stunthanger.com
General control line discussion => Open Forum => Topic started by: Scott Richlen on August 15, 2020, 07:26:26 AM
-
So, what would you guys recommend as the best flying and really good looking profile stunt ship? This would be for a club build so it can be scratch-built or maybe we'll make our own kit, so I'm not looking for a commercial kit or an ARF. We'd power it with an LA-46 or electric equivalent.
Also, if you can, please post a picture of your favorite candidate.
Thanks!
-
The 40 size Cardinal is a great choice. Very good performance without complex construction. Check Brodak web site , no longer available as ARF/ARC but I think they have the kit. Should have photo.
-
Thanks guys, but I'm not looking for a commercial kit or an ARF.
BTW, most of our guys that have had the Cardinal say it is just "okay". Like the Twister there are a bunch of things that can make it a better-flying plane.
But again, thanks for the interest and the quick response. It'll help generate discussion.
-
I did the development work on the P-40 and Cardinal ARCs and ARFs when they were being produced by Sun Models in China.
Around 50 flights on each of the four, by me and a number of others.
In my opinion (and other pilots), the P-40 is definitely the better of the two.
Bob Z.
-
Sounds like a great club project. How many planes do y'all plan to build?
My three choices would be Fancher Twister, Bob Hunt's Prowler or RD-1 as a starting point. (Sorry, no pictures. Plenty available in the search).
You can draw out the "mannequin of numbers" (words out of Bob Hunt's mouth)-nose moment, engine thrust line, wing location and stab location and make the profile look like you want it to look. Add wing tips, change elevator tips and rudder shape.
Start out with a Twister wing kit or a lost foam wing jig (that Bob Hunt guy again) for the Prowler or RD-1.
-
Hi Scott,
Here is a picture of my favorite profile candidate that is powered by an LA 46 called Circulas 46. This was published in the final edition (Issue 1 - 2019) of Stunt News entitled "Building a Circulas 46". For further information please see the link at:
https://stunthanger.com/smf/classifieds-92/plans-for-circulas-46/msg573206/#msg573206 (https://stunthanger.com/smf/classifieds-92/plans-for-circulas-46/msg573206/#msg573206)
Circulas 46 uses some simple and basic construction techniques that make it an easy to build model, but is more than just a basic profile. I'm also developing an electric equal at this time called the Circulas 46 IIe.
Enjoy,
Dennis
-
The ORIENTAL has a good wing , would require at least on wing rib template .
Ive had a 71 ounce twin 20/25 powered Me 262 that on 70 ft of .018 Laystrate flys an accuate pattern , Even if the guy filming it tells me after , he only knows how to do STILLS on his new camera . >:(
a 38 ounce one around 74 ( 1974 ! ) 2 OS 20s , 41 ounce with muffler . YOU WILL FIT THE MUFFLERS = parental advice .
previously in a 35 ounce Whirlwind , no mufflers . :-\ 1 in. less chord behind the spar ( 7 in O A Chord ) a maggot bifurcated with a combat wing,
the subsequent turn of the century aforesaid 262 , a& 60 Oz Whirlwind ( Fox 25s 7 19s ) & De H Mosquito ( Veco 19s )
this 262s run ST 20/23s , G 15's , OS 20/25s , FP 25 clones , & MVVS D7 diesels .
plus a 60 Oz 54 in long Meteor NF 11 in IDF markings & a DB Il.3 I think , artound 60 ounce .
ALL FLY WELL .
NOT that im suggesting you should emulate that , tho youre welcome to . BUT THAT the origiator of the concept , H C QUECK of Yak 9 fame ,
did a Zero , Kitty Hawk , Mustang , & F W 190 , on a smaller 9 36 inch ) wing , :P followed by some twits Mosquito & Me 110 .
as I had the magazines for these & the Oriental , and some tight ass would lent his De H Mosq. plan , the obvious solution
as both wings were 48 X 8 , plus tips , was to use the renowned & superior ORIENTAL WING , moments & areas ,
reshaping the edges in appropriate style . ( The Fuse. side views & fin are actually scale renings sacaled to suit .
THEREFORE the the Staggering Outlay of ONE WING RIB TEMPLATE you might have Whole Squadrons , of Warbirds . Single Engined .
or F1 Goodyear racers , or freestyle ( As a Design STYLING COMPETITION ) as however it may whet your fancy .
The ORIENTAL write up suggests the Wing will cope with 60 ouce all up weight , no trouble . With two props it does with 70 ounce on 70s .
suggesting you could use a bit off glue & timber where necesary . Of cost cut with a parralel FOAM WING if you get 48 inch foam blocks .
A miserable sod would use cardboard for wing skins , but the horrible cheap plastic book cover heat adhere / shrink stuff they use on F2D combat wings , with no complaints , if you leave me out ;)
Would be more than adequate . And some would suggest two pot polyuretane would be supperior to Dope & Tissue , for Fuse / Flaps & tail feathers .
Pity you cant ? get Colemans Mustard Tins , for tanks , for 3d. still . :-\
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fthumbs4.picclick.com%2Fd%2Fl400%2Fpict%2F291136151599_%2FModel-Airplane-Plan-1965-Control-line-28-15.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
Standard Pommy issue combat tank. bottom left corner . A Oriental'd fly with anything from a FP20 to 40 , dependingontheWEIGHT .
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fouterzone.co.uk%2Fimages%2F_thumbs%2Fplans%2F10656.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
Thats what youd do to it , the little brats could do any W W II fighter they choose , or racer , or aerobatic champ thing, if it came to it .
though freestyle & bats in the belfry might be more illuminateing as to theier characters to the suppervisors .
