stunthanger.com
General control line discussion => Open Forum => Topic started by: EddyR on January 18, 2007, 06:42:10 PM
-
That is the question. What is the ultimate airplane you would use for Pampa advanced or expert class flying.Fox .35 or any other .35 you have. Would you build a classic or would you design something your self. Give me your ideas. What is the ultimate airplane? I/beam,foam,d/tube. Is a Nobler as good as it gets? I drought it.What wing area. Nose moment,tail moment.Tail volume or percent, 22,25,28 percent. The old classic had around 17-19 percent.I want to build the ut mate model for a .35 but I may use a Rustler/40 that only uses 3 ounces of fuel but weighs the same as a Fox .35 I am not looking for a classic. Several years ago I down sized a Junar to 580 square inches of wing area.What do you think of a 580 JUNAR? A Fox will only pull about 550 sq in. I have a Tucker Special with a Rustler 40 in it but I have always needed to us a 10/4 to keep the speed down as the motor has over powered the model. Throw every thing you have at me. I have several ST/35's and Brian will soon be making ABC p&l for them and I may use use one of them in this new plane.So what would you build?
Ed
-
ED,
I'd build a Legacy 40 with a SSW OS 35FP. I have this combo when I flew Beginner and Intermediate and I felt it was almost unfair to the competition it flew so well. Even in high winds. Foam or built up makes little difference.
WA 565
TV= 29%
wt 46 to 50 oz
Yeah, a Legacy 40 for sure. See July/August 2003 Stunt News for the construction article.
-
I am currently finishing Viper 8. It has around 650-675 sqs. Satona airfoil ,PA .40 powered. 9.25 nose 17.25 tail. The thing I am going to prove to myself is 45 oz is better for me.
-
ED,
I'd build a Legacy 40 with a SSW OS 35FP. I have this combo when I flew Beginner and Intermediate and I felt it was almost unfair to the competition it flew so well. Even in high winds. Foam or built up makes little difference.
WA 565
TV= 29%
wt 46 to 50 oz
Yeah, a Legacy 40 for sure. See July/August 2003 Stunt News for the construction article.
You gonna fly this at Ice-O-Lated??? LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~ mw~ or the Big Mac??? LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~
-
Easy answer PA 35 or Aero Tiger 35 ::) ~>
pulling a SV-35 #^ #^
Randy
-
You gonna fly this at Ice-O-Lated??? LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~ mw~ or the Big Mac??? LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~
Very funny Bob. Actually, I'll fly the Phacade. I'm falling behind on the big stunter and I'm not sure I'll have it done by then. I put on the first coat of nitrate dope tonight. Now the real fun begins.
-
No problem whatsoever Ed!
My Akromaster powered by an SSW FP .35 or an AT .35
It flew really well with an OS .35S so the extra HP would help it come alive better. Oh, and it's classic legal as well...... :o LL~
Jim Pollock Adacter et Strenue
-
Easy answer PA 35 or Aero Tiger 35 ::) ~>
pulling a SV-35 #^ #^
Randy
YEP! LOL!!!!!!!!
**) **) **)
-
Randy What is a SV 35? I am trying to stay under 580 sq inches. I want a small plane.I have had a muscle disease for over 20 years and it is very hard to fly large model any longer. PA 40's and 650 sq is not where I want to go. I have a JD Falcon almost built and it is fine for classic but not expert PA.
Ed
-
From the options currently available, it would be hard to beat a Vector 40 with an Aero Tiger. Most of the modern "stuff" in a smaller package. Alternate power to save money could be a Magnum 36 perhaps with one of Randy's side exhaust adapters and a pipe. Just thinking ahead until I need a better airplane.
Steve
-
Randy What is a SV 35? I am trying to stay under 580 sq inches. I want a small plane.I have had a muscle disease for over 20 years and it is very hard to fly large model any longer. PA 40's and 650 sq is not where I want to go. I have a JD Falcon almost built and it is fine for classic but not expert PA.
Ed
Hi Ed,
AFAIK, we're only "funnin' ", but an Aero Tiger 36 with appropriately sized SV "numbers" would be a great combo, I'm sure!
