First Full-Fuselage Stunter??

[MrSteve09]

Hi All,...

Up until a couple years ago I flew the occasional 1/2 A control line plane.  Then I started getting serious with full size (35-40 size) profile control line planes.  At this point I am interested in building a full fuselage stunter.  Something in the same 35 - 40 size and I don't mind building form plans or a kit.

Any suggestions??

Thanks a bunch!!

Sincerely,
Steve Teerlinck
Monson, Massachusetts

[Tom Niebuhr]

Steve,
I would recommend one of the better Classics. This will give you a 2 event airplane. Talk to Bill Hummel. He will help you.

[Terrence Durrill]

If you want an Old Time stunter......The Trixter Barnstormer is a wonderful first time full fuselage stunter.  This was the first full fuselage stunter I scratch built from plans.  This plane can be flown in OTS, Classic, and other precision acrobatic events.  I am presently flying mine with a Fox .35 and an old style round tip wooden Top Flite 10/5 prop.  It is a great flier and as you fly the pattern, it feels as if you could thread a needle with this plane.  If you want something a little more modern and still easy to build, a first class performer, the Oriential from Brodak is a good bet.  My Oriental is still in the box, but if and when I get it built, I will power it with either a Fox .35, Series 100 Veco .35 stunt, or an OS Max 35-S.  There are many planes that would be suitable, however, these two are first class performers and easy to build......TDurrill

[Leester]

Allen Brickhaus has a Tornado which is a full fuselage version of the Sig Twister. FM has the plans.

[Wynn Robins]

Brodak Oriental
Brodak Oriental
Brodak Oriental
Brodak Oriental
Brodak Oriental
Brodak Oriental
Brodak Oriental
Brodak Oriental
Brodak Oriental
Brodak Oriental
Brodak Oriental.....repeat

[steven yampolsky]

Steve,

There are three things to consider when choosing a kit:

1) Will it work well with the engine you plan to use. There is a very wide spectrum of engines in the .35-.40 displacement range. From weak but super light and classy Fox 35 to 10.5oz OS 40VF tuned pipe power monster. Let us know what engine you are planning to use.
2) Do you plan to compete with it? If you do, you need to consider that range of classes you plan to compete in. As Tom mentioned, Classic dedisgns can be flown in two classes(Classic and PAMPA). I would stay away from Old Time designs. There is just no interest in Old Time Stunt here in New England.
3) How is your building skill? Do you know how to build straight? If you are not confident in your building skills, stick to designs with constant chord wing(Oriental) and maybe no flaps(Doctor).

If you give us more info, you'd get better answers. Another way of choosing is just come to a contest, find the plane you like and talk to the owner. There is a contest taking place September 5-6 in Wrentham, MA.

[SteveMoon]

Buccaneer 740 with an OS LA 46. Great flying plane that is easy
and quick to build combined with a really good motor. An excellent
combo.       Steve

[Bradley Walker]

Vector 40 with LA 46.  You can even buy an ARF or ARC from Brodak and have one flying in a few days.

[Michael Floerchinger]

This is going to date me but what the heck! My first full fuselage airplane was a Barnstormer. I bought it a Schaefer’s Hobby Shop in the 60’s (The middle of the previous century!) I learned most of the pattern on that airplane, it was fun to build and a joy to fly.

Mike

[MrSteve09]

Thank you to everyone who replied to my post.  Many good suggestions,.. too many to choose from, ha!!!

Steve,... you made some very good points with the questions you asked.  I should specify my requirements a little more.  The engines I am familiar with running and have available to me are OS 35 FP, OS 40 FP, OS 40 LA, OS 46 LA, and the Evolution 36.

I would like to compete at some time in the future.  Right now I am just trying to learn the pattern, eventhough a few maneuvers still allude me, ha!!  I stopped by a the contest in Lee this past Saturday and meet a few really great and helpful guys.  I appreciated all the advice and coaching that I received. 

I am pretty confidant in building.  Tapered wings don't scare me.  Currently I'm building a Cardinal as my first flapped stunter.  Hopefully that will work well and I can continue with flapped designs.

