stunthanger.com
General control line discussion => Open Forum => Topic started by: Phil Krankowski on September 25, 2013, 05:09:41 PM
-
I want a plane capable of flying the full pattern. I would like to stay with a smaller engine like the OS25LA-S, but I am not against going with a bigger engine. I don't own an engine for this purpose yet. (Looking for a good, used, "value priced" engine if possible)
I have a Super Ringmaster with a new Fox 35 stunt on it. I have not yet fully broke in the engine, and it is... cantankerous. (1 qt on the bench, and a couple tankful through it on the plane, 2 flights of very inconsistent run. I need to learn more too.) I understand this plane won't do pattern very well with any engine. I also suspect this plane is too heavy since it is an old plane I scored and repaired (film instead of dope and tissue)
I see the Flite Streak ARF (and understand there are problems with the fuse, but it sound like a good ship in general) however I don't hear about what it can DO, or how well it can do it.
I am also a person who enjoys building so kits are an option. (scratch build too I would rather a kit) I don't want to drop more than $100 on a kit though. Scratch building the Flite Streak is still an option.
I haven't ruled out electric.
Phil
-
If you are OK with the Flite-Streak class, consider the Brodak kit of the Shark 402. With an FP-20 or 25 it flies a great pattern. In fact, it has twice on the Stunt 25 class here in NorCal. Great Pat Johnston design.
-
Handsome looking.
Phil
-
I couldn't do much better than Balsa Butchers suggestion but, there is always the Magician in kit form. An oldey-but-goody. y1
-
Hi Phil,
The Flite Streak, built from a kit...is and excellent flying airplane with a OS LA 25 and would serve you just fine to learn the pattern.
However personally I prefer a larger airplane but still a profile simply because they are easier to repair. My personal choice for anyone wanting to learn to fly the pattern right is the Brodak Cardinal with an OS LA46. It's an Ideal combination because both the airplane and the engine are user friendly and easy to set up and trim. The larger airplane with strong power is simply easier to fly under less than perfect conditions and will teach you more about flying stunt because of the flaps. While it's just a little more complicated it teaches you all the lessons you need to learn about trimming and flying that are needed to compete. If you learn with a flapless airplane then you will need to still learn to trim a "real" stunter when you move up.
I would get two of these kits and build one and while you're flying build the other one. If you're serious you really need two similar flying airplanes then any mishap will not stop your progress for any appreciable time, and that's important.
It's also important that you have an experienced stunt buddy, expert level, to help you trim and learn to fly the right way to minimize learning mistakes.
I'm sure you'll get a lot of other opinions and a lot of them will be from sport fliers that don't think it's necessary to be so serious...well they're probably right if you're not serious. If you are then do it this way.
I taught my brother to fly the pattern as a rank beginner, never having had a handle in his hand, to being promoted to the expert class in less than two years. Certainly a lot of the credit for that goes to him and his never say die attitude, but most of it was having good equipment and someone to teach trimming functions and what should be expected in response from the airplane. He crashed several times but always had another airplane to back up the effort.
I guess it just depends a lot on how serious you are!
Randy Cuberly
Tucson AZ
-
Brett Buck has pounded the drum for a Sig Skyray powered by an LA-25 (actually he started out advocating the FP-20, but you can't get that new anymore, so now he's pushing the LA-25).
It worked well for me, once I finally started listening to him. The LA-25 with a 10-4 prop is a trouble-free engine, the Skyray is an easy airframe to build and trim. While a flapped airplane flies prettier, a non-flapped airplane has a lot fewer variables to contend with while trimming, and it's not as critical that you get all of them right.
One difference between the Skyray (or the Fright Streak) and that Shark 402 is the wing structure: when you bonk into the ground with a Skyray the covering bursts, a few ribs break, and you can be back in the air after an easy evening's work. With a wing that has a sheet leading edge, when you bonk into the ground the outside (or both) wings break off right at the fuse, or the wood in the wing sheeting gets crushed, etc., and you've got a rebuild on your hands.
Brett says build three, and take all of them to the flying field -- that way when you crash one, you just grab another one and keep practicing. I never seemed to have enough time for more than three flights a session (this went way up when I made myself a stooge), so just having one wasn't that much of an issue.
So: get a Skyray kit and build it. Make templates of anything that's not on the plans. Then build two more.
I'd make sure to put weight boxes on the outer tips, and make the leadouts adjustable -- it's nice to get that stuff all tweaked in, rather than trusting to the kit as built. Other than that, build it quick and fly it like you stole it.
-
Shark 402 w/ Brett Buck engine set-up actually flies better the the Skyray (I've flown 'em both) however the Skyray does go together quicker. Pays yur money and takes yur choice. 8)
-
So, summing up with a OS25LA
Shark 402
Skyray
Flight streak kit or scratch (NOT ARF.)
Since I poked at Brodak's what about the Super Clown?
for the OS46LA
Cardinal (Brodak)
Other planes for the OS46LA?
For any
Tip weight box
Adjustable lead outs
Build 2 or 3 of the same aircraft.
I'm not super serious currently. I want a good flying plane so I can build confidence and skill. I fly 1/2a in my side yard, and just finished a Baby Flight Streak, haven't flown it yet. I just learned there is a flying club near me, but they don't list CL and I missed the open house last month. I have a Brodak stooge since I rarely have anyone who is even interested around.
At least my neighbor understands, he flies RC out of his driveway.
Phil
-
A Sig Twister wouldn't be a bad choice ... builds quick and they fly well.
Joe
-
I'm currently flying a Fancherized Twister; I like it but I think I need to move up to something with a real fuselage.
I wouldn't be surprised if that Shark flies better -- I was just looking at how well it'd repair!
-
I see the Flite Streak ARF (and understand there are problems with the fuse, but it sound like a good ship in general) however I don't hear about what it can DO, or how well it can do it.
A full-size Flite Streak with a 25LA/APC 9-4 is an excellent combination that can easily do the full pattern. The Skyray 35 is very similar, and easier to build, but either one will do fine as a trainer. I also strongly suggest building more than one of them, so you aren't at a dead stop on the first crash.
Brett
-
Hey Phil, now consider the source here... as you know, I'm a rank beginner. But I have recently asked the same questions. The Skyray has been recommended to me by experienced guys more than any other. The reasons I've been given are compelling to me. They are, that it has tough light ply ribs and the wings can sustain a lot of the punishment of training; it pairs up with the .25 schnurle engine I have; it's easy to build and repair; flies well; and having no flaps makes learning less complicated while you have so much to think about already. That last point is in no way meant to be argumentive with Randy's thoughts on flaps.
Rusty
-
That last point is in no way meant to be argumentive with Randy's thoughts on flaps.
I hope this isn't arguing with Randy's thoughts on flaps...
If you build fast and have that expert flying buddy that Randy was talking about to set the ship up for you, then flaps are great. If you don't have that expert flying buddy who's ready and able to trim your plane for you every time you crash, then flaps can be a detriment until you're flying well enough to know what the heck you're seeing when you fly the thing.
-
This may sound like a stupid question( hey it's me, what else would you expect!?!) but what's the big deal with flaps?
My last 4 ships have had flaps and they didn't really cause me any issues (that I know of). Provided the control geometry is correct and if not, at the very least adjustable, and your flaps are straight, why wouldn't you?
-
This may sound like a stupid question( hey it's me, what else would you expect!?!) but what's the big deal with flaps?
My last 4 ships have had flaps and they didn't really cause me any issues (that I know of). Provided the control geometry is correct and if not, at the very least adjustable, and your flaps are straight, why wouldn't you?
Well you actually make some good points but... while I'm in favor of learning the pattern with flaps I admit they do add another dimension to trimming. That dimension is both good and bad from the standpoint of a beginner.
If flaps are not properly aligned with the elevator and thrust line they can cause instability and tracking problems and uneven turn rates between inside and outside maneuvers. They add a dimension to lateral stability also...as in wing up or wing down. They should have hard points at the horn connectors so they can be twisted if necessary to correct for wing warps or misalignment of flaps to each other.
