Author Topic: A better Flying Fool? (Read 6400 times)

Glenn (Gravitywell) Reach · « **on:** October 29, 2010, 08:55:05 PM »

Hi all. I have wondered off and on over the years, what should be changed on the Flying Fool to make it a better flying Fool?

It is a fast flier, so I guess the first thing would be to thicken the wing. What else?

ps....I am not interested in OTS or anything, nor a different biplane. I really love the looks of the Flying Fool, plus it has old, good time feelings.

Bill Heher · « **Reply #1 on:** October 29, 2010, 09:34:13 PM »

Nice light wood- as opposed to the Sterling standard, less glue and paint than we usually put on them as kids, and a nice smooth modern engine would probably be enough to make it a good sport flier.
I had a heavy, crashed / repaired / warped one with a worn out Fox .35 in it back around '76-'77, and it still flew well enough to keep us trying to do "Stunts". Had a bad tendancy to flame out inverted, didn't know about adjusting tank height, proper venting, etc. Sure did learn how to backpedal though - to get tension back!

Chuck Feldman · « **Reply #2 on:** October 30, 2010, 05:13:24 AM »

nothing personal here but; Flying Fool isn't that a perfect name for most of us?
The 38 Special should give you all the things your looking for. Old styling good wood etc.
Needs power though like a LA 46. But it is a profile

Paul Smith · « **Reply #3 on:** October 30, 2010, 05:18:21 AM »

I started building a Sterling Flying Fool kit years ago and gave up. I could see that with a Fox 35 it would be way too small and heavy and there was no place for the fuel tank.

If I really wanted to finish one, I'd go with an LA25 and a backplate engine mount. The backplate mount enabled me to complete a Sterling (kit) Super Ringmaster with a decent-size tank.

afml · « **Reply #4 on:** October 30, 2010, 08:57:26 AM »

"and there was no place for the fuel tank."

Unless the kit has changed a bit, the one I built for my Dad MANY years ago, I was able to use a Perfect 4 oz wedge tank and powered it with a K&B Stallion 35.
Painted it just like the box top cause I STILL have no creativity when it comes to paint designs!!

After the top wing departed, he married an old Voo Doo wing to the fuse where it remains to this day.
Somewhere on the site, I have seen pics of a 38 Special that someone had made fuse formers and turned into a great looking full fuse job.
Flight reports were also quite favorable.

"Tight Lines!"

Wes

Glenn (Gravitywell) Reach · « **Reply #5 on:** October 30, 2010, 01:40:00 PM »

As per my original posting, I am not interested in other biplanes. I already have a couple. I want to simply build a better Flying Fool. It seems the general concensus so far is to:
1. Use MUCH lighter wood.
2. Less glue and paint (than our youth!)

That one is soooo true, but really tickled my funny bone!
3. Re-engineer the top wing to stop it from departing. Had that happen on mine as well.

4. Use a modern .25 or equivalent with a backplate mount. Is that to save the weight of the engine mount beams?

Questions I still have:
1. Should the nose or tail be lengthened or shortened to make it fly a bit better?
2. If going to a thicker wing rib....what is recommended?

Thanks to everyone that has posted so far.

Russell Shaffer · « **Reply #6 on:** October 30, 2010, 02:06:39 PM »

Pat King has plans for a Flite Streak bipe. The wing would be just about the right size for a Fool and it is thick enough to fly well. He is in the profiles, drop him a line about his plan.

Paul Smith · « **Reply #7 on:** October 30, 2010, 02:14:39 PM »

The purpose of the backplate mount is to free up space for a fuel tank. It also enables a narrower engine that won't fit the the standard mounting beams.

John Miller · « **Reply #8 on:** October 30, 2010, 02:56:58 PM »

The simple change to a thicker wing is likely not going to help as much as making the whole thing lighter. Thicker wing sections can create more drag. More drag will nessitate more power etc.

Consider the final wing thickness as the sum of the two wings. ! inch wing thickness x 2 wings = 2 inch thick airfoils, compared to a mono winged design.

For what you want, I would consider legnthening the nose so I can mount my engine of choice, and enough fuel for the pattern. I would consider increasing the A.R. a bit on each wing. to get better efficiency. Check to make sure you have at least 1 to 1 1/2 chord legnths seperating the two wings. Increase the stab and elevator area to at least 20-24%. Legnthen the tail so it all balances.