Sincerely,
Steve Teerlinck
Monson, Massachusetts

[Brett Buck]

Thank you to everyone who replied to my post.  Many good suggestions,.. too many to choose from, ha!!!

Steve,... you made some very good points with the questions you asked.  I should specify my requirements a little more.  The engines I am familiar with running and have available to me are OS 35 FP, OS 40 FP, OS 40 LA, OS 46 LA, and the Evolution 36.

I would like to compete at some time in the future.  Right now I am just trying to learn the pattern, eventhough a few maneuvers still allude me, ha!!  I stopped by a the contest in Lee this past Saturday and meet a few really great and helpful guys.  I appreciated all the advice and coaching that I received. 

I am pretty confidant in building.  Tapered wings don't scare me.  Currently I'm building a Cardinal as my first flapped stunter.  Hopefully that will work well and I can continue with flapped designs.

    The Vector 40 is maybe the best-flying airplane I have seen for the engines you have available.

     Brett

[FLOYD CARTER]

Steve.  Plenty of good suggestions here.   Let me add one other point.  Since you are not yet completely confident flying the full pattern, you would want a model that you aren't afraid of damaging from ground contact!  If you put too much work into building your practice model, you might be hesitant to fly close to the ground.  Then you could spend a lot of time learning to fly too high.  That would be fine for sport flying, but in order to compete, you have to come down to 3 or 4 ft on bottoms.

Therefore, you should consider an ARF as a stunt trainer.  Stick it in the ground, and not much is lost.  Building confidence requires not caring too much about crashing once in a while.

Floyd

[John Miller]

    The Vector 40 is maybe the best-flying airplane I have seen for the engines you have available.

     Brett

I have to agree with Brett. Do a search on the forums for the Vector ARF's and ARC's. It may just be the best system for you.

[Airacobra]

Try a Scimitar by Allen Brickhaus. Easy to build and a good flyer with an OS 40.

[Wynn Robins]

given that you have done a bit of flying -(by the sounds of it) then the Vector is probably the best kit on the market for the LA46 - I have 6 of them that I have built over the years - they fly great.  my oriental suggestion would be for someone that has perhaps not done so much flying - although, it too is a nice airplane

[Matt Colan]

Hi Steve,

with the motors you have there, I would go with a Vector, either ARC or ARF that way you aren't afraid to put it in the ground.

I don't remember you there at Lee, when did you show up?

[Martin Quartim]

John Miller has plans for the Pathfinder full bodied that you could use with your 46LA. I learned the pattern with the Pathfinder Profile without breaking it. I believe I miss the ground so many times because it's huge wing does not stall no matter how hard I pulled when I got scared 

I also like the trigear, it protects the prop and engine better then the conventionals. It sure help me win some contest because I had much better socres in landing and take offs.

Sooo many good options to choose from

Martin

[ray copeland]

Steve, i have my first full fuse ready to paint finally. The Barnstormer, it was quite a learning curve for me trying to get the sheeting to bend correctly without breaking. Learned a couple of things, cutting and overlapping is not the worst thing to do and i would consider adding an extra former or two the next time to help hold the original planned shape, also ammonia didn't seem to do anything special that plain water wouldn't do. Used Elmers wood putty to fill in gaps and hangar rash. Oh yeah, i still don't have such a good fit on the canopy, tried holding sandpaper on the fuse and sanding the canopy, it is close, now to decide which glue to use to hold it on, may go with goop.  Good luck with whatever you decide to build. Ray

[John Miller]

John Miller has plans for the Pathfinder full bodied that you could use with your 46LA. I learned the pattern with the Pathfinder Profile without breaking it. I believe I miss the ground so many times because it's huge wing does not stall no matter how hard I pulled when I got scared 

I also like the trigear, it protects the prop and engine better then the conventionals. It sure help me win some contest because I had much better socres in landing and take offs.

Sooo many good options to choose from

Martin

Thanks Martin. What he's refering to is not Gordies latest Pathfinder L.E. but instead is a full fuse version of the profile Pathfinder. All parts from the kit are usable, except for the fuse, and a few related bits.