Actually this can be a good thing because if you don't have flaps and you have even a slight warp in the wing it's more difficult to correct, requiring tabs or wedge devices to be attached to the wing I'm sure you've seen these sprouting from the wings of non-flapped airplanes. A slight twisting of the flaps is much easier and actually more effective.
The best thing about using flaps however is that they make for a faster learning curve because you get used to the response and trimming factors from the beginning and don't have to re-learn things as you progress...uuhhhh well not as many things anyway.
When you do decide to go to a larger, probably heavier, built up airplane the flaps are not just an option but really a necessity to achieve the corner and turn rates needed to be competitive...If you start learning with them from the beginning it'll just be old hat when you move up.
However if you're not really serious about competition, and just want to learn the pattern for sport flying then the Skyray/LA25 or Flite Streak/LA25 is the least expensive good way to go. A Fancherized Twister mentioned earlier can be a good option also...personally I detest the way stock twisters fly, and would never recommend one in stock form for a stunt trainer and boy are they Ugly. LL~ LL~
Personally, if you want a flapless really good flying stunter and don't mind scratch building the Fancher "Doctor" is the best there is. I think the plans are available from PAMPA. An LA46 is also a great match for that also.
This also is not meant to be an argument with any of the previous suggestions as they were all good in my opinion...I just wanted to explain the argument for flaps a bit further.
Randy Cuberly
-
Since we're making comparisons, I'm just curious. My Shoestring, unflapped, is the only larger than 1/2A plane I've ever flown, so I have nothing to compare it to. For me, it's very easy to control and aside from my low skill set it's pretty pleasant, turns what I think are really tight corners, and is very cooperative to put it through the paces. So my question to you guys that know so much about different planes, how would you say the SS stacks up as an unflapped beginner plane compared to some of the ones we're talking about here?
My friend wants me to fly his Ukey. He says it's an easy one to fly and pretty much indestructible.
Rusty
-
Since we're making comparisons, I'm just curious. My Shoestring, unflapped, is the only larger than 1/2A plane I've ever flown, so I have nothing to compare it to. For me, it's very easy to control and aside from my low skill set it's pretty pleasant, turns what I think are really tight corners, and is very cooperative to put it through the paces. So my question to you guys that know so much about different planes, how would you say the SS stacks up as an unflapped beginner plane compared to some of the ones we're talking about here?
No offense, but it is not very good compared to a Flite Streak or Skyray (or UKEY or the other slow-combatty-type airplanes). It's more on the Ringmaster end of the scale.
Brett
-
So, summing up with a OS25LA
Shark 402
Skyray
Flight streak kit or scratch (NOT ARF.)
Since I poked at Brodak's what about the Super Clown?
for the OS46LA
Cardinal (Brodak)
Other planes for the OS46LA?
For any
Tip weight box
Adjustable lead outs
Build 2 or 3 of the same aircraft.
I'm not super serious currently. I want a good flying plane so I can build confidence and skill. I fly 1/2a in my side yard, and just finished a Baby Flight Streak, haven't flown it yet. I just learned there is a flying club near me, but they don't list CL and I missed the open house last month. I have a Brodak stooge since I rarely have anyone who is even interested around.
At least my neighbor understands, he flies RC out of his driveway.
Phil
My own learning experience pre-dates the Skyray and LA engines so I may be biased but I still lean toward the older learning path. You went through a couple Ringmasters or other flapless type airplanes for basic, learning round loops and inverted. You then moved to a Magician (using the same .35 engine) with flaps to learn squares, triangles and the vertical maneuvers. The flaps will give you the square corners but also the 'panic button turn' to get you out of trouble. You mention the Super Clown. Though I never before had one I think it might work pretty well. In fact I just bought a kit of it. It seems to me a good choice to 'manufacture' enmass as a training fleet for my grand kids. The added work to put on flaps is well worth it once you are past the loops/inverted part of your learning. You ARE going to use flaps latter so might as well start using them early on.
Dave
It seems the OS .25 is being used as a direct replacement for the long stroke .35. Not sure it's quite the same but works. Plenty of .35s around (other than Fox).
-
No offense, but it is not very good compared to a Flite Streak or Skyray (or UKEY or the other slow-combatty-type airplanes). It's more on the Ringmaster end of the scale.
Brett
No offense taken, I wasn't fishing for pleasing answers, I honestly wanted to know where it stacked up. Seeing as how I never hear talk of the SS here, I didn't expect much. I never expected to own it when the original owner/builder invited me to try flying a big plane one day, but dropped the handle and demolished it before I got a chance. I pieced the broken rear fuse and the rest of the rubble back together and was happy with the way it flew. On the other hand now that I'm finally getting to where I can fly scoreable beginner shapes, maybe when I move up to a real stunter, I'll be even more pleasantly surprised. A Skyray, or a Streak shaped Skyray, or a Streak is what I would like to build as its replacement. The old Yak-9 kit on my table now, another gift, looks like it'll serve as a fun flyer that will serve to grow my building skills as I graduate from 1/2A building.
Thanks for the reply Brett, I'm always glad when you chip in, and I still have a few years to go before I start getting all crotchety and thin skinned.(http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u116/rknrusty/Smileys/cool.gif) (http://s166.photobucket.com/user/rknrusty/media/Smileys/cool.gif.html)
Rusty
-
How about a Pathfinder?? With the LA 46...
I've learned a lot flying a couple of ARF Pathfinders... love that ship...
Marcus
-
for the OS46LA
Cardinal (Brodak)
Other planes for the OS46LA?
Slews of planes for the OS 46LA. Go spelunking among the threads and you'll find that the LA 46 has gained a reputation for a very versatile engine. My own small experience bears this out -- if you're willing to mess with the venturi size and/or fine tune it by piling on layers cut from ladies' nylon stockings, you can pretty much dial in your desired flight characteristics.
If you scratch build, a Fancherized Twister would be good -- it has the same easy to repair wing structure that I like in the Skyray and Fright Streak, only with flaps. You may also want to consider Fancherizing a Sig Banshee. Or look through the Flying Models back issues -- they've published some good 40-sized profiles.
I'd choose a profile, with a Skyray-like wing structure*, and no really fancy features that will make it hard to build or repair. I'd also consider leaving off the flaps, for the reasons I gave -- but if you have an expert willing to tune your plane for you, consider leaving them on.
* That wing structure -- basically with no leading edge sheeting -- means that the wing structure itself has neither torsional strength nor shear strength in the fore-aft direction. All of that sort of strength is supplied by the covering. This, in turn, means two things: it has the tendency to survive crashes with easily repaired damage (assuming you have many rolls of covering in your shop), and the wings will be absolutely floppy in twist until you get the covering on. So getting unwarped wings is entirely dependent on YOU and your covering iron. With film coverings, I generally end up adjusting the twist of the wings on those things several times over the first month of the plane's life before they settle down and stay straight.
Once you lose your knighthood and can no longer claim the title "Sir Crashalot" then you really want to go to a wing with a D-tube structure. Its lack of crash survivability won't matter, and if it's straight coming out of the wing jig you'll be happy with it's vastly reduced tendency to warp.
-
How about a Pathfinder?? With the LA 46...
I've learned a lot flying a couple of ARF Pathfinders... love that ship...
Marcus
It's kind of like that 25 car garage I always wanted. But now at my advancing age, I've changed my mind and want a giant model shop and hangar with 25 planes, all ready to pick up and go at my slightest whim. Fly whichever one I'm in the mood for on a given day. Of course that would be right next to my own flying field covered with golf course grass. 8)
-
Hole Shot is a super model without flaps to .25 engine!!!!
-
My oldest son and I both built the Bob Hunt Hole Shot. My son built it right off Bob's plans, what a good kid. I had to follow Bob's good friend Pete and put wing tips on mine, adding about five inches to the wing span. Here's a link to my thread with a picture.
http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php?topic=32305.0
Don't look at the finish, I'm a hack at best. The one Pete built was beautiful. It flies great, I don't HB~>. Bob should tell the story, but I think this is the plane Robby practiced with and then moved up to Bob's RD-1 I believe it was called.
