News:


  • March 29, 2024, 09:56:18 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Brodak Palmer Thunderbird  (Read 8611 times)

Offline Dave Lajb

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • New Pilot
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Brodak Palmer Thunderbird
« on: January 08, 2013, 05:51:43 AM »
Hello Gents,

I am in the finishing stages of building a Brodak Thunderbird.  According to the prints supplied by Brodak it calls for a Fox 35 or OS 40.  I set up the crutch with a Fox 35 50th anv series (because I had one).  I am all set to start priming the frame when I noticed on the back side of the instruction book it states "We reccommend using a .46 to 60 motor".  What a great time to see this.  So, all in one set of instructions, it shows a Fox 35, OS40 and then recommends a .46 to 60 motor.  Now, I also have a Brodak 40, a Fox Eagle 60 and a Fox 40 (6 bolt) I can use but I dont know what is the wise way to go?  What would you do?  I do not compete I just fly for fun.  Thank you in advance. 

Offline Bill Little

  • 2017
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12676
  • Second in COMMAND
Re: Brodak Palmer Thunderbird
« Reply #1 on: January 08, 2013, 08:51:17 AM »
Hi Dave,

I have seen several of the Brodak Thunderbird flown with a Fox .35 in competition so it will pull the model.  For some safety factor in wind, use the Brodak .40.  I would even go with an OS .46LA, though not necessary for "fun" flying.  I cannot understand the reference to a ".60"...... ???

BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM
Big Bear <><

Aberdeen, NC

James Hylton Motorsports/NASCAR/ARCA

AMA 95351 (got one of my old numbers back! ;D )

Trying to get by

Offline Andrew Hathaway

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
Re: Brodak Palmer Thunderbird
« Reply #2 on: January 08, 2013, 10:34:50 AM »
Having no practical experience with either the Brodak Thunderbird, nor the Brodak 40, I would tend to judge the Thunderbird as being a bit larger than I'd be comfortable with, for a Fox 35.  I'm sure it could be done, but it wouldn't leave much of a margin for error, like a slightly heavy finish or like Bill said, a windy day.  I'd expect the Brodak 40 would probably be a better choice as it would allow for that margin.  Personally, any time I look at a classic model with over 550 square inches, I start thinking ST 46, but that's just my preference.

Offline Joseph Lijoi

  • 2015
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 383
Re: Brodak Palmer Thunderbird
« Reply #3 on: January 08, 2013, 03:27:54 PM »
I think the Brodak 40 is the same mounting footprint as the Fox 35.  Check me on this.  If this is true then you can use the Brodak 40 in the same mounts as the Fox 35.

Offline Bill Little

  • 2017
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12676
  • Second in COMMAND
Re: Brodak Palmer Thunderbird
« Reply #4 on: January 08, 2013, 03:36:31 PM »
I think the Brodak 40 is the same mounting footprint as the Fox 35.  Check me on this.  If this is true then you can use the Brodak 40 in the same mounts as the Fox 35.

Hi Joseph,

The Brodak .40 fits the OS .35S mounts so it is quite a bit off of fitting the FOX .35 mounts.  The Double Star .40 Classic fits the Fox .35.

My son, Aaron, built the Brodak Thunderbird and uses an OS .35S which flies it quite well.  He plans on using it for Classic, but we need to get a very slight warp out of the outboard wing.

Bill
Big Bear <><

Aberdeen, NC

James Hylton Motorsports/NASCAR/ARCA

AMA 95351 (got one of my old numbers back! ;D )

Trying to get by

Offline Dave Lajb

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • New Pilot
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: Brodak Palmer Thunderbird
« Reply #5 on: January 08, 2013, 08:23:14 PM »
Thanks for the information.  I did google the Palmer Thunderbird and the original plans call for a Fox 35.  So, I went to see what the wing inch span was on the Brodak site and its 569 sq inches.  I weighed the plane tonight and I am at 31 oz with everything but dope, paint and clear.  I think a fair guess will be a finished weight of 42oz.  So I am sure I am going to use the Brodak 40 seeing it fits right in that range.  I will test fit it and see how it goes.  I am sure its going to be fun bolting this in.  There is not a lot of wiggle room for stubby fingers. 

