Author Topic: Plane Choice (Read 7792 times)

Randy Powell · « **on:** September 15, 2008, 06:53:31 PM »

If you were an Advanced flier and were ready to move up to expert, what plane would you suggest as an entry level ship? Say, something full fuselage. A full boogie stunt plane. Power train?

Bradley Walker · « **Reply #1 on:** September 15, 2008, 07:04:14 PM »

T-Rex...

My favorite best performer kits (that go pretty much where you point them):

Saturn (UHP)
SV-22 (Randy Smith)
Time Machine (Dixon)

Engines? There are lots. My favorite basic engine is the PA 65 RE on a muffler and the Big Jim style ST 60.

Gene Martine · « **Reply #2 on:** September 15, 2008, 07:22:16 PM »

Any one of Randy Smith SV series. All great flying models.
Gene

john e. holliday · « **Reply #3 on:** September 16, 2008, 09:26:16 AM »

Why not stay with what you already know? I have seen your planes you flew at VSC and they were gorgeous. I would love to see one of the ones you have pictured in person that you have built and finished for AMA competition. I think you just need a good coach and more training(flying). Now go pick up the handle backwards, DOC Holliday

Randy Powell · « **Reply #4 on:** September 16, 2008, 12:10:13 PM »

Doc,

Sorry, not me. I have a friend that has been flying Advanced with a profile Cardinal. He was asking. He is ready to build a full blast stunt ship, but is kinda wondering what would be something that is reliable and relatively easy to build. Something to wear out practicing the pattern. I made some suggestions, but thought I would post here to see what other input might surface.

I told him there were a lot of good kits around or if he had something else in mind, I could probably talk Pat Johnston into laser cutting him a kit.

Dennis Vander Kuur · « **Reply #5 on:** September 16, 2008, 01:37:35 PM »

I was flying a kit-built profile Pathfinder when I moved from Advanced to Expert. For my first full-fuse plane I picked the Allen Brickhaus LEGACY. The kit was inexpensive, easy to build, and the plane flies great. Mine is powered by a PA .65 with a pipe. I know of others who've had success powering theirs with the much less expensive SuperTigre .51. I liked the first one so much I built a second. I was considering building a third but, unfortunately, Brodak shows these kits as currently being out of stock. I've heard the next run is supposed to be laser cut instead of diecut.
DennisV

Randy Powell · « **Reply #6 on:** September 16, 2008, 01:43:28 PM »

Dennis,

Oddly, my suggestions were a Legacy or an SV-11.

Nice looking bird, by the way.

John Miller · « **Reply #7 on:** September 16, 2008, 02:55:27 PM »

Along with the Legacy, I would add the Vector 40, if we're talking about kits. I own, and have flown both in competition.

Now there are soo many good flying designs out there, that almost any modern airframe will be more than adequate. I've even found that many Classic designs will serve as double duty for a pilot making the transition to Expert. Consider the Shark 45, or the All American Eagle as two I'm quite familiar with.

Bob Reeves · « **Reply #8 on:** September 16, 2008, 03:10:30 PM »

Yep, Legacy is a great airplane as it should be.. If memory serves Allen says in the magazine article it's basically a Genesis 46 with a rudder and canopy. First one may have even had a foam wing.. Have the article here someplace but been a while since I read it so... Allen please forgive me if I'm wrong.

If you can't get the kit buy a wing from Bob Hunt, or the lost foam jig, get the plans and build it.. Easy airplane to build and a great flyer... I have two kits but they are both getting ready to be built by Joe Gilbert and I.. He will probably use the PA 61 and pipe out of Hide and I'm going with a Saito 62.

Gary Anderson · « **Reply #9 on:** September 16, 2008, 03:29:45 PM »

Hi Randy,

Whats wrong having him build one of your designs. All your planes look great, have the new style wing construction and I believe he will have one of the greatest teacher at his door step. How could he lose. I would have him go with one of your designs and coach him. (You know all the pluses with your design and that means a lot.) Have a great day, Gary

John Miller · « **Reply #10 on:** September 16, 2008, 03:42:41 PM »

Hey Bob, your memory is pretty good. I worked with Allen, doing the CAD work for the LEGACY. Allen had a foam wing ready to go, so the first one did indeed have such a wing. The plane is so easy to build that a scratch built, from the plans would be a cinch. There's all the information needed on the plans, and if that's not enough, there is a pattern sheet available from either Brodak, or myself. Also, don't fotget that there is a reduced size Legacy. Walt Moore reduced the original file to create the Legacy 40, should that size be more desirable.

