Author Topic: Sig Magnums....how well do the perform (Read 7036 times)

jordan miller · « **on:** April 15, 2007, 07:45:03 PM »

I am building a Sig Foam Wing Magnum and was wondering if anyone had any suggestions for what I should do differently from the plans??? Also how well does she fly??

peabody · « **Reply #1 on:** April 15, 2007, 07:46:06 PM »

Tom Dixon has a set of plans that offer modiffications that work well...

Bill Little · « **Reply #2 on:** April 15, 2007, 08:33:24 PM »

The Magnum flies great right out of the box. A lot of people do put a set of aluminum landing gear mounted to the fuselage, though. The wing gear can cause a problem, eventually, if you fly off a grass field. A very simple mod. And try to replace any really heavy wood!

The plans Rich Peabody speaks of from Tom Dixon are for the "Plus" which was a co-design of Tom Dixon and Randy Smith. IIRC, the airfoil is a *little* fatter and some other changes. So I don't think you could use those and still use the kit wings.

I would go with a complete control system from Tom Morris. His stuff is top drawer if you are not familiar with it.

I have seen them powered by mostly Super Tiger engines, and they ranged from the .46, .51, and the .60. A .46 is on the low end of the scale for most kit built Magnums. What powerplant do you intend to use?

Bill <><

Dan McEntee · « **Reply #3 on:** April 15, 2007, 09:37:12 PM »

The Magnum is an excellent airplane, I think, especially if it your first large model. I powered mine with an ST.51 that was pretty much stock. This engine makes good power as it is, and for a little extra punch, get a Tom Lay rework. You shouldn't need any more than 6 ouinces of fuel for this engine, and that makes it easier to fit and plumb a tank. Pay attention to the control set up, and I would agree to the before ementioned Tom Morris system. Don't use the kit stuff if it is the generation with the 3/32 wire and nylon horns. I would also agree with the mount for fuselage mounted gear, in addition to the wing mounted gear, and change to it when flying over grass. I just think it looks better with the wing gear. Try to keep it light, around 60 ounces at least. I got carried away with the decorations on mine and it ballooned up to 70 or 72 ounces, but still managaed to fly fairly well. I had several 500 plus point scores with that airplane. I used my typical ST.51 set up on it and would do the same today as follows: ST.51 engine, Glowdevil R/C long plug, APC 12.25/3.75 prop, 6 oz. plastic tank set up for uniflow on pressure, Scott Dinger muffler, and SIG 10% Champion or similar fuel. The ST.51 may run well for you on suction, but have things set up to try pressure just as a tuning and trimming tool.
Good luck and have fun with it!
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee

Jim Morris · « **Reply #4 on:** April 16, 2007, 12:17:40 PM »

I built a Sig Magnum and used some different wood in some places and covered the wing with the Tom Dixon kept foam, the plane flew awsom with a Stalker 61SE. I shall miss it.

James Lee · « **Reply #5 on:** April 16, 2007, 02:22:49 PM »

To keep the wing mounted gear, use a pair of 1/16" ply false ribs on each end of the gear blocks to hold the blocks. Close to bullit proof...

I've tested them a time or two....

Mine had the early Saito 45 4stroke and flew well at app 60 oz... Todd had an OS 46 SF-S in his and it flew pretty good also.
A ST 46 or 51 is good engine choice, esp if it is a Tom Lay rework.
Jim

jordan miller · « **Reply #6 on:** April 16, 2007, 06:01:38 PM »

Bill Little-- I bought a ST .51 and plan to use it with the Uniflow set up and a 6 oz tank. Thanks!!

Dan McEntee--I will take in to consideration being able to switch the gear, I had a Brodak Olympic before this and didn't run into much of a problem with the gear in the wing, but i do like how my Vector gets off the ground with the gear on the fuse.