-
Thanks for the reply Brett, I'm always glad when you chip in, and I still have a few years to go before I start getting all crotchety and thin skinned.
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about!
While I think that you can do a lot better than a Shoestring, its' still better to be able to fly something than not. My recommendations are tediously repetitive and can be found in a search (multiple airplanes all ready to go, Skyray 35 build from balsa instead of plywood, and a 20/25FP or 25LA with a 9-4 APC - and a big bottle of Hot Stuff). Trimmed as indicated it is still as good as anything like it, simple to build and trim properly, and capable of flying good patterns easily in almost any conditions (and I assure you I have plumbed the depths of bad conditions with it!).
But almost anything like the Flite Streak, etc, has similar characteristics, and is capable of taking you well into Advanced class competition. There's still a lot of building/trimming/flying to be learned but there's no reason to struggle with something with limited performance.
Brett
-
Well you actually make some good points but... while I'm in favor of learning the pattern with flaps I admit they do add another dimension to trimming. That dimension is both good and bad from the standpoint of a beginner.
If flaps are not properly aligned with the elevator and thrust line they can cause instability and tracking problems and uneven turn rates between inside and outside maneuvers. They add a dimension to lateral stability also...as in wing up or wing down. They should have hard points at the horn connectors so they can be twisted if necessary to correct for wing warps or misalignment of flaps to each other.
Actually this can be a good thing because if you don't have flaps and you have even a slight warp in the wing it's more difficult to correct, requiring tabs or wedge devices to be attached to the wing I'm sure you've seen these sprouting from the wings of non-flapped airplanes. A slight twisting of the flaps is much easier and actually more effective.
The best thing about using flaps however is that they make for a faster learning curve because you get used to the response and trimming factors from the beginning and don't have to re-learn things as you progress...uuhhhh well not as many things anyway.
When you do decide to go to a larger, probably heavier, built up airplane the flaps are not just an option but really a necessity to achieve the corner and turn rates needed to be competitive...If you start learning with them from the beginning it'll just be old hat when you move up.
However if you're not really serious about competition, and just want to learn the pattern for sport flying then the Skyray/LA25 or Flite Streak/LA25 is the least expensive good way to go. A Fancherized Twister mentioned earlier can be a good option also...personally I detest the way stock twisters fly, and would never recommend one in stock form for a stunt trainer and boy are they Ugly. LL~ LL~
Personally, if you want a flapless really good flying stunter and don't mind scratch building the Fancher "Doctor" is the best there is. I think the plans are available from PAMPA. An LA46 is also a great match for that also.
This also is not meant to be an argument with any of the previous suggestions as they were all good in my opinion...I just wanted to explain the argument for flaps a bit further.
Randy Cuberly
Yeah, I hear you all counts there. My latest dog has lucky boxes everywhere, adjustable everything that I can think of, and hopefully I'll get this one sorted before I deck it. One thing that's becoming apparent to me in precision aerobatics be it controlled by a box, or on strings is that the aircraft are nothing but an accumulation of details!
edited as reply and quote were all mixed up!
-
This has turned into a chewy thread. Even the dog has lucky boxes!
I think I will think about this for a while, and reread all this advice (and search as indicated)
I was never impressed with Ringmasters, even though they are fun to fly. I see them as a step above a slab wing trainer, but not really a stunt ship. All the same I have a super, Jr, baby, baby PT bipe...Lots of fun.
Sir Crashalot of the round circle...yea. I can even crash below grade with 1/2a in the side lot since the circle has a steep hill on 1/3 of it.
Phil
-
This has turned into a chewy thread. Even the dog has lucky boxes!
I think I will think about this for a while, and reread all this advice (and search as indicated)
I was never impressed with Ringmasters, even though they are fun to fly. I see them as a step above a slab wing trainer, but not really a stunt ship. All the same I have a super, Jr, baby, baby PT bipe...Lots of fun.
Sir Crashalot of the round circle...yea. I can even crash below grade with 1/2a in the side lot since the circle has a steep hill on 1/3 of it.
Phil
Well Ringmasters are legends and they can be made to fly a decent pattern...but probably not by a beginner.
Anyone who thinks a Ringmaster can't fly a good pattern hasn't seen David Fitzgerald fly his with a Veco 19 (540+ pattern at VSC many years ago in Classic).
Yeah I know David could probably fly a pretty good pattern with anything...I guess that's what being a real Champion means.
I do agree that they are probably not the best stunt trainer but I do have to admit that's what I learned the pattern on...'course that was in 1954. y1 LL~
-
Hi Phil;
There are really more than a dozen airplanes that will fit your requirements. I would even suggest the 1/2A Skyray, since you have and fly 1/2A stuff, and use it to learn the basic manuevers. Won't do the whole pattern on one tank but the little booger is capable of at least the entire beginner pattern, and I have done the rest with it a few at a time. That is all you want the model to do, is be a teaching tool. Cheap, easy to fly and repairable. If you can do ANY of the manuevers with a 1/2A Skyray, you can do them with ANY airplane that you may build and it will be easier. Once you are confident with the small model, move up. No stress from crashing expensive airplanes, because you ARE gonna crash some. That is what I did with my son Sean, and it can work for any body.
If that doesn't trip your trigger, pick one of the suggested models, and let cost and eye appeal be your guide. Do what pleases you, because that is what the hobby is all about. But keep in mind the advice about multiple models once you get to a point where things are looking consistant and your confidence increases. Multiple models of the same design helps with consistancy, and you want to strive for that all along the way. There is a guy here in St. Louis that used a single SIG Twister to go all the way from beginner to expert, and I'm talking about putting a hurt on guys at contests that were flying piped airplanes! He just practiced a lot, and wore out three engines along the way, and knew the trim of the airplane inside and out. You could do the same with any of the designs and kits mentioned.
You will develope a set of likes and dislikes to certain things along the way, and develope a sense of how you like an airplane to perform. Keep an open mind about everything. Once you get to that level and you understand how you got there, you can pick a design and make it fly like you like. Most of my airplanes are all different sizes and such, but the controls in them are all pretty similar, so there isn't a big change in going from one to another at a contest.
Once you get to a level of proficientcy that you feel confident in trying contests, I whole heartedly recommend that you compete. That is where you really learn. If you don't feel like competing, at least go and watch and ask questions. You can observe a lot just by watching, as Yogi Berra says! y1 y1
When you have the whole pattern down, and understand the ins and outs of trimming an airplane, come back to that lowly Ringmaster, and try it again. It can be made to fly quite well, and I have seen guys get pretty good scores in classic contests with them, and even in intermediate level contests. You just don't want to have to try and get one to fly that good at the beginning of the learning process! It has it's limitations and you just have to work with them and around them.
All of this won't happen in one summer either, depending on your own natural ability, and there are some guys out there that are born with it. Another friend here took only three years to go from learing how to start and set the needle valve on a Fox .35, to flying in the Expert class and placing second or third at The Vintage Stunt Championships in Tucson against some of the top guys in the country. Flying stunt is one event where what you get out of it is in direct proportion to what you put into it.
Good luck, have fun and enjoy the trip.
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee
-
Here is a video of what the ARF Flite Streak can do:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNQssjuj9l4
The Aromaniacs site is excellent.
Keep in mind that it is not the plane that does the pattern but it is the pilot. The LA 25 doesn’t vibrate much and the ARF Streak nose will probably last as long as the whole plane will, depending on your skills.
Dan is right. Use your ½ A’s as much as you can to do inside and outside loops and inverted flight. The ½ A Skyray is an excellent airplane, keep it light with a clear dope finish. The old Top Flite Junior Aces were very good built up ½ A’s
The fuse on the ARF Streak is just as stiff as solid balsa but may be less repairable. The time you saved not building allows you to have 2 backup ships. The cost is the same as a kit, let alone covering etc.
The nose is flimsy. Drill the motor holes out and plug with ¼ hardwood dowel, then re-drill the engine mounting holes. You can add 1/16-1/8 plywood triplers as well. Make a new 3/32 pushrod and use a longer control horn with the middle or inner hole to slow the controls down some. Make a ¼ hardwood dowel and 1/16 wire loop and put it in the solid piece at the end of the fuse for your stooge. The Brodak 38 Special landing gear works really well or make you own. 2 ¼ super light wheels.