Howard Rush · « **Reply #11 on:** September 16, 2008, 03:54:39 PM »

I don't know why you're asking, but I'd get an Impact with a RO-Jett .65.

Steve Holt · « **Reply #12 on:** September 16, 2008, 05:01:25 PM »

I'm certainly not in that catagory so far as flying skill, but being an engineer, I looked for data. What is the best flyer around flying today? Based on recent world championship results, data would indicate a Trivial Pursuit with a PA75. RSM kits the TP, so it would be easy to do. I bet David would even help with any mods needed to the TP.
Steve

Brett Buck · « **Reply #13 on:** September 16, 2008, 07:18:54 PM »

Quote from: Steve Holt on September 16, 2008, 05:01:25 PM

I'm certainly not in that catagory so far as flying skill, but being an engineer, I looked for data. What is the best flyer around flying today? Based on recent world championship results, data would indicate a Trivial Pursuit with a PA75. RSM kits the TP, so it would be easy to do. I bet David would even help with any mods needed to the TP.
Steve

Dave's new airplane IS NOT a Trivial Pursuit. It's his own design but it's probably closest to being a full-fuselage "Imitation", or a Trivial Pursuit with a Thunderbolt wing with cut-down flaps.

Having said that, a real Trivial Pursuit with any of the current 61-75 engines would also be a good choice and there's a kit for it. An Impact would also be a very good choice and there's a kit for that. And don't overlook the Vector 40 kit - with a Aero-Tiger 36 o equivalent this is a very potent airplane, by far the best-flying "35-sized" airplane I have ever seen.

And remember, as long as you have a reasonable design, the quality of construction, trim and engine run are far more important than any particular design. Getting a perfect engine run is 95% of the equation.

Brett

Randy Powell · « **Reply #14 on:** September 16, 2008, 08:24:09 PM »

Thanks guys. The guy is not local to me, so I can only work with him through the phone or email. sigh...

I agree with Brett on getting the right engine run. Based on what I know, he doesn't have any problem with getting an engine to run.

Brett Buck · « **Reply #15 on:** September 16, 2008, 11:20:39 PM »

Quote from: Randy Powell on September 16, 2008, 08:24:09 PM

I agree with Brett on getting the right engine run. Based on what I know, he doesn't have any problem with getting an engine to run.

Well, at least I know when to keep trying and when to give up! That's about 75% of the battle. Just like anything else in this event, it's a matter of attention to detail and knowing what you are shooting for.

Brett

Bradley Walker · « **Reply #16 on:** September 17, 2008, 06:07:09 AM »

Note: The Legacy, SV 11, and T-Rex will all be available in ARF and ARC form in the next shipping container (March?).

Randy Powell · « **Reply #17 on:** September 17, 2008, 11:33:04 AM »

Pete,

He's been flying a Cardinal profile with, I think OS 46LA. A fine combination, but he wanted to move to a bit more consistent equipment. I just sent him an OS40VF (one of three I had). He's decided on something in the 600-650 square inch range. Probably a Randy Smith plane (he's decided he wants to build something from scratch) but maybe a smaller Legacy. He said he'd call when he decided. I also sent him the approved Brett Buck "here's how you run an OS40VF" cheat sheet. Worked for me.

Bradley Walker · « **Reply #18 on:** September 17, 2008, 11:39:32 AM »

I would go with smaller new Randy designs for the OS 40 VF.

Catana/Shrike

These are really great "tweaner" designs not needing a gob of power.

Randy Powell · « **Reply #19 on:** September 17, 2008, 02:00:38 PM »

Brad,

Yea, that was my suggestion. Particularly the Shirke. A local guy is flying one of those and it is pretty impressive on a PA 40 with pipe.

