Need some stunt trainer advice

[Curt Diggs]

After a40+ year hiatus, I'm back flying CL again. Watching Tom Dixon fly the stunt pattern has got me fired up to learn to fly stunt again. The Ringmaster is flying well but I want to build a flapped profile stunter next. I'm looking at kits on several sites and would like some opinions about the kit quality, how well each flies, best engine for a given model, etc. Also, I wouldn't call myself an "expert" builder but I'm very, very experienced. I'm only going the kit route to save time, otherwise I'd scratch-build. Here are the kits I'm looking at, with specs:

Brodak
Tanager (52" ws, 576 sq", 35-46)
Cardinal (54" ws, 579 sq", 35-46)

RSM
Naughty Girl (50.25" ws, 553 sq", 40-46)

BMJR
Profile Nobler (50" ws, 542 dq", 35-40)

Sig
Banshee (49" ws, 510 sq", 29-40)
Twister (48" ws, 490 sq", 29-40)

I'd also appreciate any recommendations for other kits that I may not be aware of.

Thanks, guys!

CurtD

[Tom Niebuhr]

Better than a profile and simple.

[peabody]

Bingo on the HoBo....
Built up fuselage will yield better engine runs....
It is all laser cut...

[Allen Brickhaus]

Good choice on Tom's Ho-Bo.

Allen

[john e. holliday]

Have you asked Tom Dixon about one of his kits?    He does have some  great designs and already knows how to set them up.

[Brian Massey]

I will throw the Trophy Trainer into the mix. Very competent flyer and easy to build. My TT has gotten me through the pattern, through intermediate and now into advanced. Not sure of any kits in current production, but can be scratch built easily.

Keep it in mind.

Brian

[Joseph Lijoi]

Have you asked Tom Dixon about one of his kits?    He does have some  great designs and already knows how to set them up.

Very good advice.   

Your engine choice will make a difference.  Fox 35s are difficult (for me anyway) to get running on a profile so that it doesn't burp etc. but it can be done. The Hobo is a great choice for the Fox.  Newer engines (OS LA) vibrate less and are better for a profile.

[Brett Buck]

Better than a profile and simple.

   That's a good idea, I have taken several stabs at this myself - small enough for a Fox, big enough for reasonable speed with a 20/25FP, upright engine, and easy to build full fuse.

   Mine was called "Gilroy Standard Stunter" or something like that. I gave a guy in Gilroy the plans, and he never finished the airplane and I haven't seen him in about 20 years! It was more-or less an updated Fancherized Twister with a larger tail and a nice simple easy-to-build full fuse. It was an intended replacement for a Twister variant with a 40FP, which was typically miserable.

    It's absurdly quick and simple to build these square-ish fuselages. It took me about 20 minutes to build the fuse on an All-American. It's probably easier than a profile. And you can get a real big-boy engine run. We know enough more about Foxes now than the good old days that as long as you put it upright it will give nearly modern performance.

    Brett

[Tom Niebuhr]

"The Hobo is a great choice for the Fox.

Hobos have been well tested and flown with Fox .35s, Brodak .40s and FP & LA .40s ( I love it with more power, but it not necessary.)

 The airplane will fly great with any engine from the .20/25 FP up through a .40. Mine currently has a FP .40. Since it was a test bed for a variety of engines, I added the equivalent to a tip weight under the stab with access through the side.

The advantage is that it is simple and provides a solid platform for the engine, tank and tail surfaces. This = less vibration, better engine runs and no twisting of the horizontal tail surface. The airplane is capable of very good patterns and covers from the beginner through advance.

As Brett said, it is no more difficult to build. Profiles are perceived to easy to build, but in almost all cases they are not any easier,and will not fly as good.

Having flown before, this is a good choice, that has a modern airfoil and modern moments.

[Larry Fernandez]

Unless your dead set on building a plane with flaps and dealing with the trim issues that come with them,
I would seriously consider building a Skyray, powered with an FP .20
A most excellent trainer that is very easy to build , very rugged and is quit capable of putting up 500 point flights.

