stunthanger.com
General control line discussion => Open Forum => Topic started by: Mike Griffin on November 14, 2017, 12:05:55 PM
-
Who is currently kitting Ted Fancher's Imitation? Thank you
Mike
-
May be you? If you need help for 3D design - ask me.
-
Who is currently kitting Ted Fancher's Imitation? Thank you
Mike
I could be wrong but I haven't heard of anyone kitting it for a long, long time. Maybe Ted will chime in!
If you're considering it, I'm sure there would be some interest!
Randy Cuberly
-
UltraHobby (Steve Moon) was probably the last outfit that kitted the Imitation, starting back in '03. Unfortunately, I believe his laser cutting vendor is no longer providing those services. Steve sells his nicely redrawn plans for the Imitation and many other planes. His version has the stab cut from flat material as opposed to the thick airfoil on the original plan. I attached a couple of low-res pictures of both plans.
I have read that all of the UltraHobby laser cut kits were very well done. Bob Hunt has foam wings available for the Imitation.
Time for you and Eric to fire up the lasers!
-
I had a very nice conversation today with Ted Fancher about the possibly producing a laser cut kit of the Imitation. Ted was very positive about producing a kit of the model and offered any help he could give during the process. Eric Rule at RSM would do the CAD work and cut the kits for me if this project goes forward as I hope it does.
What I want to make sure of before I proceed with producing a kit is that no one is currently producing the kit because the last thing I want to do is cause any hard feelings or duplicate efforts. I am not aware of anyone currently producing the kit and there seems to be sufficient interest to go ahead with the project.
Eric and I have had some discussions about creating a CAD file from which to cut the kit and this can be done as soon as I pull the trigger and give the go ahead.
So please give me your input on this and if you would like to own a kit of the Imitation please post and let me know. If there is sufficient interest, I will get with Eric and produce the kit.
Thank you all very much
Mike Griffin
-
I'm in on this one..
-
Thank you Allan
Mike
-
Interesting bell crank shown on that plan!
-
I'm interested in this one.
If produced, what is approximate availability date?
Roger Vizioli
-
I'm interested in this one.
If produced, what is approximate availability date?
Roger Vizioli
Hi Roger
I really have no idea yet on availability. There is a lot to be done before we start cutting kits. I have to get with Eric Rule and go over the plans and get the model into a CAD file. Then he has to cut a prototype and I have to build that to make sure everything fits right. All this takes quite a bit of time and if we run into glitches in the test build that could take more time. From start to finish when producing a new kit it takes a good amount of time. Plus we have the holidays coming up. At best I would think after the first of the year sometime. I wish I could be more definite about a release date but there are a lot of variables to consider.
Mike
-
Interesting bell crank shown on that plan!
Maybe Ted will answer why he used that type of bellcrank on the orginal model. We will use a RSM Carbon Fiber bellcrank for the kit.
Mike
-
Mike count me in on this one please.
-
Color me in
-
From the input I am getting it looks like I will be getting with Eric next week and start preliminary planning to get the process going of producing the kit. Please keep the input coming and I will get started on what I have to do. Thank you all very much.
Mike
-
Mike,
Just what I need----another kit to add to the stack ::)
Save one for me.
Jim
-
I too would like one, do you have a price yet? Thanks, Gil
-
Mike, add me to the list!
-
I too would like one, do you have a price yet? Thanks, Gil
Not as of yet Gil. Will let you know as soon as I know.
Mike
-
Hi Roger
I really have no idea yet on availability. There is a lot to be done before we start cutting kits. I have to get with Eric Rule and go over the plans and get the model into a CAD file. Then he has to cut a prototype and I have to build that to make sure everything fits right. All this takes quite a bit of time and if we run into glitches in the test build that could take more time. From start to finish when producing a new kit it takes a good amount of time. Plus we have the holidays coming up. At best I would think after the first of the year sometime. I wish I could be more definite about a release date but there are a lot of variables to consider.
Mike
Mike, thx, I understand the process and timelines for getting to the "Build a prototype" task.
Pls keep us informed.
Roger V.
-
HI Mike. Plans mailed at 1:15 pm today. You should get them Friday or Saturday. Set one aside for me. I'm going to push three of my guys to buy one as well. H^^
Thank you Ty and I certainly will.
Mike
-
Here are a couple of photos I had in my picture album I had of the Imitation. I do not know whose models these are but they are pretty.
Mike
-
Mike, your second picture is "THE Imitation." Ted Fancher's original plane.
Here are some additional pictures of that plane.
-
Mike, your second picture is "THE Imitation." Ted Fancher's original plane.
Here are some additional pictures of that plane.
Thank you Brent.
Mike
-
Everyone who said they wanted a kit in the above thread has been added to the list. I will get with you all later as it gets closer to finishing the kits as far as shipping addresses etc. Thank you very much for supporting this effort
Mike
-
Mike,
I am considering a kit, however I have a few questions.
Would this be a full kit or a short kit, or an option for either one?
Would the kit have the thick stabilizer as originally designed, or the thinner stabilizer as modified by the Moon's?
Thanks;
Larry
-
Mike,
I am considering a kit, however I have a few questions.
Would this be a full kit or a short kit, or an option for either one?
Would the kit have the thick stabilizer as originally designed, or the thinner stabilizer as modified by the Moon's?
Thanks;
Larry
Hi Larry,
Honestly, I have not gotten that far into the process yet but it is not a problem to do either one. I can always list it as a short kit with with options but I am not to that point yet. Usually I like to keep things a simple as I can but listing additional options or add ons for a kit is not a problem. I want to keep this kit as cost effective and affordable as possible.
As far as the stab thickness goes, I have had a brief conversation with Ted and Eric about this and we have not made a decision yet. Eric tells me that we may be able to make it a builder option and include material in the kit to build it either way. That may be an option.
These are all good questions and we are taking these and others into consideration. As we progress through the CAD files and design, these factors will be addressed and I will let everyone know before the kit is released. I can tell you for sure that we will NOT use the round bellcrank that Ted showed on the original plan. It will be a 4" Carbon fiber suspended bellcrank and mount.
Thank you for the input.
Mike
-
Hi Larry,
Honestly, I have not gotten that far into the process yet but it is not a problem to do either one. I can always list it as a short kit with with options but I am not to that point yet. Usually I like to keep things a simple as I can but listing additional options or add ons for a kit is not a problem. I want to keep this kit as cost effective and affordable as possible.