Stay away from the Fox 35!
-
Nice video. That's what I want. Squares, 8's, cloverleaf...
Inverted is relatively easy, insides and outsides are trimming...although I am not "flying" my loops yet, I just bang the controls to the limit still. 1/2A means I walk across the driveway on any day with an hour of free time and get a few flights in.
Stay away from the Fox 35!
No. Classic plane:classic engine. I do like cantankerous machines, rather have an old car most of the time. There is something to be said for starting right, and right away instead of p*ssing about for 20 minutes to get it started. I'll probably keep the Fox 35 on fun flying and classic craft. I do want something easier most of the time.
Phil
-
Inverted is relatively easy, insides and outsides are trimming...although I am not "flying" my loops yet, I just bang the controls to the limit still. 1/2A means I walk across the driveway on any day with an hour of free time and get a few flights in.
Hi Phil;
"Just banging the controls to the limit" is what you don't want to do. It just stalls the model and slows it down. Some guys may poo poo the 1/2A idea, but if you got'em, might as well use 'em. Like I said, they are cheap, and available, and capable to just learn the basics on.
I agree with you on the Fox .35. Some love 'em and some hate 'em, but like the 1/2As, if you got 'em, use 'em. Just make sure to feed them proper fuel, and don't over prop them.
I have a ARF Flight Streak with an LA.25 on it and I like it a lot. It's one of my "grab it for a flight or two" models that I can rely on. Do a search on the list here for some minor improvements to the nose to help avoid crushing. Mine balances forward of the book indicated balance point, as it was too touch for me. With the LA.25 and a APC 10-4 prop, I get a very steady, reliable and repeatable run.
Good luck and have fun,
Dan McEntee
-
"Just banging the controls to the limit" is what you don't want to do. It just stalls the model and slows it down.
I have a ARF Flight Streak with an LA.25 on it and I like it a lot. It's one of my "grab it for a flight or two" models that I can rely on. Do a search on the list here for some minor improvements to the nose to help avoid crushing. Mine balances forward of the book indicated balance point, as it was too touch for me. With the LA.25 and a APC 10-4 prop, I get a very steady, reliable and repeatable run.
This is the reason for getting better-flying airplanes - they are much more forgiving of overcontrol and less-than-masterful flying. Something like a Ringmaster, Shoestring, Buster, etc, set up correctly, can be flown through respectable patterns, safely, by master pilots. But there is little margin for error, and you can easily stall the airplane (and crash), get into the "coffin corner" (and crash), or do something wrong, barely escape, and then not be able to recover and complete the maneuvers.
The engine is also absolutely critical. The high rev/low pitch engines are so much more effective at recovering and maintaining airspeed than vintage 4-2 break engines that mistakes aren't catastrophic. Part of the game is "energy management" and with old engines chugging around at low revs have to be managed a lot more carefully, or they simply stop flying. Screw up with a Flite Streak and a 20FP, no problem, in a fraction of a second it has recovered and you move on.
By the way, the same thing applies to big-time stunt planes. They are easier still to fly, the only drawback for a beginner is that they are very difficult to build and trim, and crashing them twice a weekend is just not a good development plan.
Brett
-
This is the reason for getting better-flying airplanes - they are much more forgiving of overcontrol and less-than-masterful flying. Something like a Ringmaster, Shoestring, Buster, etc, set up correctly, can be flown through respectable patterns, safely, by master pilots. But there is little margin for error, and you can easily stall the airplane (and crash), get into the "coffin corner" (and crash), or do something wrong, barely escape, and then not be able to recover and complete the maneuvers.
The engine is also absolutely critical. The high rev/low pitch engines are so much more effective at recovering and maintaining airspeed than vintage 4-2 break engines that mistakes aren't catastrophic. Part of the game is "energy management" and with old engines chugging around at low revs have to be managed a lot more carefully, or they simply stop flying. Screw up with a Flite Streak and a 20FP, no problem, in a fraction of a second it has recovered and you move on.
By the way, the same thing applies to big-time stunt planes. They are easier still to fly, the only drawback for a beginner is that they are very difficult to build and trim, and crashing them twice a weekend is just not a good development plan.
Brett
I know "banging the controls" is not good flying, even though it looks it to some.
I feel the stalls happen on certain planes (but not all planes). My coroplast wing has pin hinges instead of a cut flute, the "baby" stunt bee on it (ported out and as powerful as a BW, but with only 10 laps in it) lets me know when I am over-controlling because it won't turn with large control movements! With the cut flute it would only do insides and trim down, no outsides. It will inside, outside, and inverted... (haven't tried squares yet) ...as long as I am FLYING the maneuver.
What was very interesting is I cut the flutes off the new elevator after converting it and found that a slightly smaller elevator (1 flute less than original) turns much better than original size, or the 2 extra flutes more than original I set up as the replacement. Not often a plane is trimmed by literally trimming the airplane with a box knife!
The reason for the change to pin hinges is a cut flute in coroplast will barely give up and almost no down for winter flying. (Wrap the glow head with some yarn between the fins or it won't stay running, if even start, in freezing weather)
Phil
-
No. Classic plane:classic engine. I do like cantankerous machines, rather have an old car most of the time. There is something to be said for starting right, and right away instead of p*ssing about for 20 minutes to get it started. I'll probably keep the Fox 35 on fun flying and classic craft. I do want something easier most of the time.
Phil
Ok Phil thats cool. Some people enjoy that aspect of the hobby and having fun is what its all about anyway, so go for it. Personally I have found that getting Foxes to run on profiles is a hobby in itself.
Learning to really fly is fun but can be risky. That is why I am a fan of the tweaked (fixing the waek points and making sure it is straight) ARF. An ARF Nobler with an LA46 or LA25 would be easier to fly than the Flte Streak.
The Super Clown is like a Ringmaster with flaps. The Shark 402 is very nice kit. It has adjustable leadouts and a tip weight box. Nice looking too. The structure of the wing is balsa and well designed for monokote. It has built up and carved wing tips and will take longer to build than the Skyray. The 402 is similar to the Flite Streak but it has a larger (mostly elevator) tail, 1/2 inch longer tail moment, slow controls, and a slightly thicker wing.
The Skyray is super easy and quick to build and probably will not take much more time to build than a tweaked ARF. The Flite Streak, Shark 402 and Skyray are all known to be good flyers.
-
Yes, the Fox 35 can be a hobby all by itself.
I seem to be going with the OS 20 FP, pulled the trigger on an ebay deal a few minutes ago, RC version though. From what I have looked up the venturi is the same as the 25LA, so easy to get.
Phil
Make that I have TWO (2) OS 20 FP on the way...however both are RC versions.
Phil
-
Jim Lee should jump in here about the quick build of a SkyRay. I think he said it was two days from opening the box to flying. Also it is still flying.
-
Specific questions about converting the OS 20 FP. I do not yet have them in my possession, and I don't know what muffler is on one from the classifieds here, but the other has an 842 muffler. Does this muffler work for the "pipe" effect or is it ONLY the 2030 muffler?
The above question has been asked and *NOT* answered in the threads I have found.
I see there is a "recipe" with part numbers for converting to CL.
http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php?topic=490.msg2836#msg2836
If I need a muffler I need a muffler. Maybe my neighbor will trade for the mufflers on his RC transport...those are 25LA's...
Phil
-
Somewhere buried in the threads here Brett Buck says that only the 2030 will do for that. The distance from port to baffle is just right to make it a tuned pipe working on the 3rd harmonic.
The real point about the BBTU and the FP 20 that's kind of lost now that OS doesn't make the engine any more, is that you take it out of the box, CHANGE NOTHING, put the right prop on it and the right fuel in it and go fly.
FP 20's came in an iron-piston version and an ABC (or ABN) version. To my knowledge, you don't want the iron piston version. There's a way to tell them apart involving the way that "MAX" is spelled out on the cylinder, but I can't remember what it is...
