Author Topic: Tom Lay's BASSSAKKWARD model. What do you think? (Read 2507 times)

Shultzie · « **on:** June 18, 2007, 10:59:03 AM »

Seeing models..like this one of Tom Lay!...again proves that they must be so many ways to skin a stuntkittty-koncept'

Randy Powell · « **Reply #1 on:** June 18, 2007, 12:34:33 PM »

Shultzie,

Man, I wish I still had a picture of the X-wing fighter canard I built low those many years ago. Used a reverse crank, rear mounted engine (an OS, I think, but it's been a very long time ago). Sort of a bi-plane in that it had 4 wing panels in a, you guessed it, X configuration with a canard out front.

It sure looks awsome and it flew, sort of. Did nice, round corners, but as I remember, it wasn't much for doing squares. The dummy rockets on the end of each wing made the plane though.

Shultzie · « **Reply #2 on:** June 18, 2007, 03:11:56 PM »

Quote from: Randy Powell on June 18, 2007, 12:34:33 PM

Shultzie,

Man, I wish I still had a picture of the X-wing fighter canard I built low those many years ago. Used a reverse crank, rear mounted engine (an OS, I think, but it's been a very long time ago). Sort of a bi-plane in that it had 4 wing panels in a, you guessed it, X configuration with a canard out front.

It sure looks awsome and it flew, sort of. Did nice, round corners, but as I remember, it wasn't much for doing squares. The dummy rockets on the end of each wing made the plane though.

WOW! SOUNDS LIKE A MODEL...RIGHT OUT OF STARWARS! Hummm? Where in the -ELL" is the FORCE WHEN YA NEED IT!
Sounds like a quite a style-n-filin project! Hummm? Wonder if you could have found a Darth-Vador' mask and held those lighted glostick toy swords in your left hand..would have given you just the needed appearence points to put you at the top of the pack!

Anyhoooo What a concept model...Randy~

Randy Powell · « **Reply #3 on:** June 18, 2007, 03:16:18 PM »

Shultzie, As many will tell you, I don't tend to do things half way. This was a full bodied, crazy layout. Lasted about 20 flights. I finally tried to make it do a square turn and it stalled horribly and splatted. But it sure looked cool while it was around. Sigh... I certainly wouldn't try it now. That was a lot of years ago when I was young and stupid. Now that I'm old and stupid, I just stick with what works.

Shultzie · « **Reply #4 on:** June 20, 2007, 12:05:27 PM »

Quote from: Randy Powell on June 18, 2007, 03:16:18 PM

Shultzie, As many will tell you, I don't tend to do things half way. This was a full bodied, crazy layout. Lasted about 20 flights. I finally tried to make it do a square turn and it stalled horribly and splatted. But it sure looked cool while it was around. Sigh... I certainly wouldn't try it now. That was a lot of years ago when I was young and stupid. Now that I'm old and stupid, I just stick with what works.

RANDY!
I have always wanted to try this kind of a stunt wing...do you think it would work?
"I drew this on a McDonalds paper napkin....a long time ago...but I keep thinking it MIGHT BE WORTH A TRY? (Uhhhh some of us and myself included and deluded) keep thinkin about it.
I would call it my----------------- MY STUNTBUDDY or THE BUDDYSTUNT MOBILE???

Randy Powell · « **Reply #5 on:** June 20, 2007, 12:19:38 PM »

Hmmm. Sort of a Whamo Turbo Tube stunt plane.

Mark Scarborough · « **Reply #6 on:** June 20, 2007, 01:18:34 PM »

Now lets see, thinking about design parameters, I wonder if you used regular Bud cans on the outboard wing, and Bud light cans on the inboard, if you would eliminate the need for tip weight? you know like using the heavy ribs on the outboard wing,,,,,,

Shultzie · « **Reply #7 on:** June 20, 2007, 01:38:33 PM »

Quote from: Mark Scarborough on June 20, 2007, 01:18:34 PM

Now lets see, thinking about design parameters, I wonder if you used regular Bud cans on the outboard wing, and Bud light cans on the inboard, if you would eliminate the need for tip weight? you know like using the heavy ribs on the outboard wing,,,,,,

Mark FANTASTICAL' IDEA!!! THANKS GOOD BROTHA IN BALSA!
WHAT A GREAAAAAAAAAAAT IDEA! Also it has been suggested that I use the larger size BUD CANS FOR THE WING..AND THE REGULAR SIZE FOR THE STABILATOR?

HEY! U NERDALDO SUDEO' AERO-FREEAKALDO'S...KEEP THESE SIC' IDEAS FLOWIN!!!!

Steve Kientz · « **Reply #8 on:** June 21, 2007, 08:27:56 AM »

If Bud has those new plastic bottles you could use that for the fuselage.the only problem is the pilot would always smell like a brewery.

Shultzie · « **Reply #9 on:** June 21, 2007, 10:54:09 AM »

Quote from: Steve Kientz on June 21, 2007, 08:27:56 AM

If Bud has those new plastic bottles you could use that for the fuselage.the only problem is the pilot would always smell like a brewery.

