stunthanger.com
Design => Stunt design => Topic started by: Avaiojet on February 26, 2012, 06:34:15 PM
-
I was looking over some photos I have in storage. Actually "My Photos" a file I have in my PC, but still in storage.
I'll surf the Net and just download them in this file then review them afterwards.
I noticed I had some of photos of some twins. A couple would make great semi-scale stunters, 25-40 size.
I'm curious, what would be your first choice for a twin sem-scale stunter?
Charles
-
Since we are into strange territory how about the Blohm and Voss Bv 237.
(Interesting design but wait ........ its single engine job so please disregard my ravings.) ;D
-
1.) Jack Sheeks' Mosquito
2.) Jack Sheeks' F5F-1 Skyrocket
3.) Paul Del Gatto's B-25
Those are the three I hope to get built while I am on this rock...... ;D
BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM
-
Charles, I'm curious as to what your first choice would be.
-
Charles, I'm curious as to what your first choice would be.
Dan,
The Comet as pictured above.
Charles
-
Dan,
The Comet as pictured above.
Charles
The deHavilland Comet is one of the really great looking airplanes. It will be difficult to capture the classic lines of the Comet and still have a top performing stunt ship. The high aspect ratio of the wing with its high taper ratio does not lend itself to have a good stunt wing planform in that stunt ships with high aspect ratio wings tend to not perform as well compared to "more standard" designs in the wind. Some have done well with higher aspect ratio wings (like the Adamisins but those airplanes have other factors working for them, not the least the ability of the pilots). The high taper ratio means very small tips with a corresponding reduction in Reynolds Numbers which translates into poorer performance in the corners. On the other hand, the engine nacelles lend themselves to our inverted stunt engines very nicely.
The aft fuselage is comparatively small compared to what is found on what would be classed as good stunters. Additional side area could be obtained by adding vertical tail area, then you run into the problem of maintaining some semblance of a scale/semi-scale appearance. Same situation with the horizontal tail where a scale tail area/planform will be relatively small. So, you run into the problems that most semi-scale builders encounter where maintaining a "scale-like" appearance yet achieving a model that can fly a good stunt pattern is a series of compromises. Al Rabe set the standard for this for achieving top stunt performance with top appearing super semi scale stunters.
You will need to set your goals early. Do you want a really good scale like appearance or do you want a really good flying airplane? One way or the other, the Comet will present its own set of compromises.
Keith
-
The Heinkel HE-111 could/would make a great Stunt model and could be left very close to the actual scale outline. Just look at all that wing...
http://www.google.com/imgres?q=he-111+photos&hl=en&sa=X&rlz=1G1ACAW_ENUS469&biw=1366&bih=533&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&tbnid=2nGZHSUvNXVSNM:&imgrefurl=http://battleofbritain.devhub.com/blog/434996-aircraft-colors-v-heinkel-he-111-h-1/&docid=olZuaAQPrwZmNM&imgurl=http://sfebxqs.devhub.com/img/upload/he111b.jpg&w=800&h=564&ei=IHlNT66sHIy1hAfFnIkN&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=93&sig=101983576478099135478&page=8&tbnh=147&tbnw=209&start=102&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:8,s:102&tx=104&ty=51
-
Wayne,, thats a german plane, you do american planes, I do german planes, remember?
and for the record, I agree, it could make a great platform,,
as could the Me-110 and Me-210,, hmm maybe a stable mate for the 109,,, (if ever,,,,, sigh)
-
amd here is one for the Adamisin boys to try,,, S?P
http://www.pilotfriend.com/photo_albums/timeline/ww2/Junkers%20287.htm
-
Douglas A-26 Invader, as was in the movie, "Always."
http://www.scalefirebombers.com/b26.html
Great movie!
Charles
-
To me, the three best looking twins (fighters) are the deHavilland Hornet, the Grumman F7F Tigercat and the Mitsubishi Ki 83.
