stunthanger.com
General control line discussion => Open Forum => Topic started by: Mike Griffin on May 10, 2014, 04:46:19 PM
-
Which designs are some of the better flying planes without flaps?
Thank you
Mike
-
The 'Doctor' and the 'Medic' - Ted Fancher designs.
-
What Mike said!
-
The 'Doctor' and the 'Medic' - Ted Fancher designs.
Absolutely. I have flown the original Doctor a fair bit and in smooth air, you are giving up *nothing* to any other airplane.
Brett
-
Pat Johnston's profile Corsair is a good flier. Started out with LA .46 and it was okay, was a little iffey in the wind. Put a Saito .40 in it and problems went away. It still bounces around but stays on the end of the line just fine. Has a fantastic corner as well. Currently am working on a new Pat Johnston design, profile Spitfire with flat wing, (no dihedral) and no flaps. Should end up with about a 45 ounce weight, fuse has foam center instead of wood braces, balsa frame. New airfoil as well, his new combat style airfoil similar to Gordon Delaney's I think. Specifically designed for the LA .46 engine. Sometime this coming summer should see the air.
-
Have flown the Doctor and Medic, but Mike Pratt's "Primary Force" is the best one I've flown. Really good flying model and it looks cool to boot! I flew Mike's prototype up at Oshkosh several years ago and was amazed. Got one of the Sig production ARFs from dad one year. Used it to make the jump up to Expert. It had a 25LA on it. It performed well up until 5-7 kts of wind. If scratch built, the LA would be just fine.
-
As Sean says, put the Primary Force up there with the Doctor. Have had both and still have the PF. Need to get it dusted off for Memorial Day Weekend in Topeka.
-
Where can you get plans for the Doctor?
MM
-
Where can you get plans for the Doctor?
PAMPA Plans service.
Brett
-
Which designs are some of the better flying planes without flaps?
Thank you
Mike
I have to agree with Sean & John above with the Primary Force. H^^
-
Hey the Doctor and Medic are great flying planes also. Need to read the article that Ted wrote to get the best out of them. I remember the Medic at a past NATS, but can't remember the guys name. After he followed Ted's suggestions it flew great. It was a privilege to have Ted and David F. look at my Doctor after I had flown my rounds in Int. Then David tells me not to fly it until I fixed the broken spar. Great guys those two.
-
Hey the Doctor and Medic are great flying planes also. Need to read the article that Ted wrote to get the best out of them. I remember the Medic at a past NATS, but can't remember the guys name. After he followed Ted's suggestions it flew great.
That was Ted and I working on his engine, mostly. I think it was Larry Fulwider and some youngsters, but I could be wrong. It was in an SSW post that I can't find right now. The airplane was pretty good right from the start, I think, but he was under-revving the engine.
I would actually be more inclined to build a Medic, myself, just because they build a little "denser" than the Doctor. The Doctor is amazing in smooth conditions, but is like flying a kite because it is so incredibly light. Amazing compensation angles in a wind, like 15 degrees nose up across the top of the inside square. The Medics I have seen and flown seem to handle the turbulence better.
The original Doctor had a whole bunch of different engines on it, and only some of them ran correctly. Now, I would suggest an 46LA, but at the time that was not an established engine (and may not have existed when the airplane was designed). It needs a low pitch/high rev engine (as do most of these elevator-only airplanes) to produce a consistent control response.
Brett
-
Thank you guys for your responses...I appreciate it. I have built a couple of Primary Forces and did like the way they flew...
Mike
-
71' Humbug! #^
(http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj307/afml_photos/bug1.jpg)
(http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj307/afml_photos/bug4.jpg)
(http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj307/afml_photos/bug3.jpg)
"Tight Lines!' H^^
Wes
-
71' Humbug! #^
(http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj307/afml_photos/bug1.jpg)
(http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj307/afml_photos/bug4.jpg)
(http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj307/afml_photos/bug3.jpg)
"Tight Lines!' H^^
Wes
Hi Wes,
Who has the plans for the '71 Humbug? AMA??
thanks!
Bill
-
Hi Bill,
I got mine from Tom Dixon.
The plane was designed by Bob Baron, has 700 sq" of wing and took 4th in the 71' Nats.
Powered by a series 71, McCoy 40 BLACKHEAD.
Good luck & "Tight Lines!" H^^
Wes
-
Pat Johnston's profile Corsair is a good flier. Started out with LA .46 and it was okay, was a little iffey in the wind. Put a Saito .40 in it and problems went away. It still bounces around but stays on the end of the line just fine. Has a fantastic corner as well. Currently am working on a new Pat Johnston design, profile Spitfire with flat wing, (no dihedral) and no flaps. Should end up with about a 45 ounce weight, fuse has foam center instead of wood braces, balsa frame. New airfoil as well, his new combat style airfoil similar to Gordon Delaney's I think. Specifically designed for the LA .46 engine. Sometime this coming summer should see the air.
Are you referring to the Pat King kit , or is the Pat Johnston kit something different?
Jim