Author Topic: Windy Urtnowski's Sweeper 900 (Read 7310 times)

Kevin Wright · « **on:** August 09, 2016, 04:28:31 AM »

Hi Folks,
I've been away from flying for a couple of years due to health issues but am now getting back into building and flying.

An aircraft that caught my eye after seeing the photo's here was Windy Urtnowski's Sweeper 900.

I'm in the process of designing a smaller version which will have similar styling and will be based on Big Jim's
original Patternmaster 60 (I have the plans) as I understand the Sweeper was based on Big Jim's ideas.

I plan to use the identical moments, airfoil, wing and stab planform of the Patternmaster 60.

Power will be a Super Tigre V60 I picked up on Ebay last week.

I'd appreciate design advice from anyone with working knowledge of the Patternmaster 60 (or indeed knowledge of Wind's Sweeper 900).
For example the Patternmaster's airfoil is 24% thick :- is this something you would still recommend?

I've commenced a set of plans in CAD so can make changes fairly readily.

Regards,
Kevin Wright

Robert Zambelli · « **Reply #1 on:** August 09, 2016, 05:34:04 AM »

Hi, Kevin.
Many years ago, Windy gave me the Sweeper and I restored it.
Here are a few photos when it was hanging on my dining room wall.
You can get an idea of the size compared to a Nobler.

I gave it to John Brodak for the museum.
If you live near there (Carmichaels, PA), you should go see it.

Bob Z.

Kevin Wright · « **Reply #2 on:** August 09, 2016, 05:47:21 AM »

Hi Robert,
Thanks for the reply

The plane you show is different to the version of the Sweeper I'm basing my design on. My design is based on the black and white painted version
that had distinctive jet like looks. It had no clear canopy. The 'canopy' was painted on.

See attached photo.

I'd love to visit the museum however I'm located in Australia! A long swim from where you are!

Regards,
kevin

EddyR · « **Reply #3 on:** August 09, 2016, 06:12:16 AM »

There has been some talk on here about that model. I believe it is a Big Jim LJ. Very large flaps. I flew one of the original LJ models and it flew very good but it is not up to par with what is flown today at the NATS.The handle loads are very high.
Ed

Kevin Wright · « **Reply #4 on:** August 09, 2016, 06:29:30 AM »

Hi Ed,
As I mention, the design will be based directly on the Patternmaster 60 and only refer to the Sweeper 900 for styling.
What changes do you believe should be made to the Patternmaster 60?

Regards,
Kevin

Dallas Hanna · « **Reply #5 on:** August 09, 2016, 06:49:51 AM »

Quote from: Kevin Wright on August 09, 2016, 04:28:31 AM

Hi Folks,
I've been away from flying for a couple of years due to health issues but am now getting back into building and flying.

An aircraft that caught my eye after seeing the photo's here was Windy Urtnowski's Sweeper 900.

I'm in the process of designing a smaller version which will have similar styling and will be based on Big Jim's
original Patternmaster 60 (I have the plans) as I understand the Sweeper was based on Big Jim's ideas.

I plan to use the identical moments, airfoil, wing and stab planform of the Patternmaster 60.

Power will be a Super Tigre V60 I picked up on Ebay last week.

I'd appreciate design advice from anyone with working knowledge of the Patternmaster 60 (or indeed knowledge of Wind's Sweeper 900).
For example the Patternmaster's airfoil is 24% thick :- is this something you would still recommend?

I've commenced a set of plans in CAD so can make changes fairly readily.

Regards,
Kevin Wright

Wondered what had happened to you Kev! See you at the field again soon??

HH

Kevin Wright · « **Reply #6 on:** August 09, 2016, 06:57:42 AM »

Hi Dallas,
Great to hear from you.
Yes I should be good to go at the field in a week or so - just have to recover the Imitation I was flying before I stopped.

Kev

Tom Niebuhr · « **Reply #7 on:** August 09, 2016, 07:12:31 AM »

If you look at the right wing it says LJ7. Although the left wing says Sweeper, the plane is a Sweeper in name only. The Sweeper shown by Bob Z. is the actual Sweeper. There were several LJ's built by others.