Al Rabe started on a Hornet many years ago, had it in paint but still has a lot of work to do including the retracts he planned. If it is ever finished, it will be fabulous. Windy Urtnowski flew a Tigercat at the Nats several years ago. Nice flying airplane. I have seen one small 1/2A scale model of the Ki 83, but non for a semiscale stunt ship. Attractive airplane, nice proportions that would not require a lot of compromises to make it a good stunt twin. Advantages of a twin would be to have opposite rotating engines/motors. Neutralizes torque and gyroscopic precession.
Keith
-
My choice for a twin would be the Martin Baltimore. It has a narrow fuselage, almost in-line surfaces and good proportions for a stunt airplane. And a somewhat pleasing profile.
Don
-
The F7F is a consideration.
Profiles have been done.
Nice looking aircraft to model.
-
Charles, as Keith mentioned, Windy did a full on built up F7F Tigercat,, I hear it was a good flying plane,, definetly different
-
Charles, as Keith mentioned, Windy did a full on built up F7F Tigercat,, I hear it was a good flying plane,, definetly different
Mark,
I'd like to know a bit more about Windy's F7F? Span, power, plans?
I went on line and took a look at some of the schemes. Lots of choices.
I have two NIB OS LA .40's.
Charles
-
well i dont have any more info,, however as usual, I have my opinion,, which as usual, I dont want to share,, but,, well what the heck,, LOL
two 40s would be way huge for a twin stunter,, most of the twins I have seen are BIG airplanes with two .25s on them. In fact I think some have been with .15s,, two .40s would really be overkill,, well for anything a guy would want to actually hang onto anyway ~^
that said,, the LA 40, at least in MY experience is a much less friendly stunt motor than the LA 46,, and NO I am not suggesting using two .46s on a twin,,
the LA .25 is a great motor and would make a great selection for a twin say up to 650 or 700 square inches of wing IMHO
-
just as an aside, I seem to recall that Windys f7f was pretty well covered in Stunt News,, If you were to Join Pampa you would have access to the archives and there is literally months worth of reading there to help further your education,,
-
A Martin B-10 "Bolo" would be really cool. It would also present very nicely in the pre-war blue/yellow scheme with all the other period markings.
I've never seen one done either.
-
Wayne,,
EWWWW ,, really? sigh,,
-
I have always had a soft spot for the. . .
Henschel Hs 129 http://www.luchtoorlog.be/hs129_tek.htm
and the
Bristol Beaufighter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Beaufighter
The Henschel Hs 129 in particular has some really interesting under belly armament options which may or may not be useful in an F2B environment..... ~^
TTFN
John.
-
The F7F is actually perfect.
Has the stab and elevator area, AND could have flaps.
Charles
-
and noboody likes the P-38??? are you kidding me? twin engine - twin boom. looks great..
I have a B-25 that I might get around to finishing one day - if I get bak in the mood - scaled up Del-Gatto to 70" span.
there area tone of cool bombers that I'd like to do - I have seen an A26 that looked good - not sure who built it tho...
-
I love the P-38, It's just that with the high AR of the wings on the full scale, There are too many compromises required to make a stunter out of it. It becomes, IMNHO, a cartoon scale design.
I'm one of those who wouldn't think of using IC engines bigger than .25s. I actually prefer a pair of .15s, which will haul a 600+ sq. inch design with authority. Going bigger, it becomes a problem hanging on and finessing the model when the wind comes up.
I really like the TigerCat, The TA 154, and the Mitsubishi KI 83.
-
this one looks good John....
also - A guy I know - has built a DH-88 that flies extremely well and looks almost scale - I have his chicken scratch drawings for it - but it is 80" span so a bit big for me to build......and to fly in competitions.....looks good though
-
I LLIKEY that Mitsubishi KI 83,, not sure I remember seeing that one before,,
John, do you need a Japanese pilot now too?
-
Mark,,,, y1
-
If I can get a grip on what I have going on at the moment with models, and I'm busy, I think in about 6 months, possibly less, I can put a set of plans together for a F7F.
57" to 60" in span.