Something VERY similar to a Vector 40. I do not believe a pipe set up is really needed unless it is VERY windy outside.
Some playing around with the "visuals" would yield a plane that "presents" larger than it really is similar to what Billy did with the Juno.
BTW: John does pertty good in Expert with his Cavalier. y1
-
I think this started out as an airplane for a Fox 35 but even if not I would have to say the best plane would be a Mustunt 3 by Al Rabe, by far.
RO
-
Since when did a 36 become a 35! n1
If you are going to allow those, I should be able to choose a Brodak 40 which I believe weighs less than either the TT or Magnum 36's. y1
-
Since when did a 36 become a 35! n1
If you are going to allow those, I should be able to choose a Brodak 40 which I believe weighs less than either the TT or Magnum 36's. y1
Hi Alan
This was a "what if" question, there is NO rule against a 40 or any size motor up to a .91, No one is not allowing anything #^ ;)
Regards
Randy
-
Randy What is a SV 35? I am trying to stay under 580 sq inches. I want a small plane.I have had a muscle disease for over 20 years and it is very hard to fly large model any longer. PA 40's and 650 sq is not where I want to go. I have a JD Falcon almost built and it is fine for classic but not expert PA.
Ed
HI Ed
I built the first airplane with the Stuntcraft wing system in it in 1974, it was powered by a 35 engine and was 560 sq in. The SV wing system allows me to generate any size wing I want from 500 to 800 sq. in. , or bigger - smaller if desired, depends on the rib stations selected. The one I flew the most is fairly similar to the newer 35-40 size planes that are out
Vector 40
SV-40
Tempest 40
Dreadnought 40
All of these are Really great flying airplanes as their record in contests prove, you could be very competitive with one of these and an Aero tiger , PA 40 ul . Brodak 40 , K&B 40 , Magnum 36 TT 36 etc.
Regards
Randy
-
Assuming the question is for unpiped engines, my hands down choice would be the Chizler with an Aero Tiger. If it is not built to fly in the Classic event, I would use a bit thicker airfoil. This would be competitive at any contest until there is wind. And it will handle the wind as well as any other unpiped 35 ship. The tuned pipes go a long way to improve performance in the wind. If pipes are permitted for this question, then put a pipe on the Aero Tiger in the Chizler with a thicker airfoil.
Second choice for an unpiped engine would be the OS Stunt 35.
There have been some good suggestions in response to the original question, but the Chizler with a strong engine would compete well with any of them.
Keith Trostle
-
I have plans for all the planes mentioned here except the small SV and Randy gave me a set of his airfoil's many years ago. I have flown the original Vector 40 back in 1990.The Chizler is the size plane I am looking for. How about a Chizler using Randy's Stunt Craft airfoil? Keep the input coming. Randy is the Vector 40 of today smaller than that built by Carl and myself back in 1990?
Ed
-
I have plans for all the planes mentioned here except the small SV and Randy gave me a set of his airfoil's many years ago. I have flown the original Vector 40 back in 1990.The Chizler is the size plane I am looking for. How about a Chizler using Randy's Stunt Craft airfoil? Keep the input coming. Randy is the Vector 40 of today smaller than that built by Carl and myself back in 1990?
Ed
Hi Ed,
I am sure you can build a SV airfoiled 550-575 sq. in. plane with an Aero Tiger 36 (or similar) that would be as good as about anything out there, at least until you get to the Walker Trophy Fly Off.
The Chizler or a Gieseke Nobler style with the updated airfoil, a slightly shrunken Juno (I know you like that one), etc..
Bill <><
-
Back to the original question... Given a Fox 35, I would be really tempted to go with a Gieseke Nobler. Using a warmed up Fox and an unquestionably proven airframe seems like a really nice combo, and Classic legal.
And as been pointed out the Aero Tiger 36 in a Cavalier would also be a hard to beat combo.....
IMO
Jim ;D
-
I have plans for all the planes mentioned here except the small SV and Randy gave me a set of his airfoil's many years ago. I have flown the original Vector 40 back in 1990.The Chizler is the size plane I am looking for. How about a Chizler using Randy's Stunt Craft airfoil? Keep the input coming. Randy is the Vector 40 of today smaller than that built by Carl and myself back in 1990?
