down the point of origin but it probably comes from eastern Europe.

    That doesn't make it necessarily bad or good, but I don't think you can count on the Kaz Minato seal of approval. Still, an nearly RTF version of a Blue Max with decent workmanship would be, for me, quite a bargain at $2000.  I think the baseline later version/molded version of the Blue Max that Kaz actually flew is probably a better airplane than a Yatsenko Shark which, last I knew, was about twice that price. Think of it this way, that's about what it costs me for a week at a Muncie hotel at regular rates, and the gas to get there and back.

         Brett

[Ralph Fichtl]

This is also from Ruslan Kurenkov.

K77 engines are manufactured by my friend and business partner Oleg from Ukraine, only under the order of Kaz Minato and Randy Smith.
Blue Max aircraft developed by Kaz Minato have always been manufactured and are now manufactured by my friend Oleksandr from Ukraine.
 I do not manufacture engines.
 I used them for 10 years as a test pilot of the F2B brand Stalker.
 Now I, as the owner of the controllineparts store, only sell Stalker engines as the official representative of Stalker in Ukraine, and I personally manufactured control lines before.

[Ralph Fichtl]

Does anyone know the difference between the Blue Max and the Blue Max Enternal.

Brett, I believe you are right, as I have sent Mr. Kaz Minato an email in the passed asking about the K77 and the Blue Max and didn't receive an email back.  I do not think Mr. Minato is involved with any more production of engines or kits.  I also ask Mr. Randy Smith about the K77 engine and he is not having any made either.

[Doug Moon]

I priced a Shark Evolution August of last year. 2700 Euros you pick the paint scheme. He said he will test fly before sending to make sure its all good. I really want one. But I cant fly that in ama.........

[Lauri Malila]

Brett,

Just curious, can you elaborate how the BM is a better design than Shark? Looking at their track records, that's certainly not the case. L

[Brett Buck]

Brett,

Just curious, can you elaborate how the BM is a better design than Shark? Looking at their track records, that's certainly not the case. L

   I have flown both of them.

     Brett

[Lauri Malila]

Me too😂

[Dave_Trible]

They are both outstanding indeed but IMHO the Shark is a full generation ahead of the Blue Max and the majority of airplanes flown today at least in terms of cornering ability.   That was totally obvious at the last World Championships.  It may not be any better in some other aspects but cornering- for sure.

Dave

[Doug Moon]

They are both outstanding indeed but IMHO the Shark is a full generation ahead of the Blue Max and the majority of airplanes flown today at least in terms of cornering ability.   That was totally obvious at the last World Championships.  It may not be any better in some other aspects but cornering- for sure.

Dave

I got a ride on Joe Daly's borrower Shark at the TT. It was awesome! Very different and really fun to fly. He told me to try to stall in a couple of places. I gave that plane some really hard hits and it just cruised right through it.  Then Joe tells me he can make the controls faster and it still wont stall or falter. Very cool design and coupled electric power and its abilities they make a lethal combination.

The WCs was a real eye opener. The FAI pattern while looking the same on paper is flown very differently with the current direction of the more common model used in FAI and one used here. It's not even close...

[Lauri Malila]

That’s my impression too, The plastic BM has to be forced to do what Shark does so easily and effordlessly.
Maybe it’s not just the design to blame, Shark is structurally very very sound and well optimized while the BM has this plastic bucket -feel in it. L

[Brett Buck]

That’s my impression too, The plastic BM has to be forced to do what Shark does so easily and effordlessly.
Maybe it’s not just the design to blame, Shark is structurally very very sound and well optimized while the BM has this plastic bucket -feel in it. L

   To be clear, I have not flown any of this current generation of Blue Max ARFs/RTFs and know nothing about it. I flew one of Kaz's, it flew a lot like an Impact. In particular, it tracked much easier than any of the Sharks I have flown, and had appropriate amounts feedback in and out of corners. The Sharks I have flown have had almost no difference in the feel/feedback whether they were flying level, turning, etc and required constant attention in places where I would just normally let the airplane fly itself. Obviously, if you do that, it can perform very well, but it also would appear to demand constant intensive practice, which is out of the question for me.

     I have flown various Impacts, Trivial Pursuits, Thundergazers, etc, and at least the IC versions I can do a good flight right from the first maneuvers. Electric, I have a different experience, the line tension is typically massively more but the control feedback is still light and the ratio of tension to control feel is so wildly off what I expect that I find them very difficult to fly precisely. The exception are Paul's airplanes - I flew one of the early Predators and it was perfectly reasonable, tracked well. moderate tension, moderate control feedback, perfectly harmonious. The IC Sharks I found flew better than the electric for similar reasons. Even the B-17 had reasonably harmonious/appropriate tension vs control feedback, but turned up  11 (or more....).