Brett has tested recent-production LA 25's, and reports that the BBTU for the LA 25 is the same -- take it out of the box, change nothing, use an APC 9-4 and the right fuel, and go fly. When I started flying the LA 25 the story (not from Brett) was to use the APC 10-4, which is what I use, and it seems to work OK.
-
(snip)
FP 20's came in an iron-piston version and an ABC (or ABN) version. To my knowledge, you don't want the iron piston version. There's a way to tell them apart involving the way that "MAX" is spelled out on the cylinder, but I can't remember what it is...
(snip)
The way to tell the iron piston/steel sleeve from the ABN deals with the bypass side of the engine. On the iron piston there is a vertical "step" about 1/3 of the way back from the front of the bypass. On the ABN, it is a smooth transition.
Fortunately, my 1st OS .20FP worked just like advertised and it was an iron piston engine. Stock venturi, NVA, 2030 muffler, APC 9-4. Needle set just back from peak.
Big Bear
RNMM/AMM
-
I had a Skyray 35 with a .25LA that flew ok, but it was the Fancherized Twister that got me through learning to do the squares, triangles, square 8's and hourglass. Talent (lack of) may have had something to do with that.
It should seem slow. Part of that is the noise. An OS with the stock muffler will just sound slow. Electrics seem slower yet, but I am not going to be flying electrics in this life. Maybe next time around. LL~ Steve
-
I have heard the ABN version of the FP-20 was preferable but have had no problems with mine which I found out a few weeks ago is the iron piston version. Either version will work in the BB mode. 8)
-
Phil, Brett says that the E-2030 muffler is the one to use. The OS Parts list says the E-2030 muffler is the stock item with the LA 25. If you can't trade one, Tower sells them.
-
Specific questions about converting the OS 20 FP. I do not yet have them in my possession, and I don't know what muffler is on one from the classifieds here, but the other has an 842 muffler. Does this muffler work for the "pipe" effect or is it ONLY the 2030 muffler?
The above question has been asked and *NOT* answered in the threads I have found.
I see there is a "recipe" with part numbers for converting to CL.
http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php?topic=490.msg2836#msg2836
If I need a muffler I need a muffler. Maybe my neighbor will trade for the mufflers on his RC transport...those are 25LA's...
Phil
I have answered - but the answer is "I don't know"! All my experiments have been with the E2030. The 842 may work better, the same, or worse. I would try it as indicated, first, before chucking it.
Brett
-
The E-2030 muffler is the one to use. And I have tried to make the other muffler (842?) work. It does not. Well, other than to muffle the engine.
Truth be told, the only exhaust system with which I have personal experience and that works as well as the E-2030 is a "real" pipe, that being a muffled version of the MACS aluminum pipe. In my view it works a little better even if those who see it sometimes make comments about lipstick on a pig. Still, I like the aluminum pipe for several reasons, one of which is the option of adjustability. Meaning the run can be made better or worse...
As to determining ABN 20FPs (and other models) from steelies I once got frustrated in trying to tell e-Bay sellers how to check for this. What ended up being the solution was to tell them to use a magnet held against the case.
Dan
-
As to determining ABN 20FPs (and other models) from steelies I once got frustrated in trying to tell e-Bay sellers how to check for this. What ended up being the solution was to tell them to use a magnet held against the case.
Dan
So a magnet against the case will tell the difference between the liners? I seem to have no attraction on the 3 engines with a magnet.
($20 snipe on ebay for the 3rd) The 3 engines have the 842 muffler, and not the 2030 muffler. All 3 are RC version. 2 have significantly better compression than the 3rd, but they all have reasonable compression. The 3rd has more compression than the Cox .051 I was flying earlier today (The baby flight steak turns very nicely, maiden flight). All 3 cases/engines look identical.
I took my Flight Streak digital plans to Office Depot yesterday, and the manager said she can't print them as they are 48 inch plans, and she only has 24 inch paper. She is having their off-site printing handle it but it will take a week or so.
Phil
-
I have to conclude that using a magnet without dissassembly is inconclusive on determining the liner material. I tested two engines I know have iron liners, my Fox 15, and my Fox stunt 35 with the magnet not sticking. The spare piston/cylinder assembly for the Fox 15 sticks real good. I am using a reasonably powerful donut magnet (the ceramic ones from Radio Shack)
I will locate my tiny rare-earth magnet-on-a-stick and go in through the exhaust port, if it fits.
Phil
-
So a magnet against the case will tell the difference between the liners? I seem to have no attraction on the 3 engines with a magnet.
($20 snipe on ebay for the 3rd) The 3 engines have the 842 muffler, and not the 2030 muffler. All 3 are RC version. 2 have significantly better compression than the 3rd, but they all have reasonable compression. The 3rd has more compression than the Cox .051 I was flying earlier today (The baby flight steak turns very nicely, maiden flight). All 3 cases/engines look identical.
I took my Flight Streak digital plans to Office Depot yesterday, and the manager said she can't print them as they are 48 inch plans, and she only has 24 inch paper. She is having their off-site printing handle it but it will take a week or so.
Phil
Phil most any FedEx/Kinkos can do those plans on the spot. I just pulled about 5 different sets off CDs there at 10 bucks a copy.....if you have one near you.
Dave
-
Name tag magnets, gotta love them. WAY more powerful than the donut magnet I used earlier. Yes, this powerful little magnet sticks to the outside of the case quite well too. It also fits in the exhaust, and is strong enough to draw the piston up some rotating the engine.
Turns out I have 3 iron FP 20's.
ABC piston/cylinder sets can be had for a mere $160 each. I can almost buy 2 NEW 25LA-S's for one piston/cylinder set!
As for the plans they are ordered already through Office Depot, and I don't have a FedEx/Kinko's within an hour of me. I have had other plans printed without problem locally, but they have been on 24x36 paper which is no problem locally. These are on 36x48.
Phil
-
Pathfinder Profile with LA 46 or 40. great flying plane.
Gordy
-
(Snip)
Name tag magnets, gotta love them. WAY more powerful than the donut magnet I used earlier. Yes, this powerf
Turns out I have 3 iron FP 20's.
(Snip)
Phil
Hi Phil,
The iron Piston FPs work the same as the ABN ones. They are timed the same. (there are NO ABC FPs). You simply need the stock venturi, NVA, and 2030 muffler, and APC 9X4.
BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM
-
So, I talked to my neighbor about swapping mufflers. I helped solder the connections for his transport and he GAVE me two LA25 RC. He just says I need to help with soldering in the future...I am fairly good as long as circuit boards are not involved, then I am only fairly fair...not enough practice.
I plan to liquidate the 3 iron FP's and stick with the ABN LA's. 2 are perfect, the third is obviously run pretty well and has plier marks on the thrust washer.
There is less than an hour on these two engines because his transport was so underpowered with them, With electric his transport can take off in grass, and land across the front of our two houses, now that the half-dead road trees are cut down. He plans to never fly glow RC again.
My intakes and spray bars arrived from Tower today for the remote NVA's on the LA's. No plans yet from the store, but they said 7-10 business days.
Phil
-
I am a rib cutting fool...Sure feel foolish sometimes too. I couldn't make the ribs line up to the material and plans, so after half a day of pondering I re-stacked the ribs flipping every other rib, and sorting from the ends of the stack. The resulting toothy stack looks like it will sand down to the correct profile on the plans. Tomorrow I might find out if I am right.
Been a while since I scratch built...forgot a lot of tricks and methods.
Does anybody know if Brodak's Flite Streak rib set
http://brodak.com/original-flite-streak-rib-set.html
is the correct ribs for the plans on Outerzone?
http://www.outerzone.co.uk/plan_details.asp?ID=2652
that kit is starting to look pretty cheap.
http://brodak.com/original-flite-streak-kit.html
except the RTF version is even less!
http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXDVF3&P=7
However I have wood to build at least 2 full wings out of leftover stuff in the closet, so that is pretty cheap too. I just hope I didn't make a pile of sawdust for nothing.
Phil
-
1 wing built, more or less. Lots of sanding to do. I do not have new bell cranks, just 1 used without lead outs.