The standardiseation would mean replacement componentry could be redilly to hand .
-
Hi Scott,
A couple of years ago I put out a kit of Ted Fancher's Imitation. I am no longer producing kits but there are plans out there for this model. It looks beautiful in the air and is not a complicated build. I dont have plans for it anymore as I got rid of all my plans but there should be plans out there in cyber space. I will see if I can find a couple of pictures I can post.
Mike
-
Skip the LAST LINE , and a few others , unless your all still wearing shorts .
One last thought , straightforward & strength , could save a few tears . And we cant stand to see grown men cry - seen the R C Scale stall over the fence with the new engine on the maiden flight , trick .
Sure , a imitation would , with a marvelous pilot , or even a good one , be marvelous ,
but if you need a good sturdy knockabout , a standardised elementary job would be quicker .The Square Wing ' talks ' to you even in mild conditions . the taper plkanform slides through easier ,
but with less feedback as to immediate location , so as a work your way through a respectable pattern , as a learning tool , the rudimentary appoach may be complimentary to easier progress .
:P like you use Morris Minors for learner Drivers , not Ferrari's . ( plenty of pillocks planting Ferrarri's etc on U tube . Dunno their insurrace premiums . Youd think 100 % of replacement value per 6 months ! :o
-
Skip the LAST LINE , and a few others , unless your all still wearing shorts .
One last thought , straightforward & strength , could save a few tears . And we cant stand to see grown men cry - seen the R C Scale stall over the fence with the new engine on the maiden flight , trick .
Sure , a imitation would , with a marvelous pilot , or even a good one , be marvelous ,
but if you need a good sturdy knockabout , a standardised elementary job would be quicker .The Square Wing ' talks ' to you even in mild conditions . the taper plkanform slides through easier ,
but with less feedback as to immediate location , so as a work your way through a respectable pattern , as a learning tool , the rudimentary appoach may be complimentary to easier progress .
:P like you use Morris Minors for learner Drivers , not Ferrari's . ( plenty of pillocks planting Ferrarri's etc on U tube . Dunno their insurrace premiums . Youd think 100 % of replacement value per 6 months ! :o
Apparently the profiles classic leagal too , so you could have some rivallry in candy apple & pearl custom finishing, etc . And use em for barnstorming . :-\ ( even put two wings on & have Biplanes ! S?P)
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FH8SFIGVQzwM%2Fmaxresdefault.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
H^^
-
Scott,
Here is a picture of the Imitation I built
Mike
-
I have to go with the Imitation, And I am Very biased, cause I gotta brag.... 54 oz, Tom Lay ST 51, Dope over polyspan, Mike Griffin wing kit and eighteenth at the 2020 Nats in Open PA...
Good year for the Lee Boys... Grandson AJ, First in Sr Beginner, Todd fourth, ( #^ #^ #^ #^ #^ ) and the old guy in the Top Twenty with a profile......
thanks
Jim
-
Scott,
The Circulas 46 looks like a winner! I'm betting it has been influenced by the Imitation seeing Dennis is from that area.
-
Jim,
Yup a good year for the Lee family! Congrats to all.
-
Straight, good power and reasonable weight are more important than design.
My choice would be the profile Pathfinder for that LA 46 power
-
Holy Smoke, Those Lee Guys remind me of the Ever Ready Bunnies! Nice going Guys!
Phil spillman
-
Well I am kinda partial to this one. It is a real good flyer. Not a kit but AMA has the plans number 471.
http://library.modelaviation.com/system/files/styles/zoom1800/private/ma/ma198504/ma198504_072.jpg?itok=s_gKAM08
Roger
-
If you are talking 46LA *that has not been molested*, my first choice would be the Imitation, which is the standard we have been attempting to replicate for the last 40 years now (with varying degrees of success). Compare it to the Thundergazer, it's very close to the same airplane, and an LA46 is a HUGE improvement in performance over the ST46 the Imitation used most of the time. It also works extremely well with the 40VF, do that, and it's as good as any other airplane at any level.
If the engine had been "improved" in any way, then some of these little 35-sized airplanes might be appropriate, since most of the "improvements" usually destroy anything good about it, particularly the power and ability to pull normal-sized airplanes.
Brett
-
I’m sort of fond of the Shameless.
Dave
-
I've had good luck with the MoBest by Larry Cunningham. Pampa plan. Works great with an LA 46.
-
So, what would you guys recommend as the best flying and really good looking profile stunt ship? This would be for a club build so it can be scratch-built or maybe we'll make our own kit, so I'm not looking for a commercial kit or an ARF. We'd power it with an LA-46 or electric equivalent.
Also, if you can, please post a picture of your favorite candidate.
Thanks!
I think a profile Saturn makes a pretty good profile. This is my Saturn TFP - (take-apart, foam wing, profile) Straight from the plan.
Kim
-
I always liked the Dick Sarpolus Challenger
-
If the engine had been "improved" in any way, then some of these little 35-sized airplanes might be appropriate, since most of the "improvements" usually destroy anything good about it, particularly the power and ability to pull normal-sized airplanes.
Based purely on reputation and looking at plans, I agree with the Imitation suggestion, assuming no "improvements" to the engine internals. It should be easy to rework it for electric, for that matter.
If anyone has such an internally "improved" engine and wants to put it right, I have a 46LA with the mounting lugs "improved" to fit a pre-existing set of holes (or maybe buggered to fit...). The internals, however, are fine, and could be swapped into an unmolested case to get an engine that's overall stock.