That's how I would start on the project, but now there are enough changes that you really don't have a Flying Fool any longer.

Larry Fernandez · « **Reply #9 on:** October 30, 2010, 06:41:28 PM »

I'll let you know in a couple of months.
A few years back I was told that a Ringmaster could not be flown with an FP .15. After all, it was designed for a Fox .35 or such.
I pulled out all the stops and built the Ringmaster with the lightest wood I could get my hands on and changed a few things construction wise.
It came in at 19.75 oz. and flew very well on .012 lines at 58 ft.
In fact it flew good enough for Uncle Jimby to win Old Time at the Golden State Championships.
Using better constrution , better wood and a better motor, I think I can make a Flying Fool fly decent enough. I started building one a few months back, but it has been sidelined for a bit, while other projects get finished.
I'll let you all know how it works out when she gets in the air

Larry, Buttafucco Stunt Team

Bill Morell · « **Reply #10 on:** October 30, 2010, 07:26:51 PM »

If you don't want the top wing to blow off then all you have to do is "pin" it. 1/8" dowels put through holes drilled through the the ribs and the mounts take care of the problem. A very easy fix. I have built several "Flying Fools" over the years and while they are not a world beater they are fun to fly. When the engine quits you had better be ready as they don't glide for beans.

Jim Kraft · « **Reply #11 on:** October 30, 2010, 07:58:07 PM »

I built one back in the 60's and put an Enya 19 lV on it. It flew fairly well but I thought it was a little underpowered for stunting. I replaced the Enya with a Fox 35, and it flew really well. It sure wasn't a pattern plane, but it was a lot of fun and would fly inverted, 8's, wingovers, inside and outside loops, and big overhead 8's. I may have been lucky and got a light kit. If I was to build another, I would just try to keep it as light as I could, and put a Fox 35 on it again. The Fox just seems to be right for the plane. I never had a problem with the top wing coming off. I did use epoxy for all of the top wing glue joints, and the bottom for that matter. To me it is one of those planes that serves no purpose, except for a whole lot of fun, and to me is one of the coolest designs around. Who really cares if it won't do a square corners very well.

dennis lipsett · « **Reply #12 on:** October 30, 2010, 08:36:52 PM »

One of the biggest problems is that the 2 wings are too close together. If you open the wings up about 1.5 inches you will see an improvement in it's flying ability. It wont become a 500 pointer but it will at least glide a bit better and not be so draggy. Funny that most who lost their top wing didn't say that it flew better.
Dennis

Juan Valentin · « **Reply #13 on:** October 30, 2010, 09:27:11 PM »

I have the kit plan but doesn`t show fuse and I would love it if somebody came out with a plan for it.I built one in 1967 with a Stallion.35 and would like to do another one.
Juan

phil c · « **Reply #14 on:** October 30, 2010, 09:56:21 PM »

Quote from: Gravitywell on October 29, 2010, 08:55:05 PM

Hi all. I have wondered off and on over the years, what should be changed on the Flying Fool to make it a better flying Fool? It is a fast flier, so I guess the first thing would be to thicken the wing. What else?

ps....I am not interested in OTS or anything, nor a different biplane. I really love the looks of the Flying Fool, plus it has old, good time feelings.

The Flying Fool is a cute idea, but a bad design. What I would do would be to enlarge it, perhaps 20% more span and a proportionately larger tai(20% of wing maybe), as someone else suggested, separate the wings so that the top wing is at least a chord length above the bottom wing. Build it light, with D tube construction and 1/16 in. balsa almost everywhere, including a built up tail. Bolt the landing gear to the bottom of the fuselage, instead of building it in.

Glenn (Gravitywell) Reach · « **Reply #15 on:** October 31, 2010, 12:29:00 PM »

This is so much fun for me. I love these little bipes and hearing other stories and such is just plane fun!

It seems the general concensus so far is to:
1. Use MUCH lighter wood.
2. Less glue and paint (than our youth!) That one is soooo true, but really tickled my funny bone!
3. Re-engineer the top wing to stop it from departing. 1/8th inch dowel lockpins.
4. Use a modern .25 or equivalent with a backplate mount. Is that to save the weight of the engine mount beams and to give more room for a proper tank.
5. Wing ribs should be no more than 1" thick. Good suggestion John....thank you. I would have messed that up for sure!