[steven yampolsky]

Steve,... you made some very good points with the questions you asked.  I should specify my requirements a little more.  The engines I am familiar with running and have available to me are OS 35 FP, OS 40 FP, OS 40 LA, OS 46 LA, and the Evolution 36.

These engines are middle of the road, good enough for a lot of designs. I'd stay away from Classic designs though. Contemporary designs such as Vector 40 are indeed your best bet with the engines listed.

I would like to compete at some time in the future.  Right now I am just trying to learn the pattern, eventhough a few maneuvers still allude me, ha!!  I stopped by a the contest in Lee this past Saturday and meet a few really great and helpful guys.  I appreciated all the advice and coaching that I received. 

Steve, I am going to make a suggestion, I am not sure you will like. Until you learn to fly full pattern(not Beginner), I suggest you stay away from full fuse models. You will crash more airplanes during learning of the pattern than all your future crashes put together. What you need is an airframe with little emotional and time involvement that can be repaired easily. The best model for you right now to step up to is a profile called "Fancherized Twister". It's flies tremendously yet simple to build and repair.

I am pretty confidant in building.  Tapered wings don't scare me.  Currently I'm building a Cardinal as my first flapped stunter.  Hopefully that will work well and I can continue with flapped designs.

Cardinal is a good trainer but to be honest, I am yet to see a profile Cardinal win in Intermediate class(I wouldn't even bother entering it in Advanced classes). It will get you partially there but as a model to progress with, it will find that your skills will outgrown the model.

The best way to learn quickly an progress forward is to pick one good design and stick to it. If you look at the top competitors, 99% of them stick to a single design formular year after year. This is not due to them lacking in imagination but because having a familiar design to fly helps them focust on their flying skills rather than figure out design quirks.

If you are still on board with me on using a single design over and over untill you can fly the entire pattern in 20mph winds, let's look at the requirements you should consider:

1) The design has to be simple to build and repair.
2) The design has to be compatible with your engines: FP .35-.40, LA 40-46, Evolution
3) The design has to be advanced enough to learn the pattern and get you through the Beginner, Intermediate and Advanced classes
4) The design has to be easy to trim.
5) The design should be easy to build light. In your case, anything under 48oz is good. Anything under 38oz is too small or too light to be a good flier.

Think this over and if you still want to go with a full fuse design, I suggest you follow the recommendation of the US Champion Brett Buck and build a Vector.
If you think a profile is in your future, I strongly suggest that you take a look at Fancherized Twister. Of all profiles I've seed and flown, this is the only design I am confident can get you from the beginner all the way to the top of Advanced class!

Steve

P.S. If you come to Mass Cup this Labor day weekend, I have an old Fancherized twister that is in need of some repair. I can bring it to the field and it's yours. Repair it and fly it or measure it and use as a templates to build your own FTwisters. It's up to you. That particular model took me all the way to Advanced class!

[Brett Buck]

.

Cardinal is a good trainer but to be honest, I am yet to see a profile Cardinal win in Intermediate class(I wouldn't even bother entering it in Advanced classes). It will get you partially there but as a model to progress with, it will find that your skills will outgrown the model.

   Most of what you posted was dead-on, so I won't comment. But a mild counter-point - a modified profile Cardinal won the 2006 Senior National Championship. The key was the modification - specifically cutting about 3/8"-1/2" off the flap chord. Without that, while it's a servicable trainer, I would agree, a Fancherized Twister, Vector 40, even a stock Nobler (kit, not ARF unless you modify it) might be a better bet.

   Amd since we have veered off the track a bit to profiles, the Imitation is head and shoulders above any other profile. We have spent the last 30 years trying to get our full-fuse planes to fly like an Imitation, and David's W/C airplane is dimensionally very close to being a full-fuse Imitation with a modern tail.

     Brett

[Brett Buck]

I have to agree with Brett. Do a search on the forums for the Vector ARF's and ARC's. It may just be the best system for you.

  I can't quite jump on the ARF bandwagon - just too much stuff to fix. If someone is comfortable with building the airplane, they will certainly get a more satisfactory experience with a kit or from scratch.