Ed
Hi Ed
The Vector I designed back in the mid 80s was 627 sq. in. this is the one that you ,Carl , Dale Barry , Tom Dixon and ,many others built and flew, They mostly used motors like the ST 46 , HP 40 and the 40-46 FSR type enginess.
The 40 size SVs are about 540 sq. in , and are very happy on smaller motors , even though some have used FSR and ST 40 -46s on them.
If you like I can send you a plan of whichever you would like. they were doing a building class here last year using these 4 planes , but it never got finished.
Regards
Randy
-
Hi Ed
The Vector I designed back in the mid 80s was 627 sq. in. this is the one that you ,Carl , Dale Barry , Tom Dixon and ,many others built and flew, They mostly used motors like the ST 46 , HP 40 and the 40-46 FSR type engines.
The 40 size SVs are about 540 sq. in , and are very happy on smaller motors , even though some have used FSR and ST 40 -46s on them.
If you like I can send you a plan of whichever you would like. they were doing a building class here last year using these 4 planes , but it never got finished.
Regards
Randy
That was unfortunate. Kinda closed due to lack of participation and time crunches. Maybe again in the future
-
Given the .35 limitation, I'd probably build another Bill Simon's Shoestring with an OSFP35 or perhaps a reworked OS35S. It would depend on what I could get ahold of. I really liked the way that plane flew...when the engine was working.
-
Brodak Buster with a honking Tower 40. Beginner pattern done in about 2 and a half minutes. Landings, however, usually flip over. Also legal in classic. Again, landings usually flip over.
Jack Weston's Gieseke Noble flies great with an FP40 set up with extra head gaskets. Very nice and consistent break. At the last NATS Mr. G said he wanted one just like that.
-
Dick Williams Electra, with an OS .35S and a chip muffler. One of the best unknown stunters out there. RSM kit too.
-
Gene Schaffers Stunt Machine OS35S
-
Well, Eddy didn't say it HAD to be a Fox 35! **)
In fact he mentioned using the Rustler 40 himself. I know what Ed is talking about, the BIG planes are just tiring to fly sometimes! And I don't have a strength problem...........
:D
Bill <><
-
I would take my Gonzo Fox 35 off the trainer it is presently pulling around. I would build another iteration of my Vanity design of the early 80's. 540 squares, box spar -beamer, first one was 48 oz, second 42. Think I could knock a few oz off if I built one today. They flew pretty good.
-
Mustunt 3, way ahead of it's time and all of the things you guys now use. From 1971-2
Al Rabe designed this one for the smaller engines with all of his Mustang, Bearcat technologies!
RO
-
<snip>
There have been some good suggestions in response to the original question, but the Chizler with a strong engine would compete well with any of them.
Keith Trostle
Keith, but how would it do in the Mako Muncher/Chizler Chomper wars?
Bill Byles
-
Keith, but how would it do in the Mako Muncher/Chizler Chomper wars?
Bill Byles
Hi Bill,
When that Chizler was flying against that Shark 35, the Shark 35 (Whitely) won most of the time.. It was certainly not just because the Shark 35 was a great flying airplane. Those wars ended over 7 years ago when the Chizler lost an up-line at the handle. There might be a different story now.
I intend to build another Chizler for Classic someday. It is too good of an airplane for me not to have one. The two I have had are probably the best flying airplanes I have had and probably the best flying non-piped ship that I have flown.
It is still an intriguing idea to build the Chizler but with a slightly different airfoil, (a bit thicker and a bit more rounded LE) and a pipe with Randy's Aero Tiger.
Keith Trostle
-
Bill Bill Werwage built a lot of versions of the Juno before the published 46 size one. Most were .35 powered. I have had five Juno's and they are hard to duplicate performance in the 46 size so to start a 35 size project would be a long project.The high taper in the trailing edge make the plane difficult to trim. It is very line length sensitive.On the 46 size Juno 63 ft eyelet to eyelet is the ideal length.Performance can drop of pretty quick in a 35 size if every thing is not right on.Many people have started down this path to design the perfect plane and have spent years getting it right. That is the reason for my asking all these questions There have been some great answers here and Randy may soon have the answer for me. The Chizler and the Mustunt are great designs. The Chizler body never appealed to me and the Mustunt always seemed large for a 35.I will get out my plans and look at them again.