Bob Reeves · « **Reply #7 on:** April 16, 2007, 08:00:34 PM »

Quote from: Dan McEntee on April 15, 2007, 09:37:12 PM

<snip>, APC 12.25/3.75 prop, <snip>
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee

Interesting, that is the prop we run on the LA 46, would think a ST 51 would need/like either larger diameter or more pitch

Peter Nevai · « **Reply #8 on:** April 17, 2007, 12:32:38 AM »

I had one for a short period, It was a sweet flying plane. Such a shame you can not get them anymore, I'd snatch one up. I recall Mike Pratt saying that a good mod would be to sheet the flaps and the elevators with 1/32 contest balsa to stiffen up the surfaces. Wing mounted gear take a beating on grass and more nose over tendency, not an issue over asphalt.

Dan McEntee · « **Reply #9 on:** April 17, 2007, 01:52:06 AM »

Quote from: Bob Reeves on April 16, 2007, 08:00:34 PM

Interesting, that is the prop we run on the LA 46, would think a ST 51 would need/like either larger diameter or more pitch

I have a pretty fair amount of time running ST.51's, and have tried most of the commonly available props, and it seems to me that once you get past 12.5 inches, it tends to overload the engine. . I had a fair amount of luck with the BY&O prop in the 12/5 and 12/6 range, especially the props made by Clarence Bulle (?) . If I couldn't get those, I usually used TopFlite Power Point 12/5's and 12/6's. Jim Schuette from the Chicago area turned me on to the APC
12.25/3.75. The two planes I had ST.51's in at the time showed much improvement with them, and for the first time I could see the benefit of the flatter pitched props. Take off RPM is usually around 10,000 to 10,500. Faltter pitched props hadn't worked very well for me up to that point. APC has come out with a 13/4 FunFly prop that I cut down to 12.5 diameter, and that has been working fairly well, but I think that is the limit on diameter that the ST.51 will take. This has been on 600 plus square inch models weighing 60 to 65 ounces.
To go to the other end of the spectrum, I have seen the ST.51 used on a very light , 600 plus square inch model, and if I remember correctly, the guy was using some old Rev-Up 11/4 EW and 11/5EW with great results, good enough for a third place at VSC! It's all a matter of the total package; airplane, engine, wing area, model weight, and prop.
Good luck and have fun,
Dan McEntee

Bill Gruby · « **Reply #10 on:** April 17, 2007, 05:28:39 AM »

Jordan

The "Big Boys" have spoken (no offence please) now for me. I still fly a "Sig Magnum". It weighs in at 65 ozs. and is powered by a "Big Jim ST .60" I use the tank that was made for it, I don't remember by who. It has a 6 oz. capacity. The prop is a 12-6 Super M. Wing mounted gear on GRASS. I have no problem with this combination. It handles the whole pattern well, and in mild wind is not a handful like some other ships I have had. You will not be sorry you built this airplane no matter what combination you use. As has been said just keep it light.

Also I am going on my 6th season with mine, that should speak for its longivity. Build it and have fun. In the right hands I believe it is still a serious competitor. Thats it from the "Peanut Gallery".

"Billy G"

Peter Nevai · « **Reply #11 on:** April 17, 2007, 07:01:47 PM »

Tank for Magnum with ST51 Brodak BH-535 Magnim 6 oz

Mike Clark · « **Reply #12 on:** April 22, 2007, 08:49:19 PM »

The Sig Magnum,

The Magnum is a great airplane. I still have two in plastic on the shelf. Wing mounted gear is fine, The false ribs idea is a good one but if the gear is install per the plans many a landing in grass, is NO problem. I have used both methods in the gear installation with great success.

The instruction booklet calls for a 1/8" hole to be drilled into the bass wood block after the vertical piece is glued into place. Make sure that you need a 1/8" hole befor drilling. This will lessen the wire flop in the wing from the gear. This is where most of the gear problems come from.

Wing sheeting glue is where you'll pick up some weight if not watched. Then perferred way is thinned slow epoxy and spread it thin. Southern sorgum or other contact glues will build some weight, 3M 33+ spray glue is ok but some bulging can be seen in the summer heat due to expansion.