-
I built a profile of my Sandpiper design that flew extremely well with a.. :!...LA46!
If you need a pedigree then go with the Imitation. If it were my club project I would find a commercially available wing, take the dimensions from whatever it came from then have a club member design something around it.
Ken
-
There's quite a few "Star Finders" here in the PNW. It's a Norm Whittle restyle of the Pathfinder. Don't know where to get plans, but I know you could get laser cut ribs from Brodak. y1 Steve
-
What about Scott Richlen's "Fixed Fazer?"
-
Don Hutchinson’s profile warbirds! There are some great flying profiles down here that are Don’s design. Joe Gilbert terrorized profile for years with the AT-6. I have a dauntless semi framed up that will get the LA 46 treatment. There is also the Ringmaster 576. I got to fly that one a lot with the LA 46 in front and that is one of the most fun planes I’ve ever flown!
-
Matt called it right Don has 20 plus’s to chose from he designed them around the LA 46. Pick what you like and scratch build them. P 51 H model is my next Hutchinson build.
Joe Gilbert
-
I always liked the Dick Sarpolus Challenger
Several really good choices here! Don's designs are great for warbird fans. One advantage of Sarpolus' Challenger is that you can use the SIG Super Chipmunk wing kit, though the one I received is really heavy!
-
Don Hutchinson’s profile warbirds! There are some great flying profiles down here that are Don’s design. Joe Gilbert terrorized profile for years with the AT-6. I have a dauntless semi framed up that will get the LA 46 treatment. There is also the Ringmaster 576. I got to fly that one a lot with the LA 46 in front and that is one of the most fun planes I’ve ever flown!
If you were doing a club build you could parcel out a different design to each person; that'd be fun.
-
I am sitting here trying to keep from laughing at posts like this. I would expect if there is 40+ kits/plans out there you would get that many answers. My self my favorite is not a 46 size plane and it is needs refinishing. It is the Primary Force with my good Fox 35 Stunt. D>K
-
Since your requirements include best flying, I would be looking at either the Imitation or the Pathfinder.
-
Seems like a lot of people like the Imitation. It is a very good flying and looking airplane. But does it actually qualify as a profile? I know that there has been a lot of back and forth on this since the nose is wider than 3/4" and some people claim that a profile has to have the engine mounted sideways. What's the verdict?
(Caveat: not sure if this matters much if there are no "Profile" category contests. The major one being the now defunct Brodaks Fly-In. :-[)
-
Scott,
There is the Eastern Shore contest. Still, the Imitation looks to be a strong candidate.
Peter
-
Seems like a lot of people like the Imitation. It is a very good flying and looking airplane. But does it actually qualify as a profile? I know that there has been a lot of back and forth on this since the nose is wider than 3/4" and some people claim that a profile has to have the engine mounted sideways. What's the verdict?
The verdict is that there are different definitions of a profile; some would include the Imitation, some would not. In the Pacific Northwest the profile stunt event rules (http://flyinglines.org/rules.profilestunt.html) allow any fuselage width ahead of the flap hinge line, strictly 3/4" behind the flap hinge line, and the engine has to be exposed lug to plug ("from the crank centerline to the glow plug"). Other regions are more strict -- the Sig event, for instance, has rules formulated to admit planes that conform to the dimensions of Sig profile kits, but not wider fuselages, etc.
So far we haven't made strict rules for electric motor mounting, and folks with 'lectrics have been good about showing up with easily-mounted, accessible motors. If someone comes up with a fiendishly difficult way to mount an electric motor in a profile that gives some competitive advantage (or even if they start bragging about it and it gets tiresome), then rules may be composed to address that issue.
-
Seems like a lot of people like the Imitation. It is a very good flying and looking airplane. But does it actually qualify as a profile? I know that there has been a lot of back and forth on this since the nose is wider than 3/4" and some people claim that a profile has to have the engine mounted sideways. What's the verdict?
(Caveat: not sure if this matters much if there are no "Profile" category contests. The major one being the now defunct Brodaks Fly-In. :-[)
Scott,
Mark Hughes had a very good looking, good flying Imitation at the St. Louis CL Fun Fly this weekend. Wish I had taken a picture. He changed the front of the fuselage to be like every other profile since he knew he would use, an LA .46 (and perhaps, I didn't ask him, to avoid the issue of whether it was a profile or not). Ted used the round nose so he could use RC engine mounts so he could test a bunch of motors on it.
I would imagine that Mark is not the only one to change the nose to the regular profile configuration. An Imitation with an LA .46 and a regular profile
in front of the wing is on my list of future builds.
Joe Ed Pederson
Cuba, MO
-
With the preceding definitions, I would do another Mustunt I with out the cowl and the thicker of the two air foils. D>K
-
A Limitation by Dale & Derek Barry with a Gieseke nobler wing or a vector wing in it
-
.
So far we haven't made strict rules for electric motor mounting, and folks with 'lectrics have been good about showing up with easily-mounted, accessible motors. If someone comes up with a fiendishly difficult way to mount an electric motor in a profile that gives some competitive advantage (or even if they start bragging about it and it gets tiresome), then rules may be composed to address that issue.
