Author Topic: FUN 51 Project(FLOWN) (Read 3225 times)

Phil Coopy · « **on:** September 12, 2007, 08:31:11 PM »

Just finished a 1/4 scale Citabria Pro for a friend so I thought a light C/L project would be fun. I bought a Fun 51 RC kit and decided to rty my hand at converting it to C/L. The kit is actually pretty easy to put together and the only structral changes I have made is to substutute maple engine mounts and use a solid rudder. I have no idea how it will fly. I am planning to use a good OS Max 35 that I have had on the shelf for a number of years...if it tutns out to be too wimpy I'll change to something else. I am going to silkspan and dope the fuse, and monokote the wing and stab. SO far it weighs 31 oz as shown.

Phil

Jim Oliver · « **Reply #1 on:** September 12, 2007, 08:39:14 PM »

Phil,

Looks like it will work if the control surfaces don't twist/flex too much. Very interested in flight report.

Thanks,
Jim

Paul Taylor · « **Reply #2 on:** September 13, 2007, 06:42:12 AM »

Looks like it might need some type of doublers?

Looks Cool.

taildragger-j3 · « **Reply #3 on:** September 13, 2007, 07:46:49 AM »

That is a GREAT idea. Now you've added another project to my "to build" list. I've got a friend who built one for R/C fun fly and it was a super flyer. I've no doubt that you'll enjoy this C/L version. Please keep us informed about your progress.

Tom Perry · « **Reply #4 on:** September 13, 2007, 06:54:02 PM »

Phil,

You have peaked my interest.

Have you a retail price for the kit that you could share? If you don't add too much weight with the finish it should do real well with the os .35.

Maybe you've started something here.

Phil Coopy · « **Reply #5 on:** September 13, 2007, 08:59:39 PM »

Tom,

$39.99 Tower Hobbies......

Phil

Leester · « **Reply #6 on:** September 13, 2007, 09:51:57 PM »

Lookin good Phil: I've been flying mine with a FP 40 but the 35 should do the trick nicely. The doublers aren't a bad idea, will help stiffen up the nose, glad you used the maple mounts also the kit supplied ones in mine are starting to crush. I've had mine flying for 2 years and the controls are fine, no flexing at all. I used dope and silkspan on it all and painted with Lustrekote, good enough for it's intended purpose. Have fun flying it just watch the wind when the engine runs out, that big wing really is a challenge when landing.

Steve Kientz · « **Reply #7 on:** September 14, 2007, 05:52:02 AM »

I have had one of these kits since Christmas,hope to build this winter.Looks great, I would consider doublers on the noseas rootbeard suggested.I'm hoping to power mine with a 4 stroke,just to be different.

Steve

Phil Coopy · « **Reply #8 on:** September 14, 2007, 12:08:03 PM »

Guys, I followed your advice and put doublers on the nose. Little bit heavier tho. I think the ailerons are stiff enough to use as shown on the plans. I'll get some more pics up as soon as I get further. By the way, any of you guys already flying them want to reveal the weight?

Phil

Paul Taylor · « **Reply #9 on:** September 14, 2007, 02:13:05 PM »

Looks good Phil.
I wish I had one too.

Keep us posted on how she flys.

This one just might have to make my short list.

Paul

Tom Perry · « **Reply #10 on:** September 14, 2007, 03:52:52 PM »

Leester,

Are you having any trim problems from the low wing. The Brodak P-40 mentions several problems and how they were corrected by the various users. Just wondering about your experience.

Leester · « **Reply #11 on:** September 15, 2007, 04:55:46 PM »

Tom : I haven't had any problems but then I'm not much of a flyer. A more experienced flying friend flew it and the only thing he said was he needed to give it more handle input than he was used to. I have a 4" BC and fixed lead outs and my handle he used is at a fixed 4" spacing.

Phil: When I built mine I used all kit wood and didn't care about the weight so as it is it's 50 oz. with the FP 40 and stock muffler. I have repaired it once which I'm sure added some oz's but the FP 40 pulls it with authority.

Tom Perry · « **Reply #12 on:** September 15, 2007, 06:04:28 PM »

Bashing that kit looks real interesting to me. Forty bucks seems like a pretty good price. I just got done with my chemo and radiation treatment and am due to be operated on next month. If all goes well I'm gonna pick one of those up, build it and take it to Brodaks next year.

I think I'd like to make better looking wing tips though. Being able to customize kits is a lot of fun.

Leester · « **Reply #13 on:** September 15, 2007, 06:23:34 PM »

Kit bashing is fun, I also did the Tower Uproar 40 which is now 41.99 I added a cowl and wing tips. It flew good with a LA 40 (currently under repair) oops.

Phil Coopy · « **Reply #14 on:** September 18, 2007, 06:19:51 PM »

Here is what I/ve gotten done so far. Wing, flaps, stab, and elevator covered with $Kote. I'm gonna stripe with Lustrekote Euro Allied style black and white with a red rudder. I silkspanned the fuse and rudder but am in a hold because I ran out of primer.