All solid balsa parts such as the wing tip forward deck and the under belly of the fuse must be hogged or carved out. The building plans shows this step, please do not omit it! Final Assembly will call you to cut a section out of the Fuse so you can install the wing. If you perform this step make sure that you use carbon veil to bolster this area, ah heck carbon the entire fuse. Believe me the sound the fuse makes breaking into of a roll over will make you sick!

The Magnum is a very competitive flying aircraft. Take offs & landings are a dream! Both upright and inverted flight manuvers will show her predictable handling. Vertical manuvers will take some getting use to or trust but believe she can do them without hesitation.

There are quite a few extra items that can make this airplane better like a thicker botton planking on the fuse. This Increase the side area and makes for a more rigid fuse. Yes sheeted flaps & elevators.

The perferred engine is a ST51 good power everywhere, 6 to 6-1/2 ounce tank.
Good Flying!

Mike Clark

Greg L Bahrman · « **Reply #13 on:** April 23, 2007, 12:04:22 AM »

False ribs shown on my Magnum

MikeyPratt · « **Reply #14 on:** April 23, 2007, 08:01:13 AM »

Greg,
That looks really nice so far.

As mentioned in the post above either make the flaps from solid sheet of skin them with 1/32" balsa. Do not make the elevators from solid sheet because the weight that far behind the CG will require nose weight to properly balance the model. Build them up as per the plans and if you have some really light 1/32" balsa then it would be OK to skin them as well.

Another thing is replace the 1/4" balsa bottom block with 1/2" balsa (make sure you hollow it out) for additional side area. Also increase the width of the fin 3/4" (not the rudder) and the height of the dorsal fin by 1/4. This is all the additional side area that is needed.

Engines: The ST 51, PA 40, PA 51 (with side exhaust or the new rear header muffler) are about the best engine for the Magnum although I flew mine mostly with killer ST 46's. The really WAY COOL thing is the number of good engines that are available today. There may be more engines that would work just as well but I have no experience with them.

Please post more photos to show your progress on the Magnum.

Later,
Mikey

fred krueger · « **Reply #15 on:** April 23, 2007, 09:05:49 AM »

Jordan,

Patrick Schuett (Jim's son) flew a ST51 powered Magnum to 2nd in Advanced at the NATs. Email me through the forum with your home email address and I'll send you Patrick's address.

Fred Krueger

James Lee · « **Reply #16 on:** April 23, 2007, 02:14:32 PM »

Fred
If you check, I think you will find that Magnums have won advanced several times.....

Later
Jim

Greg L Bahrman · « **Reply #17 on:** April 23, 2007, 06:34:35 PM »

I stopped working on this in January (surgery). So now we're ready to get started again. Some of you may remember I was disappointed when I first posted because of the weight. I was at 60 oz. all together engine, wheels, tank etc. and I still have to add flaps and paint. All of you said to go for it. Stop complaining and finish it. More pictures just for grins. I replaced the stock foam wings with triple cored foam wings from Crist (The Control Line Guy) and they were really nice. Half ribs connect to the landing gear blocks, the spar and the leading edge and the sheeting......I think your right Alan, on making the leg a little longer, good idea.

Peter Nevai · « **Reply #18 on:** April 23, 2007, 08:00:14 PM »

Booo Hooooo Sniffle Sniffle

I WANT ONE!

Jim Oliver · « **Reply #19 on:** April 23, 2007, 10:02:31 PM »

Greg,
We have been wondering what happened to this plane. Good to see it back on track.

Jim

Greg L Bahrman · « **Reply #20 on:** April 25, 2007, 07:39:26 PM »

Thanks Jim... I remember that Mike Clark was also building a Magnum or maybe it was a Magnum Pro. Did he finish it or did he set it aside to work on his SV11. Any news?