As far as the stab thickness goes, I have had a brief conversation with Ted and Eric about this and we have not made a decision yet. Eric tells me that we may be able to make it a builder option and include material in the kit to build it either way. That may be an option.
These are all good questions and we are taking these and others into consideration. As we progress through the CAD files and design, these factors will be addressed and I will let everyone know before the kit is released. I can tell you for sure that we will NOT use the round bellcrank that Ted showed on the original plan. It will be a 4" Carbon fiber suspended bellcrank and mount.
Thank you for the input.
=========================================================================================
Thanks Mike for your reply to my questions.
Larry
-
Hey Mikey: I told you this one would be a winner. You should get ahold of Ted's construction article and include a copy in the kits..
-
Changed my mind Mike, can't do it. Gerald
-
I know nothing about the details of the kit, however, the Imitation is the basis of almost *all* the West Coast designs, and many others (acknowledged or not). Almost everything we have done since 1979 (me included even though I didn't live here then) is based on trying to replicate the flying qualities of the Imitation in a full-fuselage design, with varying degrees of success - the Thundergazer being the closest to the original in most relevant characteristics.
Brett
-
The profile fuselage in Ted's original plan doesn't look at all rigid aft of the wing. Yet, the design is legendary for flying ability. This is perplexing to me. Anybody else? :-\ Steve
-
Hi Mike,
Even though I have at least 3 projects under way, this is one plane I've always wanted. Eric cut me a set of ribs awhile back, I think they are from Pat Johnston's files, but that is all he had at that time. They match the drawings (root and tip) from the plans. Anyhow, I want one when you get to going on it.
Thank you Gerald. You are on the list
Mike
-
UltraHobby (Steve Moon) was probably the last outfit that kitted the Imitation, starting back in '03. Unfortunately, I believe his laser cutting vendor is no longer providing those services. Steve sells his nicely redrawn plans for the Imitation and many other planes. His version has the stab cut from flat material as opposed to the thick airfoil on the original plan. I attached a couple of low-res pictures of both plans.
I have read that all of the UltraHobby laser cut kits were very well done. Bob Hunt has foam wings available for the Imitation.
Time for you and Eric to fire up the lasers!
Thank you Brent. WE are in the process of starting the CAD files.
Mike
-
Mike count me in on this one please.
I have you down for one. Thank you Walter
Mike
-
Mike count me in on this one please.
I have you down for one Walter. Thank you
-
Color me in
I have you down for a kit Dane. Thank you
Mike
-
Mike,
Just what I need----another kit to add to the stack ::)
Save one for me.
Jim
I have you down for a kit Jim. Thank you
Mike
-
HI Mike. Plans mailed at 1:15 pm today. You should get them Friday or Saturday. Set one aside for me. I'm going to push three of my guys to buy one as well. H^^
Thank you Ty. I have you down for a kit
Mike
-
Mike, add me to the list!
Thank you Ray. I have you down for a kit
Mike
-
I too would like one, do you have a price yet? Thanks, Gil
Thank you Gil. Ihave you down for a kit.
Mike
-
The profile fuselage in Ted's original plan doesn't look at all rigid aft of the wing. Yet, the design is legendary for flying ability. This is perplexing to me. Anybody else? :-\ Steve
DO NOT, repeat DO NOT, cut out the aft fuselage as it shows (optionally) on the plans.
Brett
-
Just wanted to say thanks to Mike for taking on this project, I'm sure he'll do his usual good job. We've had some preliminary chats about the Imitation, it's history and design considerations and discussed a handful of ways to adapt it to general use rather than as the "flying test bed" mission of the prototype. For those interested in building one when Mike makes them available I urge you to get on the AMA website, search for and read the two part article on the ship in the Sept and Oct 1979 issues of Model Aviation magazine. (I know, I know. That sounds really "old" but I think you'll find an Imitation flies really "new" when it comes to our "tricks".) In any case, I think those of you with an interest in stunt design will find the discussion of the various experiments for which the design was intended to be of interest. Of my several designs I believe the Imitation was the easiest of all to fly easily and accurately time after time.
As Brett was kind enough to point out, the Imitation had a significant impact on the the west coast stunt community immediately after its publication in Model Aviation, one that has carried over and influenced a number of successful subsequent designs, many of them full fuse versions of the underlying Imitation "numbers". Those ships often utilized the fuselage of the later Excitation design (with only modest relocation of the wing suggested by the greater taper ratio and swept forward flap hinge line of the Excitation wing compared to the Imitation. My own Citation V which won the 1986 Nats was pretty much one of those full fuse Imitations under its fancy paint job.
Good luck to Mike with this project. I hope many will give the "Imitation" a chance to be their "real" thing.
-
DO NOT, repeat DO NOT, cut out the aft fuselage as it shows (optionally) on the plans.
Brett
As usual, Brett is absolutely right (as was Steve in his query).
This was already the subject of a discussion between Mike and me. This aspect will either be restructured to provide some semblance of rigidity or (most likely) be eliminated entirely. The fact that today's engines are generally a couple or more ounces heavier and thus (as was proven when the thing got in the air) the need for aggressive weight saving in the tail was...and will continue to be...a non issue. Even with the extra weight of an Enya .46 four stroke up front the tail weight box was never employed.
In my defense, when designing and drawing the plan I had some concern over the longer than the "norm at the time" tail moment arm and tried to cover my butt three ways...first and second by lightening the aft fuse while also including a tail weight box. This apparent dichotomy was intended to be of use when testing motors of different weights, etc. The primary way of doing so was always intended to be the three firewall "spacers" which could be added between the 1/4" ply fuse firewall and the "RC style" engine mount to accommodate engines of varying weights while maintaining a "flight proven" optimum CG. The use of those spacers, by the way, was in itself a "flight test" gimmick in that I was of the opinion that what we so often call "nose moment" was not a significant factor in pattern performance and that a nose should be simply long enough to achieve the optimum CG without adding dead weight to get it there. To the best of my recollection any adjustments necessary to achieve the desired CG were always accomplished by selecting an appropriate spacer.
-
Mike i'd like to be added to your list for a kit. Thank you.....Gene Poremba
-
Mike i'd like to be added to your list for a kit. Thank you.....Gene Poremba
Thank you Gene. I have you down for a kit
Mike
-
Hey Mike,
Sure, add me to the list.
