Author Topic: Sterling Flying Fool (Read 7212 times)

Gary Dowler · « **on:** June 10, 2017, 10:38:35 PM »

Does anyone know, with any certainty, when Sterling came out with this kit? I know it was available in the 60's and have heard references in passing that it might have come out in the 50's. Does anyone know?

Gary

pat king · « **Reply #1 on:** June 12, 2017, 12:30:14 PM »

The Flying Fool was Sterling kit S-12. Part of the corner where the name and Sterling address of my Flying Fool plans is missing. I cannot tell if there is a Zip code in the address. The Baby Ringmaster is kit S-13. The Sterling address on the Baby Ringmaster plans has a Zip code. I do not know when the Zip codes were first implemented.

Pat

john e. holliday · « **Reply #2 on:** June 12, 2017, 09:01:59 PM »

According to Wikipedia, zip codes started in 1963. Yes Flying Fool mid 50's or later.

M. Scott · « **Reply #3 on:** June 13, 2017, 04:51:20 AM »

So does that mean that it is legal for OLD TIME?
Mike

George Albo · « **Reply #4 on:** June 13, 2017, 06:44:33 AM »

Thought you might like this:

Gary Dowler · « **Reply #5 on:** June 13, 2017, 06:52:18 AM »

George, that's pretty cool. Thanks. That guy was confident of his built, he went into some stunts on its maiden flight. Im not that brave with my "super fool" as I call it....lol

Dan McEntee · « **Reply #6 on:** June 13, 2017, 07:02:23 AM »

Quote from: M. Scott on June 13, 2017, 04:51:20 AM

So does that mean that it is legal for OLD TIME?
Mike

There are Sterling Models web sites outthere for collectors, I believe, that one could check, or flip through the Sterling adds in the old mags, but I'm fairly confident that the Flying Fool is NOT Old Tyme Stunt legal, not even close. I'm thinking it was early 60's when it was released.
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee

pat king · « **Reply #7 on:** June 13, 2017, 07:18:47 AM »

I have laser cut kits of the Flying Fool and the Flying Fool 45, a 48" span 590 square inch airplane.

Pat

Bob Heywood · « **Reply #8 on:** June 13, 2017, 07:48:31 AM »

The Sterling ad in August 1957 Model Airplane News promotes the Navion (S-9) and Starfire (S-10) as "New Stunt Combat Thrills!". According to Barry Baxter's web site the T-Square (S-11) won the 1958 NATS in Combat. The ad in July 1961 American Modeler lists the Flying Fool (S-12) and later designs with "New Prices". Finally, a post in RC Groups refers to one being built in 1960. So...it looks like late 1950's to 1960 is the time range.

Gary Dowler · « **Reply #9 on:** June 13, 2017, 08:51:45 AM »

Quote from: pat king on June 13, 2017, 07:18:47 AM

I have laser cut kits of the Flying Fool and the Flying Fool 45, a 48" span 590 square inch airplane.

Pat

That would have saved me a ton of work...... mine is 45". The original was simply scaled up 25% and I added one rib to each end of the top wing. Its right about 535-540 sq in. Curious what yours weigh typically? What engine do you typically use? Mine is 50.5oz fitted with a 46 RC with expansion muffler.

Look for my thread of my latest project, there you will see pics of my plane. Curious how my construction compares to how you engineered yours.

pat king · « **Reply #10 on:** June 13, 2017, 10:23:41 AM »

I don't have a weight on the 45, the kit should have a 45 to 53 engine. The wings use a shear-web spar with spar caps to give an "I-beam" spar. The spar and ribs are notched for an "egg crate" construction method. You can see the plans in the Vendors corner under PDK LLC .

Pat

Bob Heywood · « **Reply #11 on:** June 13, 2017, 12:17:08 PM »

Model Airplane News, November 1958...

Dalton Hammett · « **Reply #12 on:** June 14, 2017, 02:24:50 PM »

Gary, If you are inquiring about your model and yours is a scaled up model it would not qualify for OTS or Classic as I understand it, only modern stunt.

Gary Dowler · « **Reply #13 on:** June 14, 2017, 04:05:02 PM »

Interesting! So it dates back to at least '58. Look at the price! $3.95!

Jim Carter · « **Reply #14 on:** June 15, 2017, 05:05:05 PM »

Howdy Gary! Just curious, are you interested in obtaining one built, tested and ready to fly?

James Holford · « **Reply #15 on:** June 15, 2017, 06:37:12 PM »

Quote from: Jim Carter on June 15, 2017, 05:05:05 PM

Howdy Gary! Just curious, are you interested in obtaining one built, tested and ready to fly?

:O that is nice!!!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

Scott Richlen · « **Reply #16 on:** June 21, 2017, 06:01:30 AM »

Do the scaled-up ones still "gallop" through their loops?

Bigger "gallops"?

john e. holliday · « **Reply #17 on:** June 21, 2017, 08:04:02 AM »

Don't know what you mean by gallop, but go watch the video again. It looks smooth to me.

