Bob Palmer Thunderbird Stunter with lengthened fuelarge

[Briam McGrigor]

Any feedback please

- I am building a new model and the plans I have show an option for a slightly longer measurement from the trailing edge of the wing to the stab.

It seems like a good idea but what has anyones experience been, who has built the modified model - with the longer tail and  how it performs compared to the original design.

[Steve Helmick]

It sounds like a Tom Dixon revision. I would bet that it'll fly better than a stock T-Bird by quite a bit. Design theory has advanced a lot in the last 65 years. Larger tail volume and massively better control system geometry will make it corner better.  Steve

[Dave Hull]

You could read up on the Tom Dixon Phoenix (T-Bird derivative) in the February 1984 issue of Model Aviation. It is a ".35-sized" plane (he used a Fox .35), but nowadays people would likely load something bigger in the nose. Dixon states that his "tail moment length" (which he defined as the distance between the flap hinge and the elevator hinge line) is 14.25" on this 610 sq. in. model.

He also had the Thunderbird 60 (Sept. 1987, Model Aviation) which was a 110% scale-up of his Phoenix, and then the Thunderbird 60 Mark II (May 1989, Model Aviation).

Bon Appetit!

[Dan McEntee]

Any feedback please

- I am building a new model and the plans I have show an option for a slightly longer measurement from the trailing edge of the wing to the stab.

It seems like a good idea but what has anyones experience been, who has built the modified model - with the longer tail and  how it performs compared to the original design.

   Yes, please tell us what plan? Or is it from a kit? Then if we have the same plan we can look at it ourselves for better context.

  Type at you later,
  Dan McEntee

[Brett Buck]

You could read up on the Tom Dixon Phoenix (T-Bird derivative) in the February 1984 issue of Model Aviation. It is a ".35-sized" plane (he used a Fox .35), but nowadays people would likely load something bigger in the nose. Dixon states that his "tail moment length" (which he defined as the distance between the flap hinge and the elevator hinge line) is 14.25" on this 610 sq. in. model.

   That's still pretty short but anything helps.   14.25 inches is about what Aldrich did to make his "modified Thunderbird" into the Nobler.

   The only reason you might not want to modify the original is that it will make it "illegal" for Classic. The penalty for that may be nearly nothing, but "improving" classic models is supposed to incur some penalty (reduction in Fidelity Points), but that is not always done.

    Brett

[Dave_Trible]

   That's still pretty short but anything helps.   14.25 inches is about what Aldrich did to make his "modified Thunderbird" into the Nobler.

   The only reason you might not want to modify the original is that it will make it "illegal" for Classic. The penalty for that may be nearly nothing, but "improving" classic models is supposed to incur some penalty (reduction in Fidelity Points), but that is not always done.

    Brett

That was sort of my thought.   If you aren't going to build a classic like it was designed then why build it at all?   Just pick something more modern that you think will perform the way you want.  Sort of like building a 57' Chevy stretch limo.

Dave

I think I spend way too much time on here...

[kevin king]

In my opinion, its the inboard wing that needs lengthening.

[Scott Richlen]

Sort of like building a 57' Chevy stretch limo.

It may meet the classic cut-off date, but it sure ain't gonna fly.....

[Dave_Trible]

And be DQ'd by the CD if he is up to snuff.  Kind of fun though.

Dave

[Brett Buck]

And be DQ'd by the CD if he is up to snuff.  Kind of fun though.

Dave

   I don't see how you can DQ anyone in the current classic rules. You can dock fidelity points, but that is about it.

    Brett

[Dave_Trible]

   I don't see how you can DQ anyone in the current classic rules. You can dock fidelity points, but that is about it.

    Brett

Perhaps we could stick a Nobler rudder on a Shark...............HM.......

Dave

[Brett Buck]

Perhaps we could stick a Nobler rudder on a Shark...............HM.......

Dave

   I think you can take an Infinity, paint it blue, and call it a modified Nobler. The penalty is loss of fidelity points. If you were, for some reason, not using fidelity points, then I see no penalty at all.

    Brett

[doug coursey]

HERES AN ARTICLE AND PLANS ON THE PHOENIX
https://www.vintagemodelplans.com/products/full-size-printed-plan-control-line-stunter-phoenix-able-as-anything-on-the-contest-circuit-and-it-is-more-reliable-than-most

[Steve Helmick]

   That's still pretty short but anything helps.   14.25 inches is about what Aldrich did to make his "modified Thunderbird" into the Nobler.

   The only reason you might not want to modify the original is that it will make it "illegal" for Classic. The penalty for that may be nearly nothing, but "improving" classic models is supposed to incur some penalty (reduction in Fidelity Points), but that is not always done.