Cheers,
Tom
-
I don't want to be left out Mike so please add me to the list too.
-
Hey Mike,
Sure, add me to the list.
Cheers,
Tom
Thank you Tom. I have added you to the list
Mike
-
In my defense, when designing and drawing the plan I had some concern over the longer than the "norm at the time" tail moment arm and tried to cover my butt three ways...first and second by lightening the aft fuse while also including a tail weight box.
Nothing to defend, the damn thing flew great regardless. However, it *was* coming up on 40 years ago (sorry...) and I think we have learned a few more things since. This would be an absolutely ideal project for a relatively simple vacuum-bag experiment, vacuum-bagging 6 ounce/square yard carbon fiber woven cloth on both sides of the fuse. Might add about an ounce and a half but much, much stiffer. As noted, almost any engine you might want to put on it is likely to be heavier than an ST and the nose can't be much shorter and still contain the fuel tank, so I don't think it would be an issue.
Again, hard to argue with the result, but if I was going to do it now (and I might) I would also use the same sort of tail I have on the Infinity, relatively thin, airfoiled, 67/33 and about 4.5:1. As luck would have it, I have the cores to such a tail that appear to be excess to my needs. Maybe I will call it a "profile Thundergazer."
I would additionally note that almost anything you might want to put on it will be more powerful and effective than an ST46, too and in general use less fuel. I would be inclined to use an AAC 40VF, now that such a thing is possible.
Brett
-
I don't want to be left out Mike so please add me to the list too.
I have added you to the list. Thank you Dave
Mike
-
I would like to be added to the list.
Will Moore
-
I would like to be added to the list.
Will Moore
Will I have added you to the list. Thank you
Mike
-
Someone asked me if the Imitation was profile-legal. I'm not sure how I came to be an expert (maybe just because I can't keep my mouth shut?) but here's the NW Profile rules as pertains to the Imitation. Note that profile is not a national event -- your rules may vary, so make sure to check.
3. Airplane: Any profile airplane is allowed.
3.1. The engine may be mounted in any configuration -- side-mounted, upright or inverted.
3.2. Doublers or triplers and cheek cowls are allowed, including faired spinners, but the fuselage must meet the "profile" definition of maximum 3/4" thickness by the trailing edge of the wing/flap hinge line, and the engine must be fully exposed from lugs to plug.
4. Engine: Any engine up to 15cc/.91cu.in. Electrics allowed per AMA Stunt Rules.
3: Yup.
3.1: Yup.
3.2: Yup, yup, yup (1/2 inch, not 3/4 inch), and yup (in fact the engine is fully exposed in the 'real' Imitation)
4: Yup.
Were I going to build one (and oh, man, am I tempted!) I might swiss-cheese the fuselage and laminate on some 3/32" balsa sides, or make a BIG cutout, fill it with foam, and ditto the balsa sides. This should be far more rigid, and lighter to boot -- if you don't take the weight of glue into account. Cover the outside with silkspan or CF veil, and it should make a nice rigid assembly.
Note that it's a lot more work, so it turns a "knock it out quick" project into something longer.
Note, too, that this may not be legal in your area -- I understand that 1/2" wide behind the wing is the limit in some places.
Finally, note that it's also not wise at all if you're still Sir Crashalot of the Knights of the Round Circle, because a cool laminated fuselage is way, way harder to repair than a solid hunk of wood. If you fly Profile because you're not world class but are too good for Advanced, and you just NEED some trophies, then it's probably worthwhile.
-
3. Airplane: Any profile airplane is allowed.
3.1. The engine may be mounted in any configuration -- side-mounted, upright or inverted.
3.2. Doublers or triplers and cheek cowls are allowed, including faired spinners, but the fuselage must meet the "profile" definition of maximum 3/4" thickness by the trailing edge of the wing/flap hinge line, and the engine must be fully exposed from lugs to plug.
4. Engine: Any engine up to 15cc/.91cu.in. Electrics allowed per AMA Stunt Rules.
3: Yup.
3.1: Yup.
3.2: Yup, yup, yup (1/2 inch, not 3/4 inch), and yup (in fact the engine is fully exposed in the 'real' Imitation)
4: Yup.
Not understanding you here. You got 2 sets of rules, only 3.2 is different ???
-
Not understanding you here. You got 2 sets of rules, only 3.2 is different ???
Don't shoot the messenger. I'm not the author, I merely quote: http://flyinglines.org/rules.profilestunt.html (http://flyinglines.org/rules.profilestunt.html).
-
"Were I going to build one (and oh, man, am I tempted!) I might swiss-cheese the fuselage and laminate on some 3/32" balsa sides, or make a BIG cutout, fill it with foam, and ditto the balsa sides. This should be far more rigid, and lighter to boot -- if you don't take the weight of glue into account. Cover the outside with silkspan or CF veil, and it should make a nice rigid assembly. "
Stay with me on this Tim. Ted, Eric Rule and I are working on a built up very rigid fuselage that is going to meet your requirements. I think you and everyone else is going to like it.
Mike
-
There's absolutely no reason that you can't build this airplane in the upper 40's/low 50's ounce range with completely conventional approaches. All these crazy weight-saving schemes are unnecessary. The problem, if there is one, is the *rigidity*. My full-fuse Imitations and other similar-sized models from the ST46 era were between 45 and 52 ounces, which is plenty light enough, considering the available power.
For those without piped engines, build it normally, put on a 46LA (power and repeatability we could have only dreamed of in the 80's) and it will be in the low 50's. That's *plenty* good enough, if everything else is right. I flew one of my full-fuse versions with everything from 35FP to a 40VF.
David won the World Championship with what amounts to the same wing at *66* ounces, and many NATs since.
Brett
-
Someone asked me if the Imitation was profile-legal. I'm not sure how I came to be an expert (maybe just because I can't keep my mouth shut?) but here's the NW Profile rules as pertains to the Imitation. Note that profile is not a national event -- your rules may vary, so make sure to check.
3. Airplane: Any profile airplane is allowed.
3.1. The engine may be mounted in any configuration -- side-mounted, upright or inverted.
3.2. Doublers or triplers and cheek cowls are allowed, including faired spinners, but the fuselage must meet the "profile" definition of maximum 3/4" thickness by the trailing edge of the wing/flap hinge line, and the engine must be fully exposed from lugs to plug.