Second pic is an aw sh..t that happen to me today practicing in the wind. I think I started first inside loop of the horiz 8 too far upwind, and a gust caught it at the top of the loop, and it rolled right, from inverted to upright, and it ended up actually yawing around towards center circle before just falling straight down. Tried everything to get some line tension but the lines just looked like a big skinny snake. At my level of flying about all I could do is watch. Luckily I have a backup Twister.

Phil

Leester · « **Reply #15 on:** September 18, 2007, 07:47:40 PM »

Phil: The 51 is coming along great, sorry about the oops.

Phil Coopy · « **Reply #16 on:** September 19, 2007, 05:38:46 PM »

'NUTHER DAY'S WORK.....

Phil

Phil Coopy · « **Reply #17 on:** September 22, 2007, 02:59:01 PM »

Got 'er done this afternoon...try to fly 'er tomorrow but the weather looks like it might be crappy. Came out 51 oz and balanced a little behind the reccommended CG. If I built another one I would substitute 1/2 balsa for the fuse instead of the laminated ply/balsa they supply. I thin it would come out lighter. One could also reduce the height of the profile a lot and come out closer to scale. We'll see.

Phil

Leester · « **Reply #18 on:** September 22, 2007, 03:34:12 PM »

Phil: That really looks Fantastic. Hope you get a good day soon, I'd love to see it fly.

john e. holliday · « **Reply #19 on:** September 23, 2007, 07:46:44 AM »

Hope that Stang flies as well as it looks. Have fun, DOC Holliday

Phil Coopy · « **Reply #20 on:** September 23, 2007, 03:03:09 PM »

Flew it today.......needs a little nose weight 'cause with the CG back near the suggested limits, it is kind of twitchy. The rain prevented a second flight so I didn't get a chance to find the sweet spot on the engine. More later..

Leester, where is your CG?

Phil

Leester · « **Reply #21 on:** September 23, 2007, 03:23:55 PM »

Phil: With 1oz tail weight roughly 3 1/2 to 3 3/4 " from the leading edge. Which is rght in the middle of my fixed lead outs.

Harleyman · « **Reply #22 on:** September 23, 2007, 05:42:55 PM »

Phil,

It sure came out looking nice. I bet it'll end up being a blast to fly once you get the CG figured out.

Steve Kientz · « **Reply #23 on:** October 31, 2007, 03:18:12 PM »

I'm starting to roundup supplies for my Fun 51. Is there anything that the builders of this plane would change? I figure 4" BC, ply doublers, anything else?
As far as finish,I thik mine will be two tone green camo(early '80s turboprop version that the USAF was testing as a possible replacement to the A-10). What a sight, and sound. I can't remember what aircraft company was behind it. That would make a great scale subject.

Steve

Geoff Goodworth · « **Reply #24 on:** November 01, 2007, 04:26:27 AM »

Steve, et al

I have one winging its way from Tower to Oz at present and I have downloaded the instruction manual and had a bit of a think.

I am planning to ignore the ply fuselage pieces and use them to shapw a plank of 1/2" for the fuselage front where I will use conventional bearers. I also intend to add tips so the wing looks a little more authentic.

I am still undecided on this but I think that the wing located so low will cause an issue. The price is right so I am currently pondering whether to have a play and build my firest stunter with dihedral. That decision will have to wait until I have the kit in my hand.

Although it not critical to the aerodynamics of the model, I am also pondering whether I might reduce the canopy and turn the kit into a faux Reno racer.

Cheers for now

Geoff

Steve Kientz · « **Reply #25 on:** November 01, 2007, 03:46:22 PM »

Geoff,
What about moving the wing towards the center of the fuselage? If you are making a new fuselage it shouldn't add much labor, just time. You'll have to check the incidence before gluing . I've been told to have it at 0 degrees(then set engine at 0 also). What size doublers are you going to use? I'm thinking 3/32" ply.
Steve

Douglas Babb · « **Reply #26 on:** November 01, 2007, 06:39:53 PM »

Piper PA-48 Enforcer.

Geoff Goodworth · « **Reply #27 on:** November 02, 2007, 03:40:40 AM »

Steve

Moving the wing up is the easy solution—for this model. However, in my longer-term objectives are a Spitfire Mk XVI—full eliptical wing and bubble canopy and a Mustang Reno racer. I see this model as a cheap way to get into wings with dihedral.

Cheers

Steve Kientz · « **Reply #28 on:** November 02, 2007, 03:10:45 PM »

Douglas,
Thanks for refreshing my ever shrinking memory. I have a hard time remembering the name , but I still hear that great sound.
Steve

Author Topic: FUN 51 Project(FLOWN) (Read 3225 times)

Steve Kientz

Steve Kientz

Steve Kientz

Steve Kientz