Alan Hahn · « **Reply #21 on:** April 25, 2007, 08:29:04 PM »

Just a comment on the wing landing gear.
One easy strengthening step is to increase the length of the upright short hardwood leg shown in the photo above. Landing and takeoff forces create a torque which tries to pull this piece off the spar. A longer piece gives a longer stronger glue joint and a longer moment to resist the torque on landing.Shouldn't add too much weight. Also getting a good glue joint here is important.

Shultzie · « **Reply #22 on:** April 25, 2007, 08:44:53 PM »

OUTSTANDINGLY BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBUUUUUUUTEEEEEEEEFUL CRAFTSMANSHIP!
GREAT PHOTOS...This will be one great flying model for sure.

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #23 on:** April 26, 2007, 06:35:20 PM »

We took a Magnum and "Adamisin-ized" it: tweaked this and that and then built it with a two-piece plug-in wing and a moneycote finish - Circus Pink of course! Dad fitted it with a OLD 1960's vintage plain bearing ST 56 that ran like a watch.

It worked great, like everybody elses Magnum does!

Mike Pratt did an OUTSTANDING job on this design, plus got it engineered into a mass-production kit that has served a LOT of people well. This rates with the accmplishments of Aldrich & Palmer. (but don't tell Mikey I said so...)

Greg L Bahrman · « **Reply #24 on:** April 26, 2007, 10:44:29 PM »

Thanks for the kind words Don,
You really have livened this place up. Great to have you on board.

Quote from: Shultzie on April 25, 2007, 08:44:53 PM

OUTSTANDINGLY BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBUUUUUUUTEEEEEEEEFUL CRAFTSMANSHIP!
GREAT PHOTOS...This will be one great flying model for sure.

Mike Spiess · « **Reply #25 on:** April 27, 2007, 09:02:56 AM »

I have one but now I want to clean the bench and start on it. I got a Fox 50 done by Lew Woolard for it. But I really don't have the time.

Jim Oliver · « **Reply #26 on:** April 27, 2007, 03:58:36 PM »

Mike,

Send it to me---I will make the time!!

Jim

Jim Oliver · « **Reply #27 on:** April 27, 2007, 09:00:26 PM »

Greg,

Don't know about Mike's Magnum. Maybe he will come down to Clanton tomorrow for our fly-in.
Too bad we don't have Karma buttons any longer ---you woul get a truck load!!

Jim

MikeyPratt · « **Reply #28 on:** April 28, 2007, 05:02:06 PM »

Quote from: Dennis Adamisin on April 26, 2007, 06:35:20 PM

We took a Magnum and "Adamisin-ized" it: tweaked this and that and then built it with a two-piece plug-in wing and a moneycote finish - Circus Pink of course! Dad fitted it with a OLD 1960's vintage plain bearing ST 56 that ran like a watch.

It worked great, like everybody elses Magnum does!

Mike Pratt did an OUTSTANDING job on this design, plus got it engineered into a mass-production kit that has served a LOT of people well. This rates with the accmplishments of Aldrich & Palmer. (but don't tell Mikey I said so...)

Dennis,

Aw shucks Dennis, now you did it! I don’t know what to say except to thank you for the kind comments and high praise. To be mentioned with the icons of PA is a privilege and honor for sure.

I remember that sissy Pink Magnum (LOL). I never had the opportunity to fly the pink Magnum but if I remember correctly I watched Archie fly it, it did indeed fly very well. I think your dad is a magician with old engines or any engine for that matter. That old ST 56 ran really sweet and smooth which surprised me quit honestly. How did Art get that old engine to run so well? I’ve owned a few ST .56’s years ago but they never ran anywhere near as good as that one or I would have been flying them.

Over the years I have had the good fortune to fly a number of outstanding Magnums. Patrick let me fly his ST 51 Magnum one time at the Sig contest, what a wonderful combination to fly! Another very good Magnum was built by Sam Schrotta that was powered by a T&L ST .51. I flew Sam’s Magnum many times helping him trim it out. In my humble opinion, the ST 51 is a great choice of engine for the Magnum. I think Sam placed third in Advance at the Texas Nat’s with this Magnum.