Ed
-
I would build the Jetco Dolphin. Slick little plane with straight leading edge and nice lines.
I also have a set of reduced size plans for the Geo XL called the GEO 54. It would do great with an AT36 or PA40UL.
-
That's easy.. J.D.Falcon with one of the engines that Randy recommended.
BTW, the JD Falcon will be reviewed in the March 2007 FM
-
Yo! on the Schaffer Stunt Machine! Post classic era, and sexy as all get out! VD~
1
(must be my NE heritage!) I would have done that instead of my current G' Nobler, but I wanted a multi-use AirFrame. Aero Tiger, of course...
-
Tom I have a JD Falcon under construction.
Ed
-
What I love about this thread, and CLPA in general, is that noi one agrees on the "perfect" design! Everything posted here is a great flying plane! In different people's "hands" a different design is preferred.
With the widespread wealth of trimming expertise, just about ANY of the designs for CLPA can be made to perform at the highest levels.
I remember a quote by Billy Werwage several years ago where he said that in his opinion the greatest strides in the last 50 years have been in "power"! Not that much in the area of aerodynamics has really been vastly improved upon. Billy, himself, was not able to compete with his own '62 version of the Ares because he could not "power" it to the level he felt was correct at the time. Now, that airplane can compete very well. (How many VSC wins??)
The comment on "power" seems to be a very true statement! How many times have we seen the comments from the experts as to the fact that a good Classic design, with the right power, can compete just about anywhere?
Take an Aero Tiger, or Magnum 36XLS and compare it to the Fox 35. Only hundredths or thousandths of a cubic inch difference in the displacement, but those engines can "power" a plane on 5%-10% nitro that the Fox would have trouble pulling usiing 20%-25% nitro! Just such a difference in 50 years of engine developement.
We all have our favorites and none of them are "wrong". y1
Bill <><
-
Ed,
Is your JD Falcon from a Blue Sky Models kit?
-
I guess I would build the exact plane I am currently building a Don Stills Stuka Stunt, with the exact same engine I plan to use a box stock Fox .35.
I built one back in the sixties and hope this one flys as good. A second choice would be a GMA Nobler it flys better than I ever will.
Andhy
-
Tom it is the Blue Sky kit .A fellow mover from this area Charlotte NC to Florida about a year ago and I bought it in the box un started.It took a while to find the 3/8 rods to build it on.Buy the way I have some pictures of John's plane taken at Cocxsakie NY about 20 years ago.How old was that plane at that time.Someone told me it was built in the 60's.I will post a picture but I need to spend some time going threw some pictures to find it.
Well it didn't take long to find it.This plane is golden orange color.
Ed
-
Ed,
That is not John's Falcon! It is mine! AMA #7544.
I build it in the late 80's or early 90's, with John's actual templates. It was candy apple orange with a gold undercoat, and powered by a Big Art .40FP. The candy color was brilliant in bright sunlight, but it goes away on a cloudy day.
The kits are exactly the same, except that the kits have a molded turtle deck, instead of having to carve a block. I had retired the airplane, and then a few years ago took it out for another flight.. I pushed it with a rich setting, I new better.. but...
It was a great flying airplane, and my current Falcon flies just as well, powered with a RoJet .40SE. It is the kit prototype. John gave me a sample of his custom brewed reddish orange paint so that I could match it. I might add that with the modern RoJett, penetration in the wind is unbelievably good.
Thanks for posting the picture, it is going in my file.
-
Tom Think back real hard and see if you remember my plane from that contest.I flew the green All American with the yellow wheel pants.My trophy says 1993.It was only 14 years ago. Here are some other pictures from that contest. I flew Windy's plane that day. It is the one with the green canopy. I also flew a I/beam classic plane but I can't remember what it was.Windy walked up to me and said I new you were here when I saw the I/beam. At that time I lived in Florida.Windy taped one of his long interviews that day but I never say it.