    Brett

George's "Modified Chief" became the Nobler, but otherwise, yup. The ImpAct looks a lot like a JD Falcon, so that'd be my ploy. The piped .40VF would be legal.  Steve

[Reptoid]

   That's still pretty short but anything helps.   14.25 inches is about what Aldrich did to make his "modified Thunderbird" into the Nobler.

   The only reason you might not want to modify the original is that it will make it "illegal" for Classic. The penalty for that may be nearly nothing, but "improving" classic models is supposed to incur some penalty (reduction in Fidelity Points), but that is not always done.

    Brett

And yet; You can run a completely modern engine or electric motor. From a performance perspective it makes no sense at all to me. JMHO

[Brett Buck]

And yet; You can run a completely modern engine or electric motor. From a performance perspective it makes no sense at all to me. JMHO

   A point I have made on numerous occasions, to general silence.

     Brett

[Scott Richlen]

A point I have made on numerous occasions, to general silence.

Apparently there is no general CL interest in a "Fox 35 Full Employment Program" .... 

I suppose it's because many of us recall the reason we "fired" ol' Fox in the first place.

[Dave_Trible]

But sort of kills the spirit of the event.   Modern equipment can be used in modern airplanes and flown in modern events.   You sure can do otherwise and have fun.   But to enter a competition class specifically meant to enjoy and preserve heritage with it?

Dave

[Leonard Bourel]

I agree fullyI think all classic and old time airplanes flying in competition should have period power plants Just my viewpoint.

[Scott Richlen]

Since just about everyone has a Fox 35 and there are still a lot of old period engines available, there is no real reason that requiring "period engines" should restrict entry into either Old Time or Classic.  I think, then, that the issue is "would the requirement to use period engines enliven those events by making them more distinct from PA, or would it reduce participation by adding the "engine challenge"?"  The "engine challenge" being that of using harder starting, weaker, less reliable, and worse running engines?

I would like both of the events (OT and Classic) to grow and florish, but I'm not sure that is happening now.  Would a "period engines" requirement help or hurt?  Is the horse out of the barn and should this change have been made years ago?  Are the patients too old feeble and would this drastic of an "operation" end up killing them?

Which brings up another question: we need to figure out a way to survey the bulk of CL flyers.  Not just PAMPA flyers, but all the guys who are out on Saturday (or whenever) flying.  We'd be in better shape if we based changes on data and not just opinion.

[Dave_Trible]

I doubt any changes will be made.  It's just the principal.   You should attend VSC sometime.   I think you would have a better appreciation of the idea.  Also none of this either way would have any affect on participation.   That is simply what it is and won't change much no matter.

Dave

[EddyR]

I built a first version Thunderbird back in the 1980’s. Ted even had a picture of it in his column back in 87-88. I built it with a one inch longer tail moment and flew it a lot.. I wore out the elevator horn so i pulled the complete tail and add a bearing to the horn and shortened the tail to stock length. I liked the way it flew stock better than modified. I used it to win advanced at the 1989 KOI. Gave it away after that and saw it at a contest where a guy said he built it. It still had my AmA number on bottom of wing! I think I had  OS Max .35 in it.
 EddyR

[Lyle Spiegel]

With respect to engines used in Classic & OTS and no penalty for "modern" power- glow or electric, perhaps an alternative would be to offer extra points  when
using Fox 35, McCoy RH , or Veco ?

[Trostle]

With respect to engines used in Classic & OTS and no penalty for "modern" power- glow or electric, perhaps an alternative would be to offer extra points  when
using Fox 35, McCoy RH , or Veco ?

And the OS 35S.  I think I bought my first ones in late '64.

Keith

[Brett Buck]

We'd be in better shape if we based changes on data and not just opinion.

    I don't really have a dog in this fight, because I don't care, but I am curious -  what "data" you are talking about? I think we can take as axiomatic that there are enough Fox and McCoy 35s around to last the needs of a modified Classic event for the next 1000 years.

     And why shouldn't we base it on opinion? Aren't the opinions of the current and potential entrants the best way to make an event that people want to enter?

   Brett

[Dave_Trible]

With respect to engines used in Classic & OTS and no penalty for "modern" power- glow or electric, perhaps an alternative would be to offer extra points  when
using Fox 35, McCoy RH , or Veco ?

Merit here.  Maybe push the idea Lyle.

Dave

[Dave_Trible]

And the OS 35S.  I think I bought my first ones in late '64.

Keith

+1

Dave

[Scott Richlen]

And why shouldn't we base it on opinion? Aren't the opinions of the current and potential entrants the best way to make an event that people want to enter?

Yes!  The data would be the opinions.  But it would be the opinions of more than just the people who post here....