Flying Fool 45

[Phil Goldberg]

I am considering building the Flying Fool 45.  Has anyone built and flown this model that can tell me something about it.  The original Flying Fool seems to have not been a great flyer.  I am thinking that this may have been greatly improved in the larger modern rendition in the 45.   

[beercamel]

if you are meaning the old sterling kit..

I built one years ago.. I spent some time and effort with the finish.. It looked very good, but was heavy. The combination of Sterling's 'Scrub Oak Balsa', the battleship construction, and the extra finish made it too heavy to be 'fun' to fly. I had  a 'retired from Rat Racing' K&B .40 engine in it so it had a lot of power, but its only performance asset was speed. It was very high wing loaded.  I flew it often but I was even afraid to loop it..  Just before I PCS'ed withe the USAF I attempted a loop.. That saved me from shipping it to my next assignment..

I think IF you were to build it less stout, pick your balsa carefully, increase the wing, and use a better airfoil it may fly OK..

[Phil Goldberg]

I am actually referring to the  Flying Fool 45 offered by PDK LLC.  A new version of the Flying Fool that is larger and possibly fixes to the old Sterling Kit that would make it a better performer.   It can be found here.   http://pdkllc.com     

[Dane Martin]

Not speaking for Pat, but I've built several of his kits including some 45 size models. He changes the airfoils but I'm not an engineer in the regard to be able to explain what airfoil. However, i do know he updates that sort of thing.
Here's the tri45. It's a ringmaster triplane

[dennis lipsett]

Pat is a gifted engineer and skilled draftsman. Having built a lot of his models including more than a few reworks of the' classics kits' I can attest to their flying capability. They also offer better wood, serious updates to the  structure for much better flying and ease of construction. Most of these designs are not meant for competition so you end up with a superior flying model without having to put up with compliance of rules for competition. You can of course enter any of his profile designs in the profile events if your so inclined. I had built his prototype for the original Flying Fool but had no interest in the larger one. But I can assure you that if you build it you will get a lot of great flying from it.

Dennis

[john e. holliday]

I too have thought of Pat's Flying Fool 45 just for kicks.  I have the RingMaster twin of his that was a fun build and flies great.   I don't think you will be disappointed with the larger Flying Fool.   I also had the Sterling kit I built and flew with a Veco .35.   I made new leadout guide as it yawed out too much.   I could do most if the pattern on 60 foot .015 lines.   Like a dummy I sold it to some one complete ready to go, so don't know if it still flies or not.   Had a lot of fun with it and it being a bi-plane drew a lot of attention.

[Tom Niebuhr]

The "45" looks interesting. It most likely will not turn the same for insides and outsides, but it looks like fun.

Doc,

How is your "Vagabond" coming along??

[john e. holliday]

Hey I finally got to the shop and hooked up the elevator.   The J-B Weld should be cured by morning.

[Jim Svitko]

I never had the Sterling Flying Fool and have only seen one in my lifetime.  The 45 version is a nice looking bipe but like the original, the lower wing looks to be too small to do much good.  Would flying qualities improve if the top wing was used for both?

[pat king]

Multi winged airplanes lose some effective wing area due to aerodynamic interference between the wings. Larger wing separation tends to help, but makes a strange looking airplane. Another method to counteract the interference is to make the bottom wing smaller. Making the bottom wing larger would not improve flight characteristics as much as you might think. Besides, the differential in wing sizes is part of the charm of the airplane.

Pat

[Gordon Van Tighem]

Built this WW1 combat model a few years ago, based on the outline of a Guillow's kit. I was initially concerned that outsides might be a challenge, but it turns tighter outside than inside.

[Avaiojet]

I'm going to build one of these.

Thanks for the photo!

Charles

[pat king]

Charles,
Here are reduced .pdf files of the plans for my kit. I sell full scale .pdf files of the plans for $5.00 .

Pat

[Larry Borden]

I built the prototype of Pat's Ringmaster Bipe 1099. The kit is above excellent, wood is top notch and the kit was a fun build. These are not built as competitive stunt ships, but to fly for fun and bore holes in the sky. Haven't flown as yet.

[Avaiojet]

Charles,
Here are reduced .pdf files of the plans for my kit. I sell full scale .pdf files of the plans for $5.00 .

Pat

Pat,

With wide eyes, awe and admeration, I've been to your site many many times.

You are quite the gentleman. 

It's in my favorits also.

In fact, just recently I looked for the Fokker and couldn't find it.

I have three or so models to finish first, then I think I'll just drop dead. LOL.

Thanks for the reply.

Charles

[Dane Martin]

Here's a closer pic of my triplane. My friend George took this pic on the runway yesterday after a flight. This is my favorite PDK llc plane so far. However, i do have the X wing biplane to build still. So that might nudge this one out of top spot