Author Topic: Starlight Stunter (Read 6542 times)

Neville Legg · « **on:** September 23, 2007, 07:00:04 AM »

Has anyone built Charles McKay's Starlight Stunter, from '68, or was it '67? If so how did it perform?

Cheers, Neville

Bob Zambelli · « **Reply #1 on:** September 24, 2007, 06:25:56 AM »

I built one a while back - very nice flyer with a Fox .35.

Mine is take-apart and weighs around 36 ounces.

The only drawbacks I found is that it's a bit squirelly in the wind and very sensitive to any wing warps.
Probably due to the large wing and light weight.

In my opinion, one of the most beautiful of all the classic designs - looks fantastic in the air.

Bob Z.

Bill Little · « **Reply #2 on:** September 24, 2007, 08:25:43 AM »

I have not had one, but I remember one from back in the day! The only thing is you have to be very careful when constructing the wing. It is tricky, but not THAT hard to do if you are careful!

Very striking look in the air, like Bob Z. said.

Neville Legg · « **Reply #3 on:** September 25, 2007, 10:30:41 AM »

Thanks for the info chaps, I've just enlarged the drawing. I was a bit concerned about those pointy wingtips stalling in tight turns, but I'm a sucker for anything with elegant curves!!

Cheers Neville

john e. holliday · « **Reply #4 on:** September 25, 2007, 07:58:39 PM »

Seeing this post I was going to order a set of plans, but, it is amazing how things work out. Cleaning the basement work area that I have let get out of hand, I found my set of "Starlight" plans. Now do I stop cleaning and start on this or not. I am still waiting on "Torino" short kit and the "Mustunt II" kit also. Would love to build the "Torino" for VSC if I can go. But, would like to have the "Starlight" also. I have met both Charles Mackey and Jack Sheeks, they are the best. The "Starlight" doesn't look as complicated as the "Staggerwing". Have fun, DOC Holliday

Neville Legg · « **Reply #5 on:** October 02, 2007, 10:22:03 AM »

John, I think you should start on the Starlight ASAP. I'm going to put knife to wood and start one very soon.
I wonder Bob, did you make any other alterations to the design, other than removable wings? The model has a very long nose, so with the addition of a silencer (which the original never had!) am I going to have to put half a ton of lead in the aft end??

Cheers Neville

Bob Zambelli · « **Reply #6 on:** October 02, 2007, 01:16:15 PM »

Hello, Neville.

I used a very old Fox .35 with an exhaust extension and no silencer.
With a very light spinner and a wooden prop, it needed about 1 1/2 ounce of tailweight.

Were I to do it again, I would definitely shorten the nose by about 1 inch.

Also, lengthen the landing gear to give some extra prop clearance.

Bob Z.

Neville Legg · « **Reply #7 on:** October 03, 2007, 12:13:07 PM »

How far can you go with alterations before its not classic legal?
Instead of shortening the nose, is it acceptable to move the wing forward, while keeping the canopy in the same place in relation to the wing? I realise that the tail moment gets longer, I'm not sure whats legal in classic!!

Cheers Neville

Steve Helmick · « **Reply #8 on:** October 03, 2007, 10:43:46 PM »

Neville...the PAMPA rules have no method for disqualifying a plane for modifications, that being handled by the "authenticity points" (somehow, I think that's not the correct word). Your rules may vary, depending on what country you're in. I know Aussie uses different dates and rules, anyway. In any case, most would not object to nose shortening or lengthening, but moving the wing forward and stretching the TMA would be frowned upon. Peer pressure can be pretty effective!

Steve

Mark Scarborough · « **Reply #9 on:** October 04, 2007, 12:48:18 AM »

Steve, moving the wing forward may be a problem on most classic planes, HOWEVER, look at the plans for the Oriental. Dee specified on the plans to move the wing forward or back to compensate for heavier engines. I dare anybody to quibble about that one eh? I think the term is Fidelity points IIRC

Neville Legg · « **Reply #10 on:** October 04, 2007, 03:52:58 PM »

Thanks chaps, I'll look up the English version of the classic rules. I do so hate carrying around unnecessary lumps of lead, when a simple bit of planning can eliminate it?? I shall start on my Starlight now the dark evenings are drawing in here in England, winter draws on, as we say!

Cheers Neville

Steve Helmick · « **Reply #11 on:** October 04, 2007, 10:35:52 PM »

Mark, thanks for the note about the Oriental. I haven't seen the Oriental article that was published in '55 (?), but would like to. I have a CLC O'kit downstairs, tho....hmmmm...I wonder if a copy of the article might be in it. But as a general rule, changing the TMA would be seriously frowned upon, and some might be upset about a nose bob. I would be ok with it IF you used a light engine, but if you used a heavy one, I'd be less sympathetic.