Many of Windy's other airplanes were Patternmasters in disguise, That is why Windy always said "Big Jim aerodynamics".

There is nothing wrong with using the Patternmaster airfoil today.

Craig Gunder flew an "LJ" for a while.

Kevin Wright · « **Reply #8 on:** August 09, 2016, 07:27:24 AM »

Ty,
Sorry about that!

A pity they don't make them any more.
Kevin

Derek Barry · « **Reply #9 on:** August 09, 2016, 07:51:45 AM »

Windy had at least 3 different sweepers. The 1969 sweeper, the mic sweeper, and the sweeper 900.

The 1969 is 1100sq inches.

Derek

peabody · « **Reply #10 on:** August 09, 2016, 10:03:56 AM »

Hi Kevin
I believe that the Sweeper you picture morphed from the big Sweeper and some of Big Jim's thoughts on 40% flap ships...Winfred built a few, including 1/2A.
Mayhaps Jose or Mike Ferguson will set us straight.... they both have vast knowledge of Northeast stunt stuff

Have fun!

Matt Colan · « **Reply #11 on:** August 09, 2016, 12:05:06 PM »

Take a look at this thread regarding some of Windy's planes from the 80s and Big Jim's aerodynamics.

http://stunthanger.com/smf/nostalgia-30/big-jim's-n30-designs-patternmsater/

Brett Buck · « **Reply #12 on:** August 09, 2016, 01:45:17 PM »

Quote from: Matt Colan on August 09, 2016, 12:05:06 PM

Take a look at this thread regarding some of Windy's planes from the 80s and Big Jim's aerodynamics.

http://stunthanger.com/smf/nostalgia-30/big-jim's-n30-designs-patternmsater/

There were some really interesting things done with these experiments, although they didn't end up all that successful. It would have been a better story had it not gotten wrapped up in the, uh, side issues, and the antics of the Big Jim "supporters". I didn't take much out of the aerodynamic experimentation since it was essentially a dead end, but my engine mount/fuselage design has been heavily influenced by Big Jim's ideas. That might explain why my ST46s tended to run more reliably and generally stronger than most others, and why I still have dead-nuts repeatability no matter what engine I use. Jim may have been the first person to understand that the fuel supply system was a big influence, when most other people hadn't (and still haven't) recognized the issue.

Brett

Jim Damerell · « **Reply #13 on:** August 10, 2016, 03:34:35 PM »

The 900 series of airplanes was actually based on the 'BJ' series, not the LJ. Very large aircraft, hard to keep under 90 oz. This was also the basis for Windy's MiG, which was published, I think, in Flying Models. I have a set of cores, if I ever get demented enough to build one.

Brett Buck · « **Reply #14 on:** August 10, 2016, 03:54:54 PM »

Quote from: Jim Damerell on August 10, 2016, 03:34:35 PM

The 900 series of airplanes was actually based on the 'BJ' series, not the LJ. Very large aircraft, hard to keep under 90 oz. This was also the basis for Windy's MiG, which was published, I think, in Flying Models. I have a set of cores, if I ever get demented enough to build one.

Should use up your balsa quota for the year, that's for sure.

I was moderately impressed with Windy's ability to fly the MIG in pretty tough conditions, and with reasonable sizes - not down to 45 but not far out of bounds compared to most people. It suffered greatly from the "too big for the circle" issue. It really needed about 85' lines, otherwise, it was fine.

Brett

Randy Powell · « **Reply #15 on:** August 10, 2016, 04:12:44 PM »

I loved Windy's MiG. Flying apart, it was a very cool looking plane.

Jared Hays · « **Reply #16 on:** August 11, 2016, 12:42:33 AM »

Love that plane, Thats one of my photos I believe. And yea there was a thread about it before I started with some info in it.

http://stunthanger.com/smf/open-forum/does-anyone-know-where-this-plane-is-sweeper-900/

peabody · « **Reply #17 on:** August 11, 2016, 06:27:16 AM »

I believe that Craig Gunder of PA built a Sweeper replica as well.....he flew it at a contest on Coxsackie, NY
I judge that day and found that it was increasingly difficult to award huge airplanes great scores....just the size made them seemingly always turning when doing squares...vertical or horizontal travel in squares seemed very, very short.....