Larry, Buttafucco Stunt Team

[Joseph Lijoi]

"The Hobo is a great choice for the Fox.

Hobos have been well tested and flown with Fox .35s, Brodak .40s and FP & LA .40s ( I love it with more power, but it not necessary.)

 The airplane will fly great with any engine from the .20/25 FP up through a .40. Mine currently has a FP .40. Since it was a test bed for a variety of engines, I added the equivalent to a tip weight under the stab with access through the side.

The advantage is that it is simple and provides a solid platform for the engine, tank and tail surfaces. This = less vibration, better engine runs and no twisting of the horizontal tail surface. The airplane is capable of very good patterns and covers from the beginner through advance.

As Brett said, it is no more difficult to build. Profiles are perceived to easy to build, but in almost all cases they are not any easier,and will not fly as good.

Having flown before, this is a good choice, that has a modern airfoil and modern moments.

Tom

Sorry, I was just saying that I thought the Fox 35s did not run so well on profiles (my experience), and that your design was a better choice for someone that insisted on flying a Fox 35. My bad.

So when is the kit coming out anyway?  Have you updated your site to show rib sets etc, or are we going to have to wait for a kit release?

[FLOYD CARTER]

I believe Curt was inquiring about a kit, not a scratch-build.  The Ho-Bo came out in MA, but I don't know of a kit for it.

The quality of Brodak and RSM kits is very good, so any of them should be fine.  I don't see how anyone could go wrong with a profile Nobler. Although I don't use Fox 35 engines, many do.  The dreaded "burp" isn't that serious-- and I've only seen a couple of them that actually did that.

Floyd

[Steve Helmick]

Tom Niebuhr designed and cut the first laser kits for the Hobo and did the article. His website doesn't currently show the Hobo, but I'm pretty sure he has kits available for it.  http://blueskymodels.net/  It doesn't look like he has it updated, which often happens with all cottage industry websites...first product, and the website doesn't get the attention as much as the kits and such. Why doesn't Tom have a 'forum' down in the Vendor's section??? 

All that said, I flew 2nd hand "Fancherized Twister" from Beginner, through Intermediate and into Advanced. I've been flying it in Profile and flying piped planes in Advanced. I finally decided to just fly one plane gave the F'Twister to Tim Wescott, right down to the lines, handle, and a spare prop. Except that the handle didn't come close to fitting Tim's big paw, so I kept it. I have scored higher (just over 500) with the F'Twister than with either piped plane, but I've moved to Expert and happy that I did.

So, in summary, I'm in favor of the Twister, even stock, IF you put the right power on it and get it trimmed properly. Can't say that I've ever seen a stock Twister fly, but a Magnum XLS .36 would be my 1st choice, and a .46LA would be my 2nd choice. Nice engines, pretty consistently. I'd use a Randy Aero CNC tube muffler and either a Thunder Tiger Cyclone 11-4.5 (Magnum .36) or an APC 11.5-4 or 12.25 x 3.75 on the .46. Some times, extra thrust from a bigger diameter propeller is just the thing to save the day!  Steve 

[Tim Wescott]

I finally decided to just fly one plane gave the F'Twister to Tim Wescott, right down to the lines, handle, and a spare prop. Except that the handle didn't come close to fitting Tim's big paw, so I kept it.

And it was a damned nice plane, too.  I don't have a huge amount of experience with planes in general, but the Skyray is a real nice plane to begin on, and a Fancherized twister is a real nice plane to intermediate on (although it'll be harder to repair than a Skyray would, after what I did to it this Saturday).  I can't say about advancing or experting, because I haven't done that, yet.