Brett Buck · « **Reply #20 on:** September 17, 2008, 05:21:43 PM »

Quote from: Randy Powell on September 17, 2008, 11:33:04 AM

I also sent him the approved Brett Buck "here's how you run an OS40VF" cheat sheet. Worked for me.

Which, I hasten to add is actually the Paul Walker "how you run an OS40VF" cheat sheet, and while I can't check for sure right now, is essentially identical to the setup described in the Impact article in 1991.

All I did is read it and then pass it along.

As far as I am concerned there is *no* better system to start with, and it has proven literally unbeatable in NATs competition, as recently as 2005. Excellent choice and perfect for the larger airplanes I recommended above.

Brett

Randy Powell · « **Reply #21 on:** September 17, 2008, 08:51:04 PM »

Brett,

While certainly it was Paul original list, I got it from you and saw you run one. Pretty bullet proof setup.

Steve Helmick · « **Reply #22 on:** September 17, 2008, 09:50:19 PM »

THE best .40VF powered plane I've seen (well, other than Paul and Howard's ImpActs) was Monty Summach's "Shrike". I think it's the ideal size for the engine, and might be why Mike Haverly decided to build his Shrike. Or not! The Saturn is another excellent choice, tho knowing the altitude and typical weather might affect the choice. Varley loves his Saturns with the Stalker .51 rear exhaust/header muffler. Not terribly expensive, and is happy as a clam on zero nitro.

Steve

Joe Yau · « **Reply #23 on:** September 20, 2008, 10:47:53 AM »

Quote from: Steve Helmick on September 17, 2008, 09:50:19 PM

Varley loves his Saturns with the Stalker .51 rear exhaust/header muffler. Not terribly expensive, and is happy as a clam on zero nitro. Steve

I thought Chris Cox has the Saturn, and Keith Varley have the Oriental Plus with the Stalker.. I have never seen Keith with the Saturn. Is that his new plane?

kvarley · « **Reply #24 on:** September 20, 2008, 11:42:46 AM »

Yes Steve , You goofed. I have had two Saturns . I used a piped Magnum 36 in one , and a Stalker 61 on the other. I personally prefer the Stalker to a piped setup. I currently have two flyable Oriental Plus's . One has P.A. 40 on pipe , and the other has the Stalker 51. I so much prefer to fly the Stalker one. Just my personal feelings , but for my taste , the Stalker 51 is the friendliest engine I've ever used , and as anyone will tell you , the engine run is the MOST important part of the equation. Keith Varley

Steve Helmick · « **Reply #25 on:** September 20, 2008, 05:21:57 PM »

Ok, Keith. So I don't hear very well, either. So, the Oriental Plus is another good choice. I'm a bit surprised that you'd want a .51 in one, but whatever works, right? The Stalker, on zero nitro wouldn't need a huge tank, and they're light and compact...not like a ST G.51...which might be great in a Saturn or Shrike.

Steve

kvarley · « **Reply #26 on:** September 20, 2008, 06:23:27 PM »

That's right . The Stalker 51 compares nicely power wise to a ro-jet 40 on pipe. Definately less power than a PA 40 on pipe , but for a beginner ,who doesnt want to go through the learning curve and expense associated with tuned pipes , is a good choice. Actually on my two Oriental Plus planes I ended up with nose weight , so the Stalker 61 might be even a better choice , if you subscribe to the common theory that bigger is better . You would still get a nice 2-4 break , which is what Stalkers do so well , and on very little fuel . My 51 needs 3 1/2 ounce of 10 % with the .300" ventury that is supplied , and in the hot weather ,if I use a .310" venturi it needs about 4 ounces of 10%. Also the Oriental Plus is one very easy build, (kit or plans)
Keith Varley

Steve Helmick · « **Reply #27 on:** September 20, 2008, 08:49:15 PM »

Glad to hear that Mike isn't the only one that has planes come out tailheavy. I guess. Seems like most complaints are about having to add an ounce or more of tailweight. Anyway, this indicates to me that another 1/2-1 inch of nose length would be a good mod to make on the O+, and maybe the Shrike, too? I was beginning to think that Mike had never seen a light piece of balsa, but says he weighed everything on his Ohaus before use. I hope that means he used the calculator program to figure the density, not just the lightest he had on hand.