And yeah, "Fidelity" was the word I was looking for. It's probably been a long time since I've seen a contest that used Fidelity Points! I'm not sure if they used them at the VSC 19, but if not, then pretty sure I've never been to a contest that did. Anyway, too tired = brain fade. That's my story; couldn't be CRS.

Steve

Bill Little · « **Reply #12 on:** October 05, 2007, 04:14:34 PM »

I think we tend to take the whole Classic (and OTS!) classes way to seriously. They are intended for us to fly planes that we saw in our youth and to have fun. We all know that planes DO get changed, even people did it during the period! As long as it isn't an Impact being passed off as a JD Falcon, I don't much care.

As I love the Classic event, and have flown in in several areas of the country, I have not really noticed a lot of *cheating* going on by anyone. Nothing that was obvious! Anyway, I can show up with three different ARES, and they are ALL with in a pencil line of the originals, yet all three are different and 100% LEGAL!

Are we seriously going to "frown upon" a contestant who shows up with a Classic plane and he's shortened the nose an inch because the engine is too heavy?

As for me, I have seen pictures of a couple Spacehounds that have been flown which were NOT *really* close to the actual plane, nor either of the two sets of plans that I know exist for it. No one has said a word! I probably wouldn't know either except I spent two years finding references of the actual model 10 years ago! (which was a LOT of fun!)

It doesn't bother me, though......

Neville Legg · « **Reply #13 on:** October 06, 2007, 02:48:52 AM »

Well said that man!!

Cheers Neville

PerttiMe · « **Reply #14 on:** February 09, 2011, 10:44:02 AM »

Been browsing the interwebs again: I decided to see who's this guy who designed the Lark, kitted by RSM...

...so I found this thread, a plan for the Snowbird (posting the JPG, not the PDF), and an Autobiography of Charles Allen Mackey Jr. The autobiography contains a photo of Charles Mackey with a stunt plane that looks profile, and he has written an article titled "Profile".

So is that plane the Profile?

(oh, please don't feel limited by my question. If you want to post something even remotely relevant, please go ahead)

https://www.modelaircraft.org/files/Mackey-Charles.pdf

Bill Little · « **Reply #15 on:** February 09, 2011, 11:00:16 AM »

Hi Pertti,

Charlie designed a "Profile" that was similar in side view to the Lark and Blue Bird. But it was a stand alone design AFAIK.

The Blue Bird is a full fuselage model if that is your question. ?? I scaled up the plans a few years ago from the original magazine article, which had a few full size templates (tip, root ribs, rudder, formers), and the rest was scaled up.

Any help?

Big Bear

PerttiMe · « **Reply #16 on:** February 09, 2011, 11:10:30 AM »

I was wondering about the plane in the autobiography picture:

That is surely not a Blue Bird? I thought it could be the Profile
... because the time of the Profile article seems to match the picture and the plane in the photo has a pretty narrow tail.

Bill Little · « **Reply #17 on:** February 09, 2011, 11:16:10 AM »

That one isn't the "Profile" that Charlie published. Just looks like a variant of the elliptical planes he did and built for a diesel. It has a built up fuselage. The plans for Charlie's "Profile" show a "true profile" fuselage with side mounted engine. I cannot find a small scan of them, but I feel pretty sure they are in Tom Morris' Classic Plans book. Two copies of which have disappeared from here! LOL!!

Bill

PerttiMe · « **Reply #18 on:** February 09, 2011, 11:26:31 AM »

OK, thanks for the clarification. I guess it is also possible he didn't publish everything he experimented with.

... WOW! My eyes have been so riveted to the elliptical plane that I only now saw where the engine on that flying wing is mounted ...

Bill Little · « **Reply #19 on:** February 09, 2011, 11:30:11 AM »

Quote from: PerttiMe on February 09, 2011, 11:26:31 AM

OK, thanks for the clarification. I guess it is also possible he didn't publish everything he experimented with.

... WOW! My eyes have been so riveted to the elliptical plane that I only now saw where the engine on that flying wing is mounted ...

In the article that he published the Starlight in, he referenced several models he had built leading up to the Starlight. None of them really pictured, though.

He did publish a delta wing with a wildly offset engine..... "Red Wing"??

Wish I could find one of my Tom Morris books..............