[Steve Helmick]

Uh-oh....post pictures of the damage, Tim. What happened? Have you been using the tacho to set the launch rpm or setting it by ear again? LUKE, USE THE TACH!  Steve

[Tim Wescott]

Uh-oh....post pictures of the damage, Tim. What happened? Have you been using the tacho to set the launch rpm or setting it by ear again? LUKE, USE THE TACH!  Steve

Reply here, so's I don't hijack the thread http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php?topic=29458.0

[Randy Cuberly]

I'm going to be the odd man out here and answer the question as it was stated.

While I would agree that the Hobo would be a good choice as a stunt trainer, it's not a kit currently.

Of the airplanes listed in your question and all those discussed the Brodak Cardinal (kit built not the ARF) is hands down the best flier for the modern stunt pattern and very easy to build and doesn't require any serious modifications to be so.  I've built two of them from kits.

As to the question of flaps adding trimming difficulty...I don't agree.  In fact they add a trimming tool that allows leveling of the wings in level flight to be accomplished very easy without the necessity of adding trim tabs or chasing warps as with airplanes built without flaps...just look around you'll see some!

Built straight from the kit the Cardinal has the potential to be as good as most of the modern stunters around...It's just easier to build and repair.
It's easy to trim, responsive and stable.  It's also stronger construction than most of those mentioned and that's very important, especially if covered with "Kote", when learning the pattern.  There will be some Uhhhh...mishaps.  Plastic film covering simplifys repairs etc., and a lot of the airplanes mentioned have wing construction that is not stiff enough with film covering.  Talk about trim problems...

For power I would strongly reccommend an OS LA46.  This combination is nearly perfect and will get anyone through the learning process with the least fuss possible.

If you fly with folks the caliber of Tom Dixon trimming an airplane like this will be no problem...Tom is a good fellow and will certainly offer help and advice when asked.

My sage advice!!

Randy Cuberly

[builditright]

Sorry for the self plug here but I offer some pretty good profiles also both flapped and none flapped
and have or will convert any of them for electric if you desire.

http://www.builtrightflyright.com/

[Joshua Harel]

The goal as stated was to get into the air with a good flapped airplane. Why not consider a Brodak Smoothie - either ARC or ARF? I am a retread and went the ARF route. I had the plane flying and trimmed in no time. Upright Fox 35 - works like it's on a mission to please:) Total cost including shipping was less than $150 ready to fly. So far it has proven to be a very reliable, predictable performer. The only hinderance is my slow learning curve.
Just my 2c.
Joshua

[Tom Niebuhr]

The first ads for the Hobo kit will be in the next issue of Stunt News.  

I have not had a chance to update the web site due to other commitments, computers crashing, eye surgery, etc. I am beginning to catch up now.

The Hobo is now offered three ways. Ribs; Short kit; and full kit. I will hopefully be catching up on current orders for the Hobo starting next week. The kit plan is a little different in some of the details and will be a 36" x 60" sheet. There are no changes in the design from the published plan.

[FLOYD CARTER]

Good luck with it, Tom.  Hobo looks easy to build.  I haven't seen one fly, but I see nothing in the basic design that doesn't look right.

Floyd

[SteveMoon]

Curt: To answer the original question: I'd say go with the Profile Gieseke Nobler.
The G N is one of the all time great flying planes. Multiple Nats winner, and I won
Classic Stunt at the Nats flying a G N in 2010. The profile version would be a
great way to get back into flying after a long layoff.

Later, Steve

[ChrisSarnowski]

Personally I would go with the Twister or Hobo.

The Twister is an inexpensive kit and an easy build. Cheap to replace too.

Lots of flight learning to be had with a Twister!

Hobo supposed to be a good flyer and doesn't look hard to build.

-Chris

[Curt Diggs]

WOW! I've not had a chance to come back to this thread for a few days and boy, was I surprised! Thank you all for the great responses! The opinions and advice have given me much food for thought about how to proceed.

