compare larger Magician with and without flaps

[bob branch]

Could I get some input from people who have flown the larger size Magicians both with and without flaps. Like to know if you found significant differences either way in how they fly the modern pattern.  Thanks

[Dave_Trible]

Bob I have only flown them WITH working flaps and of course, they are very nice.  I am helping build one now from an old Midwest kit without moving flaps just to simplify any repairs since this will be a basic stunt trainer.  I'm sure if it were for me to fly I would want the flaps working.  The difference would have to be the quality of square and triangle turns.  I will fly this new one a time or two soon and will have a better impression but I'm very sure I will think about the same after.  The new pilot also bought the Brodak Magician kit to build on his own.  That one concerns me some because it has a considerably shorter wingspan.  I'm thinking he should for sure get those flaps working to help offset the loss in lift.

Dave

[John Paris]

Bob,
I spoke with Bob Brookins this evening and he did say that be flies his with working flaps.
John

[afml]

Interesting thread.....
So no one remembers John Sunderland at the top of the pack in Classic with his 35 sized Magician WITHOUT movable flaps??
Yea...I know it's been a while...
"Tight Lines!"
Wes

[ericrule]

I have always thought that Magician's fly better without flaps.

I am not an aeronautical engineer and will defer to anyone with a more scientific explanation. I strongly suspect that due to the very short distance between the trailing edge and the elevator using flaps causes a lot of turbulence which does not have sufficient time to smooth out before it hits the elevator. This turbulence makes the elevator less effective.

I am old enough to remember Magician kits produced before flaps became popular. The addition of flaps was likely more of a marketing decision than an aeronautical decision.

[Jim Kraft]

I have built four of the Midwest version off plans. All of mine have operable flaps. What I found is that with flaps they fly much better with the balance moved back an inch from the plan. Since I have never built one or flown one without working flaps I can not tell you of any difference.

[L0U CRANE]

Legend passed along by a flier who had flown with Jim Silhavy occasionally. Jim was not happy to see one of his Magicians built with operating flaps, an apparently told those guys about it. Comments posted in here seem to indicate that Jim might have been right all along. 

I've only built two (My early one was from about the earliest kits: 1957 or -'58?) Flown w/o moving flaps. It flew far better than I did at the time. But I did enjoy it very much! Second one was in the 1970's - flapped and considerably modified, so a bird different from Silhavy's. That flew quite well, too. (The OEM side view in flight didn't please me, so I cobbled an "improved" version.)

 A great, historically important model.

[proparc]

Absolutely without flaps. Still one one BEST stunt trainers ever developed.

[Joseph Patterson]

     No flaps - better
        Doug

[Steve Helmick]

I suspect the flaps at the usual ratio would work at cross purposes to the elevator much the same as the Fancy Pants model. In that case flap movement should be minimized so, why go through the trouble to make flaps?

We need a Francherized Magician.


Motorman

Better yet, a Fancherized Magician. The basic problem is that the tail volume is too small for the flaps to be moving. Longer tail moment and/or larger horizontal tail is the fix. Axe Ted and Brett.

For a first stunt trainer, I'd go without flaps. For a second stunt trainer, I'd lengthen the rear end of the fuselage AND enlarge the horizontal tail...or just build a Fancherized Twister.    Steve

[Dan McEntee]

   This design has been discussed before, both here and on Stuka. Some one good at using the search function can probably dig up the best ones. I'm pretty sure that the design was originally intended for no flaps. as some one pointed out, that is why the short tail moment. I think Jim Silhavy confirmed that. He kitted the plane himself before selling it to Midwest. I have a copy of a kit from each company that has kitted it, and will have to check the original plans to see what they say. Back when I started to fly stunt in the late 80's, it was a popular modification to move the stab back to the end of the fuselage and build it with flaps.  If I get a chance to build my Walter Umland kit, I will probably leave the flaps fixed just for simplicity.
   Type at you later,
    Dan McEntee

[afml]

Ty is correct.
TMP first kitted the Magician and the plans notation is correct.
In my younger years I had the experience of being 'trounced' by a former combat champ Frank Bellotti, who also worked at TMP.
He was also a member of the "Flying Circus" as my Father and Jim Hunt were too.
A small group of Guys who gathered in John Brodak's back yard to do some flying each week.
Bill Ayres either owned the company or was high up in the chain of command.
Years ago I contacted Bill about the Magician and he informed me that 'Paul' their draftsman, also made notations for a full bodied Magician.
I foolishly brought it to the NATS one year and listened to all the 'experts of the day' on taming my erratic and sometimes ballistic engine run.
As fate would have it, the run went sour in the middle of the RWO and...Well....It didn't end well. 
I DID how ever get Jim Silhavy's signature on the wing before that fateful flight. And YES...The signature survived!
STAY SAFE!   STAY WELL!
"Tight Lines!"
Wes