4. Engine: Any engine up to 15cc/.91cu.in. Electrics allowed per AMA Stunt Rules.
3: Yup.
3.1: Yup.
3.2: Yup, yup, yup (1/2 inch, not 3/4 inch), and yup (in fact the engine is fully exposed in the 'real' Imitation)
4: Yup.
Were I going to build one (and oh, man, am I tempted!) I might swiss-cheese the fuselage and laminate on some 3/32" balsa sides, or make a BIG cutout, fill it with foam, and ditto the balsa sides. This should be far more rigid, and lighter to boot -- if you don't take the weight of glue into account. Cover the outside with silkspan or CF veil, and it should make a nice rigid assembly.
Note that it's a lot more work, so it turns a "knock it out quick" project into something longer.
Note, too, that this may not be legal in your area -- I understand that 1/2" wide behind the wing is the limit in some places.
Finally, note that it's also not wise at all if you're still Sir Crashalot of the Knights of the Round Circle, because a cool laminated fuselage is way, way harder to repair than a solid hunk of wood. If you fly Profile because you're not world class but are too good for Advanced, and you just NEED some trophies, then it's probably worthwhile.
In my opinion it doesn't not qualify as a profile, and everyone gets hung up on the "3/4" behind the trailing edge of the wing" part of some rules that describe a profile model. Hells bells! There are some full fuselage designs out there that are that narrow behind the fuselage!. What denotes a profile model in my opinion is what takes place in front of the trailing edge, and on a true profile model the engine is mounted sideways. This has all been "discussed" before in other threads but in our contests here, it would not be allowed because of all the build up in the nose and the upright or inverted engine. The whole purpose of this design, as I see it, is to get you beyond the typical profile with simple construction and to ability to easily change out power plants for experimentation. That is what attracts me to the concept, having a decent looking, good flying "mule" to check out different engines in.
So, add me to the list Mr. Griffin!
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee
-
In my opinion it doesn't not qualify as a profile, and everyone gets hung up on the "3/4" behind the trailing edge of the wing" part of some rules that describe a profile model. Hells bells! There are some full fuselage designs out there that are that narrow behind the fuselage!. What denotes a profile model in my opinion is what takes place in front of the trailing edge, and on a true profile model the engine is mounted sideways. This has all been "discussed" before in other threads but in our contests here, it would not be allowed because of all the build up in the nose and the upright or inverted engine. The whole purpose of this design, as I see it, is to get you beyond the typical profile with simple construction and to ability to easily change out power plants for experimentation. That is what attracts me to the concept, having a decent looking, good flying "mule" to check out different engines in.
So, add me to the list Mr. Griffin!
Thank you Dan. I have added you to the list.
Mike
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee
-
I thought at this point, I might bring everyone up to date on what has been going on behind the scenes with the development of this kit.
Ted Fancher and I have had several discussions about design options to give this kit the "best" of what has been learned over the years and update a few things without taking one iota of the flying capabilities of the model away. One of the issues, that has been discussed here, is how to make the fuselage as rigid as possible and with Ted's input, I think we have come up with a very good way of doing it. The fuselage will be a "built up" construction of two pieces of 3/16 that will be laminated together to form the core. These pieces would be lasered out as follows: On the outboard 3/16 piece the cut outs would angle to the right while on the inboard piece the same cut outs would angle to the left. They would meet on the centerline of the fuse where they would be glued together forming the “X” braces This method effectively creates “Warren Trusses” which are very strong, rigid yet very light weight. The core will then be covered with 1/16” balsa on both the inboard and outboard sides giving you the ½” thick fuselage body.
Another feature that Ted and I discussed were the flaps. More specifically, the length of the flaps. The original model was designed so that you could experiment with different lengths of the flaps to see which choice would give you to best corners and turning ability of the airplane. Ted told me that the best result and where the model performed the best was with the flap utilized at the longest length he designed and this is what the kit will incorporate. There will be a short section of stationary flap on both the inboard and outboard wing and both flaps will extend to that point.
The circular bellcrank shown on the original plan was an experiment and will not be part of the design. WE will put a 4” carbon fiber bell crank in the kit and it will be installed as a suspended type bellcrank.
As I type this, Eric Rule is incorporating all of this into a CAD file and as soon as he can plot out a plan, it will be sent to Ted for approval and we can start cutting a prototype for me to build and approve before the kit is released. We all want to make sure this kit is right before we release it. I think you all are going to be very pleased with the final result.
I want to thank everyone for their tremendous response on this, it has surpassed our expectations. I want to give a special shout out to fellow club member and friend Allan Perret who first suggested to me that this would be a great project to embark on and he was right.
Regards,
Mike
-
I have been reading this thread with great interest.
Years ago I built a foam wing Imitation with a flat stab based on Bretts suggestion at the time. It was my first foam wing and had to much paint on it and was heavy. It had a ST 51 on it so it had plenty of power. I had never in my limited experience had a plane that was so enjoyable to fly in any weather condition. I would fly very consistent rounds ,stop turning coming out of maneuvers when you wanted without bobbles and was very inspiring to fly.
All was well until I pancaked in on a pullout that was to low and broke something inside the wing. From then on it had some sort of vibration that I could never chase down. I tried a different engine thinking that might be it but it was in the airframe. I quit flying it because I was afraid it would come apart while flying.
I would gladly build another one but what I would really like is a full fuse version. I have heard for years that here have been full fuse versions built but I have never heard of any plans around for one.
I don't want to complicate Mikes rekitting of a very good airplane but if a full fuse version could be drawn up and offered as a option I think there would be much interest in it.
-
I have been reading this thread with great interest.
Years ago I built a foam wing Imitation with a flat stab based on Bretts suggestion at the time. It was my first foam wing and had to much paint on it and was heavy. It had a ST 51 on it so it had plenty of power. I had never in my limited experience had a plane that was so enjoyable to fly in any weather condition. I would fly very consistent rounds ,stop turning coming out of maneuvers when you wanted without bobbles and was very inspiring to fly.
All was well until I pancaked in on a pullout that was to low and broke something inside the wing. From then on it had some sort of vibration that I could never chase down. I tried a different engine thinking that might be it but it was in the airframe. I quit flying it because I was afraid it would come apart while flying.
I would gladly build another one but what I would really like is a full fuse version. I have heard for years that here have been full fuse versions built but I have never heard of any plans around for one.
