Fancher Twister mods

[Matthew Brown]

It may be too late but I have seen a few references to mods originated by Ted Fancher for the Sig Twister kit. I have one with only the wing framed up. I searched but have not found a listing of the mods. I though if its not too late I'd incorporate them into my build.
Can someone point me to them?

Thanks, Matt

[Brent Williams]

Here are the plans for the Fancherized Twister.  All of the pertinent info is in the notes on the plan.

[Randy Cuberly]

Incidentally, full size plans are available from PAMPA.

The mods are definitely worth the effort.  Much better airplane than stock...in my opinion.

Randy Cuberly

[Matthew Brown]

Awesome Brent. I'll look into ordering a set from PAMPA. Thinking modding what I can and then maybe scratch out a new one from these plans.

Thanks,  Matt

[Tim Wescott]

And no, you're not too late.  You just need to add the leading edge half-ribs, and then proceed with making a Fancherized Twister.

[Steve Scott]

There were actually 2 versions of the Fancher modified Twister.  The initial mod appeared in the August '87 issue of Model Aviation.  That mod was again refined a bit some years later and that is the version which Brent Linked to.  I believe Walter Umland still offers the later version as one of his kits but the original version is shown on his website.

The original mod extended the tail moment by 3".  Updated mod regressed to a 2" extension.

[Matthew Brown]

The linked plans show the fuse extension but no structure. It appears to be just a butt splice. Is that sufficient? I was thinking of laying in a couple pieces of cf sheet on edge with the grain.

Matt

[Tim Wescott]

I just made a new fuselage for mine, and gave the kit fuselage away some years later.

If I were going to keep the kit fuselage I'd do angled splices or finger splices.

[Matthew Brown]

I'll bet I have a sheet of 1/2" in my stash. Cut a fresh fuse instead of modding the stock one.
Sometimes Mr. Obvious gets me.

Matt

[RknRusty]

Laminating a pair of 1/4" sheets is also a,good option. Mine also has a layer of carbon veil between the two halves.
Rusty

[Tim Wescott]

Or build up a hollow fuse.  It probably wasn't a good idea, but the thread is here: http://stunthanger.com/smf/building-techniques/fancherized-twister-build/.  There's no pictures, alas -- hopefully Sparky and crew will get them uploaded.

Here's some pertinent pictures from the build.  The middle one is of the fuse getting built -- that's the one where it's getting laminated to the 3/32" sides.

[Dan McEntee]

     You mentioned in your other thread that the Twister is to be your "stunt trainer." I take that to mean you haven't flown a complete pattern yet, or maybe even the beginner pattern. At this point, you have no real idea what a "good flying" stunt model is. At this stage of the game, you WILL be crashing some models.
    I suggest building the Twister stock as per plans, with minimum finish. And maybe scratch build a second one right along side, with the templates you made from the kits parts. Concentrate your efforts on building them straight, with proper alignments. Learn what you like in how it flies, speeds and such. Learn to get consistent engine runs. The Twister is a good flying model as it is, if you pay attention to the little details. I have told the story here several times of a local guy using a stock Twister to go from beginner to expert class! One model, and used up about three OS.40FPs! Once you get confident in the pattern, then move to a modified model. No sense in doing the extra work and put out extra expense if it's going to be crunched on a semi regular basis. You only get out, what you put into a stunt model. You could have Paul Walker's best model at your disposal, but if you don't know how to fly it is of no use to you.
    Good luck with the program,
    Dan McEntee

[Matthew Brown]

You are correct Dan, I have never flown the complete pattern! But I'm a long way from crashing much. Other than combat matches, I doubt I've crashed a CL model in 40 years! I don't yet know the sequence of maneuvers but I'm sure I can fly through them given the right tool. They won't be pretty but I'm pretty sure I can fly them.
Also, I'm not the type to dedicate to one plane. I like a wide variety even within similar types.

Matt

[M Spencer]

COMBAT ! .




These Plastic Phyco Disposable things , with a 8x4 prop on a 15 to 25 with the CG a notch Fwd. do a GOOD Smooth Accurate Pattern . Apart from the Take Off and Landing. On say 55 ft / 5+ / Lap ,
as the loadings fairly low .
Youll have to Jump on one , to break it , at that speed . Unless you try learning the schedule 3 up , so you can have mid-air wipeouts .


bettern risking a real aeroplane in blustery air or going phyco .   at the learning the order stage perhaps, anyway .

SEEKING REDEMPTION . . . . http://stunthanger.com/smf/open-forum/show-us-your-twisters/

[Matthew Brown]

COMBAT ! .




These Plastic Phyco Disposable things , with a 8x4 prop on a 15 to 25 with the CG a notch Fwd. do a GOOD Smooth Accurate Pattern . Apart from the Take Off and Landing. On say 55 ft / 5+ / Lap ,
as the loadings fairly low .
Youll have to Jump on one , to break it , at that speed . Unless you try learning the schedule 3 up , so you can have mid-air wipeouts .


bettern risking a real aeroplane in blustery air or going phyco .   at the learning the order stage perhaps, anyway .

SEEKING REDEMPTION . . . . http://stunthanger.com/smf/open-forum/show-us-your-twisters/

I actually posted in the combat subheading that I wanted to buy a few combat airframes just to sport fly. I knew I'd be up at the Nats next month and wondered if anyone sold any arfs there. Those are pretty much what I'm looking for.

