Winter project - Gieske Nobler

[Harold Brewer]

Thinking about building my Topflight Gieske Nobler but not sure abut using a Fox 35.  I'm afraid the it might be a little under powered.  Has anyone built one and what engine did you use?

Regards,

Brew

[Dan McEntee]

     Hey, that Fox .35 was good enough for Gieseke, it should be good enough for you!! It will make plenty of power, you just need to keep the finish simple and shoot for a weight in the 40 ounce range, and learn how to prop and run the engine. Start with a new or little time Fox .35 and carefully beak in in with correct fuel and prop. Start looking for a variety of 10-6 and 10-5 props to experiment with when you start trimming it out. Plan on a 4 ounce tank, maybe even a 4.5 ounce tank if you up the nitro at times. I am adding a video here that I have posted before. it's of me talking about and flying Mike Gretz's Fierce Arrow, a pretty large classic model. it's something like 700 square inches and weighs 50 ounces or better. Fuel in the flights is SIG 5% N , 25% all castor fuel. I suggest adding some Klotz to the mix but same total oil content and maybe 10 to 15% nitro depending on where you fly and air temps. Just build it straight, pay attention to details, and watch the weight. I have a couple of G.Nobler Top Flite builder kits myself I hope to get to. Good luck with the project and have fun with it. The full pattern is flown at the 8 minute mark or so.
   Type a you later,
  Dan  McEntee

   

[Motorman]

I'd try to find a Thunder Tiger GP42, OS FP40 or even a Brodak 40.

MM

[Dave Harmon]

Thinking about building my Topflight Gieske Nobler but not sure abut using a Fox 35.  I'm afraid the it might be a little under powered.  Has anyone built one and what engine did you use?

Regards,

Brew

I would get a Brodak 40.
It is close in size and weight to the Fox 35 but with more power and reliability if set up correctly and using the correct fuel.
I know where a couple of them are NIB....PM me for the details.
They run great...I have several of them on Vectors.

[Ken Culbertson]

     Hey, that Fox .35 was good enough for Gieseke, it should be good enough for you!! It will make plenty of power, you just need to keep the finish simple and shoot for a weight in the 40 ounce range

I flew with Bob regularly from 78 till 82.  I don't think he was happy with what Top Flight did to his baby.  There are a couple of things that I remember about "The Little Red Plane(s)".  First they were extremely light.  I think some of them were in the 32oz range.  I heard there was one that was 28 but I never saw it.  But, even at that weight they were still underpowered by today's standards.  Bob's Foxes were factory specials and ran great but it was not the plane or the Fox 35 that made the Gieseke Nobler, it was Bob.  He could do things with that plane.  My point is simply that a "Kit Gieseke Nobler" is not the same as one of Gieseke's Noblers.  I would build it for a more robust engine than the Fox 35 unless you wanted to fly on 58' lines.

Ken

[Jake Moon]

A subject I can actually claim to have knowledge of!
An Aero Tiger .36 is probably the ideal motor—if you can find one. My dad flew a couple Gieseke Noblers with good success with a Thunder Tiger .36, which is what the Aero Tiger is based on.
An easier to find option would be an OS .40 FP. I used one on a Gieseke Nobler I intended to fly at the World Championships this year. I think the .40 FP is a much better motor for this application than an LA .40 or LA .46. The FP has plenty of power and the LAs are just a bit too heavy. I ended up having to switch out my .40 FP which was worn out for an LA .46. The LA worked pretty well, but I had to add a significant amount of tailweight to compensate for the heavier motor.

[Dan McEntee]

I flew with Bob regularly from 78 till 82.  I don't think he was happy with what Top Flight did to his baby.  There are a couple of things that I remember about "The Little Red Plane(s)".  First they were extremely light.  I think some of them were in the 32oz range.  I heard there was one that was 28 but I never saw it.  But, even at that weight they were still underpowered by today's standards.  Bob's Foxes were factory specials and ran great but it was not the plane or the Fox 35 that made the Gieseke Nobler, it was Bob.  He could do things with that plane.  My point is simply that a "Kit Gieseke Nobler" is not the same as one of Gieseke's Noblers.  I would build it for a more robust engine than the Fox 35 unless you wanted to fly on 58' lines.