I don't want to complicate Mikes rekitting of a very good airplane but if a full fuse version could be drawn up and offered as a option I think there would be much interest in it.
Just take the wings and moments and put them in the fuselage of your choice. Or as Brett has mentioned, the Thundergazer is as close to it as anything else you can get, and I believe it is available as a kit from RSM? . So there you go. Check out Brett Buck's replies to this thread.
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee
-
I used the side view of the plans and cut a full fuselage version. I called it the "Mimic".
Ty, you got pictures of the Mimic ?
-
Bob Duncan of the central California area came up to a Fall Follies in Salem with an Imitation with a very standard looking profile fuselage (slender front from top view). Powered with an Aero Tiger .36, it appeared well powered and flew nicely, but then the AT .36 is a stout power source. I wouldn't use one of my Magnum XLS .36's, but a .46LA or ST G.51 would do just fine. D>K Steve
-
Dale Barry has one called the "Limitation" with the "standard" side mounted engine. Not sure of any other mods. H^^
IIRC it's smaller, made to not be overwhelming for the kid (maybe Dale at the time?) flying it.
-
[snip] I used the side view of the plans and cut a full fuselage version. I called it the "Mimic". [snip] It was very easy to make a full fuselage version and any one that can build a "Nobler," can do it.
"Mimic!" I love it!
Ty is absolutely right that a fuselage using the "usual" construction techniques would be very simple. All that would have to be drawn is the desired shape of the cowling matched to your preference for spinner size where the stock nose/tank cutout/firewall are on the Imitation drawings. Draw in the the engine/motor crutches/mounts, and the bulkheads and you're ready to cut balsa.
Another alternative--if the plans are still available from Model lAviation--the Excitation design was published a year or two later which was based on the Imitation and used the same airfoils. The fuselage of that airplane could be built with very minor modifications to the location of the wing cut outs as the wing was built with a swept forward flap hinge lines which moved the MAC (Mean Aerodynamic Chord) of the wing forward a half inch or so. Simply move the wing cutout forward a half inch and insert an Imitation wing and tail.
Ted
Edited to get the wing movement forward vice backward in the Excitation fuse to account for the different wing planforms of the two airplanes. It isn't a great big deal and the worst that could happen if you put the Imitation wing in the stock Excitation cut-out you might have to add a tiny bit of tail weight to get optimum performance. This ain't satellite science, ya know!
-
I wish I had a larger pic of the Excitation plan, but here's a small view.
-
IIRC it's smaller, made to not be overwhelming for the kid (maybe Dale at the time?) flying it.
Little Derek, I think.
Brett
-
For obvious reasons Imitations are pretty popular here in NorCal. Actually the previously mentioned Bob Duncan (who hails from the Northern, not Central California area) has made at least three: Profile w/ standard side mount profile nose, A twin powered by FP 25's, and a full bodied electric version. All were very light with front row finishes. 8)
-
Mike, it sounds as though the truss pieces would be laser cut so that the grain is not along their lengths, but rather longitudinal to the fuselage. I think the fuselage would be markedly stiffer torsionally, if the truss grains were along each piece. I have found this to actually stiffen the fuselage over that of a solid one, even before applying the sheeting to close the box. This is extra construction work, but 15-30 minutes of work is a small part of the building time, and that's all it takes to make the pieces fit almost perfectly.
Maybe I didn't understand, but if the diagonals are just laser cut from your 3/16" pieces, then I think you're just saving some fuselage weight, without stiffening it. Laminating the four fuselage pieces accomplishes some stiffening though due to mismatched grain and adhesive.
-
Mike, it sounds as though the truss pieces would be laser cut so that the grain is not along their lengths, but rather longitudinal to the fuselage. I think the fuselage would be markedly stiffer torsionally, if the truss grains were along each piece. I have found this to actually stiffen the fuselage over that of a solid one, even before applying the sheeting to close the box. This is extra construction work, but 15-30 minutes of work is a small part of the building time, and that's all it takes to make the pieces fit almost perfectly.
Maybe I didn't understand, but if the diagonals are just laser cut from your 3/16" pieces, then I think you're just saving some fuselage weight, without stiffening it. Laminating the four fuselage pieces accomplishes some stiffening though due to mismatched grain and adhesive.
Mike: I agree with Serge on this. In fact if you stay with the laser cut truss diagonals, on mine I will cut them out and glue in stick replacements. Not a significant amount of work or material cost, so you could go ahead with the laser as planned and builder still has the option.. But if you go with Serge's idea there will less time on Eric's laser.
AND, I have another technique to further stiffen the aft fuse that fits in well with this aft fuse design, will share this with you & Eric direct to implement into the kit if you want. Would take too many keystrokes here, call me if interested
-
Let me take a minute to address these suggestions about how to construct the fuselage of this model. We (Eric Rule and Myself) are producing and manufacturing this kit, in its entirety, the way the designer, Ted Fancher, has asked us to do. If anyone wants to alter the construction that Mr. Fancher has suggested, please feel free to do so. Eric has drawn up a set of plans that are currently on the way to Ted for his approval. If Ted sees anything in the plans that he wants to red mark and change, we will do so.
Thank you all very much for the suggestions and feel free to bash the kit anyway you see fit if you are buying one, that is your prerogative.
Now, Personally, here is how I plan gluing up my personal fuselage when I build it. I will lay a piece of carbon fiber veil between the two pieces of 3/16 that will form the core. Then I will put another two pieces of carbon fiber veil on the inboard and outboard side of the core. I will then sheet the core with the two pieces of 1/16th balsa on the outboard and inboard side and apply carbon fiber veil to them on both sides. Than in effect gives you 5 pieces of carbon fiber veil applied to the fuselage. You should then be able to jack up a house with the fuselage.
If Ted Fancher gives us the go ahead on these plans Eric is mailing him, then Eric should be able to cut me test kit very quick and maybe if all goes well with that, we will be able to start cutting kits within the next two weeks. Don't chisel that is stone yet .... lets see how things go.
Thank you all again for your input.
Mike
-
I am so pleased you spelled prerogative correctly!
-
Thank you Ray. I try.