Ed
-
I would go with a Green Box Nobler with a Johnson 35 with muffler. At 45 oz. its a good combination. I designed a plane in the early 90's that I called the Arctic Fox that had a ABC fox 35 in it and it flew real good even in the wind. Gene Matheny and I figured out the size plane for a fox 35 was around 500 square inches. Another very good plane was Designed by Mike Gorman called the All American PHD that was a very good flyer with an upright engine and staight leading edge with flaps. I really liked this plane. I think Roy De Camera has plans and patterns for this plane. For information con tact him.
-
Ed,
Unfortunately I don't remember your All America. I won the Classic event that day with the Falcon.
-
Question: what does a piped engine have to do with how a plane handles wind? AP^ AP^ AP^ AP^
-
Question: what does a piped engine have to do with how a plane handles wind? AP^ AP^ AP^ AP^
The way we set them up, it controls the speed up of the engine, is I guess, the best way to describe it. The pipe is acting like a brake so the plane will not "wind up" in the wind as bad in manuevers. It stabilizes the run.
Maybe someone else can give a better explanation! I don't always need to know "how", I just need to know "does it".............. as in "does it" work for me?
**)
Bill <><
-
Bill,
You can only go with what you know.... There may be other planes out there that are better than my design, but I havn't flown it! Also, I've never flown an airplane that you can hammer the the 1st and 3rd corners of a triange or hourglass like my Akro.
Jim Pollock ???
-
Assuming the question is for unpiped engines, my hands down choice would be the Chizler with an Aero Tiger. If it is not built to fly in the Classic event, I would use a bit thicker airfoil. This would be competitive at any contest until there is wind. And it will handle the wind as well as any other unpiped 35 ship. The tuned pipes go a long way to improve performance in the wind. If pipes are permitted for this question, then put a pipe on the Aero Tiger in the Chizler with a thicker airfoil.
Second choice for an unpiped engine would be the OS Stunt 35.
There have been some good suggestions in response to the original question, but the Chizler with a strong engine would compete well with any of them.
Keith Trostle
Hi Keith,
I am intrigued by this. By "thicker airfoil" would you suggest what Bob Gieseke did with the Nobler airfoil (since the Chizler uses a Nobler wing)? Or something along the lines of the SV airfoil, T.P., Impact, etc., ?? A more "modern fatter" airfoil?
What's funny is that I would have thought you would lean more towards your own TA-152! y1
Thanks
Bill <><
-
Hi gents,
I assume the original context of the thread was to see what people would regard as a competitive p.a model in .35 size.
Many of the "Classic" designs can be made to really perform with a modern powertrain and offer a bit more character than many modern P.A models.
I love flying .35 size models, they are far less tiring to fly than the "Big guns" and for relaxing sport flying with the "boys" they can't be beaten. ;D
I just started building another "Ramrod", powered with a O.S .35s. if it turns out half as good as the last one it should be a real hoot! <=
-
I guess I would build the exact plane I am currently building a Don Stills Stuka Stunt, with the exact same engine I plan to use a box stock Fox .35.
(ckip)
Andhy
Just for the record:
The Don Still Stuka appeared as construction articles in several magazines.
The April 1952 issue of Air Trails with plans and the accompanying Doug Rolfe cutaway showed the model with a Fox 29. A caption under one of the photographs stated "For motors .19 to .35."
The January 1961 issue of Aeromodeller showed the Fox 25. The magazine reported that the Fox 25 was Don's preferred powerplant for his 30 ounce model which was the engine he used when he placed 2nd at the previous World Championships, leading the U.S. Team to first place.
Keith Trostle
-
To add a *little* to Keith's comments, I still have the '52 Air Trails and the plans that were offered then, and it varied a touch from the one he flew at the '60 WCs. That '60 WC plane was the one that Ambroid kitted, how accurately I don't know since I have never seen the kit.