I need to evaluate the other set of ribs and see if they are close enough to save. I think they might be goners though. The trailing edge is "low" and they look to be "short" already.
I found some "quilting template plastic" in the closet. Probably my wife's. This stuff is wonderful. I might never make a plywood template again! I wish I found it to make rib templates. I used it to make a fuselage template. Only downside is the piece is 18 inches long, and the fuselage is longer. I do not have a big enough piece of 1/2 balsa for a fuselage at this time so I probably have to order some balsa.
Would stacking 2 pieces of 1/4 inch make a good, strong, not overweight fuselage? I would use Elmer's wood glue and weight it to a table for a few days with books.
Phil
-
1 wing built, more or less. Lots of sanding to do. I do not have new bell cranks, just 1 used without lead outs.
I need to evaluate the other set of ribs and see if they are close enough to save. I think they might be goners though. The trailing edge is "low" and they look to be "short" already.
I found some "quilting template plastic" in the closet. Probably my wife's. This stuff is wonderful. I might never make a plywood template again! I wish I found it to make rib templates. I used it to make a fuselage template. Only downside is the piece is 18 inches long, and the fuselage is longer. I do not have a big enough piece of 1/2 balsa for a fuselage at this time so I probably have to order some balsa.
Would stacking 2 pieces of 1/4 inch make a good, strong, not overweight fuselage? I would use Elmer's wood glue and weight it to a table for a few days with books.
Phil
Phil, I asked that question about the 2 piece fuselage at CEF and some of our members said, yes it makes a superior fuse, stiff and resistant to warping. You can even put a piece of mesh between them. If I recall, use wood glue and press it between two pieces of glass to keep it flat.
I need to check out that template material. What does it look like?
Rusty
-
I need to check out that template material. What does it look like?
Rusty
Translucent plastic.
I think this is the exact stuff (I threw the label away)
http://www.amazon.com/Dritz-Quilting-Heavy-Template-Plastic/dp/B0085L2XUQ/ref=sr_1_2?s=arts-crafts&ie=UTF8&qid=1383947068&sr=1-2&keywords=dritz+template
However JoAnn Fabrics, Hobby Lobby (the craft store), and probably any other fabric and craft type store will have a similar item.
I do wish it was a little thicker, but it is pretty sturdy. For very small features it might be a little too pliable.
Phil
-
"Phil, I asked that question about the 2 piece fuselage at CEF and some of our members said, yes it makes a superior fuse, stiff and resistant to warping. You can even put a piece of mesh between them. If I recall, use wood glue and press it between two pieces of glass to keep it flat."
CF or FG should be put on the outside, not between laminations. That will do virtually nothing for strength and rigidity. Put the strong stuff on the outside!
As for glue, DO NOT use any water-based glue for laminating...takes too long to dry and tends to warp. Also don't use contact cement...result will not be rigid. Slow epoxy is best, and the 30 minute stuff from the LHS is really too fast. Two hours would be about right. Spread it thin with the wife's credit card! mw~ Steve
-
Thanks for clearing that up, Steve.
I'm an epoxy freak anyway, just can't quit the stuff.
Rusty
-
I am comfortable laminating with wood glue, I have done it many times before, although not much with balsa. I need to leave it pressed for a week or so. (Yes, any wood will warp if not left pressed long enough after using a water based glue)
I put some fiberglass drywall tape between the lamination already. I figured it will help with fly-swatter-ing. It is pressed in the basement between a plastic covered plywood piece and a storm window, by the dehumidifier.
Is bass OK for engine bearers?
Phil
-
I am comfortable laminating with wood glue, I have done it many times before, although not much with balsa. I need to leave it pressed for a week or so. (Yes, any wood will warp if not left pressed long enough after using a water based glue)
I put some fiberglass drywall tape between the lamination already. I figured it will help with fly-swatter-ing. It is pressed in the basement between a plastic covered plywood piece and a storm window, by the dehumidifier.
Is bass OK for engine bearers?
NO! Or at least you will be sorry you did it. It will compress pretty quickly and the engine will keep coming loose. I have learned from hard experience that rock maple (sugar maple) or something at least that hard, will save you a lot of pain in the long run. I used cocobolo on one airplane a long time ago. That was hard enough, not quite ebony or teak, but darn hard.
Laminating with water-based or any evaporative glue is not a great idea, but plenty of people have done it without any obvious problems over the years. With pressure, carpenter's wood glue like Titebond or Elmer's sticks very quickly, evaporation or no. My dad is a "crafts" woodturner of some note in his local area. He glues up blanks for large bowls with Titebond with varying color wood in interesting patterns. He clamps everything hard for about 1/2 hour, bolts it on his lathe faceplate, and goes at it. There is some serious force in it but so far he hasn't had any problems. He found that if you screw up and try to get it apart 15 minutes later, you are completely out of luck, you are going to have to cut it or split it. It isn't coming apart at the glue joints.
Brett
-
I ordered maple from Brodak along with bell cranks, adjustable leadouts, leadout wire, weight boxes, and a small mountain of other stuff.
I'm even less sure buying a kit costs more than scratch from stock, other than I already had the wood I am using.
I re-evaluated my misshapen ribs. Pulled them off the stack, dropped several on the printed plan...I decided the error is pretty small. The wing will be about 1/16 thinner than plan, and a tiny bit asymmetrical as a result. I built the second wing today, mostly. I need to shape for gluing the rest of the LE, wingtips for both wings, bellcrank tray...and more.
Both wings are straight! No twists, no warps. I am pleased so far.
The glued up fuse is still pressed and I'll look at cutting it after the maple arrives. I'll glue the second fuse tomorrow I think.
Phil
-
The E-2030 muffler is the one to use. And I have tried to make the other muffler (842?) work. It does not. Well, other than to muffle the engine.
Truth be told, the only exhaust system with which I have personal experience and that works as well as the E-2030 is a "real" pipe, that being a muffled version of the MACS aluminum pipe. In my view it works a little better even if those who see it sometimes make comments about lipstick on a pig. Still, I like the aluminum pipe for several reasons, one of which is the option of adjustability. Meaning the run can be made better or worse...
As to determining ABN 20FPs (and other models) from steelies I once got frustrated in trying to tell e-Bay sellers how to check for this. What ended up being the solution was to tell them to use a magnet held against the case.
Dan
You can get the 842 muffler to work. Just get a friend with a small lathe to turn a hollow spool to extend the length to match the 2030. Pro'lly not practical for sale, but it only takes a few minutes and a small chunk of aluminum.
-
You can get the 842 muffler to work. Just get a friend with a small lathe to turn a hollow spool to extend the length to match the 2030. Pro'lly not practical for sale, but it only takes a few minutes and a small chunk of aluminum.
Hmm. Seeing I have a lathe in the garage I might get around to that. I haven't turned much metal on it though, mostly wood. It is an Atlas 10F.
Have you done this? I presume the measurements for the design are "trivial"
I did compare screw hole patterns between the 25LA and 20FP. The pattern appears identical. I took the plywood doubler (cut those today) and marked through the screw holes. The cases are slightly different in width with the LA being enough wider that I'll have to open up my doubler with sandpaper.
Phil
-
I can freely interchange my LA 25 and FP 20, and the 2030 mufflers on both.
-
How did you get to this level of complexity and intricacy? There are many simple flapless kits that would serve you, Phil. Almost any sport/stunt flapless plane will do the pattern. LA25s out of the box, with the stock muffler, provide a reliable stunt friendly run. Nice thing about those engines is that you can buy them now, brand new. Flite Streaks use dagger pointed ribs needing a two piece or hollowed out leading edge. The Brodak Lightning Streak is nearly identical, flies similarly, uses conventional wing construction. Easier to build without a warp. If you want to get up in the air quick, ARF Flite Streaks work well with an LA25. They will definitely do the pattern.
-
How did you get to this level of complexity and intricacy? There are many simple flapless kits that would serve you, Phil. Almost any sport/stunt flapless plane will do the pattern. LA25s out of the box, with the stock muffler, provide a reliable stunt friendly run. Nice thing about those engines is that you can buy them now, brand new. Flite Streaks use dagger pointed ribs needing a two piece or hollowed out leading edge. The Brodak Lightning Streak is nearly identical, flies similarly, uses conventional wing construction. Easier to build without a warp. If you want to get up in the air quick, ARF Flite Streaks work well with an LA25. They will definitely do the pattern.