I'm really drawn to the profile Nobler. I built several Noblers when I was young and loved the way they fly. But... from a purely practical standpoint it seems to me the Twister is hard to beat, especially if it's Fancherized. The kits from Sig are cheap (~$50) and I can do the Fancher mods with no problems. I've got a several old, but good Fox .35s, a Fox .40, an OS Max 35 S, and a great little OS .25 LA that's on the Ringmaster. I think any of those would work on the FTwister but I would probably start with the OS Max 35 S. It's going on the Ringmaster soon to get some air time. I bought it used but it appears to be virtually new so I ran it through some break-in on the bench. It really runs sweet on a 10x5.

Anybody flying a Twister that was built from the Sig kit? How did you find the kit quality?

Curt

[Brett Buck]

WOW! I've not had a chance to come back to this thread for a few days and boy, was I surprised! Thank you all for the great responses! The opinions and advice have given me much food for thought about how to proceed.

I'm really drawn to the profile Nobler. I built several Noblers when I was young and loved the way they fly. But... from a purely practical standpoint it seems to me the Twister is hard to beat, especially if it's Fancherized. The kits from Sig are cheap (~$50) and I can do the Fancher mods with no problems. I've got a several old, but good Fox .35s, a Fox .40, an OS Max 35 S, and a great little OS .25 LA that's on the Ringmaster. I think any of those would work on the FTwister but I would probably start with the OS Max 35 S. It's going on the Ringmaster soon to get some air time. I bought it used but it appears to be virtually new so I ran it through some break-in on the bench. It really runs sweet on a 10x5.
Curt

    Do whatever you like, of course, but I would not overlook Tom's kit. Full-fuse airplanes really do tend to have better or much better engine runs, particularly with vintage engines. And these types of fuselage are at least as easy to build as a profile fuse.

     If you are going to build a profile, I would strongly suggest sticking with a modern engine like a 25fp or LA, since the vibration level is much lower.

    Brett

[Randy Cuberly]

Curt: To answer the original question: I'd say go with the Profile Gieseke Nobler.
The G N is one of the all time great flying planes. Multiple Nats winner, and I won
Classic Stunt at the Nats flying a G N in 2010. The profile version would be a
great way to get back into flying after a long layoff.

Later, Steve

UUhhhh Steve, I think the Nobler listed in the original question is the BMJR Kit and that's a sorta version of the Green Box airplane not the G. Nobler.

Might still be a good choice but of course I have my own opinions.

Randy Cuberly

[Tim Wescott]

Curt, I'm building a Fancherized Twister now.  The kit quality is good for a non-laser cut kit.  Unless you splice things onto the existing parts, you'll be throwing away a lot of parts.  After you toss out the fuselage, empenage, and (if you're using ball links and an arrow shaft for a pushrod) half the hardware, you're leaving an awful lot of stuff in the box.

If you do it more like Ted showed in his article (i.e., splice in the fuselage and the tail feathers) then you'll use a lot more of the kit.

[john e. holliday]

I had one years ago and was built almost box stock.   The Fox .35 Stunt was not up to snuff for it.   It needs to be light.

[Russell Shaffer]

I have a Twister that started as a Sig kit 4 years ago.  After breaking the fuselage for the fifth time I cut the original wing out of the mess and built a new, extended fuselage.  The wing never broke in all of my over-grass crashes and is still in service and flying well.  If you are in a hurry to fly, just build the stock kit and go with it.

[Brett Buck]

I'd just get an ARF Vector/LA46, you'll be crashing allot learning the pattern.

  Maybe, but once you get done with the tooling to build the first conventional airplane (A Hobo, prifile Nobler, etc), it's like as not easier and faster to put those together than it is to start with an ARF and make all the adjustments necessary. It's not like you can really slap them together in a few hours. It took Ted and I something like 40-50 man-hours to get the Strega ARF in shape to fly properly, and it's not like we don't know what we are doing. And the Strega can fly safely with the stock controls. I can easily put together flapless profiles with Monokote/Epoxy finishes in that amount of time,.