[/quote]
This could easily turn into another "profile" argument! Electric motors do have a distinct advantage in that they don't have a top or bottom or a sideways. The SIG event was intended as an entry level event and had a .40 size limit, that was the origination of the term "P.40 Stunt" as it is mentioned on the box art of the Primary Force kit box. Ever since control line models took off as a viable form of model aviation, it was a quick and cheap way to produce a kit to have a slab fuselage and the engine mounted in side winder fashion. It's all about production costs and parts count. I say that history dictates that a profile model has a slab fuselage and the engine mounted on it's side for simplicity, and that in itself dictates what a profile is. Fuselage thickness doesn't mean crap, and whoever came up with the idea that the fuselage behind the trailing edge had something to do with it. Just the shear numbers of kits and plans that have been produced with slab fuselages and engines mounted on their side and called "profile model" on the box art or article title dictates what a profile is. All it takes is one trophy hunter that wants to get his duper belchfire cheater model declared legal and that is where the discrepancy starts.
In our club, our rules follow the SIG P.40 rules, and we have added a 10 point penalty for electric models, because they have a distinct advantage . The pilot can negate that penalty by having a model with no flaps for the 10 point no flap bonus. Lots of clubs have variation of the rules, and keep in mind that there in no official AMA profile event and as far as I know, SIG more or less invented it with their P.40 event. If anyone was providing for a profile model stunt event before that, I am not aware of it. Mark Huges' Imitation is a true profile with a slab fuselage and sidewinder mounted engine, but depending on local rules, he might not be able to fly it any where he wants and he is aware of that. But in my opinion, the Imitation as it was presented and designed is not a true, classic profile model. The fuselage was designed that way to make a quick, easy and cheap way to build a fuselage to hold everything else.
In the long run, no particular airplane is going to make you a better stunt pilot, just as putting you into the seat of a Ferrari makes you a Formula One driver
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee
-
. Just the shear numbers of kits and plans that have been produced with slab fuselages and engines mounted on their side and called "profile model" on the box art or article title dictates what a profile is. All it takes is one trophy hunter that wants to get his duper belchfire cheater model declared legal and that is where the discrepancy starts.
The Imitation and Mustunt I (plus a bunch of others) both have convemtional engine mounts, and appear to have precedent over the SIG definition.
And I don't see why it is necessary to call a difference of opinion "cheaters" or "trophy grabbers" . If someone is a "cheater", show me the paragraph and document that prevents it.
But in my opinion, the Imitation as it was presented and designed is not a true, classic profile model.
In my opinion, it is. The PNW definition (used for years at a large regional contest and numerous local contests), also says it is. So what does that prove and who is "cheating"? What about the Mustunt I, which long predates the SIG "Profile" event?
In the long run, no particular airplane is going to make you a better stunt pilot, just as putting you into the seat of a Ferrari makes you a Formula One driver
You know how much easier it is to get below, say, 8 minutes at the Nurburgring in a Ferrari Formula 1 car VS a diesel Chevette? You know how many bad habits you will get into driving the Chevette that you will have to unlearn later when you get a Ferrari? Go check out "supercar fail" on Youtube if you want to see.
Brett
-
I have to go with the Imitation, And I am Very biased, cause I gotta brag.... 54 oz, Tom Lay ST 51, Dope over polyspan, Mike Griffin wing kit and eighteenth at the 2020 Nats in Open PA...
Good year for the Lee Boys... Grandson AJ, First in Sr Beginner, Todd fourth, ( #^ #^ #^ #^ #^ ) and the old guy in the Top Twenty with a profile......
thanks
Jim
Is JetBlue doing so bad that Todd can’t buy a shirt? :P
-
I have to go with the Imitation, And I am Very biased, cause I gotta brag.... 54 oz, Tom Lay ST 51, Dope over polyspan, Mike Griffin wing kit and eighteenth at the 2020 Nats in Open PA...
Good year for the Lee Boys... Grandson AJ, First in Sr Beginner, Todd fourth, ( #^ #^ #^ #^ #^ ) and the old guy in the Top Twenty with a profile......
thanks
Jim
Congrats to All Jim, you done good!
-
The Pathfinder tricycle year for Easy er take off and landing Flys about the best of any profile out there
-
Mark Hughes had a very good looking, good flying Imitation at the St. Louis CL Fun Fly this weekend. Wish I had taken a picture.
Can someone get a picture of his ship and post it here? Everyone loves seeing a good-looking stunt ship! Thanks!
-
Call me silly but I love the lines of a Magician....
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200817/cd9bea76bbed88875ac2c4a3d009a526.jpg)
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
-
I vote along with Matt and Joe for one of the Don Hutchinson profile warbirds. They were designed with the LA-46 in mind and all I've seen have been exceptional flying planes.
-
I like this one.
-
I vote along with Matt and Joe for one of the Don Hutchinson profile warbirds. They were designed with the LA-46 in mind and all I've seen have been exceptional flying planes.
Steve: do you know if he uses the same rib or wing for most of his planes? For a club build we need to pick one plane to build or pick a line of planes that all have the same wing or lots of commonality such that even though you can build "different" airplanes, you have a lot of commonality and it is like you are all building the same plane.
-
What is the endgame? A bunch of club planes to "check out". A "Club Plane" contest where each member builds the same plane? A contest where everybody flies the same plane (I would make 3)? I would think how you are going to use them might influence the design you pick. I like the Warbirds if it is an everybody builds one exercise and I like the Imitation idea if it is an everybody flies it program. No matter. if there will be enough of them I am sure you can find one of our kit mfg. to do you a short kit or even a full kit.
ken
-
What is the endgame?
Ken, what I am working on is a "Club Build". It isn't a contest (although it could be) but is an effort to encourage our club members to be ready to go once this Covid stuff is over. I am concerned that most people are hunkered down to the extent that they are flying a lot less and they are building a lot less. Granted, Covid and the lock-down forces some of that, but after months of this I am sure that some people are having a harder time coping and are reducing their activities more than they need to.