Scott Richlen · « **Reply #18 on:** June 21, 2017, 10:14:17 AM »

If you try to do any kind of tight loop or square corner they gallop. Not sure how Brett would explain it, but I suppose it's the result of a thin airfoil, combined with small wing area, so it stalls through any tight turns. The "loops" that the fellow in the video was doing went pretty much through the top of the circle - of course, no "gallop" then.

phil c · « **Reply #19 on:** June 21, 2017, 11:40:24 AM »

The Flying Fool makes an interesting, different sport plane for just flying around and doing simple stunts. The original Sterling kit had the usual heavy wood and tends to build heavy and can't do much beyond big loops and round eights. The biplane design makes it more easy to damage in a rough landing. Flipping over can break a wing instead of a rudder, although I have seen an FF keep flying and land after the top wing blew off.

Select new wood and scratch build it much lighter and it will fly better.

Jim Carter's bigger version looks like it will fly quite a big better.

The only bipe I've ever seen fly a decent pattern was Pete Simonson's Sopwith Camel- light, 400+ squares, less than 32 oz. and a nearly scale profile and layout.

James Holford · « **Reply #20 on:** June 21, 2017, 04:21:04 PM »

Quote from: phil c on June 21, 2017, 11:40:24 AM

The Flying Fool makes an interesting, different sport plane for just flying around and doing simple stunts. The original Sterling kit had the usual heavy wood and tends to build heavy and can't do much beyond big loops and round eights. The biplane design makes it more easy to damage in a rough landing. Flipping over can break a wing instead of a rudder, although I have seen an FF keep flying and land after the top wing blew off.

Select new wood and scratch build it much lighter and it will fly better.

Jim Carter's bigger version looks like it will fly quite a big better.

The only bipe I've ever seen fly a decent pattern was Pete Simonson's Sopwith Camel- light, 400+ squares, less than 32 oz. and a nearly scale profile and layout.

Steve Millet's 38 Special with a .46LA does an awesome pattern. I might have video of it somewhere.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

Scott Richlen · « **Reply #21 on:** June 22, 2017, 05:27:26 AM »

Phil:

Can you post some pictures of Pete Simonson's Sopwith Camel? Are plans available for it?

Thanks!

Paul Smith · « **Reply #22 on:** June 22, 2017, 08:39:18 AM »

I have a rescue rehab Fool that was donated by somebody cleaning out a house.

It's not OTS legal and while mine flys OK, it's not even close to doing the OT pattern.

pat king · « **Reply #23 on:** June 22, 2017, 08:33:17 PM »

My Flying Fool is lighter, has better structure, better top wing attachment, and a thicker airfoil than the Sterling Airplane. Dennis Lipsett can tell you how it flies. The Flying Fool has 295 square inches of wing area. It is NOT enough airplane for a .35 unless the engine is old and damned weak! The Flying Fool 45 is a scaled up version of my Flying Fool. It is 141% the size of the original. It has twice the wing area, 590 square inches.

Pat

Gary Dowler · « **Reply #24 on:** June 22, 2017, 09:36:29 PM »

Quote from: pat king on June 22, 2017, 08:33:17 PM

My Flying Fool is lighter, has better structure, better top wing attachment, and a thicker airfoil than the Sterling Airplane. Dennis Lipsett can tell you how it flies. The Flying Fool has 295 square inches of wing area. It is NOT enough airplane for a .35 unless the engine is old and damned weak! The Flying Fool 45 is a scaled up version of my Flying Fool. It is 141% the size of the original. It has twice the wing area, 590 square inches.

Pat

Its apparently just a bit bigger than mine. I built mine to 125% scale, then stretched the top wing 1 rib per side. Brings it to 535-540 sq in and a completed weight of 50.5oz plus throttle and has flaps, and a significantly reinforced attachment of the top wing. Tomorrow I have the time to fly if the wind cooperates. Yesterday I had time, but was too windy early on. After church it was perfect, just not enough daylight was left. Today we had great weather but other things to do early then working OT tonight. AArrgghh! I have time tomorrow if, as I said, the wind cooperates. At some point Ill have to see how she behaves in the wind, but that's for after we get to know each other better.

pat king · « **Reply #25 on:** June 23, 2017, 07:48:41 AM »

I can understand 'know each other better".

Pat

YakNine · « **Reply #26 on:** November 27, 2017, 10:04:53 AM »

Hi Pat, do you think an Enya .19 lV would be a good choice for your flying fool , it seems to be the strongest of my 19s except for the veco's. Thanks TJ

dennis lipsett · « **Reply #27 on:** November 27, 2017, 10:22:39 AM »

Quote from: YakNine on November 27, 2017, 10:04:53 AM

Hi Pat, do you think an Enya .19 lV would be a good choice for your flying fool , it seems to be the strongest of my 19s except for the veco's. Thanks TJ

I used a plain bearing Enya 25SS for Pats prototype. The model was lighter than the Sterling offering and was surprisingly agile for what it is. True, your not going to do the pattern but loops, lazy eights, wingovers, inverted flight are within its capabilities. If your Veco 19 is in good shape that's what I'd use. Another consideration is to open the gap between the wings and it will improve the performance of the model. I didn't but it is a worthwhile consideration to anyone contemplating a build. A friend has it and has consigned it to a wall queen status. Go figure!

YakNine · « **Reply #28 on:** November 27, 2017, 05:34:58 PM »

Thanks Dennis but the Veco already has a home I am looking for one for the Enya. Another possibility is the RSM P-51. TJ

pat king · « **Reply #29 on:** November 27, 2017, 08:06:09 PM »

The Enya 19 IV is plenty of engine for my Flying Fool. At 295 square inches a good .15 would fly the airplane just fine. .061 precision aerobatic airplanes are in the 230 square inch neighborhood.

Pat