Mike
-
Mike, it sounds as though the truss pieces would be laser cut so that the grain is not along their lengths, but rather longitudinal to the fuselage. I think the fuselage would be markedly stiffer torsionally, if the truss grains were along each piece. I have found this to actually stiffen the fuselage over that of a solid one, even before applying the sheeting to close the box. This is extra construction work, but 15-30 minutes of work is a small part of the building time, and that's all it takes to make the pieces fit almost perfectly.
Maybe I didn't understand, but if the diagonals are just laser cut from your 3/16" pieces, then I think you're just saving some fuselage weight, without stiffening it. Laminating the four fuselage pieces accomplishes some stiffening though due to mismatched grain and adhesive.
Serge, Allan et al,
What Serge is suggesting is only 1/2 of what Mike and Eric are going to do. Maybe it didn't come across that way but here's what my suggestion was that they both thought was a superior approach and which will be utilized in Mike's kit.
It will also, by the way, be twice as rigid as your picture!
The core of the laser cut fuse will be two "profiles cut out of 3/16 balsa with the cut out like or similar to the big one on the original plans. (They will ultimately be further laminated with 1/16 profile "skins") The diagonal...longitudinally grained braces...will be installed in each "half core" similar to what you've shown in your picture. The "better" part is that the diagonals on each half will crisscross one another ( forming multiple "eXes) when the cores are laminated and be glued together where they cross as well as in precision cut top and bottom "slots" in the laser cut "half cores". The result will be multiple Warren trusses.
Hope this description is clear enough to assure you that the plan was pretty much like yours but on steroids...and made easy by Eric's ability to laser cut the end slots for the braces allowing each to be installed accurately and quickly with just a touch of CYA at each end.
If you've any more concerns let us know. I'm very embarrassed that my original plan included the seeds for this whole discussion. The good news is that the solution will provide one of the stiffest aft fuses of any profile kit. Cover it with carbon veil and you can use it for a tee ball bat for your grandkids.
Happy Thanksgiving to all.
Ted
Late p.s. Removed as it was redundant information
-
Thank you Ted and Happy Thanksgiving to you and all of my control line friends on here.
Mike
-
You know the stiffest profile fuselage I have is the one I put together from Mike Pratt's Primary Force. 1/4 inch sheets glued together with the original Gorilla Glue. The glue also will show you every pin hole and worm hole in the wood. I have done several that way since with great results. Also the Warren truss type is used by the Hutch on his military planes and is also very stiff. Early years I had the Midwest P-63/P-69 that I thought the tail feathers were going to fall of and was one of the best flying planes I had.
-
That's pretty impressive. 'hope everyone has a great Thanksgiving (my favorite holiday).
-
Reading Mike's and Ted's description, I'm wondering if the plan is to install the CF veil in strips. Or in sheets, then cutting out the open spaces. Surely one wouldn't leave the open spaces of droopy CF veil that wouldn't do any good, structurally speaking. Also wondering what the adhesive would be. I'm a believer in epoxy for this (that's what it's for!), tho CA might do ok. I'm not a fan of using clear dope as a substitute for epoxy. It's perplexing that the fuselage thickness will end up being 1/2" of balsa, plus the CF stack-up, when we have 3/4" thickness maximum in our NW rules. Do other areas have profile fuselage thickness requirements that are different? D>K Steve
-
Reading Mike's and Ted's description, I'm wondering if the plan is to install the CF veil in strips. Or in sheets, then cutting out the open spaces. Surely one wouldn't leave the open spaces of droopy CF veil that wouldn't do any good, structurally speaking. Also wondering what the adhesive would be. I'm a believer in epoxy for this (that's what it's for!), tho CA might do ok. I'm not a fan of using clear dope as a substitute for epoxy. It's perplexing that the fuselage thickness will end up being 1/2" of balsa, plus the CF stack-up, when we have 3/4" thickness maximum in our NW rules. Do other areas have profile fuselage thickness requirements that are different? D>K Steve
Hi Steve,
While I've no "design" problem with using 1/4" cores with 1/8" skins doing so because the NW rules allow 3/4" thickness seems potentially limiting in that I've seen more debates about what is and isn't allowed in "profile" events around the country than anything other than BOM angst; the design "front end" seems to be already a "profile qualifying" limiting factor and I've no reason to believe Mike and Eric plane to make it into a Ringmaster clone as it would defeat in part the basis on which the ship was developed. I'll leave the "width" decision up to Mike and Eric since I'm acting only on an advisory basis on Mike's project and doing so would be an "executive" more than engineering matter in my opinion.
Re Veil: Were I to build one using the now planned trussing I wouldn't personally consider any internal veiling. As I do with all my projects and would cover the fuse with carbon veil using dope as an adhesive as the curves of the shaped fuselage will provide some additional torque resistance. Anything internal would add only modest additional rigidity and using epoxy on the finish surface is almost entirely a superficial contributor to what will be an adequately reinforced structure...which doesn't preclude anyone from doing so if they wish.
Ted
-
I made the 1/4" cores suggestion to Mike about a week ago. I will build mine with a 3/4" fuse one way or another.
-
I made the 1/4" cores suggestion to Mike about a week ago. I will build mine with a 3/4" fuse one way or another.
Allan,
Very little reason not to if that is your preference and it doesn't foreclose entry into desired events for you. You're talking what, an ounce or so of increased weight and the potential for greater insurance re twisting although I'm not certain it is necessary in that regard. One thing I do like about it is the increased ability to "shape" some curve into primarily the vertical surfaces but also some taper front to back horizontally which I always find appealing on an otherwise flat plank approach. The curvature with CF veil will also potentially enhance stability of the airframe.
The downsides come primarily in the form of increased costs from the seller's (and, in some cases, the buyer's) perspective for what will likely be very modest if any increase in performance. I continue to believe that the steps proposed and endorsed by Mike will be adequate for a fully competitive kit version.
Ted
-
Allan,
Very little reason not to if that is your preference and it doesn't foreclose entry into desired events for you. You're talking what, an ounce or so of increased weight and the potential for greater insurance re twisting although I'm not certain it is necessary in that regard. One thing I do like about it is the increased ability to "shape" some curve into primarily the vertical surfaces but also some taper front to back horizontally which I always find appealing on an otherwise flat plank approach. The curvature with CF veil will also potentially enhance stability of the airframe.
Ted
Agree on all this. Guess we are lucky down here in District 8 to not have ridiculous debates over minor issues in a Profile event.