The Fox 25 Don used was the '57 version that was built in the .19 case by using a .29 sleeve and piston to bump th e.19 up to .25. I haven't weighed mine to compare , but it is a little bit lighter *I think* and is almost the equal to a "stock" Fox 35. The '57 Fox 25 is a really nice "vintage" stunt engine with a 4-2 break to rival the best Fox 35s.
I remember a story told around that time that mentioned Don painting his Stuka in "non-German" red/white/blue, since it had not been that long since WW II.
Keith, a comment on my post to you above??
Bill <><
-
Bill, so a pipe that is tuned for a narrow RPM range in effect, acts much like a constant speed prop does on a full sized aerobatic airplane???hmmmmmmm so the same thing could be acheived by using electric power or a 4 stroke or by just tuning our engines to run in a full power 2 cycle perhaps????? It would be interesting to know what the RPM change is on a Fox .35 in a Nobler set up in the traditional 4-2-4 break mode as it goes through the manuvers.....I am betting that it isn,t as much as we might think.........even though the change in sound might seem to indicate it.....
-
To add a *little* to Keith's comments, I still have the '52 Air Trails and the plans that were offered then, and it varied a touch from the one he flew at the '60 WCs. That '60 WC plane was the one that Ambroid kitted, how accurately I don't know since I have never seen the kit.
The Fox 25 Don used was the '57 version that was built in the .19 case by using a .29 sleeve and piston to bump th e.19 up to .25. I haven't weighed mine to compare , but it is a little bit lighter *I think* and is almost the equal to a "stock" Fox 35. The '57 Fox 25 is a really nice "vintage" stunt engine with a 4-2 break to rival the best Fox 35s.
I remember a story told around that time that mentioned Don painting his Stuka in "non-German" red/white/blue, since it had not been that long since WW II.
Keith, a comment on my post to you above??
Bill <><
Bill,
I did not realize until I read the Aeromodeller article on Don Still's Stuka that his 1960 version flown at the World Championships was different than the 1950 original published in the 1952 Air Trails.
The Jan 1961 Aeromodeller article stated "At the moment the design is in the engineering stage for kitting by the Amnerican Ambroid Company ..." The article also stated "In fact, the design originated in 1950 and has changed only in detail and length of nose."
I checked the magazine plans shown in Air Trails and Aeromodeller:
Stuka nose length, wing LE to prop driver:
1952 Air Trails: 6 1/2 inches
1961 Aeromodeller: 8 3/16 inches
I did not check any other details regarding areas, and tail moment. The airfoil appears to be the same.
So, if the Ambroid kit is baed on the 1960 version, it is not OTS legal. That is probably not earth shaking news because I do not think there are very many Still Stuka models buillt from the Ambroid kit that have been flown in OTS. And I do not believe there would be very many scratch built models from the Ambroid kit plans because I do not think the plans reallly showed full size drawings of the model.
You asked me to comment on your question regarding the Chizler and my Focke Wulf.
I feel that the two Chizlers that I had (particularly the second one - it was lighter) were the best airplanes that I have had. They competed successfully against piped ships, even in the wind, though the piped ships have an advantage in the wind.
My next Classic ship will be my 68/70 Focke Wulf. I have no excuse for not flying my own Classic design other than I had not thought about it before and I wanted to build the several Classic airplanes that I have had over the past several years. That Focke Wulf did everything I wanted except it did not have the blinding corners that people in the Northeast were flying at that time. I can remember that the Focke Wulf did not have the corners or the appearance of turning good corners like the Chizlers I hve flown. That Focke Wulf had fairly small flaps and horizontal tail/elevators compared to current desingns. However, I think a more satisfactory corner can be found in the new Focke Wulf with an adjustable flap/elevator ratio, adjustable leadouts, stiffer pushrods, taped hinge lines (at least on the elevators), and a more powerful engine using the Randy Smith Aero Tiger compared to the OS 35 S. Hopefully, we will find out in a couple of months.
(I still plan on building another Chizler someday. It flies too good not to have one.)
Thanks for asking.