Matt

[Ted Fancher]

The linked plans show the fuse extension but no structure. It appears to be just a butt splice. Is that sufficient? I was thinking of laying in a couple pieces of cf sheet on edge with the grain.

Matt

Hi Matt,

Take a closer look at the plans and you'll note that the vertical "broken" line represents "only" the added length to the stock fuselage, not the "joint" where the additional wood is attached.  Note the "solid" angled line starting at the bottom of the fuse, co-located with the vertical broken line.  This line represents the "joint" when making the mod to the stock fuselage.  Note it is at 45 degrees to the untapered top line of the fuselage.  With a properly pre-glued end-grain joint even old fashioned model airplane "cements" will achieve an adequately solid bond...especially if the fuse is covered with silkspan and/or CF veil prior to finishing.  A new fuse from a straight sheet of 1/2" would be preferable in some respects but, worth noting, the rigid angled joint just prior to the stab/elevator would partially militate against the common problem of the stab/elevator "twisting" the tail during maneuvers, an issue regularly noted over the years with profile fuses.

While  I'm on here, by the way, I'd also note that the CG location as shown on the plans was almost certainly based on the original ship which utilized the stock tail, IIRC, and the larger area tail along with the stretched fuse would almost certainly allow a further aft CG while still retaining good stability and tracking.  Bob Kruger drew the plans while conferring with me and I don't recall any discussion between us specifically about the optimum CG location.

I did a quick "measurement" (off the screen) and calculation of the likely aft-most location and believe that the CG could safely be moved aft another 3/8" or so from the plan location thus improving response, reducing control deflection required for a desired rate of turn while simultaneously reducing the line tension required to obtain that rate of turn, improving performance in the wind (less wind up during consecutive maneuvers), reducing the amount of human parts (wrist, hand, elbow etc.) action required to obtain that improved performance thus reducing the places from which input errors could be introduced.  Another quarter inch or so might prove of value as well but the 3/8" figure is pretty much a guaranteed no-risk test location.

I suggest such adjustments be utilized primarily by fliers who utilize handles that allow adjustment of line spacing as making CG adjustments such as this may well require renewed refinement of that spacing to optimize available aircraft performance to desired human input.  Sheeesh!  didn't that sound uppity.

Ted Fancher

[Tim Wescott]

Mine balances 5/8" ahead of the spar.  I don't know if that's good or bad, but I've scored over 500 points with it locally, so it can't be horrible.

[Mark Scarborough]

Mine balances 5/8" ahead of the spar.  I don't know if that's good or bad, but I've scored over 500 points with it locally, so it can't be horrible.

yeah but Tim dont forget you get all those appearance points, or are those sympathy points,, 

[Tim Wescott]

yeah but Tim dont forget you get all those appearance points, or are those sympathy points,, 

529 at last year's Follies, only 13 points of which were sympathyappearance points.  I did better than some guy flying an Impact with a cummerbund.

[Ted Fancher]

Mine balances 5/8" ahead of the spar.  I don't know if that's good or bad, but I've scored over 500 points with it locally, so it can't be horrible.

Tim,

Sounds like within a fraction of an inch of where I suggested based on a wooden ruler, my iMAC screen and some scribbled computations.  I'm just not sure of where Bob got the location shown on the plans but I should have caught that during our collaborating.  Maybe off the SIG plans??? 

At any rate, both the larger tail and the lengthened moment between the wing and tail move the neutral point of the ship aft and allow the CG to be moved back commensurately without sacrificing stability while improving response and resisting opening up of maneuvers when flying in winds.

Based on your competition results sounds like we both came to good conclusions!  All in all, the modded Twister has proven by far the most popular series I wrote during my stint at Model Aviation.  Couldn't have been all bad!

Ted

[Tim Wescott]

Tim,

Sounds like within a fraction of an inch of where I suggested based on a wooden ruler, my iMAC screen and some scribbled computations.  I'm just not sure of where Bob got the location shown on the plans but I should have caught that during our collaborating.  Maybe off the SIG plans??? 

At any rate, both the larger tail and the lengthened moment between the wing and tail move the neutral point of the ship aft and allow the CG to be moved back commensurately without sacrificing stability while improving response and resisting opening up of maneuvers when flying in winds.

Based on your competition results sounds like we both came to good conclusions!  All in all, the modded Twister has proven by far the most popular series I wrote during my stint at Model Aviation.  Couldn't have been all bad!

Ted

Dang but you're good!  I had to arrive at that through experimentation -- and building a weight box in the tail.  Always build a weight box in the tail, because then you'll be adding nose weight.  If you don't put a weight box in the tail then the plane will come off the board nose-heavy, and you'll need to scab something onto the tail after the plane is finished, and it'll either look ugly or take forever.

[Steve Scott]

I actually posted in the combat subheading that I wanted to buy a few combat airframes just to sport fly. I knew I'd be up at the Nats next month and wondered if anyone sold any arfs there. Those are pretty much what I'm looking for.

Matt

One of my best flying models was a slow combat ship I scratch built.  Foam wings and a Fox Series 5 schneurle.  Once I tamed down the throws and put a stunt prop on it simply grooved and flew where you pointed it.  It was tough, too.  No LG so no pattern points but definitely a confidence builder.  'twas a bit fast tho...