Hummmmm? "Smellin like a brewery!" Hey! Ode'de BUDSKI!" The purrrrrfume of Champions!

john e. holliday · « **Reply #10 on:** June 22, 2007, 06:33:11 AM »

I guess I will chime in here about the canard I built using Dick Sarpolous' design. The first flight was getting it down in one peice. That front canard has a lot of force in changing attitude. The moving surfaces on the trailing edge of the main wing do not need much movement, if any. Would love to build another version, with the bellcrank mounted alittle further forward. When the OS LA 40 is set right the plane is a lot of fun to fly. But it takes a little getting used to the tail surfaces being in front. I several complete patterns on the bird. I just need to fly it more often. Have fun, DOC Holliday

Larry Renger · « **Reply #11 on:** June 24, 2007, 05:27:23 PM »

Tom's plane is a copy of an old design that was flown to 2nd or 3rd at a Nats, if I recall right. Sorry, but the name of the designer was not one I remember. Anyway, Tom has never had any luck getting this puppy to maneuver, it came in on him both times I heard about. I saw it when it was new, and it was a really cool plane. I presume, that he somehow was overdriving it and getting tip stalling on the inboard side.

I thought I had Tom's e-address, but it seems not. He could give more detail. I think he does run an advert. in Stunt News.

minnesotamodeler · « **Reply #12 on:** June 24, 2007, 08:02:10 PM »

Here's the result of my single foray into the Canard world.

Larry Renger · « **Reply #13 on:** June 26, 2007, 09:05:32 AM »

Now we know how the term "vile canard" came about.

Jim Pollock · « **Reply #14 on:** June 26, 2007, 07:05:22 PM »

HHHmmmmm,

After looking over Tom's rendition of a canard, my thoughts to give it a go would be to make a twin boom tail section for it and use a pretty standard throw on the elevator. I would also cut down the amount of throw on the
forward canard wing. Perhaps that would enable it to get through those hourglasses and such.

Jim Pollock, eeeeee gad, post # 399? only 100 left until a promotion from Commander to Captain! Sheesh
By then I'll feel like an eight star Admiral............

Edited for thumb typing............

minnesotamodeler · « **Reply #15 on:** June 28, 2007, 04:15:43 PM »

Quote from: Larry Renger on June 26, 2007, 09:05:32 AM

Now we know how the term "vile canard" came about.

I said this once, guess I forgot to post it...

My reply was: I certainly had some "vile" thoughts, all right, as I was ducking the thing...I just hate it when they come after you.

--Ray

Steve Helmick · « **Reply #16 on:** June 29, 2007, 10:45:34 PM »

I took these two pics at John Hall's shop in So. Tacoma about a year ago. Two different planes. I talked to John about these some, and I don't recall any encouraging words about Canards.

Steve

Bob Whitely · « **Reply #17 on:** July 04, 2007, 07:34:12 PM »

Hi All, I have flown Toms' canard a number of times and it was definitely a handful! Originally the rear flaps or elevons moved a moderate amount but proved to be a detriment in helping the plane maneuver. Ended up locking them up and only using the canard for control.

The canard configuration absolutely will not work in the precision aerobatics environment, period.

How do I know this? I built a canard using an ST60, 700" main wing and all the rest of whatever was needed to make it fly. I did get it to do a whole pattern but it was really ugly! The biggest hurdle is airflow over the canard so as to maintain control. Take off and landing being just one problem as until a certain airspeed is reached you don't have any control. A normal configuration has the prop blast over the empennage resulting in instant control response. The other problem is the need for perfect alignment of all surfaces. Without this the model will turn into the circle and try to bite the pilot. All the difficulties described above cannot be overcome enough to result in a competitive stunt model. And now you know the rest of the story...RJ

peabody · « **Reply #18 on:** July 05, 2007, 06:15:27 AM »

Bob Hunt designed a full sized canard, but abandoned the project because he knew that PA judges would be very biased toward the design.
Bob and Dean did a "proof of concept" smaller model that reportedly flew very well......

Electric power may bring a revision, as the changing fuel load was a problem, I believe.

When Bob Hunt says that something will work, it's real hard to refute.....

Willis Swindell · « **Reply #19 on:** July 05, 2007, 10:02:21 AM »

Bob
I agree with every thing you say because I have built at least 10 different canards and the all flew just like you say. Some flew better then others but. The reason I wound up building 10 of them is I saw the Basssakkward fly at a contest in 1953 when I was about 14 and I remember it flying great. I have come to the conclusion that I must of had a memory lapse.
But I would like too have the measurements of the airplane especially the canard tail. In case I ever get weak again.
Willis
My last canard

Leo Mehl · « **Reply #20 on:** July 05, 2007, 11:03:24 AM »

Man did I get all excited. I thought that Tom designed a plane that flew clockwise Oh well thats OK. I get excited if I see a hawk flying. Any way this is just cause to drink the beer from the cans you are putting on the wing tips an while i'm at it a few extras just in case. You guy's got to watch this stuff, my heart is not in that great of shape anymore. You also have me believing asbackwaaaards is the way I fly. Shame

Author Topic: Tom Lay's BASSSAKKWARD model. What do you think? (Read 2507 times)

Steve Kientz

Willis Swindell