    Note I am leaving out my own airplane for several reasons, one is that no one else has much reference, since only a few of them have been built, and obviously mine is set up with the way I think it should be done.   I will also note that the reference standard for any current stunt airplane is the Imitation - which, with the smallest flaps selected, ALSO flies like a Shark for fairly obvious reasons.

   I said it before, so I will keep digging the hole - the Sharks I have flown are kind of similar to a lot of elevator-only airplanes - sort of like a Skyray that pulls really hard. That's not a bad thing, necessarily, because I can usually absolutely drill maneuvers like the square 8 with the skyray after having not flown it for years. It does less good in other maneuvers that require more subtle adjustments, and those are where I had more trouble with the Shark, particularly the electric. At least with the IC versions, the engine was also doing something that added some feedback. The Skyray has other limitations that the Shark doesn't but the basic feel is very similar to me.

   For better or worse round loops count the same 40 points as asquare 8 and you can't give up one for the other. In any case, no one has ever complained about, say, how an Impact corners, it was an immediate revolutionary change in how stunt is flown that "world" has only recently discovered.

     Brett

[Doug Moon]

Brett,

I flew one of Orestes Legacy Sharks at the nats one year. It was in good trim and the speed was good. BUT I absolutely could not fly that plane worth darn. Like you I found it difficult to groove and it took serious attention to keep it "in" a maneuver. I have often wondered how he flew that style of shark so well. While I was flying Orestes plane I felt my phone vibrate in my pocket. I checked it later and it was a text from Steve Fitton, "what are you doing you're flying that plane like ass" or something along those lines. 

But the newer versions seem to be much better. At least Joe's was and I could jump right on it and go.  I also go to fly David's plane at the TT. It was the same way as far as jump right on and go. Both exceptional models and really fun to fly. One thing that was really cool was watching David fly Bob G's 2003 model that Steve was flying. He was about 2 maneuvers in and he was ON! Looked like he had been flying it for years.

[Brett Buck]

  I also go to fly David's plane at the TT. It was the same way as far as jump right on and go. Both exceptional models and really fun to fly.\

    This is completely off-topic, but I am curious - what did you think of the overall line tension on David's airplane?

    Brett

[Doug Moon]

    This is completely off-topic, but I am curious - what did you think of the overall line tension on David's airplane?

    Brett

It has a strong pull, especially in level flight. At first I thought it was going to fly very nose heavy and turn slow compared to what I am used to flying. But at the first corner it snapped right through there like a nimble stunt plane should. It was more tension than I am used too but a the same time I think I could get very used to his setup very quickly.  It flys round maneuvers very smooth and easy. I liked flying it.

Interestingly enough his natural setting at the handle is damn near exactly the same as I fly. Usually when I get on someone else's plane I have to constantly add a little down elv when I fly upright. I didn't have to do that with his. I really got to see what it could do right away with no adjustment.

What did you think of it?

[Matt Colan]

    This is completely off-topic, but I am curious - what did you think of the overall line tension on David's airplane?

    Brett

I’m not Doug but I flew TGIII and TGII as well as Joe Daly’s Shark. When I flew TGIII I thought it pulled like a truck. For me, I fly with a much wider line spacing than Doug or Dave do and felt it had very slow controls.

When I flew TGII in Napa, I widened the line spacing to 5” and had a blast! TGII didn’t pull as hard and felt easier to fly compared to TGIII. I’m not sure if that was because I got to have an entire morning flying it and adjusting the handle to my liking or not, but it was a ton of fun that morning! I would rank TGII as one of the top 2-3 planes I’ve ever flown. Bob’s 2003 Bear makes that list

The flight I got on Joe’s Shark pulled the least out of these three, and I didn’t have any issues with tracking in level flight. It was almost toy-like in its feel and how you could do whatever you wanted with it and it would never deviate from its path, or rock a wing. It just kept going. The hourglass was super fun with that plane

[Brett Buck]

It has a strong pull, especially in level flight. At first I thought it was going to fly very nose heavy and turn slow compared to what I am used to flying. But at the first corner it snapped right through there like a nimble stunt plane should. It was more tension than I am used too but a the same time I think I could get very used to his setup very quickly.  It flys round maneuvers very smooth and easy. I liked flying it.

Interestingly enough his natural setting at the handle is damn near exactly the same as I fly. Usually when I get on someone else's plane I have to constantly add a little down elv when I fly upright. I didn't have to do that with his. I really got to see what it could do right away with no adjustment.

What did you think of it?

   It pulled substantially harder than mine, it was less than most electrics I fly, but otherwise, very easy to fly and I was immediately comfortable with it. The reason I asked was that I am at least puzzled by why most electric airplanes pull so hard, even though they aren't necessarily heavier and fly the same speed or slower. I have heard plenty of semi-magical reasons, but I am sure there is some actual reason for it.