Questions that need more input are:
1. Both Dennis and Phil suggest opening up the space between the wings at least the thickness of the wing cord. How does this smooth the flight characteristics? I think I know, but am not sure.
2. Phil also suggested increasing the wing span and tail size (volume?) 20%. I assume this is to increase lift and turnability? If increasing the w/s 20%, does one also increase the wing cord 20%?

Thank you everyone for your suggestions and stories.
ps....when the top wing blew off mine the plane did fly better! LOL Much faster too!

Chris McMillin · « **Reply #16 on:** October 31, 2010, 01:44:19 PM »

Hi Gravitywell,
The 1 chord distance between the spans was a standard used to keep the airfoils from interfering with one another. Especially in maneuvers when the wings were producing lift required of high G. If one used the top wing's larger chord to separate the two wings height the model would see a big improvement in flying characteristics. Compression drag between the two wings really increases drag and when manuevering will create so much drag it'll keep the model from being able to fly well.

I've never had or flown a Flying Fool but I assume that the experiences told here indicate that that is a huge problem easily rectified with the Sterling Flying Fool design!

Some very small and fast full scale biplanes have even more than 1 to 1 1/2 chord line to vertical separation between spans, one of note is the Knight Twister which is considered a very "hot" bipe, yet flies very well. The standard works the same with our models.

A light, straight Flying Fool with additional spacing between the wing (I'd balance that additional 1 to 1 1/2 inches, or whatever it works out to be, between the top and bottom wing by deepening the fuse so the bottom wing could be a bit lower possibly. Try to balance the distance above and below the thrustline, an easy datum to check from and close enough for a reasonable vertical cg result) with a 20% larger stab/elevator (I take a full size sketch to the copy store and increase size 20%) and a 1/2 inch nose, 1 inch tail stretch might make it fly much better with an almost un-noticeable change in outward looks to the average Stunt Pro! Especially if one used an older engine and painted it like the box with the kit decals...

Chris...

dennis lipsett · « **Reply #17 on:** November 03, 2010, 11:33:54 AM »

As I read this thread I realized that there have been several threads on this particular model. Many of us have had them and even though the model wasn't a success it has still managed to engender a kind of warm feeling when talking about it. In essence it has nostalgia to motivate it. So I got to thinking. What if someone took all of the suggestions that we know would be necessary to make the Fool a better flying model and blew it up to a 35/40 size model, about 38/40 inch W/S. It would have the stagger opened up between the wings, more wing area landing gear on the bottom lighter construction, better wood, full sized plans,etc. You get the picture a completely redesigned model but keeping all of the appeal of the original. The question is How many People would put down their hard earned cash to relive a memory and perhaps have some fun while they do so.
I'm perfectly willing to badger Walt Umland and his design team to do it but I'd have to have some evidence to convince him that it's worth the effort and expense to do it.
so here is a chance to finally put the Fool to the test and give it a chance to redeem itself. Anyone interested.
dennis

John Miller · « **Reply #18 on:** November 03, 2010, 12:04:26 PM »

I have a soft spot for planes with 2 wings. I've often thought of re-doing the Fool. I never got to it because I lacked a copy of the plans to start from. If you'll send me a copy of the plans, such as they are, and I'd be happy to play with it. I have been working an a stunt Bi-plane, but this project would be a pleasant break.

Glenn (Gravitywell) Reach · « **Reply #19 on:** November 03, 2010, 12:16:13 PM »

Hi Chris....your suggestions on the wing spacing and how to space them properly (to be in balance with the thrust line), is a great suggestion. I never would have thought of that one! Also the adding of an inch or so, front and back is a good one. I have thought of this myself and think it would smooth out some of the Fool's foolishness!

I don't know if I want to make it much bigger than what it is though. Going to the larger size sort of takes away something from it. I am sure that it would be a better flying airplane (after all....bigger IS better! LOL) but I believe it would loose a bit of its appeal to me. But thats just my opinion.

