stunthanger.com

General control line discussion => Open Forum => Topic started by: David M Johnson on October 26, 2011, 09:24:14 PM

Title: Sterling Hellcat
Post by: David M Johnson on October 26, 2011, 09:24:14 PM
I started to put this together for slo ww2 combat but I was told its to nice to get cut in half learning combat. I did put some landing gear on it and it weighs in at 31 oz. No paint or covering yet.
 
Title: Re: Sterling Hellcat
Post by: wwwarbird on October 26, 2011, 10:54:43 PM
 Looks great David, keep us posted as you finish it up. y1
Title: Re: Sterling Hellcat
Post by: Balsa Butcher on October 26, 2011, 11:15:00 PM
They are right, too nice for combat. Suggestion: Ditch the tank, others may disagree but I've never been able to get good stunt runs with that style of tank, regardless of the engine. Recommend a modern uniflow. Both Brodak and RSM have  styles that would be a better choice.  8)
Title: Re: Sterling Hellcat
Post by: Clint Ormosen on October 27, 2011, 01:02:14 AM
Gotta go with Pete on the tank. Ditch it in favor of a new uniflow, you'll be happier. I dig the Hellcat looks. The Sterling wing was a bit thin and you'll need to fly it kinda fast to get good performance out it. It looks like a SuperTigre 35 on the nose, is that right? If so, you've got plenty of power on it.

Looks good so far!
Title: Re: Sterling Hellcat
Post by: David M Johnson on October 27, 2011, 08:27:16 AM
The Super Tiger is a 35 that is a George Brown modified for Speed I checked with him and he stated that with a 10-5 prop it should do really well with that size/weight plane the wing is not the Stirling wing as I used the airfoil from the P-40 brodak as a guide and built it to the Stirling Hellcat outline.... kind of to get just under 500 sq inches so that it would qualify for the WW2 Slo combat class.
David Johnson 
Title: Re: Sterling Hellcat
Post by: john e. holliday on October 27, 2011, 09:47:52 AM
Yep, too much work in that plane for combat.   Even tho in the early years I would put fancy paint schemes on the flying wings.  Do replace that tank.    H^^
Title: Re: Sterling Hellcat
Post by: ChrisSarnowski on October 27, 2011, 05:34:42 PM
Looks great, don't put that baby into the combat circle!

You could check in with Phil Cartier about a foam wing for that fuselage and build a 2nd one for combat.

-Chris
Title: Re: Sterling Hellcat
Post by: Pat Johnston on November 01, 2011, 12:27:42 PM
David,
Your little "Hellkitty" is the coolest.  The airfoil off the Brodak P-40 will make a huge difference in how it flies.  In fact, at close to 500 squares and under 40 ounces, there is no reason not to have a ball flying this one.  Keep us tuned in on the results.  We will need flying impressions, weight, etc.
Pat Johnston
Skunk Works
Title: Re: Sterling Hellcat
Post by: Bill Little on November 01, 2011, 12:51:18 PM
Hi David,

That will be a very good model!  I like the idea of another airfoil.

I got a "Builder's kit" thanks to a member here, and I want to get to it soon!  I have a ST plain bearing Stunt .35 (baffle piston) and will probably use it on this model.

Big Bear
Title: Re: Sterling Hellcat
Post by: Bryan Higgins on November 03, 2011, 03:32:37 PM
David
Very nice Hellcat. Great job H^^
Title: Re: Sterling Hellcat
Post by: David M Johnson on December 08, 2011, 10:14:14 AM
Done as its going to get. The cable is to tether the engine to the plane per combat rules and is attached to the bellcrank.
David Johnson
Title: Re: Sterling Hellcat
Post by: David M Johnson on December 08, 2011, 10:21:14 AM
Sorry.
Title: Re: Sterling Hellcat
Post by: Tim Wescott on December 08, 2011, 10:21:36 AM
Suggestion: Ditch the tank, others may disagree but I've never been able to get good stunt runs with that style of tank, regardless of the engine. Recommend a modern uniflow. Both Brodak and RSM have  styles that would be a better choice.  8)

If you had a perverse sense of humor and were good at bending tubing, you could rework that to be a modern uniflow, without changing the external looks.  Just take out the fill tube and replace it with a tube that's bent up to come out of the tank the same way, yet with an outlet positioned at the accepted uniflow vent outlet position.  The only giveaway would be when you plugged the overflow tube before flight.

The one really "un modern" part would be that tube in the slipstream; there's probably a solution to that, too, that doesn't involve changing the external appearance when you're not flying (a bent extension tube, perhaps, that 'samples' the air coming along the line of flight?)
Title: Re: Sterling Hellcat
Post by: Bill Little on December 08, 2011, 11:59:35 AM
Those funny shaped tall wedge Profile tanks were always an attempt in futility.  Some planes would work great, others were horrible.  Never knew why.............  (I have converted two of them to uniflow, haven't tried them yet, but will soon)

Big Bear
Title: Re: Sterling Hellcat
Post by: David M Johnson on December 08, 2011, 12:37:11 PM
This plane has a plate that is screwed to the fuse that is adjustable up or down and can have different tanks attached. The photos with that particular tank were just for the photo.
David Johnson
Title: Re: Sterling Hellcat
Post by: David M Johnson on December 10, 2011, 02:30:12 PM
Flight report time... Survey says grooved well. tip weight perfect.  turns on a dime and leaves 9 cents change.  loops smooth and consistent.  Things that need to be worked on a smaller venturi size for the engine and a better tank.  I was using a wedge tank that was banded on and it was too loose for trying other than a few loops and wing overs.
David Johnson
Title: Re: Sterling Hellcat
Post by: john e. holliday on December 11, 2011, 07:39:17 AM
Yep, things must be solidly mounted.  Cures 99.9% of flying problems.   Glad it's working. H^^
Title: Re: Sterling Hellcat
Post by: John Stiles on December 11, 2011, 07:45:02 AM
We had one we flew with a McCoy .50 back in the 80s. We crashed it only after the crankshaft broke. Cool plane though. ;D