   It is not terribly surprising that David and I can swap airplanes with no real issue, and I have flown several electrics where the same thing was true (Paul's and Bobby's). But *most* of the electric plaines I fly pull to almost abusive levels, and I lose the control feel in the extremely heavy pull.

     Brett

[Dave_Trible]

I'll raise my hand with another semi-magical reason why electrics might pull harder that IC.   I mentioned this a couple years ago in a different discussion concerning why an electric airplane may trim out more nose heavy than a similar IC airplane.   I feel quite confident to say it's about how power is transmitted to the prop.    I know very little about electric motors but I believe it's torque is delivered in pulses but very very fast light pulses or cycles which for all intents and purposes is a non -interupted stream of power or torque with no noticeable down time at any point in the revolution of the prop.  You might conclude this form of thrust is more efficient overall.   This constant power is providing a more consistent tug forward and strong feel on the lines.   The IC operates with pulsed power.   One power pulse delivered for part of every OR every other revolution of the prop with sort of a 'coast' time inbetween.   These individual pulses are very much stronger than those of the electric motor but they have a void in between cycles.   If you visualize looking at the airplane head on and also visualize the prop running 'disc' the electric would be filled in solidly and the IC disc very strong for a portion of the disc and very weak for the remainder, the locations being related to how the prop blades fall during the power stroke.   Add nitro and the disc would appear stronger in the power segment.  When the engine two cycles those segments come much faster but at of the same dimension and in the same locations as the four cycle.  If you loosened the prop and rotated it several degrees you could change where those power segments occur but not otherwise change them.   This MIGHT change the trim characteristics of the airplane slightly-maybe to affect overhead line tension a bit (not tried it).   That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

Dave

[Dave Hull]

Yep. That's full-on magical....

[jerry v]

Change the rules to prohibit active timers and everybody will go back to fly IC power in stunt.

Jerry

[Brett Buck]

Change the rules to prohibit active timers and everybody will go back to fly IC power in stunt.

Jerry

    Plenty of people were flying electric before Igor gadgets. Plus, I am not sure why you would even want to do that.

    Brett

[Doug Moon]

Over the years I have flown many electric planes at our field. Mike Scott and Crist Rigotti have been on the electric train for many many years. When Mike first started with electric his planes would pull very hard. It was uncomfortable to fly at first. I would see the plane on one line many times in maneuvers. But over the years the pull has lessened considerably to a more evenly spaced tension across the flight. He built a max bee and it had tension like a typical stunt plane. Then he got a couple of the Ukrainian models and from what I have flown they pull harder down at 5 and less up top but it's a very normal feel. Crist builds in offset on the motor then pulls the nose back in with LO position. This application seems to work very well. His planes fly very light on the lines but VERY predictable, it never goes away but wind placement is very cirtical. I really like flying his planes. They pull similar to the shark I flew. Matt's description of toy-like is spot on. Properly build and trimmed and the pull should be steady but not overbearing. If it is overbearing something is off.

[Mike Palko]

Brett,

I flew one of Orestes Legacy Sharks at the nats one year. It was in good trim and the speed was good. BUT I absolutely could not fly that plane worth darn. Like you I found it difficult to groove and it took serious attention to keep it "in" a maneuver. I have often wondered how he flew that style of shark so well. While I was flying Orestes plane I felt my phone vibrate in my pocket. I checked it later and it was a text from Steve Fitton, "what are you doing you're flying that plane like ass" or something along those lines. 

But the newer versions seem to be much better. At least Joe's was and I could jump right on it and go.  I also go to fly David's plane at the TT. It was the same way as far as jump right on and go. Both exceptional models and really fun to fly. One thing that was really cool was watching David fly Bob G's 2003 model that Steve was flying. He was about 2 maneuvers in and he was ON! Looked like he had been flying it for years.

I flew Orestes Shark that year too. I was the flight right before or right after you. I had the exact opposite experience. I landed knowing exactly how he flew so well. Orestes Shark was and still is the best airplane I have ever flown.

I agree with Dave. The Shark has a higher quality corner than most everything at the Nat’s and what I saw on video of the worlds. Not just the corner, but the turn and lock. The only thing close is the Axioma and derivatives and one of Paul’s recent anteaters I watched fly at a recent Nat’s.

Mike

[Brent Williams]

Orestes was flying some great stunt with his newer Shark at the Vegas 2024 contest.  This was one of his more relaxed practice flights. 
I was impressed with how quietly the airplane cornered.  There was very little wind noise as it made the hard turns. 

https://youtu.be/Q__x15uQ-9w?feature=shared

[Motorman]

Getting back to the Blue Max. Can it be converted to electric power?

MM