Getting Walter or one of the other kit makers to kit the plane would be wonderful. They all do some really neat stuff. Even having someone do up a modern plan for it would be really nice. I am pimarily a scratch-builder, so having a kit is not a priority (read....can't really afford! LOL) for me, but the plans would sure help! LOL

dennis lipsett · « **Reply #20 on:** November 03, 2010, 01:09:02 PM »

Glen,
Those of us who had this model know full well it's limitations so there is really no purpose to redo the model and build it to the same specs as the original Sterling kit. That would serve no purpose and only perpetuate a mediocre kit design. Given that we all like the visual appeal of the design it only makes sense if we keep the look but improve the design. Small models only appeal to a very small percentage of the C/L fliers, to have the design appeal to more fliers it must cater to their wants. It is not a model to compete with simply one to enjoy. If it then becomes more aerobatic, holds together and doesn't shed the top wing and can fly as well as the 38 special or Zephyr, or cavalier4, then as far as I'm concerned it is a success.

Glenn (Gravitywell) Reach · « **Reply #21 on:** November 03, 2010, 01:35:29 PM »

Hi Dennis. I understand what your saying and agree with what your saying......to a point. It is just that I "personally" do not really enjoy large planes; they are just too much trouble for me to transport and store. That is why, when I made my statement about the size issue, I said "...thats just my opinion.". Sorry if I somehow made it sound like I was talking for the majority of modellors out there.

Balsa Butcher · « **Reply #22 on:** November 03, 2010, 01:36:17 PM »

I think a 38 Special with a Flying Fool style built up fuselage would be a relatively easy and worthwhile project to tackle. I know my profile 38 Special flies great and has even won profile stunt at a fairly large contest a few years back. A built up version should fly even better.

Glenn (Gravitywell) Reach · « **Reply #23 on:** November 03, 2010, 01:48:40 PM »

I have looked at the 38 Special over the years, but it has just never tickled my Gotta-build-it bone. I don't know why, although the usual pic that is used in their advertising doesn't do the plane any favours. Maybe thats why I never liked her. Usually if it has two wings, I dig it, but the 38 just never got there for me.

Can some of you 38 Special builders post some pics of your 38's?

Russell Shaffer · « **Reply #24 on:** November 03, 2010, 02:41:56 PM »

Glenn, scroll down close to the bottom of the first page in the open forum. There is another Fool thread with modern plans available. Take a look. http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php?topic=19149.0

Balsa Butcher · « **Reply #25 on:** November 03, 2010, 03:37:01 PM »

Why build a 38 Special? Well, aside from being a great flying model it is well engineered - top and bottom wings lock into the fuselage (bottom) or center brace (top) so no worries losing them in flight. Easy to build - both wings identical and elevator only. (Hint: Limit elevator travel to minimize the tendency to stall out in square maneuvers due high parasitic drag), Flies well with readily availble engines (mine has a K&B 40, OS 40's or LA .46's probably most popular option but I've seen them fly well with a Fox 35). If you don't like the fuselage shape (modern bipe w/canopy), it can be easily kit-bashed into shape you want...or add a full fuselage "Flying Fool" style.

dennis lipsett · « **Reply #26 on:** November 03, 2010, 06:46:22 PM »

My 38 Special has a Fox 40 on it, This engine is not stock but a first generatin clone from the combat 36 That said mine is not a stunt plane but the fastest bipe on the field. It's been clocket at an unrealistic speed but one thing is for sure. You will never get a better thrill then flying this thing through a pattern. It will truly separate the men from the boys. I understand that in a year or so I'll qualify for long pants when I fly it. If I was to point out one weakness it is the bellcrank mount, Butt gluing it to the fuse side is all right but, pinning it is also a good idea.I know that I can easily tame the engine but it is just too much fun to fly and also to let a few friends have a turn on it.
dennis

Bill Little · « **Reply #27 on:** November 03, 2010, 07:19:18 PM »

Hi Glenn,

I still have the Flying Fool I built back in 1964 or 1965...... can't remember exactly.

I powered mine with the good old Fox.35 of course!

I have often thought of tearing into it and getting it back ready for flight, just too many projects, etc..

If I was going to do what you are wanting to do, I would simply make it as light as I could, and put a good Fox 35 in it. All the suggestions are great, and would work great, but then it wouldn't be a Flying Fool anymore. And regardless, the Flying Fool is only going to fly "so good". For the purposes I would want one for (blowing holes in the sky! LOL!!) it would do that, just fine. My old one would do 8's, inverted, wingovers, etc.. To make it into a "contest stunter", it would take a major redesign.