Thanks again.


Offline Avaiojet

  • 22 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 7468
  • Just here for the fun of it also.
Re: Brodak Palmer Thunderbird
« Reply #6 on: February 08, 2016, 06:30:19 PM »
Thanks for the information.  I did google the Palmer Thunderbird and the original plans call for a Fox 35.  So, I went to see what the wing inch span was on the Brodak site and its 569 sq inches.  I weighed the plane tonight and I am at 31 oz with everything but dope, paint and clear.  I think a fair guess will be a finished weight of 42oz.  So I am sure I am going to use the Brodak 40 seeing it fits right in that range.  I will test fit it and see how it goes.  I am sure its going to be fun bolting this in.  There is not a lot of wiggle room for stubby fingers. 

Thanks again.



Dave,

I have a model built around a T-Bird wing and I'm trying really hard to keep the weight down also.

You mentioned your weight. Is your model covered also for that weight? What is it covered with?

Thanks

Charles

Trump Derangement Syndrome. TDS. 
Avaiojet Derangement Syndrome. ADS.
Amazing how ignorance can get in the way of the learning process.
If you're Trolled, you know you're doing something right.  Alpha Mike Foxtrot. "No one has ever made a difference by being like everyone else."  Marcus Cordeiro, The "Mark of Excellence," you will not be forgotten. "No amount of evidence will ever persuade an idiot."- Mark Twain. I look at the Forum as a place to contribute and make friends, some view it as a Realm where they could be King.   Proverb 11.9  "With his mouth the Godless destroys his neighbor..."  "Perhaps the greatest challenge in modeling is to build a competitive control line stunter that looks like a real airplane." David McCellan, 1980.

Online Dan McEntee

  • 23 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6823
Re: Brodak Palmer Thunderbird
« Reply #7 on: February 08, 2016, 09:28:51 PM »
Thanks for the information.  I did google the Palmer Thunderbird and the original plans call for a Fox 35.  So, I went to see what the wing inch span was on the Brodak site and its 569 sq inches.  I weighed the plane tonight and I am at 31 oz with everything but dope, paint and clear.  I think a fair guess will be a finished weight of 42oz.  So I am sure I am going to use the Brodak 40 seeing it fits right in that range.  I will test fit it and see how it goes.  I am sure its going to be fun bolting this in.  There is not a lot of wiggle room for stubby fingers. 

Thanks again.


    If you really think that your finished weight will be in that range, nothing wrong with using the Fox. As a sort of "hop up," see if you can get a hemi head and stuffer back plate for it to help with performance a bit, but not 100 %c necessary.  Make sure the engine is broken in properly, and be able to use a 4 to 4.5 ounce tank if possible. Extra punch for the Fox is possible with extra nitro, at least 10%. That will mean extra fuel for the full pattern, even for fun flying. Experiment with several different props to get your best performance and line tension also. The B-40 will be fine, but if you want to avoid the extra work, the Fox .35 should do the job at that weight. I have been looking through old American Aircraft Modeler magazines and in the mid to late 60's the Fox .35 was the engine of choice and many models were described in the magazines as weighing as much as 52 ounces! When that heavy, extra nitro is necessary and smooth flying a must! But in your case, you will be in a better weight to make use of the engines you have.
   Good luck and have fun,
    Dan McEntee

AMA 28784
EAA  1038824
AMA 480405 (American Motorcyclist Association)

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 13717
Re: Brodak Palmer Thunderbird
« Reply #8 on: February 09, 2016, 12:53:07 AM »
Hi Joseph,

The Brodak .40 fits the OS .35S mounts so it is quite a bit off of fitting the FOX .35 mounts.  The Double Star .40 Classic fits the Fox .35.

