stunthanger.com
General control line discussion => Open Forum => Topic started by: Tim Wescott on October 06, 2015, 05:02:48 PM
-
Anyone got one? It'll be going into the files at first, but my wife is at the "using up airplanes" stage of learning to fly, and the "Easy" looks like a good stunt trainer that can compete in Old Time.
(And, before anyone else mentions it -- yes, the elevator is kinda big. I may make the first one with the hinge line moved back even if it won't be OT legal. Or I'll use the stock hinge line. The impulse of the moment will determine what I do there.
-
Anyone got one? It'll be going into the files at first, but my wife is at the "using up airplanes" stage of learning to fly, and the "Easy" looks like a good stunt trainer that can compete in Old Time.
(And, before anyone else mentions it -- yes, the elevator is kinda big. I may make the first one with the hinge line moved back even if it won't be OT legal. Or I'll use the stock hinge line. The impulse of the moment will determine what I do there.
Tim,
I just took a look at that article of the "Easy." Yes, I have that magazine.
I don't think the elevator is large at all, in fact, the easy is well proportioned. IMHO.
Possibly you saw one that was altered?
Charles
-
You must want a hard copy, you probably saw this
http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/1020TheEASY.pdf
-
You must want a hard copy, you probably saw this
http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/1020TheEASY.pdf
I didn't! I was browsing for designs in the PAMPA collection of OT plans.
It does answer my biggest question: I wanted to verify that it was, indeed, a side-mounted engine. At this point I feel I could just build (well, after I get a decent CLPA plane done).
The plans book has a drawing with symbolic dimensions (dimension 1, dimension 2, etc.), and a chart that you use to size your Easy to the engine size -- so you can build one from 1/2-A size all the way to a then-60-sized (now 45) 50" wingspan plane.
I just took a look at that article of the "Easy." Yes, I have that magazine.
I don't think the elevator is large at all, in fact, the easy is well proportioned. IMHO.
The elevator is a bit big for a flapped stunter, and way more than is necessary for a flapless -- take a look at a Sig Skyray 35 for an example of an elevator area that works just fine for flapless stunt. I'm expecting that if I use the original hinge line (which is necessary for it to be OT-legal) I'll take pains to hold the elevator throw to a minimum, ala modern Ringmaster practice.
Do you have the original 1949 article? Would you be willing to send me a scan?
-
My buddy owns one built by a friend of ours. Its a very capable airplane. I've been trying to buy it from him, no luck.....
-
Tried to Post this once and it failed, I'll try again.
Tim,
The mag is old and cannot really be flattened. The back page fell off.
I don't think Dick paid any attention to the 1949 construction.
Be interesting to know if his model is exact to his plans?
All pages in JPEGs and PDF files.
See if I can get this in?
-
Tried to Post this once and it failed, I'll try again.
Tim,
The mag is old and cannot really be flattened. The back page fell off.
I don't think Dick paid any attention to the 1949 construction.
Be interesting to know if his model is exact to his plans?
All pages in JPEGs and PDF files.
See if I can get this in?
You should read the article before you make comments about Mr Sarpolus' model. If you read the article, you will find that he used the Air Trails article as a guide to build his model, and just changed some construction methods to assemble his. It is still OTS legal, and probably easier to build. The late Jim Thomerson and Rusty Brown both used this design to good success.
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee
-
Tim,
Sorry, I couldn't get those PDF files in.
But I see from the quality of the photos, you can see and read the words. Correct?
Hope this helps.
-
Could you try again on the dimension table? I can't quite make it out. Or do you have a clear copy Tim? Thanks guys.
-
Yes, I can read it just fine -- thanks.
-
I'm kinda cheating because this is from the PAMPA book -- but here you go.
If you don't have it you want to get a copy.
-
Even though you think the elevator is too big, you can control the sensitivity with either the bell crank or control horn and easiest method is at the handle. By the way I personally would go with Richard Sarpolous' version.
-
Even though you think the elevator is too big, you can control the sensitivity with either the bell crank or control horn and easiest method is at the handle. By the way I personally would go with Richard Sarpolous' version.
John,
I would upgrade the model also with current construction methods as did Richard Sarpolous with his Easy.
Interesting article. States that the wing center section is "planked." Vintage terminology.
The good old days.
Here's the cover for those interested.
-
Tim I have seen a couple of these built OT legal and they flew a lot like a Ringmaster. Richard Sarpolus model is not OT legal but for your purpose it would be better than the original version. Making the elevator smaller for training flight is a good idea.
Ed
-
You should read the article before you make comments about Mr Sarpolus' model. If you read the article, you will find that he used the Air Trails article as a guide to build his model, and just changed some construction methods to assemble his. It is still OTS legal, and probably easier to build. The late Jim Thomerson and Rusty Brown both used this design to good success.
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee
Dan, I may be wrong, but doesn't putting the spars to the surface of the wing change the airfoil? I too have the original information/article (or copy of) and there are no spars as I remember..........
I think Sarpopulas's (sp?) construction could be used IF one counter sunk the spars so they didn't touch the surface covering and thereby change the airfoil.