-
Now, Personally, here is how I plan gluing up my personal fuselage when I build it. I will lay a piece of carbon fiber veil between the two pieces of 3/16 that will form the core. Then I will put another two pieces of carbon fiber veil on the inboard and outboard side of the core. I will then sheet the core with the two pieces of 1/16th balsa on the outboard and inboard side and apply carbon fiber veil to them on both sides. Than in effect gives you 5 pieces of carbon fiber veil applied to the fuselage.
[/quote]
Hi Mike,
The veil in centerline will do no work, you'd be much better off if you put all the carbon as far from centerline as possible, just double-cover the ready fuselage with it.
Lauri
-
Hi everyone,
I just talked with Eric tonight and got some cost on the wood that will go into the kit and after Ted approves the plan in the next couple of days, Eric will be cutting a test build kit for me and we will have a cost on laser cutting time. I should have prices for you very soon.
I am going to price the kit two different ways:
1. A complete kit less hardware. This will include all laser cut parts needed to build the model, all the sticks and sheeting as well, the bent wire landing gear and a full sized plan.
2. I am going to give you an add on for the complete control hardware package that you can buy along with the kit if you choose. I beat up on Eric for a discount I could pass along if you wanted to buy the hardware at the time of the kit that will be considerably less than buying it piecemeal out of his catalogue.
I will post all pricing and payment options in my Vendors Corner section when the time comes to do so. I do not want to do that in the general forum because that is not the place for it. I will make a posting on here when I do that. Hopefully in the next few days.
The two factors I need before I can post pricing is to make sure if Ted makes any changes to the plan that would increase or decrease cost and how much laser cutting time is involved. Once I know those two things, I will post prices.
Thanks so much to all of you for making this project the most successful I have ever done.
Mike
-
For obvious reasons Imitations are pretty popular here in NorCal. Actually the previously mentioned Bob Duncan (who hails from the Northern, not Central California area) has made at least three: Profile w/ standard side mount profile nose, A twin powered by FP 25's, and a full bodied electric version. All were very light with front row finishes. 8)
Pete,
I agree, Bob is a master craftsman and all of his Imitations are candy for the eye. He's also flying very well of late, appearing to be trying to elevate his handle grip so it's not below his waist all the time which had been causing some problems with symmetry between inside and outside maneuvers. We're never too mature to improve!
We're very fortunate to have a large group of such fine modelers here on the left coast (and a few not too bad "up" north). It's a treat to still participate from time to time.
Ted
-
Put me down for one..
Dan
-
This fuselage design looks perfect for an electric conversion. Just sayin'.......... H^^
-
This fuselage design looks perfect for an electric conversion. Just sayin'.......... H^^
Vincent this would be very easy to convert to electric. You have a built in firewall for a motor.
Mike
-
Mike, I am happy you are pursuing this kit. I would also like to be added to the list!
Thanks,
Steve
-
Mike, I am happy you are pursuing this kit. I would also like to be added to the list!
Thanks,
Steve
Steve I have added you to the list. Thank you
Mike
-
I am not sure why is everyone hooked on this veil material that adds noting to the stiffness of the structure. If you feel more stiffness is from the glue coating you add there rather than the veil itself. If you want stiffness you need continuous strands some kind of fabric or unidirectional material. It all depends in which direction you need the reinforcement to go.
-
I am not sure why is everyone hooked on this veil material that adds noting to the stiffness of the structure. If you feel more stiffness is from the glue coating you add there rather than the veil itself. If you want stiffness you need continuous strands some kind of fabric or unidirectional material. It all depends in which direction you need the reinforcement to go.
I've been thinking the same thing, Traian.
In my experience the effect of veil is more or less homeopathic. Even when used correctly with epoxy, and even then it requires quite a lot of pressure for a decent result.
The situation has really changed during last 5 years when really nice, light wowen and UD materials became easily available.
Carbon veil has its place if you want to make your model invisible in radar, or conduct static electricity away. L
-
I've been thinking the same thing, Traian.
In my experience the effect of veil is more or less homeopathic. Even when used correctly with epoxy, and even then it requires quite a lot of pressure for a decent result.
The situation has really changed during last 5 years when really nice, light wowen and UD materials became easily available.
Carbon veil has its place if you want to make your model invisible in radar, or conduct static electricity away. L
I with you guys on this. Here is product description from CST website:
""CARBON FIBER TISSUE/VEIL, 0.2 oz./sq. yd.
Excellent for smooth finishes.
Wets out easily
35.5" Wide
0.0021" Thick
Fine random fiber orientation
Sometimes referred to as veil or mat. ""
Note it mentions smooth finish, nothing about structural. The random fibers are too short to add any significant strength.
My aft fuse will be stiffened with dacron thread (under tension) and CA.. The thread can be applied aligned with the stresses that will be applied to the structure under the twisting loads..
-
Mike,
Put me down for one of the kits. (I'm one of the Ty's aging protégées and just got free of the arm bar!) ;D
Jim Howell
-
Mike,
Put me down for one of the kits. (I'm one of the Ty's aging protégées and just got free of the arm bar!) ;D
Jim Howell
Thank you Jim. I have added you to the list.
Mike
-
I with you guys on this. Here is product description from CST website:
""CARBON FIBER TISSUE/VEIL, 0.2 oz./sq. yd.
Excellent for smooth finishes.
Wets out easily
35.5" Wide
0.0021" Thick
Fine random fiber orientation
Sometimes referred to as veil or mat. ""
Note it mentions smooth finish, nothing about structural. The random fibers are too short to add any significant strength.
My aft fuse will be stiffened with dacron thread (under tension) and CA.. The thread can be applied aligned with the stresses that will be applied to the structure under the twisting loads..
I of course agree with the basic premises stated in these "anti" carbon veil comments. However I would state that in my opinion the carbon veil does make the surfaces of the sheeted areas harder and much more resistant to dings etc. It adds very little in weight and for that reason in my opinion is worthwhile to use!
Randy Cuberly
-
I of course agree with the basic premises stated in these "anti" carbon veil comments. However I would state that in my opinion the carbon veil does make the surfaces of the sheeted areas harder and much more resistant to dings etc. It adds very little in weight and for that reason in my opinion is worthwhile to use!
Randy Cuberly
I am not "anti"cf veil, its a great product on balsa surfaces for filling pores (silkspan substitute) and produces a harder skin. But seems like lots a folks want to carry it over into structures for strength where I feel there are better options.