     Unfortunately the Double Star 40 Classics I have seen have the same or less power than a good Fox 35.

   Brett

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 13717
Re: Brodak Palmer Thunderbird
« Reply #9 on: February 09, 2016, 12:58:42 AM »
Thanks for the information.  I did google the Palmer Thunderbird and the original plans call for a Fox 35.  So, I went to see what the wing inch span was on the Brodak site and its 569 sq inches.  I weighed the plane tonight and I am at 31 oz with everything but dope, paint and clear.  I think a fair guess will be a finished weight of 42oz.  So I am sure I am going to use the Brodak 40 seeing it fits right in that range.  I will test fit it and see how it goes.  I am sure its going to be fun bolting this in.  There is not a lot of wiggle room for stubby fingers. 

    The later versions of the Brodak 40 are substantially stronger/better than a Fox. The very first were more like the Double Star (and looked to be made by the very same people).  But *if it was me*, I wouldn't be too scared about a Fox 35. The last and best-flying of my many Noblers flew pretty well with a Fox and it was 45 ounces. You *should* be able to keep the Thunderbird under 40 if you are easy on the spray gun. The originals were lightly-finished. I would start with 15% nitro (and maybe a Randy crank) but it will fly the airplane fairly well in reasonable conditions.

      Brett

Offline BillP

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 513
Re: Brodak Palmer Thunderbird
« Reply #10 on: February 11, 2016, 10:52:47 AM »
I scratch built a TB-1 from Busco plans (with Palmer's signature) and flew first with a McCoy 35RH and later a McCoy 40RH. It was built light compared to kit built...but I don't remember the weight.  The McCoy 35 is 200-300 rmps faster than a Fox 35 and flew it fine with 10/25 Sig castor fuel.  The 40 gave much better line tension and is what I settled with (until I crashed it a couple weeks ago).  Another flyer at the field is flying his (2) T-Birds with modern OS 35s and they are equal to or more power than the McCoy 40. As much as I like nostalgic engines I would skip the Fox 35 and go 40 on a plane the size of a TB. 
Bill P.

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 13717
Re: Brodak Palmer Thunderbird
« Reply #11 on: February 11, 2016, 03:22:10 PM »
I scratch built a TB-1 from Busco plans (with Palmer's signature) and flew first with a McCoy 35RH and later a McCoy 40RH. It was built light compared to kit built...but I don't remember the weight.  The McCoy 35 is 200-300 rmps faster than a Fox 35 and flew it fine with 10/25 Sig castor fuel.  The 40 gave much better line tension and is what I settled with (until I crashed it a couple weeks ago).  Another flyer at the field is flying his (2) T-Birds with modern OS 35s and they are equal to or more power than the McCoy 40. As much as I like nostalgic engines I would skip the Fox 35 and go 40 on a plane the size of a TB. 

   The issue is "which 40?". It's not too surprising that a 35FP or the like is stronger than a McCoy 40, and an Aero-Tiger 36 eats the both of them for breakfast. Even a Magnum 32 will out-perform almost all the vintage-type engines.

    The difference between Stalker 40 RE (weakest of the bunch as near as I can tell - substantially weaker than a Fox 35) and something like a 40VF or OPS 40 is massive, so we can't just talk about displacement. Really need to specify which engine in particular.

    Brett

Offline EddyR

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 2562
Re: Brodak Palmer Thunderbird
« Reply #12 on: February 11, 2016, 03:59:16 PM »
Many moons ago I won the KOI using this Thunderbird Fox 35 powered and Old Time stunt using this AAsr
Many people square off the front of the cowl but the original was built like this one. It is like a speed cowl.
Ed
Locust NC 40 miles from the Huntersville field

Offline Mel Gray

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Ensign
  • **
  • Posts: 39
Re: Brodak Palmer Thunderbird
« Reply #13 on: February 11, 2016, 05:54:23 PM »
Hi EddyR,

Love your adjustable tip weight on the T-Bird.  I use / used a lot of that style myself.