Keith Trostle
-
I pulled a lot of plans and did a lot of number crunching and came up with what I wanted.But Randy "Aero Products" made it easy for me. He sent me a beautiful set of plans for the TEMPEST-40. I am going to start the Tempest 40 tomorrow. I am a fast builder so the plane should be done in time for the ABC ST/35 that Brian is building. I was going to use Randy's Stunt Craft airfoil in what ever I built so this made it much easer. I build very fast so it should be done in a month if the weather will allow me to spray paint in about three weeks. Randy sent me quarter views of his SUV-40 and The Dreadnought-40 which are very similar to the Vector-40 and Tempest-40. I would recommend any of these for those of you using any of the popular 32-40 size motors.
Ed
-
Keith,
I am glad to hear that you will be building another Focke Wulf.
The updated controls with modern power will bring the airplane to life for you.
About 14 years ago I had a "Jerseyan" with a Fox .35, used for a Fox .35 event. When I put a Big Art FP.40 in the same airplane I was amazed at the drastic improvement to an airplane that already flew well.
Now, with adjustable control ratios, I am sure you will be happy!. You gotta build it!
-
How about the beautiful IMPALA with L&J Fox35? I hear from reliable sources someone is thinkin of an Impala kit in the near future?
-
Hi Ed
when i decided to build a new stunt plane after discovering c/l was still alive but not knowing any thing about current kit stunters i picked a sig chipmonk as i had one in earlie 70s and it was easy to get off ebay--also already had a fox an os and an st .35 stunt and knew one of these engines would work for it.
decided to go with the s.t. first and use a top flight power prop 10x6
every part of hardware ect is from 70s except the carbon fiber push rods.
came in at 46oz ready to fly.
balance dead on plan with out adding weight
only have 2 flights on it both with bad engine runs(modern fuel sucks or engine still not broke in?)
my impressions of this combo was verry smooth verry tight turns very slow flight speed and sharp positive corners and light but steady tension on lines with a walking speed landing.go where you point is on rails feeling at all times.
it seemed to fly slower /smoother and turn tighter and sharper than the 2 other stunters flying that day
light wind didnt seem to bother it
test flew a fast combat later that day--screwed me into the ground even in 8s ect.
keep in mind i competed in fast combat and rat in 60-70s and and only played with stunt planes. also have only logged about 20 c/l flights since then.
i may be clueless but i was verry impressed with the combo.
waiting for winter to go away so i can fly it more
good luck on what ever you decide!
David
-
How about the beautiful IMPALA with L&J Fox35? I hear from reliable sources someone is thinkin of an Impala kit in the near future?
LBS,,,
Since you are from Albany, NY, I think I know your source of info.
I used to practice with Ed Elasick, designer of the "Impala". I had one back then also. It is an airplane close to my heart. I will be getting in touch with Eddie for permission .. It is probably the only additional "Classic" on the agenda for Blue Sky Models. I can't give any projections on it since I have alot on the plate at this time.
-
LBS,,, (I wish you would use your real name)
Since you are from Albany, NY, I think I know your source of info.
I used to practice with Ed Elasick, designer of the "Impala". I had one back then also. It is an airplane close to my heart. I will be getting in touch with Eddie for permission .. It is probably the only additional "Classic" on the agenda for Blue Sky Models. I can't give any projections on it at this time, since I have alot on the plate at this time.
Hi Tom,
lbs does use his real name............"Lyle Spiegel, AMA 19775"..........
(it's his "Signature" at the bottom of each of his posts)
**) **)
Love ya, guy!
-
Sorry Lyle
Thanks Bill
-
Finally have the opportunity to build that Impala. Thanks Tom.
-
So many great combos, thinking more a :
Stiletto 585 size and Aero Tiger 35,
BlackBird AT35 ,
or SuperMaster Aero Tiger 35
would be really good , so good I would like to have them all
Keith's Chizer combo is a great one to, these would all be multi event planes
Randy
-
Gieseke Nobler - Stalker .61 :)
How I do love the aerotiger .36 !
-
For VSC this year I built a Geiseke Nobler with an Aerotiger 36. It came out at 40 oz and has proven to be as good or better than any of the 35 size airplanes I've flown in the past.