Sorry MIKE about the thread drift.. May the admin can yank this out and put it in Building section.
-
All of these points being made on the virtues or non virtues of carbon veil are all valid and worthy of discussion. However, I am trying to keep the focus in this thread on the developments and progress of the kit as events unfold between Ted, Eric and myself in regard to enhanced design modifications. We are very close to finalizing the plan and arriving at a final price for the kit. Just to let you all know, Ted Fancher has reviewed the plan and made a few tweaks to it and Eric and I will be incorporating his suggestions into the final plan. I appreciate everyone's patience and understanding and believe me I am as anxious as anyone to get a kit and start building it. We (Ted, Eric and I ) all just want to make sure that this kit is the best it can be before it is shipped to you, and I assure you, it will be.
I want to thank each and everyone of you for making this the most successful kit run I have ever done in all the years I have been producing kits. Eric and I are going to be very busy very soon.
Kindest regards,
Mike
-
After sending a set of plans to Ted Fancher for final approval, I am happy to let you know we are now taking orders for the Imitation kit. I have listed every thing pertinent to ordering in a post in my Vendors Corner Section "GRIFFINS MODEL SERVICE" Please click on the link at the end of this post and it will take you directly to the post so you can place your orders.
I want to personally say thank you from Eric Rule, Ted Fancher and myself for making this the most successful kit I have ever produced as far as the number of kits requested. It exceeded all of my expectations. It was a joint effort to bring this kit to you with all of the modern day enhancements and Ted's input was vital in getting this done.
I hope you will enjoy building and flying this classic Control Line model.
Here is the link to take you to the order page:
https://stunthanger.com/smf/griffin's-model-service/the-imitation-kit-pricing-and-information/
Sincerely,
Mike Griffin
-
Is this new kit going to have the original built up air foiled stab or a built up flat stab ?
-
Is this new kit going to have the original built up air foiled stab or a built up flat stab ?
Hi Mike,
I see Mike Griffin hasn't responded yet so let me throw in my two cents.
The plans Eric sent me to critique did "not" include the unusually deep airfoiled stab of the original. I felt it unnecessary to make a big deal out of it because I could see where for anyone other than an experienced craftsman would find it difficult to build and shape accurately. In addition, the thick tail was an experiment on the original and on the Excitation that, while functional, gave no great performance increase worthy of exposing the less experienced/skilled builder to the potentially for a poorly shaped or installed one.
Two changes I did make to the plans. The first was to increase the pre-airfoiling thickness to 3/8" vice 1/4' due to the comparatively large area and the fact that many will be covering it with heat shrink material which adds less rigidity to the structure. The second was to alter the leading edge from rounded to "airfoiled" with a sharp leading edge which I personally find to result in improved level flight and corner exits...others disagree but I wanted the plan to reflect the opinions of the designer.
Quickly, I did think about suggesting alternative stab/elevators with either the full airfoil of the original or the essentially flat 3/8" version since it would be easy to laser cut an accurate fuse cut-out for a "perfectly" airfoiled stab to put in it. Unfortunately, that word "perfectly" was a stumbling block I didn't think was worth the risk unless some sort of jig was included in which to shape the "tapered in four directions" tail plane that goes into it.
Hope that helps.
Ted
-
Thank you Ted. I had not had the chance to get back to the thread and answer that.
Mike
-
Thank you Ted. I had not had the chance to get back to the thread and answer that.
Mike
No sweat Mike. It was a question I had anticipated as the tail on the original was pretty much unique. It was an experiment triggered by Bob Gialdini's comment in one of his construction articles advising readers to "...remember that the tail is a lifting surface and must be thick enough to do the job." Seemed sensible to me and actually started me on a series of experiments with, first, the Imi...and Exci...with the thick tails followed by a couple of very thin tailed mods to classic ships. I noted nothing particularly dramatic in either case but--in part by visualizing how effective a surface would be if the airfoil was a 100% section (more or less circular) no amount of up or down would do much of anything as the camber would barely change no matter how far up or down the horn driving them had rotated I decided there was probably an aerodynamic limit in that direction while, as long as it could be kept rigid, even ultra thin sections would produce the lift necessary to steer the thing in the pitch axis.
PLus, the thick ones were a bummer to build accurately. I still prefer airfoiled sections and, if I were to build another stunter, would do so again but with only modest upper and lower cambers meeting with a relatively sharp leading edge.
Worth noting, however, that my first Nats winner, the the 1991/92 Intimidation has a ~18% section that is a full inch deep at the root.
Ted
Ooops! Make that 1981/82 Intimidation. One's memory is a terrible thing to lose!
-
Hi Mike,
I see Mike Griffin hasn't responded yet so let me throw in my two cents.
The plans Eric sent me to critique did "not" include the unusually deep airfoiled stab of the original. I felt it unnecessary to make a big deal out of it because I could see where for anyone other than an experienced craftsman would find it difficult to build and shape accurately. In addition, the thick tail was an experiment on the original and on the Excitation that, while functional, gave no great performance increase worthy of exposing the less experienced/skilled builder to the potentially for a poorly shaped or installed one.
Two changes I did make to the plans. The first was to increase the pre-airfoiling thickness to 3/8" vice 1/4' due to the comparatively large area and the fact that many will be covering it with heat shrink material which adds less rigidity to the structure. The second was to alter the leading edge from rounded to "airfoiled" with a sharp leading edge which I personally find to result in improved level flight and corner exits...others disagree but I wanted the plan to reflect the opinions of the designer.
Quickly, I did think about suggesting alternative stab/elevators with either the full airfoil of the original or the essentially flat 3/8" version since it would be easy to laser cut an accurate fuse cut-out for a "perfectly" airfoiled stab to put in it. Unfortunately, that word "perfectly" was a stumbling block I didn't think was worth the risk unless some sort of jig was included in which to shape the "tapered in four directions" tail plane that goes into it.
Hope that helps.
Ted
Ted
Thanks for the clarification
Mike
-
Is this new kit going to have the original built up air foiled stab or a built up flat stab ?
Mike I apologize for not getting back and answering your question quicker. I have been buried with model duties and also some personal stuff that pertains to Christmas and I just had not gotten back to the thread and answered your question. Ted jumped in there and did it for me in a much more eloquent and informed matter than I could have anyway. I am usually a lot more prompt answering questions... Hope you have a great Christmas
Mike