I agree with EddyR and Doc. y1
Good luck, Jerry
-
Even though you think the elevator is too big, you can control the sensitivity with either the bell crank or control horn and easiest method is at the handle. By the way I personally would go with Richard Sarpolous' version.
Except that the livelier the plane is the more it's subject to springiness in the lines -- I built my Ringmaster with too much elevator throw and the handle spacing became a compromise between too much turn and too soft lines.
-
Dan, I may be wrong, but doesn't putting the spars to the surface of the wing change the airfoil? I too have the original information/article (or copy of) and there are no spars as I remember..........
I think Sarpopulas's (sp?) construction could be used IF one counter sunk the spars so they didn't touch the surface covering and thereby change the airfoil.
I agree with EddyR and Doc. y1
Good luck, Jerry
How does putting in a top and bottom spare change the airfoil shape, other than maybe adding a small flat spot? It doesn't make it any thicker, or change the high spot. Read the article and dick Sarpolus came about his airfoil the same way you would if you used the chart in the Air Trails article, then he just added the spars and how it mounts in the fuselage. Moments, dimensions and airfoil don't change. Just my opinion.
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee
-
Adding spars takes a lot of the sag out of the covering between the ribs. Why not add sheeting? It does change the airfoil a lot. The airfoil between the ribs is nothing like at the ribs. RingMaster has the same problem. I/Beam wings keep the rib spacing close or add half ribs to help stop the covering from deforming the airfoil.
Probably more than anyone wanted to know #^
-
Adding spars takes a lot of the sag out of the covering between the ribs. Why not add sheeting? It does change the airfoil a lot. The airfoil between the ribs is nothing like at the ribs. RingMaster has the same problem. I/Beam wings keep the rib spacing close or add half ribs to help stop the covering from deforming the airfoil.
Probably more than anyone wanted to know #^
If you use the humongous leading edge that's called out in the original plans you should have plenty of strength.
Dunno if moving the bellcrank to inside the wing is OT legal though -- strictly speaking it's not an aerodynamic change.
-
Adding spars takes a lot of the sag out of the covering between the ribs. Why not add sheeting? It does change the airfoil a lot. The airfoil between the ribs is nothing like at the ribs. RingMaster has the same problem. I/Beam wings keep the rib spacing close or add half ribs to help stop the covering from deforming the airfoil.
Probably more than anyone wanted to know #^
It will only take the sag out at the location of the spare. Hardly enough of a change to call it changing the airfoil. If this is true then there are a lot of kits on the market wit "OTS Legal" on the box that have had the internal construction changed. I wouldn't even have a problem with top and bottom spares on the good old Ringmaster as long as it still kept the polywog shape. Leading edge sheeting or multiple spars, the yeah, you are changing the airfoil.
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee
-
(Clip).
Dunno if moving the bellcrank to inside the wing is OT legal though -- strictly speaking it's not an aerodynamic change.
If you do not know, then why say anything?
The PAMPA OTS rules state
"3.1 Allowable modifications.
----
3.1.5 Control ratios and control mechanism location."
Thought you should know.
Keith
-
Adding spars takes a lot of the sag out of the covering between the ribs. Why not add sheeting? It does change the airfoil a lot. The airfoil between the ribs is nothing like at the ribs. RingMaster has the same problem. I/Beam wings keep the rib spacing close or add half ribs to help stop the covering from deforming the airfoil.
Probably more than anyone wanted to know #^
The airfoil shape is determined at the rib itself, in my opinion. Adding a spar does nothing to change that. It may make the covering more consistent at that one particular point, but not the overall airfoil. The covering will still sag before and after the spar. Hardly a performance advantage. Like I said, it's been done before and allowed.
My 2 cents worth,
Dan McEntee
-
If that is the case how come the Estes Ringmaster is illegal. It has surface spars.
Just back from reading Richard's article, He states at one point he assumed his plane would be legal for Old Time. I my self would not keep any one from entering Old Time with his design or even the Estes Ringmaster. I have the Estes Ringmaster and have had the S-1A version and could tell no difference in the way they flew. Maybe we need to get hard nosed and go back to the original GSCB Old Time rules and eliminate 1/2 the competitors. I would not do it though as I want to see more people flying Old Time.
-
If that is the case how come the Estes Ringmaster is illegal. It has surface spars.
Just back from reading Richard's article, He states at one point he assumed his plane would be legal for Old Time. I my self would not keep any one from entering Old Time with his design or even the Estes Ringmaster. I have the Estes Ringmaster and have had the S-1A version and could tell no difference in the way they flew. Maybe we need to get hard nosed and go back to the original GSCB Old Time rules and eliminate 1/2 the competitors. I would not do it though as I want to see more people flying Old Time.
Hi Doc;
The Sterling/Estes S-1A Ringmaster has a thicker D-tube wing and is totally different from the original Sterling kit #S-1. I think it may even be the same wing in the Hellcat kit that they offered. Estes changed the name to "Super Stuntin' Ringmaster" or something like that. I think I have examples of each in my kit collection and would have to check to be certain.
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee