Trifecta

[Ken Culbertson]

I was wondering if anybody would fess up to having built or seen a "Formula S" in profile?  I need a *three event* plane for next year since my building capability is hovering at zero right now.  Also, what if you upsize a bit?  Can you still use it in Classic - my guess is no but....

Ken 

[Crist Rigotti]

Ken,
No on the upsize for Classic legal.

[Trostle]

Ken,
No on the upsize for Classic legal.

And NO on making the Formula S into a profile for Classic legal.

Keith

[john e. holliday]

Try Excaliber II.

[Ken Culbertson]

And NO on making the Formula S into a profile for Classic legal.

Keith

You guys are bumming me out but the rules are the rules.  I may be frozen out of classic but that does open up the door for a modern profile.  There is always the profile Cavalier but it is itty bitty.

Ken

[Steve Berry]

Well, it's not Classic, but there is the Ringmaster 576. Profile and modern stunt. And if you don't mind stretching the rules some, could go with Al Rabe's Mustunt I, the profile one.

Sent from my Lenovo TB-X505F using Tapatalk

[Ken Culbertson]

Try Excaliber II.

Can't find the plans/pictures anywhere.  I found two versions of the Excalibur which looks an awfully like like a Twister but since it is older maybe the Twister looks a lot like the Excalibur.  Lines are OK but the straight wing?  Is the II better.  One set had a horrible airfoil.  The other one not so bad.

Ken

[James Lee]

Ted Fancher's Imitation is a very competitive Profile, N-30 and Pampa design.....
Jim

[Gary Mondry]

The original Excalibur (sharp LE) was in the May 1967 FM (CF78).  The Excalibur II in September 1973 (CF309).  I can't comment on their flight characteristics.

[Brent Williams]

You might look at the Trophy Trainer if you want something that is a bit larger for classic and profile. 

If you fly super 70's there are more options.

https://stunthanger.com/smf/open-forum/dual-purpose-plane-for-profile-and-classic/

[Ken Culbertson]

Well, it's not Classic, but there is the Ringmaster 576. Profile and modern stunt. And if you don't mind stretching the rules some, could go with Al Rabe's Mustunt I, the profile one.

Sent from my Lenovo TB-X505F using Tapatalk

I forgot about the Mustunt.  Flew with Al in the mid 70's and that plane flies good enough to not embarrass me in PA and more than enough to hold it's own in profile.  However, not being classic hurts.  Looking like the Trifecta at 650 squares is fading.  So my choices seem to be Small Classic/Profile and a PA or Profile/PA and a Classic.  A two state solution.

There is a "trust me" option.  I don't want to go there unless I have to.  My 1964 Sandpiper design that I flew in 1964-66 had a profile version that I built in 1967 just before I was to head to the safety of Vietnam to escape the campus violence.  It was never photographed (no cell phones back then) and it was missing along with everything else when I got back.

I rebuilt one along with the full bodied one when I started flying again in 2016.  In fact it was my first build.  I didn't want to use it in Classic because I can't document it.   I can document the full body one.  Only changes were to use fuselage mounted gear and swept tips.  That was my first plane with swept tips and I have not designed one since without them.  The pix is the 2017 Rebuild of the full body.
The profile is on one of my posts somewhere, if I find it I will link it here. 

Ken
Found the Profile
 https://stunthanger.com/smf/open-forum/roast-me!-pattern-video-critique-request/?action=dlattach;attach=287903;image

[Ken Culbertson]

You might look at the Trophy Trainer if you want something that is a bit larger for classic and profile. 

If you fly super 70's there are more options.

https://stunthanger.com/smf/open-forum/dual-purpose-plane-for-profile-and-classic/

I wish we did fly Super 70's but it is Old Time & Classic here.  Maybe we should change Classic from the plane to the pilot.  Anybody kitted before 1950.

Ken

[John Miller]

Ken, I know your pain. I've been without a shop for over 3 years now, but I've started setting one up last week.

I built, and campaigned an Excalibur for several years back shortly after the turn of this century. As you've discovered, there are two versions available. Excalibur I, and II.

The differences are easy to describe. Excalibur I is the one with the pointy airfoil. A PA person, such as ourselves, will most likely shy away from this version as the airfoil looks strange, and contrary to what we expect. Dick Mathis, the designer, is from the ranks of competitive free flight. This wing uses elements from that background.

He used tabulator spars on the front portion of the wing, from the leading edge back to the main spar. The effect astonished me as I didn't believe the plane should be able to fly so well with it's strange airfoil, but fly very well it did. The only change I did was make what little leading edge there was a little blunter than shown on the plans. Powered with a Classic OS .35S on 62 foot lines and it was a potent performer in Classic, Profile, and Pampa class.

Excalibur II changed the wing as far as I've checked. My guess is that he might have gotten some feed back over the shape of the earlier wing.

The new wing uses a what appears to be a NACA symmetrical airfoil and uses leading edge sheeting rather than tabulator spars. It is not Classic legal but of course can be used in Profile, and Pampa classes.

I can recommend the Excalibur I as a very good choice for a triple-threat competition plane, recognizing that it is  a 50-60 year old design, so, when you compete in modern PA classes you may have a slight up hill climb, but the design can shine in the right hands.

[Ken Culbertson]

Ken, I know your pain. I've been without a shop for over 3 years now, but I've started setting one up last week.

I built, and campaigned an Excalibur for several years back shortly after the turn of this century. As you've discovered, there are two versions available. Excalibur I, and II.

The differences are easy to describe. Excalibur I is the one with the pointy airfoil. A PA person, such as ourselves, will most likely shy away from this version as the airfoil looks strange, and contrary to what we expect. Dick Mathis, the designer, is from the ranks of competitive free flight. This wing uses elements from that background.

He used tabulator spars on the front portion of the wing, from the leading edge back to the main spar. The effect astonished me as I didn't believe the plane should be able to fly so well with it's strange airfoil, but fly very well it did. The only change I did was make what little leading edge there was a little blunter than shown on the plans. Powered with a Classic OS .35S on 62 foot lines and it was a potent performer in Classic, Profile, and Pampa class.

Excalibur II changed the wing as far as I've checked. My guess is that he might have gotten some feed back over the shape of the earlier wing.

The new wing uses a what appears to be a NACA symmetrical airfoil and uses leading edge sheeting rather than tabulator spars. It is not Classic legal but of course can be used in Profile, and Pampa classes.

I can recommend the Excalibur I as a very good choice for a triple-threat competition plane, recognizing that it is  a 50-60 year old design, so, when you compete in modern PA classes you may have a slight up hill climb, but the design can shine in the right hands.

My experience with sharp LE's has not been good but the profile of the plane tickles my fancy at the end of the lines.  That matters to me.  If I don't like what I am looking at I don't fly it the same.  Character flaw I guess. 

I flew a lot of FF back in the day when Dick Mathis was a household word.  Sharp LEs were on everything that was winning.  We also used turbulators.  Maybe he knew what he was doing.  Still, I would rather have a good old 2 1/4" thick wing with molded 1/2"  radius LE!

Ken

[Trostle]

Dick Mathis, the designer, is from the ranks of competitive free flight. This wing uses elements from that background.

Hi John,

I am fairly certain you know that Dick Mathis was competitive in CL Stunt as well as in the FF classes.  Indeed, he had several competitive FF models in various classes including 1/2A FF, tow line glider, several HL gliders that he was involved with their design as well as an all balsa A-2 towline glider that used a long piece of surgical tubing for a catapult launch which immediately led to a change in the rules that prohibited that.

He produced kits for several of his FF and CL designs.

He had a number of really nice flying profile ships, including the two versions of the Excaliber.  He also did the Coyote (a good airplane), Cherokee, 140, Ercoupe, Citabria, Stuka, maybe more.

He had high flight points in Open Stunt at the 64 Dallas Nats, placing 4th with a model that was a predecessor of his Chizler.  Then with the Chizler design, he placed 12th in 66, 2nd in 67, 8th in 68, 13th in 77 and 19th in 78.  That is a resume that most CL pilots would be proud of, even without his success in the free flight realm.

After a long hiatus from model activities, he qualified and flew on the US Team to a World FF Championships in F1C (FF) in the mid 2000's.

Keith

[John Miller]

Hi Keith,

You are correct Col, but I didn't know the depth of his CL Stunt exploits until now. I was one of the judges at VSC the year that the Chizlers showed up. They possessed the appearance of performing an outstanding corner and, as I recall, did very well in the scoring.

I've seen the Coyote fly but not the rest of his designs. It did darned good even though it was a flap less design. Wasn't his kit company called M&P?

Didn't you fly my Excalibur I to a win at Whittier Narrows? That plane flew way better than many believed it could with that airfoil.

John

[Dan McEntee]

   You may want to consider Bob Gialdini's Rayette. It's got the looks, profile and a decent size, I think no flaps, and is classic legal.
   Type at you later,
  Dan McEntee

[afml]

Profile Oriental has served John Paris very well in the Trifecta arena.
STAY SAFE!  STAY WELL!
Happy Thanksgiving & "Tight Lines!"
Wes

[Ken Culbertson]

He had high flight points in Open Stunt at the 64 Dallas Nats, placing 4th with a model that was a predecessor of his Chizler.

I saw that flight.  Corners like a kitchen cabinet.  I think he got royally screwed on appearance points. 

Ken

[Trostle]

I saw that flight.  Corners like a kitchen cabinet.  I think he got royally screwed on appearance points. 

Ken

Hi Ken,

I was essentially a beginner at that time.  I participated in the Air Force World Wide Championships in Texas.  The evening I got to the base, I think it was Perrin AFB, there was a guy there that was flying through the stunt pattern.  I was stunned.  I had never seen the pattern flown that way.  It was Dick Mathis who was the CD for the Championships and he was training the stunt judges.  Anyway, that was when I met him and that was a start of a comfortable relationship over the years.  The airplane, an original, which was basically a "typical" configuration .35 size stunt ship.  He told me about his experience at the Nats, where he had high flight points but finished 4th because of low appearance points.  The airplane was covered with jap tissue with a little jap tissue trim, finished with clear dope.  It was probably quite light.  I can remember it showed it was nicely built and was really shiny.   I thought it was quite attractive but had no idea of how appearance judging worked at a major contest.  (Those were the days of 40 appearance points.)  His original Chizler was also finished with clear over jap tissue which took 2nd to Bart Klapinski at the 67 Los Alimose Nats and was shown in his construction article in the Nov 66 Flying Models.

Keith

[Ken Culbertson]

Hi Ken,

I was essentially a beginner at that time.  I participated in the Air Force World Wide Championships in Texas.  The evening I got to the base, I think it was Perrin AFB, there was a guy there that was flying through the stunt pattern.  I was stunned.  I had never seen the pattern flown that way.  It was Dick Mathis who was the CD for the Championships and he was training the stunt judges.  Anyway, that was when I met him and that was a start of a comfortable relationship over the years.  The airplane, an original, which was basically a "typical" configuration .35 size stunt ship.  He told me about his experience at the Nats, where he had high flight points but finished 4th because of low appearance points.  The airplane was covered with jap tissue with a little jap tissue trim, finished with clear dope.  It was probably quite light.  I can remember it showed it was nicely built and was really shiny.   I thought it was quite attractive but had no idea of how appearance judging worked at a major contest.  (Those were the days of 40 appearance points.)  His original Chizler was also finished with clear over jap tissue which took 2nd to Bart Klapinski at the 67 Los Alimose Nats and was shown in his construction article in the Nov 66 Flying Models.

Keith

Memory is an unreliable source that far back but I think it was yellow with black and orange trim.  Personally I thought it was gorgeous.  My plane was covered with Jap too but had a conventional finish.
There were problems with appearance that year.  He was not the only one.  They lost mine entirely -0-.
Ended up 6th 10 points out of first in Senior and there were others.  Dick was not the only one with the really tight corners.  Don Still was every bit as tight.  It was not like today where the planes all look pretty much the same.  Imagine Still's Stuka sitting next to Larry's Blue Angle.

Good old Perrin AFB.  My father was retired AF at the time and we used to go to Perrin for our "stuff".  I think they had F-102's.  As a pesky teenager I loved watching the 102's almost as much as going to the BX which had a hobby section.
Allowances didn't last the day!

Ken

[Brent Williams]

Ken, why not just build your Sandpiper profile again?  You have plenty of posts on here laboring to show its classic provenance.  You had a house fire.  If someone at a contest has a problem with proof, that should be their problem.  Direct them to this forum or show them a baggie of ashes.  It is a gentleman's word and honor anyway, much like BOM.

[Trostle]

Hi John,

I am fairly certain you know that Dick Mathis was competitive in CL Stunt as well as in the FF classes.  Indeed, he had several competitive FF models in various classes including 1/2A FF, tow line glider, several HL gliders that he was involved with their design as well as an all balsa A-2 towline glider that used a long piece of surgical tubing for a catapult launch which immediately led to a change in the rules that prohibited that.

He produced kits for several of his FF and CL designs.

He had a number of really nice flying profile ships, including the two versions of the Excaliber.  He also did the Coyote (a good airplane), Cherokee, 140, Ercoupe, Citabria, Stuka, maybe more.

Keith

I failed to mention several more of the CL designs of Dick Mathis.  Of course, one was his Pinto.  He also did a slow combat called the Mongoose (FM Mar,73).  There was a solid wing profile sport ship called the Jaguar which was probably only for flying around the circle (FM, Dec 70) - a "sporty" looking thing, 30" span for .29 to .40 engines, wing mounted gear, rear fuselage profile like his Chizler.  He also published an article that showed/explained the retract gear system he put into a Chizler (39oz).  It used springs to retract and extend the gear, actuated by a timer (MA, Aug 78).

Keith

[Ken Culbertson]

Ken, why not just build your Sandpiper profile again?  You have plenty of posts on here laboring to show its classic provenance.  You had a house fire.  If someone at a contest has a problem with proof, that should be their problem.  Direct them to this forum or show them a baggie of ashes.  It is a gentleman's word and honor anyway, much like BOM.

I am working on plans as we type.  It was a magnificent flier.  The rebuild that got burned was 54oz with an LA46.  I think I can redo that electric and have my Trifecta!

You know as time passes since the fire I am finding that it is more that cabinet full of plans drawings, pictures and templates form a lifetime of doing this that is the real loss. 

Thanks for the moral support - Ken

[Scott Richlen]

John Saunders has been flying an electric powered Trophy Trainer recently.  Good looking plane does a really nice pattern.

[John Lindberg]

Walter Umland kits the Trophy Trainer, I believe.

[Scott Richlen]

I think that another Mathis plane was the Mangler.  It was profile with a solid wing.  He stuck a Fox 35 on it and used it for sport flying.  I liked the looks of it and built one for flight training kids.  An Enya 19 pulls it fine.  It must have been a shriek with a 35 on it!

Here are my mods for flight training:
Plans are available from either Flying Models or Model Aviation - can't remember which, sorry. It was originally designed for a Fox 35 to be used as a round-and-round sport plane.  Simple modifications are necessary:
•   Use lite-ply for the rudder and elevator (or use the lite-ply from the boxes of Clementines that you can find in the grocery stores.)
•   Keep the original size of the horizontal stabilizer-elevator combination, but move the hinge line toward the rear so the elevator is only one inch in chord.
•   Use a 3 inch bellcrank, pushrod in the inner hole
•   Use a tall (inch and a quarter tall) control horn with the push-rod in the outer hole.
•   Adjust pushrod length so you have a little more up than down.
•   Use a nose doubler of half inch balsa that goes back to mid-wing.
•   Power with a .19 or .25 (a .15 unless it's a late model, won't have the power you need)
•   Use a 3/4 ounce tank.  NO LARGER!!  You only want to expose the kids to flying, not sate their appetite.  10 laps is more than plenty for a first time flyer.  Not enough laps to get them dizzy or into trouble.
•   Fly on 51 or 52 foot .015 lines.

This airplane builds quickly if you leave off the wing-tip tanks as shown on Mathis' plan and just buy Flight Streak Trainer wing blanks from Brodaks.  They are already air-foiled and ready to go!

[Scientifiction .]

Just build it profile , and tell them the fuse. got run over before fitting. Or you used the wrong grade of sandpaper . Regulations are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of feuls .

[Ken Culbertson]

Let's say for argument that I have a profile that fits all three.  Would using logarithmic flaps disqualify it from Classic?

Just asking - Ken

[Brent Williams]

It shouldn't disqualify it any more than the fantastic AAC PA Aero-Tiger 36 and other modern engines, carbon props, embedded carbon rods, carbon spar enhancements, 4" bellcranks, adjustable carbon pushrods, geometry corrected flap/adjustable elevator horns, adjustable leadouts, automotive 2k clear, hardpoint handles, CA glue and/or electric power should have anything to do with the "spirit of the event."....  To allow all these non-classic era performance advancements in classic era planes and then fuss over the flap system would be a grand irony.  LOL!

[Ken Culbertson]

It shouldn't disqualify it any more than the fantastic AAC PA Aero-Tiger 36 and other modern engines, carbon props, embedded carbon rods, carbon spar enhancements, 4" bellcranks, adjustable carbon pushrods, geometry corrected flap/adjustable elevator horns, adjustable leadouts, automotive 2k clear, hardpoint handles, CA glue and/or electric power should have anything to do with the "spirit of the event."....  To allow all these non-classic era performance advancements in classic era planes and then fuss over the flap system would be a grand irony.  LOL!

I quite agree but it never hurts to ask first, then build!

Wow,, seeing that list really makes me feel old!  However, I did have a 4" bellcrank in my Sandpiper profile that I am building for Classic now - in 1968.  Hand Made.

[Larry Renger]

Isn’t Joe Gilbert whupping a** with a Ringmaster? That may be the ultimate trifecta. A little carbon here, a modern engine there, what’s not to like?

[Mike Griffin]

I failed to mention several more of the CL designs of Dick Mathis.  Of course, one was his Pinto.  He also did a slow combat called the Mongoose (FM Mar,73).  There was a solid wing profile sport ship called the Jaguar which was probably only for flying around the circle (FM, Dec 70) - a "sporty" looking thing, 30" span for .29 to .40 engines, wing mounted gear, rear fuselage profile like his Chizler.  He also published an article that showed/explained the retract gear system he put into a Chizler (39oz).  It used springs to retract and extend the gear, actuated by a timer (MA, Aug 78).

Keith

Hi Keith,

Dick's "Otto the Giro" was the biggest selling kit I ever produced.  There is a long and fun story about getting that kit produced and my phone conversation with Dick about it.

 Mike

[Scott Richlen]

There is a long and fun story about getting that kit produced and my phone conversation with Dick about it.

Mike: don't leave us hanging.....Let's hear it!

A guy in our club built an Auto the Gyro years ago and we are still waiting to see him fly it.

[Mike Griffin]

Hey Scott,  I will take some time in the next couple of days and type it out.  Up to my rear end in alligators right now with family things. 

Mike

[Ken Culbertson]

Call me crazy but with nothing to build you think up some strange things to plan.  I am going to build my twin tail Sandpiper for next year as my "trifecta"  I want to add a "Rabe" rudder.  My only question is should I add it to both rudders or only one and if so which one.  The linkage is simple so I don't need any help with that.

Thanks - Ken

[Dwayne Donnelly]

Call me crazy but with nothing to build you think up some strange things to plan.  I am going to build my twin tail Sandpiper for next year as my "trifecta"  I want to add a "Rabe" rudder.  My only question is should I add it to both rudders or only one and if so which one.  The linkage is simple so I don't need any help with that.

Thanks - Ken

Ok, you're crazy. 

[Craig Beswick]

Ken,
if you don't do both aren't you defeating the purpose in the first place? Won't they be fighting each other?

Craig

[Ken Culbertson]

Ken,
if you don't do both aren't you defeating the purpose in the first place? Won't they be fighting each other?

Craig

My purpose is to create a very small yaw in maneuvers and a slightly larger one in corners.  Neither are visible and they add a little line tension where we usually loose some which results in a more even feel, especially in the OH8.   I was concerned that having only one rudder moving might cause some other problem.  With two I can cut the movement in half but the extra linkage will add weight, or save adding weight, not sure which.
With the cam I can get about 1/32" deflection in rounds and 1/8" in corners with zero in level flight.  The beauty of this setup is that I can easily change the amount of movement for inside and outside independently.

I am wondering if anyone has used both a cam rudder and an accelerometer, not necessarily together.  I have only flown one flight with an accelerometer but the feel was very similar, especially in the squares.

Ken

[Ken Culbertson]

Robby:

Here are the "pictures".  These are of the 2016 rebuild.  I lost all of my older drawings and pictures in the fire.

Ken

[proparc]

Ken go build your Sandpiper!!  If you consider ISIS, Russian Computer Hacking Plots, Viruses escaping from Labs in China; a guy trying to get his old Profile Model Airplane into a contest, ranks pretty darn low on the dastardly deeds scale.

[Ken Culbertson]

Ken go build your Sandpiper!!  If you consider ISIS, Russian Computer Hacking Plots, Viruses escaping from Labs in China; a guy trying to get his old Profile Model Airplane into a contest, ranks pretty darn low on the dastardly deeds scale.

It is in the works.  The attached picture is for Brent Williams.  It is the Original Full body in 1964. Sorry about the 1964 camera quality converting to digital.  It was Candy Apple Red.

Ken

[Steve Helmick]

Was there a profile version of a design prior to 1970? If not, then it's technically not Classic legal as a profile. But then, there is also nothing in the Classic rules that allows the CD to disqualify a model for any modifications.

Personally, I'd feel ok with changing the wing offset and fiddling with the flap areas to correct built-in bad trim. Otherwise, no changes, other than controls and power. IMO, if you're going to allow electric power in Classics, then you also have to allow tuned piped IC setups.    Steve

[Ken Culbertson]

Was there a profile version of a design prior to 1970? If not, then it's technically not Classic legal as a profile. But then, there is also nothing in the Classic rules that allows the CD to disqualify a model for any modifications.

Personally, I'd feel ok with changing the wing offset and fiddling with the flap areas to correct built-in bad trim. Otherwise, no changes, other than controls and power. IMO, if you're going to allow electric power in Classics, then you also have to allow tuned piped IC setups.    Steve

There was.  Built in 1967.  Lost to who knows where when I got drafted. No pictures back then unless it was a special occasion.  Chances are it will never see VSC or anything like and if anybody complains I will just not fly, or loosen their wheel collars .

Ken

[Scott Richlen]

Ken: is that your own design?  Pretty neat for a kid in high-school (I'm guessing at your age based on the pictures.)

[Ken Culbertson]

Ken: is that your own design?  Pretty neat for a kid in high-school (I'm guessing at your age based on the pictures.)

100%  It is a blend of all the features I liked from the era.  The twin tails were added to butter up my step dad.  He was in a B-25 squadron in WWII.

Ken

[Steve Helmick]

100%  It is a blend of all the features I liked from the era.  The twin tails were added to butter up my step dad.  He was in a B-25 squadron in WWII.

Ken

Sounds like an excellent choice for a 3-fer, now that you've reminded us/me that you had a profile version in '67. It looks like it'd fly well, and we have expert testimony on that!

Where was your step dad stationed in WWII? Mine flew B-25's out of Palawan, Philippines.    Steve

[Ken Culbertson]

Sounds like an excellent choice for a 3-fer, now that you've reminded us/me that you had a profile version in '67. It looks like it'd fly well, and we have expert testimony on that!

Where was your step dad stationed in WWII? Mine flew B-25's out of Palawan, Philippines.    Steve

He never talked about it much but I do know he was the maintenance officer for Pappy Gunn in Australia.  That he talked about.

Ken

[Ken Culbertson]

First part of build!  The adjustable profile logarithmic flap horn.  If the house building Gods smile on me I will have a shop again sometime in late Spring.  Till then I make do-dads in a tiny corner of my office.  It was easier to make than I thought.  Should have waited to bend the horn wire.  Think I am going to regret that one but I so wanted to test my new wire bender.

Ken

Update - I decided top make the entire control system out of the plane and test it.  Ball Bearings on all both horns and the elevator horn.  So smooth and solid.

Ken

[Ken Culbertson]

Time for an update.  Building in a 4 x 4 office cubicle is a real pain but progress is being made.

Ken