But they are fun.....

Scott Richlen · « **Reply #18 on:** August 11, 2016, 07:15:20 AM »

It would be neat to build an updated MIG. It is a very distinctive airplane. How to update it? I'd probably do something like what I plan to do with my Strega kit: re-cut the ribs based on the ThunderGazer ribs and use ThunderGazer moments and flap areas. Not sure whether to name it the StregaGeezer or the ThunderStrega...

Scott

Mike Ferguson · « **Reply #19 on:** August 11, 2016, 07:55:53 AM »

Quote from: Jim Damerell on August 10, 2016, 03:34:35 PM

The 900 series of airplanes was actually based on the 'BJ' series, not the LJ. Very large aircraft, hard to keep under 90 oz. This was also the basis for Windy's MiG, which was published, I think, in Flying Models. I have a set of cores, if I ever get demented enough to build one.

The Mig Sweeper was in Model Aviation. 1987-ish, IIRC.

If you ever want to part with the foam cores, Jim, let me know.

Scott Richlen · « **Reply #20 on:** August 11, 2016, 12:22:21 PM »

March 1987 MA
plans are $24

Mike Ferguson · « **Reply #21 on:** August 11, 2016, 02:29:01 PM »

Quote from: Scott Richlen on August 11, 2016, 12:22:21 PM

March 1987 MA
plans are $24

Not bad for going off the top of my head! I would've guessed May.

If someone wanted to build a replica of the Sweeper 900 (and I've given it thought), I would just use the MiG Sweeper plans as a baseline, and

1) Use foam components
2) Go with flat tips and a flat 1/8" bottom block
3) Make the fuse profile (cockpit, rudder, etc.) similar to Bob Baron's Avanti, just stretched out
4) Use fuse gear

I think that would get you close to the original.

M Spencer · « **Reply #22 on:** August 11, 2016, 08:51:07 PM »

My 10 cents worth . We Can blame WINDY for this , as it was configured after reading the SWEEPER stuff , back 2002ish .

6 ft. / 72 in. span , but only 630 Sq In . 9 in avg chord so 8 : 1 A.R. , Flaps are only tailplane span and Airfoiled like a Eclipse , which shares the credit.

First Flight the brain thinks your on 35 ft lines, on 70s . Wings Didnt ' fall off ' , and handled wind well . Another surprise . Merco 49 Stalked around well on a 12 x 6 with ' tip in the nitro ' 4 Stroke . Bit hopeless on a 11x6 and tight engine . Felt 80 Ft. mightve been better but never tried it .
One of the aeroplanes one misses . Got ones mind focused pretty smartly , Turned well with good ' modulation ' of control .
Periodically Glare at the Plans .
Wont fit in a VW Bettle .

Scott Richlen · « **Reply #23 on:** August 12, 2016, 06:49:53 AM »

Speaking of "won't fit in.." in 1972 I bought a Duster instead of a Maverick. Decision maker was how good my Nobler fit in the trunk.

I have a 2005 Safari (which along with the Chevy Astro are the best model airplane carriers of all time) which is used only for hauling my model airplanes. It gets driven to the flying field a couple times a week, to Brodaks, and this weekend to Eastern Shore to see Tim and the gang.

Scott

M Spencer · « **Reply #24 on:** August 20, 2016, 02:31:01 AM »

Breezing through some comics at the Club , as everyone F2B inclined was hiding from the rotors of the bush & didnt even unpack , and as I aint got my Folkerts which would IGNORE such trifles ,
I saw this . Didnt note the DATE , 84 ?? in a Windy F. M. Stunt Column on cockpits and suchlike . . .

M Spencer · « **Reply #25 on:** August 20, 2016, 02:36:08 AM »

O. K. stop snivling , I took FIVE . A Elementry School Teacher , or two , used to get you to view your writing inverted , for copnsistancy , line , and shape . Of course smart assed 8 Yr Olds would READ it upside down ,
givem an inch and off they goooo .
Indoors & Out , so will put a few on as it was sunny out and differant aspects may be apparent. Perhaps .

good indoors one .

M Spencer · « **Reply #26 on:** August 20, 2016, 02:37:56 AM »

Sunny side up one .