I am waiting on Maple engine bearer wood and parts to finish two scratch built flite streaks, and I have two (2) 25LA-S (now control line version, formerly RC version) with the desired 2030 muffler.
I am not convinced that scratch building actually costs less than a kit, but the build is going well. I have 2 straight wings that need a lot of sanding, most of the wood parts are now cut, and I am going with laminated fuselages, which is not very complex. I might choose epoxy for fuselage #2 since I didn't get it laid up yet, and yellow glue takes days to dry in this application.
Wing #2 has a very slight asymmetry, top vs bottom. The total error accumulation is about 1/16 of an inch in thickness, and all the ribs match. I doubt the error will cause problems with the performance of the airplane.
If I did not have wood on hand to build 2 airplanes, and maybe a third, I am positive the cost of scratch building would be higher than buying a kit through Brodak. I am enjoying the process though.
I also have three (3) 20 FP's in RC version, with the wrong muffler. Yes, I can swap the mufflers between a 25LA and a 20FP. The NVA is a different setup and not a direct swap, even though the venturi is the same part. (Remote needle vs spray bar NVA) Altering a muffler sounds like a fun idea (I like to tinker). I will consider it IF I decide to use these 20 FP engines. Purchasing another muffler is not unreasonable though. Swapping mufflers at the field is a pain.
Phil
-
I took apart the 2030 muffler and the 824 muffler. In addition to the lengths being somewhat different, there is an extra cone piece inside the 2030 muffler. It will be more than a simple turn a cylinder extension project.
Making an adjustable tuned pipe is probably easier.
Phil
-
Laminating is best done using epoxy. I have even used CA to laminate flaps. Water based glues often warp balsa. A stock FP 20-40 neeldevalve will work without modification on an LA 25, 40, 46. Swap out the bar. Remote needle valves have a 90 degree bend that are easy to clog and more difficult to clear than a non-remote. I have run plenty of FPs 20-40, as well as LA 25s, 40s and 46s with tongue mufflers. Which we prefer in Philly. Much lighter. LA25s are fine as is or with a tongue muffler. If you're hacking your own fues, I have found lengthening the tail moment by 2 inches and lengthening the nose moment by an inch, smooth out maneuvers. If the plane is light, it should do a decent corner. Worry about that later. Warps and miss-alignments are much more to the point.
-
That was something I didn't expect...mildew.
I wiped everything down with bleach, and left it unpressed since it seemed pretty dry before I bleached it. Later it was peeled apart partway.
I decided that fuse is a write off; it is outside in the trash.
Phil
-
Epoxy works much better... Imagine that... I think my previous layups with yellow glue and balsa have been small enough to put in the closet adjacent to my desk instead of the basement, so much less moisture.
My Brodak order arrived. I ordered the dual 2-line adjustable leadout such as recommended for Brodak's Flite Streak kit.
http://brodak.com/control-line-parts/leadouts/dual-2-line-adjustable-leadout.html
yet it will not be wide enough for the openings in the ribs that the leads pass through. I need to remove enough material to join the openings at the wingtip?! I do also see that the wingtip and the plywood portion of the guide will reinforce the outermost rib. I'll also need to remove considerable material from several ribs. I am concerned by how this will affect the strength of the wing.
I am rather confused by how I should go about this, and am considering reverting to the fixed leadouts on the Top Flite plan.
Phil
-
......My Brodak order arrived. I ordered the dual 2-line adjustable leadout such as recommended for Brodak's Flite Streak kit.
http://brodak.com/control-line-parts/leadouts/dual-2-line-adjustable-leadout.html
yet it will not be wide enough for the openings in the ribs that the leads pass through. I need to remove enough material to join the openings at the wingtip?! I do also see that the wingtip and the plywood portion of the guide will reinforce the outermost rib. I'll also need to remove considerable material from several ribs. I am concerned by how this will affect the strength of the wing.
I am rather confused by how I should go about this, and am considering reverting to the fixed leadouts on the Top Flite plan.
Phil
I was wondering the same thing when I built my Sterling Yak-9 wing and had an adjustable leadout kit for it. I had to hog out a lot of wood in all of the ribs just to get the leadouts to pass through without binding for a fixed position. If I had made it adjustable, I would have had to remove way too much rib wood for comfort. Maybe I'll revisit the adjustable leadouts on my next build. I thought perhaps I was missing something and over complicating things, as I've been known to do.
Rusty
-
(http://i58.servimg.com/u/f58/17/84/87/39/th/img_2015.jpg) (http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=80&u=17848739)
(http://i58.servimg.com/u/f58/17/84/87/39/th/img_2016.jpg) (http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=81&u=17848739)
Images of the leadout in both extremes.
-
I need to remove enough material to join the openings at the wingtip?! I do also see that the wingtip and the plywood portion of the guide will reinforce the outermost rib. I'll also need to remove considerable material from several ribs. I am concerned by how this will affect the strength of the wing.
I am rather confused by how I should go about this, and am considering reverting to the fixed leadouts on the Top Flite plan.
Remove as much material as necessary and put in the adjustable leadouts.
-
Remove as much material as necessary and put in the adjustable leadouts.
So, I pretty much won't have a center to the 4 outermost ribs? Do I need the full amount of adjustment between the positions, or will I really set it to very near the plan location of the forward lead and not move much from there?
Phil
-
I think Tim's right. Kits often don't allow for sufficient leadout travel. If you draw the extremes of the bellcrank travel and the extremes of the leadout travel you need, it makes a significant swath in the wing. Below is the area cleared for leadouts in my last airplane. I lost a good amount of shear web in the left wing spar. The airplane came out OK. I did glue some vertical sticks on the ribs at the front and the back of the leadout swath.
-
I drew out a plot like that directly on my plan. It makes sense. I'll put some reinforcements on the ribs and a small shear web where it won't interfere. Halfway done cutting on one wing...
Phil
-
I don't want to sound like the old wet rag but in truth these simple short coupled profiles are great for basic stunt training but won't benefit much from adjustable leadouts and if you are still a basic student, may be more confused by it than benefit from it. I'd set the lead outs and CG stationary as per the plan and just go fly.
Dave
-
That makes a lot of sense, Dave. KISS principle.
-
So...the allen wrench is 3/32 for the adjustable leadout so I built a 3 piece wingtip with 3 layers of 3/32, then thinking the wrench would not pass nicely when I tried it (it popped the hour old glue joint, didn't need fresh glue to re-glue) I built one using 3 layers of 1/8 inch...the results are quite thick either way.
Is there a better way about building this wingtip?
I think I will use the thicker wingtip with some heavy profiling.
Phil
-
Over on Stuka Stunt Works there are a series of posts on how to do different things while building model planes. I have most of them printed off. One of them was doing wingtips. The center core is 1/8 thick balsa. Then in the area of the slider/movable area of lead outs, is 1/16th ply overlapping the opening. Of course 1/16th balsa fills in the rest of the tip. Then for sanding a nice area for adhereing the covering is 1/8th balsa top and bottom. If I wasn't so computer illiterate I would go borrow the posts and put them here. But a search should find them if you look for lead out guide and/or wing tips.
But, as Dave says, if you are learning, most kits if built according to plans will get you thru a decent pattern. Most of the newer kits like Brodak and RSM Dist. show the options of lead out guides and weight boxes.
-
Phil, my 2 cents..... I have to agree with Tim W. The skyray is easy to build and fix. It flies VERY well. Better than you would think. It was my second plane after I learned on a Sterling P-51. I watched an intermediate flier fly one when I basically still learning on mine. He flew it so well it gave me a lot of confidence. In my opinion, the Skyray makes more graceful maneuvers than a Flightstreak for a novice. I still have that Skyray today. I never did plant it, even flying in beginner on windy days. Incidentally, I have two O.S. 20 FPs for sale if you are interested. They have been gently used. They look new. If interested you can email me. I can email you a picture. You can find me in "members". good luck.