My good friend John Davis let me fly his ST 60 powered Magnum which was another great model that pulled like a dump truck at 64 ounces. I had a number of ST 60 installed in Magnums but the best one by far was one I borrowed from Wendy at the Team Trials. It was anodized black with a gold head that turned black from burnt on castor. It was about the nastiest looking engine I have ever seen but that ST 60 really ran great from the get go. I barrowed a Bolly 12-1/4 X 6-1/4 three blade prop from John and what a set-up that turned out to be. Too bad I wasn’t flying this set-up all week because I would have finished much higher with it, it was awesome!

Hanging on the garage wall is the ST 60 powered blue (Box Top) Magnum which weighted 60 ounces in flight trim when it was first finished. Also hanging there is the ST 46 powered silver & white Magnum that was a pretty light at 53 ounces when it was first finished. The silver Magnum is in the process of being refinished and returned to flying condition with the ST 46.

FYI: The lightest Magnum that I built was an I-Beam version that weighed 46 ounces and powered by a ST 46. Pretty good flying model but turned into a kite when the winds were over 15 mph. Added 5 ounces of stick-on weight over the CG and the performance was greatly improved in the wind to the point I refinished the Magnum just to add some weight. I lost this Magnum at the 81 Nationals in Texas when a line clip popped at the bottom of the vertical eights.

Later,
Mikey

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #29 on:** April 28, 2007, 09:19:25 PM »

Mike
Its kind of funny, when i started the last post I intended to draw parallels between the Magnum and the Nobler as kits from different eras that had similarly large impats on CLPA. I think the record speaks for itself. In one of YOUR posts about designers you correctly pointed out the challenges of designing a model for mass production.

The Magnum has obviously served a LOT of flyers extremely well. Flying with anything from piped 40's to 60's (& I doubt that covers it) weighing from the elow 50 oz range to 80+ and the bird creates enthusiastic approval! That, along with the other successful kits is the stuff that generates comparisons to Aldrich & Palmer with respect to great designers.

Until I saw Dad's I did not know ST even MADE a plain bearing 56. Obviously predates the BB versions and the 60. It runs more like a strong 46 but more important it runs steady. Again it demonstrates that the Magnum flies well with a range of power loadings.

But DON'T pick on the Circus Pink - or I'll hit you with my purse!

jordan miller · « **Reply #30 on:** May 01, 2007, 07:43:43 PM »

Hey does anyone know if putting carbon fiber on the fuse weighs more than tissue...if so how much?? i have covered the wing and it is ready for silver and now i am getting started on the fuse.

Scott Hartford · « **Reply #31 on:** May 01, 2007, 08:35:16 PM »

I was flying with Bill Wilson and another guy I had never met before(whose name escapes me at the moment) this weekend, and the said nameless fellow had a Magnum with a ST 51. He flew a few flights and all seemed well and he flew pretty good I thought and then as he was flying we heard a very loud crack,thud,splat!!! I had my back turned fueling my plane but I turned around to see the confetti fly.

The guy said he saw the fuse crack as he fed in some up at the bottom of a loop. There wasn't much left to look at of the plane so we don't know what let go. I personally have never seen this happen before and was surprised that a plane could break in flight. I know exactly how he felt though because I have wadded my share(OK, MORE than my share) of planes in the most conventional way.

It was a neat-looking plane though and I would like to have one.

Greg L Bahrman · « **Reply #32 on:** May 01, 2007, 11:44:55 PM »

<The guy said he saw the fuse crack as he fed in some up at the bottom of a loop.>

I have heard of cracking behind the trailing edge of the wing so I extended the ply doublers. and did the carbon thing to the fuse.

Author Topic: Sig Magnums....how well do the perform (Read 7036 times)

Alan Hahn