I've led our club (NVCL) on a few of these in the past. One time a bunch of us built the P-51B profile that Pat Johnston had designed for Tom Dixon. Another time we built Windy's Evo 40 Cardinal. Not everyone participates but I try to pick a plane that has the widest appeal (and also pulls the guys up a rung building-wise and flying-wise.) It takes about 6 months of planning and preparation before kick-off, so that is why I am starting now. I'd call this the "kicking ideas around" stage of the process. Hopefully in 6 months Covid is over and I'll be able to host our kick-off building session in my shop.
-
my first choice would be the Imitation
Brett:
Looking at the plans for the Imitation, I would have to ask "which one?" The plane was designed for experimentation with adjustables (such as flap length). I would want to change out the circular bellcrank for a 4 inch and I would probably want to use the Thundergazer stab airfoil instead of what's shown. While I am revising the stab and elevator shouldn't I also increase their area to bring them to modern standards? What's my target? And what flap-length do I want to use (the plans show a number of choises)? Should the wing still be equal panel length? Having flown a number of LA-46 powered ships, I wonder if that airfoil is pushing too much air for the LA and needs slimming? And what else to make sure it is Nth generation and not just a nice-flying airplane from many years ago?
-
While I am revising the stab and elevator shouldn't I also increase their area to bring them to modern standards? What's my target?
Ooh. A Fancherized Imitation. Cool.
The Imitation was originally designed for experimentation -- so yes, there's options on options. I think I'd take a set of Thundergazer or Impact plans and crib the numbers off of that.
A 46LA will fly a pretty big plane -- a 700 square inch, 72 ounce Impact-like plane is within its capabilities, if tenuously. 600 or 650 square inches, for sure, particularly if it's less than 72 ounces.
-
Ooh. A Fancherized Imitation. Cool.
The Imitation was originally designed for experimentation -- so yes, there's options on options. I think I'd take a set of Thundergazer or Impact plans and crib the numbers off of that.
A 46LA will fly a pretty big plane -- a 700 square inch, 72 ounce Impact-like plane is within its capabilities, if tenuously. 600 or 650 square inches, for sure, particularly if it's less than 72 ounces.
I have always wondered what Ted was imitating. :! To back up your point at 60 or so oz and 600-650 squares, an LA46 is a perfect fit. The one I pictured earlier was just over 600 and 56oz. It never came close to taxing the LA46 at 5.4 on 62' lines.
Just out of curiosity, if you modify a Fancherized Twister, what is it? ???
Ken
-
Top Flight Tudor.
Tom Farmer's Forerunner.
-
Hi Scott,
Here is a picture of my favorite profile candidate that is powered by an LA 46 called Circulas 46. This was published in the final edition (Issue 1 - 2019) of Stunt News entitled "Building a Circulas 46". For further information please see the link at:
https://stunthanger.com/smf/classifieds-92/plans-for-circulas-46/msg573206/#msg573206 (https://stunthanger.com/smf/classifieds-92/plans-for-circulas-46/msg573206/#msg573206)
Circulas 46 uses some simple and basic construction techniques that make it an easy to build model, but is more than just a basic profile. I'm also developing an electric equal at this time called the Circulas 46 IIe.
Enjoy,
Dennis
Hi Scott,
Dennis' Circulas has the advantage of being designed from scratch for a powerplant such as you're considering. I know Dennis and have been impressed with the airplanes of his design that he flies (very well) in local events and the pics of his profile (which I have NOT seen fly as yet) look perfectly functional. Might be a good candidate and plans might be available.
Ted Fancher
-
I’m sort of fond of the Shameless.
Dave
The airplane's Shamefully nice Dave but I gotta vote for that gas tank! Maybe you could make one for every ship they eventually decide on! Yeah....sure...
Ted
-
I have to go with the Imitation, And I am Very biased, cause I gotta brag.... 54 oz, Tom Lay ST 51, Dope over polyspan, Mike Griffin wing kit and eighteenth at the 2020 Nats in Open PA...
Good year for the Lee Boys... Grandson AJ, First in Sr Beginner, Todd fourth, ( #^ #^ #^ #^ #^ ) and the old guy in the Top Twenty with a profile......
thanks
Jim
Way to go, Lee boys! Nice job on that Imitation, Jim. Say hi to Momma for Shareen and me.
Ted
p.s. Not to rain on your parade Jim but....you do know that an Imitation actually placed 5th at the Nats one year, right?
Well, put more succinctly, it placed dead last in a field of five on the Walker Flyoff day after it's predecessor's powerplant puked its guts out halfway to the top of the wingover on a needle setting warm up flight earlier in the morning and the subsequent landing left a great deal to be...um...er...well...a...trashed. It was back in the '80s sometime...1980s...not 18s.
-
I like this one.
Much as I hate to agree with Randy in public...That ship (the "flapped" Ringmaster) would be a dandy choice for a lot of reasons...not the least of which would be historical heartstrings.
Name recused to protect the guilty!
-
Steve: do you know if he uses the same rib or wing for most of his planes? For a club build we need to pick one plane to build or pick a line of planes that all have the same wing or lots of commonality such that even though you can build "different" airplanes, you have a lot of commonality and it is like you are all building the same plane.
Scott, if that's what you're looking to do it's easy. As an example, the Midwest 48" profile warbirds all use essentially the same ribs with some differences for landing gear location (dual vs trike gear). Pick a wing for everyone - perhaps one you can at least get laser-cut ribs for - then each member can create their own fuse, wing tips, tail feathers. Should be lots of fun!
I definitely wouldn't recommend that Midwest wing as the airfoil is a bit thin. Lots here like the Pathfinder and Brodak supplies plan sets and laser-cut ribs ...
-
Pathfinder tricycle gear nice for take off and landings fly with the best of them on. La 46 stock
-
Steve: do you know if he uses the same rib or wing for most of his planes? For a club build we need to pick one plane to build or pick a line of planes that all have the same wing or lots of commonality such that even though you can build "different" airplanes, you have a lot of commonality and it is like you are all building the same plane.
I'm pretty sure it's not a common wing. The moments and areas are similiar but the wings have construction differences.
-
If that is not the Bestest and the Goodest, I don't know what is. That said, the best profile I have ever flown was a Shameless. Flown 2 of them. Seemed to be in class of its own.
-
Kitbashing is acceptable also. Make it yours, but keep the essential elements of a proven performer.
One of my favorite planes to look at is the Chipmunk-Imitation.
Walter Hicks made this very cool Imitation, in Chipmunk livery. It also has a lower aspect ratio, Trivial Pursuit sized tail.
-
On the theme of modded good designs such as the various warbird planes by Don Hutchison, the Starfinder is Norm Whittle's restyling of the Pathfinder.
This one was built by Mike Haverly. Also, in a patriotic Chipmunk-esque theme.
-
If the stiff RC mount nose on the Imitation is objectionable for some archaic, quixotic reasons, just mod the design to accept traditional maple beams.
This traditional beam mount nose Imitation was built by Osni Renato.
-
And a closer look at the photo Jim Lee posted in reply 13 finds the same change to a traditional sidewinder arrangement on his Imitation. Nice one, Jim.
Gary
-
On the theme of modded good designs such as the various warbird planes by Don Hutchison, the Starfinder is Norm Whittle's restyling of the Pathfinder.
This one was built by Mike Haverly. Also, in a patriotic Chipmunk-esque theme.
Totally Cool! #^
-
Forerunner, designed by Tom Farmer. Great flying profile
with inboard mounted motor. It has been built with both
conventional and inboard mounted motors and flies great
either way. It has also been built with both foam and built-up
balsa wings, and flies great either way. There is a 40/46 version
and a 60 version.
Steve
-
I like everyone of the designs mentioned. However, my favorites would be the MO'BEST, Forerunner, and Don Hutchinson's T-6, and the Dauntless. I've seen all these fly with very competent fliers and they flew extremely well. My next BUILD will be Hutch's BT-13.
Doug
-
the Don H warbird would be my choice. OR
Everyone builds a 38 special and finishes any way they want.
-
Scott,
You could order up a bunch of chipmunk wing kits from SIG - and use that as your base wing planform.
Personally I have been using the novaclone rib pattern for most of my planes. Just expanded to 48 inch span and larger surfaces for stab and elevator . I usually use 3" rib spacing and a planked leading edge.
-
Whatever the choice, make sure it has wing dihedral (just a little)
(sorry: my spell checker doesn't recognize "dihedral" in any spelling. I'm too lazy to go to the dictionary)
-
So, what would you guys recommend as the best flying and really good looking profile stunt ship? This would be for a club build so it can be scratch-built or maybe we'll make our own kit, so I'm not looking for a commercial kit or an ARF. We'd power it with an LA-46 or electric equivalent.
Also, if you can, please post a picture of your favorite candidate.
Thanks!
Scott; Got some bad news for you. There is NO best looking or flying plane period.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and flying is in the hand of the pilot! %^@
Good luck, Jerry
-
Nice job on that Imitation, Jim.
So Ted, what would you do to bring the Imitation up to date? As designed it was for experimentation, but by now you probably have a good idea of exactly how to build it for best performance. What changes would you make?
-
I think Don has said the airfoils/wing structure are all basically the same.
Doug
-
Tiburon (profile Shark)
-
Tiburon (profile Shark)
Where can you get plans for the Tiburon?
-
Where can you get plans for the Tiburon?
Here are the Tiburon plans.
I think Gordon VT had ribs laser cut by RSM.
-
I remember that day well, Ted. I was doing a warm up flight on a circle just downwind of the one you were flying on. I was in the square eight as I recall and heard this ugly sounding "whump" behind me. It was fairly windy that day, and, before I could complete the maneuver I was in, a whole lot of debris blew past me; some of it hitting me in the legs. By the way, how do you like quick links these days?
You were one less to worry about that day for the win, but you did fly that Imitation very well in the Fly-Off. We both got beat by Mr. McDonald on that occasion as it turned out...
Ah, memories - Bob
Aaah, memories! You got that right, Bubba. Although I could stand to forget the memories that it wasn't the only time I (we for that matter) got my/our butt/s kicked by Mr. McDonald!
Reviewing some of Shareen's old records brought back additional memories of that "event" by the way. If any are interested here's what I "re"learned...with some purposeful intent at levity from time to time just to keep me from crying.
Good local Bay area friend Lanny Shorts was the event director in Wilmington, Ohio that year (the first of several years he did that difficult but essential task, I might add...and once again thank him) and had asked if I would mind lending him the Imitation to use to warm up/train etc. the judges. I said sure but he'd have to take it with him since we (Shareen and I) would be flying back commercial and arriving a few days after Lanny intended to start preparations, judge training, etc.
Alas, upon our arrival I learned that Lanny had had an "oops" moment with the Imitation a day or so prior. Turns out the Imitation had blown out of his van (yes!, blown out! As Bob mentioned, it was a windy event) the day before my arrival and sustained significant damage including braking the fuselage in half aft of the wing--upon being introduced to the tarmac in other than the "standard" landing configuration. (Honest, I never landed it that bad on my own!)
I frankly don't remember whether we got together to glue it back together at the hotel or had planned to put it off until returning home but, as you know, that decision was made for us that morning of the top five flyoff. One way or another it was in one piece prior to my first round fly off flight...but not yet test flown.
The morning of the flyoff I was taking that ill fated needle setting/warm up flight when the Excitation (I had to look that name up in Shareen's records as well...Old Timers' having me firmly in its grasp) bit the dust...er, um..tarmac as the press would say. For whatever reason I sure as h-e-double tooth pics wasn't going to be flying the Excitation in the next hour or so (it took the better part of the time before official flights were to begin just to get all the Excitation parts into the used airplane collection facility/garbage can). Ergo, the Imitation had to be called into action. (I don't remember, by the way, how they dealt with the appearance point issue with reference to the fly off score sheets...not that it mattered so I can't be called as an expert witness should the situation arise again).
As Bubba was pleased to remind one and all, I didn't scare any of the other flyoff contestants (although I most certainly would hav...naah, forget it) but we didn't embarrass ourselves completely.
Many thanks to Bubba for reminding me and ruining an otherwise delightful morning (other than the smoke from all the forest fires scattered around the state as of the last three days!)
Ted
p.s. Sorry for the length. One just has to find something to do with the time while forced into "inside abode exile" by the authorities via the Corona virus and Mother Nature via the fires and smoke! You didn't have to read it, ya know.
-
So Ted, what would you do to bring the Imitation up to date? As designed it was for experimentation, but by now you probably have a good idea of exactly how to build it for best performance. What changes would you make?
Hi Scott,
Nothing aerodynamically. As I've stated on a number of occasions I found the ship to be the most enjoyable and predictable performing ship I've had the pleasure to fly (although a later competition ship, the Citation V probably ranks right with it but was never flown as much. If one looked closely with a ruler in hand the two would probably look very similar in most respects.
What I think would be most appropriate for the "group effort" being planned would be to redraw the fuse forward of the wing to be a conventional profile layout with the only difference from the usual to be the addition of a 1/2" "tripler" on the inside of the fuselage from about the high point of the wing to the nose/spinner for rigidity, particularly appropriate given the "true" profile nature desired and the expectation of some larger power trains envisioned for the project. The plans for the original Imitation included such "triplers" on both sides to permit the use of a radial bolt on "RC" mount to allow a conventional inverted (or other orientation) installation of the power plant. This was done originally so as to use the ship to test a number of different engines of the era on the same airplane. A plan that never reached full utilization because the builder was too lazy...and just loved flying the dang thing!
As usual, TMI. sorry (but what the heck else are you gonna do imprisoned in the house?)
Ted
-
Gordon, what is the wing area of the Tiburon?
Thank you.
-
I am a bit surprised that no one has suggested building a Vector 40 profile.
One option would be a kit with a foam wing from Tom Dixon.
The other option would be 20 bucks to Brodak for a rib kit.
-
I am a bit surprised that no one has suggested building a Vector 40 profile.
Actually, in an earlier post John Lindberg suggested a "Randy Plane". I was going to tease him about it (he loves Randy Planes) but decided I shouldn't since it is a bit of an inside joke between John and me.
-
I have one on a Francherized Twister and it flies very well.
Don
-
Prowler
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Prowler
Wouldn't that be a bit over-powered with an LA-46? More likely an LA-25 would go good in a Prowler. No?
-
Wouldn't that be a bit over-powered with an LA-46? More likely an LA-25 would go good in a Prowler. No?
A "new" 25LA would be pushing the limits of what I would feel comfortable with. I would think more like a 25FP, but I would look for a decent 32-36 instead. If I had a Prowler, I would use a Magnum 32.
Brett
-
[quote If I had a Prowler, I would use a Magnum 32.
][/quote]
What? No Fox 35? ;D
-
Hey Brett:
Still hoping to hear your thoughts on bringing an Imitation up to generation Nth in stunt ships...(Its a great design but certainly there are things to be done to improve it, yes?)
-
Hey Brett:
Still hoping to hear your thoughts on bringing an Imitation up to generation Nth in stunt ships...(Its a great design but certainly there are things to be done to improve it, yes?)
To be entirely honest, most of what we have tried to "improve" it have been only marginally successful - it is the benchmark for West coast design.
Given that, I would
use a 4" conventional bellcrank and geometrically correct controls
use a low-aspect ratio tail with a much thinner airfoil
round all the surface corners around the flap and elevator hinge line
spread the landing gear out so there is about an 18" spacing between the wheels
DO NOT under any circumstances "hollow out" the aft fuse for weight saving as shown on the plans.
A *stock* 46LA would be fine, an Aero-Tiger 36 would be fine. Many of them have been built using 40VFs which is a bit overkill but easily controllable.
Brett
-
round all the surface corners around the flap and elevator hinge line
Thanks Brett!
Do you mean like this (see diagram)?
Note that I show the flap (or elevator) trailing edge squared off. But should it only be the flap trailing edge squared off but the elevator trailing edge rounded?
-
In reference to Brett's above post, before I released my Imitation Kit through RSM a few years ago, both Eric Rule and I conferred with Ted to make sure we incorporated the changes that Ted wanted before the kit was released and these changes reflected most of the suggestions that Brett made. The fuselage aft of the trailing edge of the wing consisted of a built up design that resembled a modified warren truss and then sheeted over with 1/16 balsa. I did not release the kit until Ted's suggestions for the improved design were incorporated into the kit.
I personally built two of them from my kit and they flew as good as any built up or profile I had ever flown.
I have gotten rid of almost everything I had relating to Control Line but there could be a few of my kits still out there if you decide to go that way with the build.
Mike
-
DO NOT under any circumstances "hollow out" the aft fuse for weight saving as shown on the plans.
Brett:
Is this purely for resistance to flexing and twisting, or are ther other considerations?
Regards
John
-
The town here has a faceplant page....people ask "what's the best pizza?". Always draws TONS of responses and elicits arguments.
Same same water buffalo
-
Brett:
Is this purely for resistance to flexing and twisting, or are their other considerations?
Regards
John
I recently put the lightening holes in my last ship and was taken to the woodshed by the Moon brothers. The explanation was primarily that the weight reduction was not worth the aft fuselage strength and I would probably need tail weight anyway (big a** battery up front). So I weighed the plugs I had removed. Not much. While they were out I did a twist test on the stab and recorded how much I could lift the stab tips before the top of the rudder moved (flex). Put the plugs back in (CA is really a cool glue) and did the test again. About twice what it was so YES, cutting those holes does affect twisting. I grew up in stunt back when the Fox 35 was king. It was a very light engine and having the holes meant less nose weight. Now that we use engines/motors that could power a small tractor I don't think trading weight for strength is what it used to be.
Don't cut them out - Ken
-
Don't cut them out - Ken
Thanks, Ken. I'll be using a .46LA, so I'll certainly obey Brett's injunction and leave it solid.
-
Is this purely for resistance to flexing and twisting, or are ther other considerations?
Yes. Imitations are famous for *huge* twists in corners - apparently with little effect. It's probably a combination of the large high-aspect-ratio tail and the fact that the pushrod has to be off-center, so any force along the pushrod bends it sideways and causes it to twist. And of course one of the primary features is the relatively long tail moment which just makes it more flexible.
Since some sets of rules define "profile" as 3/4", I would be very inclined to make it built-up with hard balsa fuse sides 0.7499999" wide, and maybe even laminate it with graphite pre-preg cloth and vacuum bag. With any engine aside from the ST46, and standard monokote wings/tail and epoxy paint finish, they tend to come out nose-heavy anyway.
Brett
-
By the way, the Ringmaster Deluxe flies very well. Very well.
-
This is great timing as I am scratch building the Fancherixed Twister at the moment.
I have made a couple of personal changes in the Fuselage shape and also fitted my gear into the wings.
Motor for this will of course be the OS LA 46.
-
Looks like a really good build!
-
This is great timing as I am scratch building the Fancherixed Twister at the moment.
I have made a couple of personal changes in the Fuselage shape and also fitted my gear into the wings.
Motor for this will of course be the OS LA 46.
Nice clean work!!! H^^
-
Okay! The results are in! The winner of the bestest-flying, goodest-looking profile stunt ship for LA-46 is the....
wait for it.....
TAA-DAA....
Imitation
The floor is now open for any demands for a recount or accusations of ballot-box stuffing.
So, how do I get from the root and tip rib drawings on the plans to the proper lofted ribs in proper language for a buddy of mine to laser-cut some ribs for me?
-
Get the plans for the TEOSAWKI ( The End Of Stunt As We Know It), and have a club night cutting kits, one group doing ribs, one tail feathers, one fuselage, 1 small parts. Bag them into kits and everyone starts from the same spot.
Good flying, easy building, easy to trim plane that an LA will do great in.
-
have a club night cutting kits, one group doing ribs, one tail feathers, one fuselage, 1 small parts. Bag them into kits and everyone starts from the same spot
A production line! Good idea!
-
There have been TEOSAWKI plans files around. Perhaps even here in some old threads?
-
Forgot about the Forerunner, good looking great flying plane that Bob Hunt cuts cores for.
-
There have been TEOSAWKI plans files around. Perhaps even here in some old threads?
Good TEOSAWKI page here http://www.machineconcepts.co.uk/aeromodelling/teosawki/teosawki.htm
Plans, Templates just about everything you might need.
TTFN
John.
-
There are a few guys here in New Zealand flying Pizzaz with an LA46 up front. It’s a terrific flying plane. On occasion these have beaten big full fuse models.
I have a PDF of the plans. If interested send me a message and I can email.
-
Here are the Tiburon plans.
I think Gordon VT had ribs laser cut by RSM.
Thank you
Doug
-
This is great timing as I am scratch building the Fancherixed Twister at the moment.
I have made a couple of personal changes in the Fuselage shape and also fitted my gear into the wings.
Motor for this will of course be the OS LA 46.
Just for grins, I super Fancherized mine. As well as the std Fancher mods, I added one rib to each wing and an extra 1" on each side of the stab. I also added a fiberglass arrow shaft to the top of the fuselage and the bottom and another one in the center of the stab. It was lost in a fire but for the year it flew it was the best performing plane I owned. At 52oz it flew like a PA.
The extra wing area was to support an extra 10oz weight added by going electric. If you are going IC you won't need it.
Ken
-
Okay! The results are in! The winner of the bestest-flying, goodest-looking profile stunt ship for LA-46 is the....
wait for it.....
TAA-DAA....
Imitation
The floor is now open for any demands for a recount or accusations of ballot-box stuffing.
So, how do I get from the root and tip rib drawings on the plans to the proper lofted ribs in proper language for a buddy of mine to laser-cut some ribs for me?
Scott, Check you P.M.s for a possible solution to some of those questions.