The Aerotiger has proven to be dead reliable and gives the best stunt run of any smaller engine I've encountered. The only mods given to the Nobler was to shorten the nose by 7/8 inch to allow a proper CG with the slightly heaver engine than the FOX 35 it was designed for. This engine is head and sholders above any of the 35 to 40 size engines around save the exception of the PA40 ustra light which is actually a heavier more powerful engineThis airplane corners with the best and will fly an excellent pattern...difficult in my opinion to do better and it's very easy to build light.
Randy Cuberly
-
Wow Old thread brought back to life by Lyle. Tom kept after me to finish the Falcon. It had sat so long in the shop I had to recover it. I had my Rustler 40 in it for maybe a dozen flights but it was tail heavy and I put in one of my very much modified ST/46 motors from 1980's.
I took it out and test flew it three days before our Hunterville contest two weeks ago. I got four flights on it and the motor ran fine and the plane was easy to fly but seems to have a over tight turn. Controles are one to one. On first official flight in Classic the guy holding the plane forced the tail into the ground and so I eat the prop on take off. Next flight a lean run as it more than likely ate dirt on first flight. Passed on second as I didn't have time to clean and test run.This will be the plane for classic if the Bearcat doesn't work out.
I did build Randy's small Tempest and flew it with a ST.35 for several months. It it truly a great design. I felt it could be improved so I installed the original ST/46 ABC engine that Brian Gardner did the piston and sleeve for. The Tempest is very similar to the Vector but I think it flys much better than the many ARF Vector's I have flown. Mine is heave at 53 ounces but it flys like a SV-11. I believe a 40-44 ounce Tempest would be a killer with a good .35 in it.
Picture of the Tempest when first built at 48 ounces with ST/35 for power.
Picture of Falcon with Rustler 40 at 44 ounces.
Ed
-
Ed,
Glad to hear that you are finally flying the "Falcon". With a little more trimming you will like it. You might need a little nose weight, or perhaps the handle spacing could be reduced a little. I have found that an airplane is not totally trimmed until you are ready to retire it.
Lyle,
I have already started my "Impala". With yours and the 2 others being built in the Albany NY area, there will be four flying within a year. The "Impala" is a great flying Classic airplane, and this will be a fitting tribute to my good friend and old flying partner, Ed Elasick.
Since I have exclusive permission from Ed to make laser components or even a kit, hopefully the "Impala" will be seen more often.
All,
While this thread started on using or designing an airplane around .35s, I feel that all the newer .36 to .46 engines are really ideal. The LA .46 is an ideal low cost engine that is a winner right out of the box. Just get rid of the plastic back plate.
A new airplane design could take advantage of all that we have learned about engines, props, moments, areas, controls, airfoil shapes and more over the years since the Classics.
The airplanes are easy to fly, but the only draw back is the perception of the maneuvers when mixed with the larger airplanes.
-
Hello Ed
I know your great with full sized warbirds like your last Bearcat. Very nice by the way , i sure enjoyed the build pics - thank you.
The Reno T-6 Racing Class would be a good bird to see built. And a smaller .35 scale version would be a great size to start with
id think but im no expert.
-
My favorite stunters are at least .46 cuin. and most are bigger. For nostalgia, I prefer my Thunderbird with a very nice and smooth-running OS35S.
Floyd
-
Tom
I new Eddie quite well back in the late 50's or early 60's I have a set of hand drawn plans that were traced from Eddies Impala plans. If I remember correct his plans were a collection of many pieces of paper with different parts on them. Was the Impalla ever published?
I met him at a contest at the hobby shop flying field in NJ. There was Eddie Elasick myself and another Ed who I can no longer remember his last name. I was the only Ed from the Binghamton NY area that flew contest model aircraft in the 50's.
How old is Eddie I believe I am older ~^
Also met the flyer who designed this great model. y1This is his model at the KOI about eight years ago.
EddyR
-
A surprisingly good flyer, this Tipsy Jr./ semi-scale goes well with an OS35 FP. From my own plans.
Floyd
-
Ed,
Ed Elasick is now 66. He has had a rough go the last 10 years.
The Impala was published in American Modeler, Sept/Oct 1963.
Ed and I practiced and went to many contests together. The attached clipping was taken of us at Marine Park, Brooklyn, NY