Mel
Mel Gray
Monument, CO  80132
AMA63434
NAR72053

Offline BillP

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 513
Re: Brodak Palmer Thunderbird
« Reply #14 on: February 11, 2016, 07:40:44 PM »
Which 40?  The OP has a Brodak 40 and a Fox 40 so I presume those are the first choices.  I have zero experience with a Brodak 40 but have lots of flying with modern Fox 40s.  The Fox would pull a TB around like a freight train, is an easy starter and long lived.  The only thing with the Fox is will the plane balance without adding a lot of tail weight?  Otherwise I think the Brodak is lighter and may be best for a lighter plane. My TB balanced perfectly with the RH 40 & Big Art tongue muff without adding weight of any sort...
Bill P.

Offline FLOYD CARTER

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 4458
    • owner
Re: Brodak Palmer Thunderbird
« Reply #15 on: February 13, 2016, 03:40:12 PM »
My T-Bird does very well with an older OS35S with steel cylinder.  My only problem is remembering to use special fuel with it (28% oil content).
Floyd
89 years, but still going (sort of)
AMA #796  SAM #188  LSF #020

Offline Skip Chernoff

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1445
Re: Brodak Palmer Thunderbird
« Reply #16 on: July 03, 2016, 07:19:03 PM »
I have a Brodak Thunderbird and have been flying it off and on for the last eight  months. My plane was originally powered with a Fox 35. The plane finished tail heavy and a few ounces of lead were needed in the nose. The plane weighed over 50 ounces and flew poorly with the Fox on 60' lines  I installed a very nice running HP 40 with a 10.5x4.5 APC. Although the HP flew the plane with authority  it was "hunting" in level flight. I cured this by moving the lead outs rearward,but this slowed down the control response. To this date I have not really trimmed out the plane to my satisfaction for stunt competition. It's probably ok for sport flying. I would definitely use a 40 or 46 in the TB....PhillySkip

Offline Air Ministry .

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 4980
Re: Brodak Palmer Thunderbird
« Reply #17 on: July 29, 2016, 11:31:35 AM »
Clean Machine .
I ran anything in one ( OS 35 ) and wore it out , 20% Castor & 3 % Syn. should be o.k. , unless its stinking hot in those there parts , Floyd .
Back when they were building the Ark , we ran 20% Castor in the OSes , Nitro was a Rarity tho .
Summer / Winter ' Cooling requirements ' must vary enourmously in severe climates .

Offline Skip Chernoff

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1445
Re: Brodak Palmer Thunderbird
« Reply #18 on: October 14, 2016, 09:38:29 PM »
I found the cause of the "Hunting TBird". Leadouts were rubbing a chord wise crossmember near the tip.Only showed itself when the plane was flying under line tension. She was flying so much better that I stripped all of the Coverite and clear dope and will refinish with Monkoted wings,painted fuselage. Forget the Fox,get a good 40 or 46 in there....PhillySkip

Offline Gerald Arana

  • 23 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1531
Re: Brodak Palmer Thunderbird
« Reply #19 on: October 16, 2016, 06:08:08 PM »
I think the Brodak 40 is the same mounting footprint as the Fox 35.  Check me on this.  If this is true then you can use the Brodak 40 in the same mounts as the Fox 35.


No, it's close but NOT the same. The Double Star 40 is the same. The B-40 and the old OS35S are the same.

I just flew my T-Bird with a Fox 35 (Hemi head, stuffer BP, ST NVA) in strong winds at Golden States in Madrea CA. today. Flew much better than I did!

Jerry

PS: Mine weighs 43 OZ's. And was built by someone else. So..., No AP's.


Advertise Here
Tags:
 


Advertise Here