Bill

PerttiMe · « **Reply #20 on:** February 09, 2011, 01:32:43 PM »

Quote from: Bill Little on February 09, 2011, 11:30:11 AM

In the article that he published the Starlight in, he referenced several models he had built leading up to the Starlight.

Now that I've been looking at the pictures, I see some sort of a progression from the '59 plane, via Spitfire and Snowbird to the Starlight.
Of course, there was the Lark in between too.

Just out of curiosity (I do not see myself building it anytime soon, if at all): is a Starlight plan available somewhere?

Bill Little · « **Reply #21 on:** February 09, 2011, 02:24:26 PM »

Quote from: PerttiMe on February 09, 2011, 01:32:43 PM

Now that I've been looking at the pictures, I see some sort of a progression from the '59 plane, via Spitfire and Snowbird to the Starlight.
Of course, there was the Lark in between too.

Just out of curiosity (I do not see myself building it anytime soon, if at all): is a Starlight plan available somewhere?

I got my Starlight plans from Flying Models, several years ago. If you call them for plans, BE SURE to talk to Maureen. I guess you wouldn't be "calling" though...............

They are not in the best of ways, lately, for sending out plans.......... a LOT of people have had problems.

Bill

Neville Legg · « **Reply #22 on:** February 09, 2011, 02:55:40 PM »

There was another little Oliver Tiger (2.5 Diesel) powered model that Charles designed for Flying Models. It also had an eliptical wing, and an upright engine, with the tank exposed, but a built up fus. Can't remember its name, I think I have the magazine somewhere, anyone remember it?

Cheers

Elwyn Aud · « **Reply #23 on:** February 09, 2011, 04:13:22 PM »

Sounds like the Hummingbird.

W.D. Roland · « **Reply #24 on:** February 09, 2011, 04:24:06 PM »

Quote from: john e. holliday on September 25, 2007, 07:58:39 PM

Seeing this post I was going to order a set of plans, but, it is amazing how things work out. Cleaning the basement work area that I have let get out of hand, I found my set of "Starlight" plans. Now do I stop cleaning and start on this or not. I am still waiting on "Torino" short kit and the "Mustunt II" kit also. Would love to build the "Torino" for VSC if I can go. But, would like to have the "Starlight" also. I have met both Charles Mackey and Jack Sheeks, they are the best. The "Starlight" doesn't look as complicated as the "Staggerwing". Have fun, DOC Holliday

I know what would happen to me if cleaning continued.
I would find more stuff to build or otherwise distract me!

STOP cleaning and go build before the urge changes!

Hab fum!
David

Bill Little · « **Reply #25 on:** February 09, 2011, 07:03:25 PM »

Quote from: Elwyn Aud on February 09, 2011, 04:13:22 PM

Sounds like the Hummingbird.

Sure sounds like it!

Doesn't Jim Lee still fly one?

Big Bear

Wynn Robins · « **Reply #26 on:** February 09, 2011, 08:30:03 PM »

I have pretty much all the Mackey plans - if you want a copy - let me know and I can e-mail them - come on Bill YOU of all people should know that

Bill Little · « **Reply #27 on:** February 09, 2011, 08:35:24 PM »

Quote from: Wynn Robins on February 09, 2011, 08:30:03 PM

I have pretty much all the Mackey plans - if you want a copy - let me know and I can e-mail them - come on Bill YOU of all people should know that

Sorry Wynn! LOL!! I forgot simply because I already HAVE those plans for the Starlight! LOL!!

Guys, Wynn IS the "go to" guy!

Big Bear

Neville Legg · « **Reply #28 on:** February 10, 2011, 12:59:10 AM »

HUMMINGBIRD!

that's the one! thanks. I may well put one of those together, I have plenty of two & half size Diesels. Looks like fun

Can anyone tell me what Flying Models it was in? I know I have it........ somewhere.

Ta.

Cheers

PerttiMe · « **Reply #29 on:** February 10, 2011, 01:53:28 AM »

Hummingbird.... I was wondering what it is. Does anyone have more on it? Pictures?

someone's selling "some" Hummingbird plan on CD, on ebay, but it is hard to see what exactly it is.

edit:
found some better ebay pictures of a Hummingbird. Is this it?

john e. holliday · « **Reply #30 on:** February 11, 2011, 07:43:35 PM »

That is it.

PerttiMe · « **Reply #31 on:** November 18, 2020, 07:32:32 AM »

I noticed some interest in Charles Mackeys designs recently.