Big Bear

RogerGreene · « **Reply #28 on:** November 03, 2010, 07:53:58 PM »

Big Bear,

If you make the lower wing have may be 3/4 flaps at 15 to 20% of the chord might help on the maneuverability.

Roger

Glenn (Gravitywell) Reach · « **Reply #29 on:** November 04, 2010, 11:43:09 AM »

Thanks to everyone for their responces. I would like to see some pics of the 38 Special, but really do not want to build one. I really like the Flying Fool....I just love it for some silly reason. Probably cause I built one years ago and had fun flying and crashing it! I am seriousely considering building another but would like to take care of some of its obviouse short comings. You know....top wing that pops off at the worst times, stalling in a turn thats tighter than 40'....stuff like that!

I (and I am sure just about everyone else) knows that biplanes and the Flying Fool in particular, will NEVER be full on stunt machines. If they were we would see a whole lot more of them being built and flown. I just want my little FF to fly a little better and not fall apart!

So thanks again for all the suggestions, tips, insites and design thoughts.

Andrew Borgogna · « **Reply #30 on:** November 04, 2010, 12:47:33 PM »

I saw one Flying Fool fly back in the early sixties, as least it flew until the top wing separated from the rest of the plane then it became a flying lawn dart. I actually wanted to build one until I saw this flight I had second thoughts after that.
Andy

Glenn (Gravitywell) Reach · « **Reply #31 on:** November 04, 2010, 02:04:18 PM »

I think everyone that ever built and flew a Flying Fool had the top wing pop off at least once!

Of coursae thats what this thread is about....how to improve the Fool (plane and builder!) without ruining its look and feel.

Jim Kraft · « **Reply #32 on:** November 04, 2010, 05:46:29 PM »

I flew my FF for several years without the top wing coming off. At least not until my son crashed it inverted.

. I did use epoxy to glue both wings on. I never had trouble with Ringmasters loosing the outboard wing either. I only built three of those though.

Bill Little · « **Reply #33 on:** November 04, 2010, 07:44:24 PM »

Quote from: Jim Kraft on November 04, 2010, 05:46:29 PM

I flew my FF for several years without the top wing coming off. At least not until my son crashed it inverted. . I did use epoxy to glue both wings on. I never had trouble with Ringmasters loosing the outboard wing either. I only built three of those though.

Hi Jim,

I mentioned above that I still have my FF from the mid '60s. It, too, has never shed its wing. Of course, I never flew it very "fast". Just the old Fox .35 chugging along in a 4 cycle and a 10-5 prop..........

Mongo

Glenn (Gravitywell) Reach · « **Reply #34 on:** November 05, 2010, 12:04:30 AM »

WHAT? There are people out there that haven't shed a top wing? You guys need to fly your Fool's more often!

john e. holliday · « **Reply #35 on:** November 05, 2010, 08:15:15 AM »

Back in the late 60's I had a Veco .35 I got from an old hobby shop that was going out of business. Had the Fllying Fool kit and I built it. After first flight I went home and made a leadout guide for it. Yes it was a little fast for some people, but for me it lived up to its name after the leadouts were moved forward. It was an attention getter and did every thing I asked of it. Never lost a wing, even landing enverted a couple of times. It's called toothpicks and epoxy in the right places. I think it would be great with and LA .25.

Jim Kraft · « **Reply #36 on:** November 05, 2010, 07:00:09 PM »

Oh Yeah Big Bear; Ain't nothin like a Fox 35 chuggin around. I was flying my Bislob this afternoon, and my Fox was running so rich I thought it might quit. But she hung in there and did some laugh out loud maneuvers. Boy! Am I tired.

Juan Valentin · « **Reply #37 on:** November 05, 2010, 07:57:10 PM »

I `m a lucky guy I went to the thread mentioned in this one and asked Wynn Robins for a copy of his Flying fool parts plan and he emailed them to me.Today I went to a local printing shop and now I have a full size plan of the parts to go along with the kit plan that I have.I will try later on to replicate the one that I did in the sixties with better wood and some small changes as suggested in the thread. I`ll like to Thank Wynn for the plans I really appreciate his help.
Juan Valentin