    You overall point is a good one. I reiterate my previous position that during the learning process one should definitely have several identical airplanes and engines, and take them all to the field every time. Fly, if you crash, just go get the next one off the stack, and keep flying. Repair between sessions. What I see far too often, and far more with beginners, is that they go to the field, encounter the first problem, and then quit and come back next week. Almost anything you can do at home you can do at the field, if you are prepared for it, and having multiple airplanes and engines ready to go takes care of anything you can't fix at the field. You gotta jump back on the horse.

    Doing this (ARFs will get pretty expensive after you buy 4 of them...) however it is managed will greatly shorten the learning process.

   Brett

[Joseph Lijoi]

  Maybe, but once you get done with the tooling to build the first conventional airplane (A Hobo, prifile Nobler, etc), it's like as not easier and faster to put those together than it is to start with an ARF and make all the adjustments necessary. It's not like you can really slap them together in a few hours. It took Ted and I something like 40-50 man-hours to get the Strega ARF in shape to fly properly, and it's not like we don't know what we are doing. And the Strega can fly safely with the stock controls. I can easily put together flapless profiles with Monokote/Epoxy finishes in that amount of time,.

    You overall point is a good one. I reiterate my previous position that during the learning process one should definitely have several identical airplanes and engines, and take them all to the field every time. Fly, if you crash, just go get the next one off the stack, and keep flying. Repair between sessions. What I see far too often, and far more with beginners, is that they go to the field, encounter the first problem, and then quit and come back next week. Almost anything you can do at home you can do at the field, if you are prepared for it, and having multiple airplanes and engines ready to go takes care of anything you can't fix at the field. You gotta jump back on the horse.

    Doing this (ARFs will get pretty expensive after you buy 4 of them...) however it is managed will greatly shorten the learning process.

   Brett

Bretts advice is excellent and there is a lot of info out there.  The Skyray is very easy to build, has a low parts count and more importantly is easy to build straight because of the jig tabs on the ribs.  It will fly better than the Ringmaster.  It would be nice if someone made balsa rib sets with the jig tabs.

There are certainly many good airplanes but crashing/reliability is really part of the equation.  You will stuff the airplane no doubt.  If you have muscle eye coordination from flying RC pattern or something your chances are better.

ARFs do require that you "cherry pick" to make sure you have a straight wing and you need to do various mods especially to the nose.  The ARF Flite Streak is good.  There is info out there on the Skyray and the Flite Streak.  Google Brett Buck Skyray.  In the time you can build the Tanager you can build three Skyrays and the FP 25 will work just fine and not go rich inverted etc.

Part of the fun you are having with that Ringmaster is that FP 25.  I am sure that I will hear about it but a Fox 35 on that Ringmaster, while very nostalgic, really sucks compared to that FP. 

[Tim Wescott]

We're assuming that Curt is a beginner, by the way.  At the 2011 Fall Follies a guy showed up who'd only flown for a month or two after a 30-odd year hiatus.  He posted 444 flight points in Sportsman Profile.

So all the talk about whether a flapless plane is best for a beginner may be misplaced...

[Curt Diggs]

I admit I'm intrigued by the ARFs/ARCs which definitely would be the fastest way to get into the air. It also sounds like they (at least the Brodak ones) are well-built and fly well. But... I enjoy building and will go that route as long as I'm able to hold an X-acto knife and a glue tube. I built the Ringmaster from plans and changed a few things to suit me so kit bashing the Twister like Ted F. shows in his article is a good way to go for me. I think having multiple airplanes of the same type with identical engines and set up the same way is a very good idea. So... I'll order two Twister kits and see if I can find another good OS 35 S.

How would the LA .25 work in the Twister? It pulls the Ringmaster which is pretty heavy at 31 oz around very well on a 10/4.

I'm not exactly a beginner in C/L, it's just been one heck of a long time and I can already tell my reflexes aren't what they used to be... :-) I never flew in any contests or anything when I was younger, but I could do most of the pattern. The low outside corners to inverted always gave me the willies so I never did 'em much. Have to get over that.