The file with his autobiography on the AMA website is now at https://www.modelaircraft.org/sites/default/files/files/MackeyCharlesAllenJr.pdf

Outerzone has a number of his plans and some articles: https://outerzone.co.uk/search/results.asp?keyword=Charles%20Mackey
The article on the Snowbird has a reference to a Red Wing article in Flying Models "December-January 1964 issue".
https://outerzone.co.uk/plan_details.asp?ID=50

Steve_Pollock · « **Reply #32 on:** November 18, 2020, 08:42:40 AM »

Charles Mackey's "Profile"

Steve Helmick · « **Reply #33 on:** November 18, 2020, 01:10:24 PM »

IF I remember correctly, the "Hummingbird" was designed for the AYSC Youth Program....Stunt, Speed and Beauty, were the three events. Also seem to recall the engine was a .19 CID maximum. I could see the thick wing version being pretty competitive with a Veco .19bb (back in the day), with a change of prop and fuel....if the fuel didn't ruin the finish before the Beauty judging. But maybe they did that first...

A buddy of mine flew in the AYSC deal at a California NATS and got to do the trip back east the next year, courtesy of the USN. Every time some great youth program came along, I was always 2 years too old. He is 2 years younger than me. He never did join the Navy, tho.

Steve

John Leidle · « **Reply #34 on:** November 18, 2020, 01:18:59 PM »

Quote from: PerttiMe on February 09, 2011, 11:10:30 AM

I was wondering about the plane in the autobiography picture:

That is surely not a Blue Bird? I thought it could be the Profile
... because the time of the Profile article seems to match the picture and the plane in the photo has a pretty narrow tail.

Bluebird ??

Steve_Pollock · « **Reply #35 on:** November 18, 2020, 07:18:36 PM »

Not the Bluebird -- it had a completely different wing style.

Steve_Pollock · « **Reply #36 on:** November 18, 2020, 07:26:58 PM »

I think the pictured plane IS the Starlight; the wing planform looks close to the plan below.

John Miller · « **Reply #37 on:** November 18, 2020, 07:58:29 PM »

No, it's his Snow Bird Classic Legal design from the 1959.

https://outerzone.co.uk/plan_details.asp?ID=50

John

PerttiMe · « **Reply #38 on:** November 18, 2020, 09:19:35 PM »

Yep. The photo is in the Snowbird article that is available on Outerzone. And the delta with the extreme thrust angle is the Red Wing.

John Leidle · « **Reply #39 on:** November 18, 2020, 09:25:19 PM »

I take it that Mackey built a plane called " Bluebird"
John L.

Air Ministry . · « **Reply #40 on:** November 18, 2020, 10:40:18 PM »

Theres a Enlarged ( by Ian Smith ) Snow Job version of the Snowbird . Both in F M at about the same time . For a 51 or 61 R E , I think .

The Spitfire ' H F ' wingtips ( The Late Mk 21 on , had a clipped H F planform , to the original span ) improved the High Alt. performance . And slowed the rate of roll .
Conversely , the clipped ( std tips removed ) Mk V etc tips , improved low level speed & roll rate .

PerttiMe · « **Reply #41 on:** November 19, 2020, 02:38:35 AM »

Quote from: John Leidle on November 18, 2020, 09:25:19 PM

I take it that Mackey built a plane called " Bluebird"
John L.

There's a Bluebird plan and parts sheet at https://outerzone.co.uk/plan_details.asp?ID=9301
The Plan file has an article in one corner of the large sheet.

John Leidle · « **Reply #42 on:** November 19, 2020, 08:48:17 AM »

Thank you for setting me straight on this. The reason being is my newest plane I named the Bluebird , not a big copycat but sometimes it happens as I see it did in my case.
John L.

PerttiMe · « **Reply #43 on:** November 19, 2020, 09:15:59 PM »

There's so many famous designs. And then there's all those that aren't all that well known. Sooner or later, some duplication is inevitable.

Mark Legg · « **Reply #44 on:** November 25, 2020, 04:32:53 PM »

Bit of a lump in the throat here. My old man started this thread 13 years ago. He left mother earth in 2011....

Hope up there he knows I'm putting his equipment and engines to good use....and building a starlight

Scott Richlen · « **Reply #45 on:** November 27, 2020, 04:00:35 PM »

I hope the StuntHanger never goes the way of StukaStunt. I love the way these old posts pop up and bring back such great memories!

Craig Beswick · « **Reply #46 on:** November 27, 2020, 06:46:20 PM »

Yes it really is Scott.

Perhaps if we have more FINANCIALLY supporting members it will last longer than StukaStunt!!!!

All the best

Craig