Steve

Tom Niebuhr · « **Reply #28 on:** September 21, 2008, 08:12:02 AM »

I always recommend that people go to a full bodied stunter as soon as possible. More consistant engine runs in most cases, non flexing of fuselage... just a better flying package. (And yes there are a few profiles with modern construction that are better than those available in the past) Advanced flyers should be flying full bodied stunters long before they get to expert.

It is just my opinion, but in most cases when someone says that "I am not ready for a full bodied airplane" they don't realize that it is the airplane that is holding them back.

Even the better Classics will fly better and give a 2 event airplane, yielding more competition experience.

For expert and high level advance flyers, you are ready for the best eqiupment, and many of these have been mentioned above.

Gary Anderson · « **Reply #29 on:** October 02, 2008, 11:52:15 PM »

Quote from: Dennis Vander Kuur on September 16, 2008, 01:37:35 PM

I was flying a kit-built profile Pathfinder when I moved from Advanced to Expert. For my first full-fuse plane I picked the Allen Brickhaus LEGACY. The kit was inexpensive, easy to build, and the plane flies great. Mine is powered by a PA .65 with a pipe. I know of others who've had success powering theirs with the much less expensive SuperTigre .51. I liked the first one so much I built a second. I was considering building a third but, unfortunately, Brodak shows these kits as currently being out of stock. I've heard the next run is supposed to be laser cut instead of diecut.
DennisV

Hi guys,

I've just cut out all the parts for a Legacy. Don't much about the ship and was wondering if there is any item that needs to be changed to make her a better ship. I have several Merco 61 engine and thought this would be a nice ship for them. The design looks very good and plenty of room for different type engines. Do they fly as well as the strega? I'm flying a arf strega with a saito 62 and love the set up. (My stiletto with the merco 49 flys better, don't tell anyone) I've the stiletto 35 in frame at the moment and decided to build the legacy. I hope she turns as well as the Stiletto. I would appreciate any input, Thank You Gary

Dennis Vander Kuur · « **Reply #30 on:** October 03, 2008, 12:34:24 PM »

"I've just cut out all the parts for a Legacy. Don't much about the ship and was wondering if there is any item that needs to be changed to make her a better ship."

Gary,
Last year I asked Allen Brickhaus, designer of the Legacy, if there was anything he could now think of to improve the Legacy design. His reply was "No".
However, having built two Legacy planes there are some things you might find helpful..
First, be sure you bend the main landing gear wire based on the plan SIDE VIEW not the FRONT VIEW. Both of mine were built from BRODAK kits and the main landing gear legs in the kits were incorrect. They were bent to match the FRONT VIEW of the plans. Unfortunately, because the gear is angled forward, bending them based on the front view versus the side view means the gear is too short. Therefore, the wheel location is too far back and the plane will have a tendency to tip on it's nose on landing especially when flying on grass. You could bend the kit gear forward but then you'd lose prop clearance.
Second, the forward leadout wire rubs on the vertical hardwood block that secures the main landing gear wire. So cut clearance for the leadout cable in this block BEFORE installing it. After it is glued in place it's almost impossible to get to it to cut clearance for the leadout cable (ask me how I know).
Third, if you cover the wings/tail with plastic film plan on some way to easily add tail weight. Both of my Legacy's came out nose heavy. I had to add 1 to 1 1/2 ounces of lead to the tail to get them to balance per the plan's CG ( I use a PA .65 with pipe).
Good luck with your Legacy. I hope you enjoy yours as much as I have enjoyed mine.
DennisV

Gary Anderson · « **Reply #31 on:** October 03, 2008, 01:40:45 PM »

Quote from: Dennis Vander Kuur on October 03, 2008, 12:34:24 PM

"I've just cut out all the parts for a Legacy. Don't much about the ship and was wondering if there is any item that needs to be changed to make her a better ship."