I do have a lot of R/C experience and I'm still semi-active in SPA (Senior Pattern Association) flying a Tigertail IV. I was Sportsman Division National champ way back in ought two, for what that's worth...

Curt

[Tim Wescott]

Curt, I asked here about engine choices for the Twister and got a lot of responses, some of them contradictory.  Read this thread for all the opinions: http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php?topic=26808.0

To summarize, the LA25 or an OS35S is probably at the very bottom of the acceptable range for that plane.  The few people who did assure me that an LA 25 would work are people who I know to both be good at flying and good at building light.  Most everyone else suggested a modern 35-45 engine (and the 35S isn't modern: I'm pretty sure that its power output is going to be close to the LA 25).  I've found that the modern motors, running fast on a flat-pitch prop, do seem to help power me through a lot of incompetence both at the building table and at the flying field.

But -- read the thread, and make up your own mind.

[SteveMoon]

Oops, my mistake. For some reason I thought I read profile G Nobler.

Steve

[Andrew Hathaway]

If you can build a 31oz Twister, a 25LA would probably fly it.  The problem is that Sig kits don't always contain the lightest wood.  You might have to substitute lighter wood to reach that goal.  A modern 35-46 gives more room for error.  At the same time, that 31oz Twister would probably fly just fine on a Fox 35, older OS 35S, etc assuming you know how to run the engine, are willing to work within it's capabilites and requirements, and also that the stars align just right so the engine runs favorably on the plane.  I scratch built a Twister a few years ago, with fair to light wood, and it flies fine on a 20FP, I've flown it on a 35/40fp, Fox 35, and OS 35S, never lacked enough power but the 20FP had the best match of power and engine run to the plane.  Most people will use a modern 40 or 46 on a Twister, and for typical kit wood and intermediate patterns, it works just fine.  But I wouldn't worry much about building the plane for a 35S, since the 35/40FP, and 40/46LA will bolt into the same mount holes with very light persuasion.  You can try both without really modifying the plane and see which you prefer.

[Randy Cuberly]

Oops, my mistake. For some reason I thought I read profile G Nobler.

Steve

Steve,
Welcome to the Old Mans Club...with me a lot of other guys here.   

Randy Cuberly

[Curt Diggs]

Curt, I asked here about engine choices for the Twister and got a lot of responses, some of them contradictory.  Read this thread for all the opinions: http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php?topic=26808.0

To summarize, the LA25 or an OS35S is probably at the very bottom of the acceptable range for that plane.  The few people who did assure me that an LA 25 would work are people who I know to both be good at flying and good at building light.  Most everyone else suggested a modern 35-45 engine (and the 35S isn't modern: I'm pretty sure that its power output is going to be close to the LA 25).  I've found that the modern motors, running fast on a flat-pitch prop, do seem to help power me through a lot of incompetence both at the building table and at the flying field.

But -- read the thread, and make up your own mind.

Thanks for posting that link, Tim. Lots of good info there. It seems the LA .46 has a strong following. :-) It appears from all the comments that the LA 25 would probably work as long as you kept it light. But I guess from what I read that means possibly having to replace some of the heavy wood in the kit. That's not a big problem but it does somewhat detract from the idea of a low-cost, good performance flapped stunt trainer.  I guess if you're gonna Fancherize it anyway, the point is moot. In the long run, I guess I have to agree that more available power is better and a stronger engine would be a better choice.

I personally think my OS .35S is a bit stronger than my LA .25 but that's pretty subjective. I'll know better after I get it on the Ringmaster and fly it some. It does run strong on the bench. I've got tongue mufflers coming for both soon (I hope) to help lighten the load on the Ringmaster a bit.

Funny, I have several of the APC 12.5 x 3.75 props hanging on the wall. They are the the perfect match to an ST .45 and an RC U-Can-Do for 3D flying.

I saw your post about being a design engineer and sometimes over-thinking things and had to laugh. I'm a control systems engineer, mostly working as a consultant now, but I could sure identify with your statement. Sometimes we just have to relax and just have fun! :-)

Curt