Bill
-
Note Dave Trible's suggestion above - unless you change a lot of other things, merely putting adjustable leadouts in a Yak-9 is not going to help very much. I would put them about an inch behind the calculated CG (15-16% of MGC) and not adjustable. The only adjustable things I would use are tipweight and elevator horn. And then, only because those are both very easy to do.
My infamous Skyray 35 does not have adjustable leadouts and it hasn't been a serious issue, as anyone who has flown it can attest.
No matter what you do to these sorts of models, they aren't going to be all that great. Most of the people you see flying them successfully in OTS and Classic (David Fitzgerald, Ted Fancher, Bart Klapinski, etc) are absolute master pilots, and know how to baby them through the flights to minimize their shortcomings. Even with that, David crashed Ted's Ringmaster several times when even his skills were not up to the task. The Ringmaster/Yak 9/Flying Clown/CG Shoestring/Buster type airplanes are NOT good stunt planes or even very good trainers. Enjoy them for what they are, mildly stuntable sport planes from ancient times, but don't get hung up trying to make them into Impacts, or even Flite Streaks.
Brett
-
Well, I have adjustable lead outs in ONE wing. This wing is done deal at this point. Weight box in both wings. I haven't started cutting anything up in the second wing...yet.
I am still on the fence about making the second adjustable. I am tempted to not.
Phil
-
...My infamous Skyray 35 does not have adjustable leadouts and it hasn't been a serious issue, as anyone who has flown it can attest.
...No matter what you do to these sorts of models, they aren't going to be all that great..The Ringmaster/Yak 9/Flying Clown/CG Shoestring/Buster type airplanes are NOT good stunt planes or even very good trainers. Enjoy them for what they are, mildly stuntable sport planes from ancient times, but don't get hung up trying to make them into Impacts, or even Flite Streaks.
Brett
Brett, I think your Skyray is much more famous than infamous. I've flown it and can attest to its friendliness to a beginning stunt pilot. On my first flight after it took the place of my Shoestring, I realized my skills really don't suck after all.
Phil, I'm inclined to agree with the aforementioned advice to not worry about the leadouts. I've suffered too many frustrations from over complicating things during my training days.
Rusty
-
I've decided to solder on a 4-40 extension to the steel rod on my flite streaks. I am undecided if I am using a metal clevis or a ball joint at the elevator. This will provide me ease of setup and adjust ability at low cost.
Of course this is driven in part by this thread
http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php?topic=33453.0
Phil
-
When installing one of those plywood adjustable LO guides, put a 3/16" (or so) square balsa vertical at each end. Otherwise, you may break the ply out of the tip rib when you loosen or tighten the adj. screw. It's a messy repair, trust me. These OPP's are never quite right, it seems. :P Steve
-
I have had a lot of Flite Streaks. At least 30. They are simple design that builds easy and they fly very well. I never had adjustable lead outs in any of them. My FS never lasted long enough to worry about trimming. Flew most as combat ships. I tried a couple of different configurations and found that they fly the best if you build exactly as George designed it. Ugly wing tips and flaps.
Joe
-
I have had a lot of Flite Streaks. At least 30. They are simple design that builds easy and they fly very well. I never had adjustable lead outs in any of them. My FS never lasted long enough to worry about trimming. Flew most as combat ships. I tried a couple of different configurations and found that they fly the best if you build exactly as George designed it. Ugly wing tips and flaps.
Joe
Then I'll do the wing with fixed lead outs per the Top Flite plan. I decided this is too much effort in the wing surgery.
The plane with the adjustable leads is ready for sanding and paint...or something. I bought blue monokote and I am contemplating wrapping it instead of painting it, but I have never wrapped a profile before.
Phil
-
Of the 30 or so that I built , the only one that flew ugly was a Combat Streak. Never figured out why but it slacked overhead. All the rest stayed out on the lines ... The wing tips make a difference and they do fly better with them. A bunch I built using the fuselage wing hole knock out for a slab wing tip on one side and made the other from 1/2" sheet ... I did that for durability, the kit wing tips are fragile. Later on I made replacement wing tips out of 1/8 in the stock swept back shape once I realized they fly better. Old GMA knew what he was doing. Flite Streaks are a lot more sensitive than Ringmasters so fly it carefully. Think I will build another one after talking about it.
Joe
-
If you do the Monokote route do a search on here and over on Stuka Stunt Works. It takes patience and time to do it right. Same with using the different types of paints. The only reason I use adjustable lead outs is I make my lead outs closer together. I have many planes built box stock that fly great.
-
A bit late on this, but...
I put adjustable leadouts in my Sterling Yak-9 with no trouble. I made different tips anyway, because ,,,well, mine are "nicer." They are not overly thick and presented no particular challenge. A leadout guide doesn't have to go on the tip or in a rib. Put it where it fits. I had no problem increasing wing slots for the lines. As for tips for adjustable leadouts, just make the center ply the thickness necessary for the tool of choice (that and length/position are the design starts). and choose the rest to suit aesthetic and strength requirements. Since I don't want lines to abraid the top and bottom of the slot, I line it with epoxied 1/64" ply, or you could use some other laminate. The point is that these operations are 1-off to suit what you have at hand and take very little time compared to the time building and finishing the model. I think they're usually worthwhile. Building yopur own design is fun. Keep it up. Advice here has been good.
-
Two built airframes. Much sanding left to do still, but it is all lightweight work. The weather is against me since I am not allowed to paint or sand in the house. The elevators are wrapped, but I want to paint before covering since I find the end result better.
Dad went to the LHS I went to growing up and scored 3 jars of dope for $2 each, Red, White and Blue! Cleaned them out in the process. I have clear already.
It is Christmas break now so that means I have less time... I need to get a picture on here of them hanging in the basement.
Now, I haven't put eyes on the ends of the lead out wires yet. How long is normal for the extension past the wingtip? I have about a foot of wire, maybe more, to work with. I was thinking 4-6 inches.
Phil
-
How long is normal for the extension past the wingtip?
Just long enough not to hit the leadout guide at full control.
-
Just long enough not to hit the leadout guide at full control.
Then ALL my planes, even the ones Dad set up when I was a kid, have way too much lead sticking out! LL~
I'll find a happy length and go with it.
Phil
-
Howard quoted a minimum. You certainly don't need to be longer than that, but to my knowledge it doesn't hurt to be an inch or two more.
Look at pictures and see where other people put theirs. My rule of thumb is: if a Nat's winner does it, then it's OK for me to do it.
-
All my 1/2A planes have 4-6 inches, or more, sticking out.
One has spectra lines that I put on recently that can come back to the fuselage! There is a reason for this, I had to lace the line through the mostly sealed wing, and it is a hitch through the bell crank using a continuous loop of spectra tied to a thimble. This replaced a set of wire leads that were hanging on a rib causing control loss.
To install those replacements I clipped the original leads, used the lead to pull a messenger line, pulled the loop into the wing with the messenger line, drawing a second messenger, fed through the bell crank, then used the second messenger to draw the loop out of the wing tip guide, pass it over the eyelet, and then snug it all the way back to the bell crank. I only made a small hole in the covering in the rib bay next to the sheeting to access the ends of the bell crank. I have leads like this on plank wing planes; the line doesn't slide around, so it doesn't wear at the bell crank. The same process was used, but the bell crank was unscrewed so the leads did not need the same extreme length.
Phil
-
One of these pieces of rubish , on 55 ft lines , will fly a better pattern than half the stunt ships built .
(http://static.rcgroups.net/forums/attachments/5/9/2/2/3/a2079514-18-F2D%20combat%20wing.jpg?d=1222147036)
If youre LEARNING the virtue is that theyre configured for CRASHING too , which isnt in the design schedule for most stunt ships .
So youll actually get some flying in , Every Day . You put the motor a nick further forward for C.G. Fwd - to steady it up .
Though with a silencer thatd be unneccesary . the wing loadings about 10 ounces for 5.000 Sq. ft. , or whatever they are .
%^@ LL~ S?P