Ken

      I'm not speaking for Harold, but in this day and age, not everyone builds a model with the intent of beating Orestez Hernandez at the NATS!! And who's to say that Harold doesn't have what it takes to get the most from the combination and really enjoy building and flying a piece of history??   Jake points out an interesting thing also. The nose moment on the GN is kind of long. There are numerous threads of guys trying to trim out their Green Box Nobler of Nobler ARF and , like Jake, having to add tail weight to get better balance like it should be when they used "other" engines. Ball bearing engines, especially, will tend to make it nose heavy. The Fox .35, being as light as it is, solves some of that issue. It is the engine that it the GB Nobler and G Nobler was designed around. No matter what power plant that is chosen, you have to master and understand that powerplant, so why not choose one of the most plentiful and economical engines on the planet? It would be a great learning experience and be a useful combination in Super 70's or N-30 stunt competition, or even in the Intermediate and Advanced class in local competition. Bob G. built several iterations of his "Gieseke Nobler" and there is a lot of documentation out there to research on it also. From what i have seen, a kit built airplane can be done satisfactorily, and from looking at the kits I have and others I have seen, the wood was pretty decent and with the pre-molded fuselage sheeting instead of block balsa, it should not be too much of a stretch to get one finished and ready to fly in the 40 to 42 ounce range. I see no real reason to not use the Fox .35 as long as you get it broken it correctly, have a good selection of props to test, and have an understanding what nitro can or won't do for you. I encourage Harold to go ahead and use the Fox if he likes it. It's all about having some fun and will be a very satisfying experience, I think.

  Type at you later,
   Dan McEntee

[Matt Colan]

For a Gieseke Nobler, I’m 100% with Jake. Just about any modern engine will be superior to a Fox. An LA 40, 46 or FP 40 would be good. The Aerotiger 36 would be the best choice by far. All of these engines make more power, are easier to start, more reliable, and don’t make as much of a mess with all of the castor oil that would be used in the fuel. For me, the best use of a Fox 35 is a paperweight. I wouldn’t put a Fox in just about anything unless it was a plane I inherited.

[Dave_Trible]

I still like the Fox for Classic airplanes but maybe it's a generational thing.   However I have been using the OS Max S .35 which has more power but is still in the same weight class as the Fox.   It also comes from the classic era.   The Enya .35 would also fit the bill here though is a little bit heavier but best overall quality.   

Dave

[Chris McMillin]

Mine weighed 48 oz with an OS 46 LA. It flew fine but flies on short lines, 57 1/2 on .015’s.
Chris…

[Chris McMillin]

Dan is right, Bob did use the Fox 35 and his ships weighed maybe 40 oz. But that was back in the olden days when that engine was light for its power and he was receiving blueprinted engines direct from Duke Fox . As far as I remember Bob used modern engines since the 80’s when I saw him.  There would be no benefit to use the Fox unless you were going to use it very little or just display the model on the wall!
Chris…

[Leonard Bourel]

Hi guys I have a fox 35 with a hemi head and stuffer back plate in my 42 OZ Brodak Nobler It is as reliable as anything out there. How ever it is very loud and very messy But I wanted the classic Nobler set up. I have now finished just the frame on my new Gieseke Nobler and I am gunning for under 40 OZs I will again use the fox 35 set up .I want it to be as close to Bobs as I can get it with reliability. It is not going to be a contender in PA but hopefully a blast to fly for fun or super 70s. 

[Dennis Moritz]

FP 40, Tower 40, LA46. Sure. I'd use a tongue muffler. Less weight. I'm into Supertigre 46s these days on planes this size. Probably heavier by a bit. Haven't weighed them for comparison. They can loaf around in a four stroke and do a controlled break. Use a lot of fuel though. At one time they were the go to "pro" engine. I'm even flying a Primary Force with a Supertigre. No flaps. Simpler, lighter, plane (usually) then a Nobler. Fox 35s are a hobby in themselves. A friend is into them. Has been for years. He matches piston to liner, hand fits, even hand fits the crank at times. A pleasure to watch on a plane like the Galloping Comedian when all is in sync. Noblers. I'd use an FP type engine. They are abundant. Still. Can be had for cheap. Keep the revs up and they will be consistent.

[Jim Svitko]

I have a Gieseke Nobler.  Fully sheeted foam wing.  The plane weighs 50 oz.  LA 46 for power.  More than enough and it corners very well even for 50 oz.  I sometimes have to cut the nitro content since the plane is overpowered.  But, I would rather have more power than not enough.

A Brodak 40 would be a good choice.  Also, Magnum/ASP 36.  My first Gieseke Nobler weighed 48 oz. and was powered with a Magnum 36.

[Joseph Lijoi]

Bob's Foxes were factory specials and ran great but it was not the plane or the Fox 35 that made the Gieseke Nobler, it was Bob.