Gary,
Last year I asked Allen Brickhaus, designer of the Legacy, if there was anything he could now think of to improve the Legacy design. His reply was "No".
However, having built two Legacy planes there are some things you might find helpful..
First, be sure you bend the main landing gear wire based on the plan SIDE VIEW not the FRONT VIEW. Both of mine were built from BRODAK kits and the main landing gear legs in the kits were incorrect. They were bent to match the FRONT VIEW of the plans. Unfortunately, because the gear is angled forward, bending them based on the front view versus the side view means the gear is too short. Therefore, the wheel location is too far back and the plane will have a tendency to tip on it's nose on landing especially when flying on grass. You could bend the kit gear forward but then you'd lose prop clearance.
Second, the forward leadout wire rubs on the vertical hardwood block that secures the main landing gear wire. So cut clearance for the leadout cable in this block BEFORE installing it. After it is glued in place it's almost impossible to get to it to cut clearance for the leadout cable (ask me how I know).
Third, if you cover the wings/tail with plastic film plan on some way to easily add tail weight. Both of my Legacy's came out nose heavy. I had to add 1 to 1 1/2 ounces of lead to the tail to get them to balance per the plan's CG ( I use a PA .65 with pipe).
Good luck with your Legacy. I hope you enjoy yours as much as I have enjoyed mine.
DennisV

Hi Dennis,
Thank you the information, I will bend the landing gear to clear the grass and I'll make sure the lead-outs clear.
Could tell me what is best weight for this baby? I like to use merco engine, cause if she comes out lite enough I can use a merco 49 in place of the merco 61. Both engines run great and I love the sound of them. I know there is better engine but the sound of these babies reminds me of some of my younger days.

Dennis thank you again, Gary

Dennis Vander Kuur · « **Reply #32 on:** October 03, 2008, 05:18:21 PM »

"Could tell me what is best weight for this baby?"

Gary,
Everyone has their own opinion on what the ideal weight might be for a specific airplane. All I can tell you is that both of mine weighed in at 58 ounces when built. I ended up adding about 1 ounce of tail weight to get them to balance per the plans. At that weight both of my Legacy planes fly great. Mine are both powered with a PA .65 with tuned pipe. However, I have seen some fly very well using the much less expensive SuperTigre .51. Hope this helps.
DennisV

Gary Anderson · « **Reply #33 on:** October 03, 2008, 07:12:35 PM »

Quote from: Dennis Vander Kuur on October 03, 2008, 05:18:21 PM

"Could tell me what is best weight for this baby?"

Gary,
Everyone has their own opinion on what the ideal weight might be for a specific airplane. All I can tell you is that both of mine weighed in at 58 ounces when built. I ended up adding about 1 ounce of tail weight to get them to balance per the plans. At that weight both of my Legacy planes fly great. Mine are both powered with a PA .65 with tuned pipe. However, I have seen some fly very well using the much less expensive SuperTigre .51. Hope this helps.
DennisV

Hi Dennis,

Thank you for the information, I'll try to keep the weight in that range. I would love to have one on those great engines but I have quite a few of the old type engines. They work well for me but you can see the difference between power with the newer type engines. I'll post a picture once I get her framed up.

Thanks, Gary

Shultzie · « **Reply #34 on:** October 03, 2008, 07:26:08 PM »

Quote from: Steve Helmick on September 17, 2008, 09:50:19 PM

THE best .40VF powered plane I've seen (well, other than Paul and Howard's ImpActs) was Monty Summach's "Shrike". I think it's the ideal size for the engine, and might be why Mike Haverly decided to build his Shrike. Or not! The Saturn is another excellent choice, tho knowing the altitude and typical weather might affect the choice. Varley loves his Saturns with the Stalker .51 rear exhaust/header muffler. Not terribly expensive, and is happy as a clam on zero nitro. Steve

Mike model last week end looked AWESOME against that deep blue sky at the Gig Harbor Narrows Airport.
Rain and wind this weekend...what a difference a week makes

Randy Powell · « **Reply #35 on:** October 04, 2008, 12:11:41 AM »

Shultzie,

Ya, but it's supposed to be decent on Sunday. If it is, I'll be out at the Narrows.

Author Topic: Plane Choice (Read 7792 times)

kvarley

kvarley