    Brett

[Doug Moon]

If you are still learning the pattern yes you will probably crash some more.  Hey, its part of the game right?   I crash with the best of them. 

If you do want to move to a full fuse stunter go with the ARF vector 40.  You will have little time and emotional attachment to it if you should you crunch it.  You can always get another one and go again.  Having this type of plane to fly in as a trainer can really be helpful in your aspirations to fly better without taking so long to get into the air.  It really is a nice option these days.   

Yes if you want to campaign with it go for a few full solid seasons of flying you will need to fix some stuff.  But if you are wanting to get into the air quickly just diligently put together the Vector 40 ARF go over the critical areas with close inspection, change anything suspect and go for it. 

[Mike Keville]

Vector 40.

[Geoff Goodworth]

Vector 40 ARC or kit. The control system in the ARC/ARF is much improved over what was in my ARF Oriental.

The only things that I would insist on changing from the ARC would be the leadouts and the clevis supplied for the elevator. The supplied leadouts are .032" dia braided cable running direct on the nylon bellcrank so I plan to pull out the bellcrank and fit the leadouts in 1/16 tube so the tubing runs on the nylon. This requires a small hole in the bottom of the wing and maybe slight enlargement of the existing hole in the top of the wing to gain access to the mounting screw. There is enough space to rethread the leadouts though the wing to the tip but only on the ARC but somebody may be able to tell you how to use the existing leadouts to thread new cables through an ARF covered wing. I will also replace the clevis with a Rocket City or Dubro ball link. The thread is M3 and the pushrod is the size for a rolled M3 thread. You could slip a carbon fibre tube over the pushrod to eliminate the chance of bending.

Otherwise, the ARC is a very good model.

As I have the materials on hand, I may fit a full ball link/carbon fibre control system with a hatch on the fuselage side for adjustment but I haven't decided. The leadouts and the clevis are the only changes I consider mandatory.

Enjoy

Geoff

[Bradley Walker]

Steve.  Plenty of good suggestions here.   Let me add one other point.  Since you are not yet completely confident flying the full pattern, you would want a model that you aren't afraid of damaging from ground contact!  If you put too much work into building your practice model, you might be hesitant to fly close to the ground.  Then you could spend a lot of time learning to fly too high.  That would be fine for sport flying, but in order to compete, you have to come down to 3 or 4 ft on bottoms.

Therefore, you should consider an ARF as a stunt trainer.  Stick it in the ground, and not much is lost.  Building confidence requires not caring too much about crashing once in a while.

Floyd

Stunt Minimalism.

[Allan Perret]

     Amd since we have veered off the track a bit to profiles, the Imitation is head and shoulders above any other profile. We have spent the last 30 years trying to get our full-fuse planes to fly like an Imitation, and David's W/C airplane is dimensionally very close to being a full-fuse Imitation with a modern tail.
     Brett

Why does that profile fly so much better than the others ?

[MrSteve09]

Once again,... thank you to everyone who replied.  I appreciate all the responses and information and suggestions. 

Looks like I've got some soul searching to do and a lot of information to digest, ha!!

Yes,... I am planning on going to the Mass Cup this weekend!  Not sure if I'll be attending both days or just Sunday.  I'll need directions and information about housing and overnight accommodations.  Is camping at the field an option??

Thanks a million!!

Sincerely,
Steve Teerlinck
Monson, Massachusetts

[Bryan Higgins]

My first was the Brodak Oreintal and im flying it now. 

[Greg L Bahrman]

<but in order to compete, you have to come down to 3 or 4 ft on bottoms.>

REALLY ?

[john e. holliday]

If you are at 3 foot, you are too low.  But, yet some judges gives better scores.  DOC Holliday

[Randy Cuberly]

<but in order to compete, you have to come down to 3 or 4 ft on bottoms.>

REALLY ?

Well....being the king of 2 1/2 to 3 ft bottoms I can truthfully tell you that it will definitely not improve your scores.  I continually get chided for flying too low and my scores reflect it.
If you wish to fly with the "big guys" fly at 5 ft like they do.  Lower may be slightly better from a scoring point of view than higher but not much.

Randy Cuberly