Ken

I'm sure Bob didn't pay for them either and was on the Fox "factory team".  After watching me struggle with a Fox, Rollie McDonald told me that Duke would give out "handfuls" of Fox 35's to the top flyers at the nationals every year.

[Ken Culbertson]

I'm sure Bob didn't pay for them either and was on the Fox "factory team".  After watching me struggle with a Fox, Rollie McDonald told me that Duke would give out "handfuls" of Fox 35's to the top flyers at the nationals every year.

That is true.  I got one of them at the 1964 Nats.  I was having erratic motor runs.  Duke Fox and George Aldrich were making the rounds of the practice circles and saw my discomfort.  Magically a new Fox 35 broken in and ready to use appeared.   I had not met Bob at that point but from later discussions with him in the 70's all of what you say is true.

Ken

[Scott Richlen]

For me, the best use of a Fox 35 is a paperweight. I wouldn’t put a Fox in just about anything unless it was a plane I inherited.

So Matt ..... tell us how you really feel about Fox 35s ....   

But, in addition to paperweights, they also make great powerplants for Ringmasters flying the saber-dance.  Petty good in Bi-Slobs, also.

[John Park]

Just a thought: I recall Brett Buck writing that a properly set-up, box stock .20 or .25FP would easily power (or even over-power) models designed for the Fox .35.  I'm confident of building a Gieseke Nobler (to Bob's plan) at under 40 oz. with a .25FP - would I be wasting my time?

[Scott Richlen]

Years ago we flew with a fellow by the name of Bob Klemkiewicz and he built a box-stock Gieske Nobler and it was okay flying.  But he really wasn't satisfied with it.  Then he turned out a scratch-built Gieske using all SIG contest-grade and it came in around 36 oz. as I recall.  So, with the right wood it can be done.  I don't remember what he powered it with, but I would think that an FP-25 would pull that, no?

[Ken Culbertson]

Just a thought: I recall Brett Buck writing that a properly set-up, box stock .20 or .25FP would easily power (or even over-power) models designed for the Fox .35.  I'm confident of building a Gieseke Nobler (to Bob's plan) at under 40 oz. with a .25FP - would I be wasting my time?

I cannot comment on the power comparison.  If Brett said that about engines, I would take it as being true.  What I can add is that Bob flew tail heavy, some would call it very tail heavy, in the years I flew with him.  If you have landing and/or hunting issues with a tail heavy plane, as I do now getting along in years, then you might want to consider the weight of the engine.  Lead in the nose is dead weight.  In any case I would build the mounts to make changing possible.

Ken

[Dave_Trible]

Just a thought: I recall Brett Buck writing that a properly set-up, box stock .20 or .25FP would easily power (or even over-power) models designed for the Fox .35.  I'm confident of building a Gieseke Nobler (to Bob's plan) at under 40 oz. with a .25FP - would I be wasting my time?

I think it would fly fine.  It wouldn't be the type of run/power associated with a Nobler or any classic airplane really.   It would need to run in a solid 2 cycle 'scream' on a rather low pitch prop and there would be hardly any cycle boost in maneuvers.   Otherwise it would be quite serviceable.

Dave

[Dave_Trible]

I cannot comment on the power comparison.  If Brett said that about engines, I would take it as being true.  What I can add is that Bob flew tail heavy, some would call it very tail heavy, in the years I flew with him.  If you have landing and/or hunting issues with a tail heavy plane, as I do now getting along in years, then you might want to consider the weight of the engine.  Lead in the nose is dead weight.  In any case I would build the mounts to make changing possible.

Ken

I would assume he would use the muffler.   I'd think this would equal if not exceed the weight of the unmuffled Fox .35 at  6 ounces.

[John Park]

I would assume he would use the muffler.   I'd think this would equal if not exceed the weight of the unmuffled Fox .35 at  6 ounces.

Yes, stock everything including the OS muffler as supplied with the engine.

[Joseph Lijoi]

What I can add is that Bob flew tail heavy, some would call it very tail heavy, in the years I flew with him.

Ken

The Gieseke Nobler plans for the kit have very fast controls (short horns and the farthest hole from the pivot on the bellcrank being used). Not only that I read somewhere that Bob used a large E-Z just handle. If all this is true then Bob was able to fly this setup due to immense dedication and constant and intense practice.

[Ken Culbertson]

Joseph, that was the 1975-80 Bob in a sentence.   In his prime he would practice almost daily, 5-7 flights.  Sometimes morning and evening. Even with the "mufflers" that didn't muffle much I could hear him from our house about a quarter mile from the circles. 

Ken