Also, 10-12 other interested modelers and I could produce a laser cut kit. Wouldn't be worth while to draw it up that way just to make one model.
Give it some thought?
Charles
-
My vote would be for the P-38, and I've seen a couple of very good looking stunt versions. Of course, now that electric is working so well, I might actually get two motors to run {the same}. ;->
I was wondering if anyone had seen a Cessna 310 stunter.. I always wanted Sky King's airplane!
Here's a nice rather large RC model of one, perhaps we could scale its plans? Hahah
L.
PS - Hey! Those fiberglass tip tanks (lower right of photo) look like they might make great wheel pants {maybe too heavy?}
PPS - Look at the Songbird III - what a lovely paint scheme, too. (Did Sky ever fly this airplane?)
"He once had an akward moment, just to see how it feels." -said of The Most Interesting Man In The World
-
The Bamboo Bomber or the Cessna T-50, is the Sky King airplane I have interest in. Original "Songbird."
I actually have the Wing Mfg., foam wing, fiberglass parts and plans for the T-50. Thing is, it's 80" in span. and designed for R/C.
I do have drawings I started to assist with that model.
I could reduce the plans and move forward with my drawings.
10 modelers interested?
Charles
-
The original Songbird was an old Cessna Bamboo Bomber, a beloved "Vibrator". Definitely a cool subject, and it looks like you've already started working up plans!
It was a pretty thing, although I only saw the program in B&W. Photo below is a scale model, don't know for sure how accurate it is.
You know, the world could use another TV series like Sky King.
L.
"He never says anything taste like chicken - not even chicken." -said of The Most Interesting Man In The World
-
I'll bet I have well over 100 photos of the Bobcat. I also have a set of plans for an R/C model that spans about 60", possibly a tad smaller? I'd have to check. The plans are far from scale. Poor to say the least, but a start. Something to just get the mind working.
The JPEG photo of my drawings are placed over a side view of a Bobcat, (not my drawing.) My drawing is the front view and all the gear drawings you see in different places on that plan. I needed retracts at that scale and obviously, none were offered.
Robart was actually going to help me with that gear project, actually why I drew the stuff, but I couldn't drum up real interest.
When I get a chance, I'll scale that drawing down to whatever? I start with a realistic prop size, and cowlings that are available.
Mark said 25's. I can start with that.
I'll scale the F7F also.
-
Wayne,,
EWWWW ,, really? sigh,,
Yep, really. y1 Kinda homely without a doubt, but nicely done it would still make for a cool model.
No one probably thought a PBY would be a good stunt model either, but... S?P
-
A Martin B-10 "Bolo" would be really cool. It would also present very nicely in the pre-war blue/yellow scheme with all the other period markings.
I've never seen one done either.
it DOES have a nice wing planeform.....but thats aboiut it!
-
Yep, really. y1 Kinda homely without a doubt, but nicely done it would still make for a cool model.
No one probably thought a PBY would be a good stunt model either, but... S?P
I wasnt gonna say that,,
n~
-
Windy flew three different twins at the NATS, correct? The B-25 (I saw it at Brodaks, very impressive), the A-26, and the F7F.
I know the B-25 was "supposed" to have two special made Ro-Jett *.36s* to get under the .72 cu. in. ruling.
All had Windy's usual finish.
BIG Bear
RNMM/Amm
-
I love the P-38, It's just that with the high AR of the wings on the full scale, There are too many compromises required to make a stunter out of it. It becomes, IMNHO, a cartoon scale design.
I'm one of those who wouldn't think of using IC engines bigger than .25s. I actually prefer a pair of .15s, which will haul a 600+ sq. inch design with authority. Going bigger, it becomes a problem hanging on and finessing the model when the wind comes up.
I really like the TigerCat, The TA 154, and the Mitsubishi KI 83.
Hi Brother John,
Generally I agree with your thoughts on these matters, but with the trend toward bigger engines in all top level planes (it seems), using a pair of .15-.25 size engines on something like the F5F-1 goes against the trend of the day. Trimming is what takes away the enormous pull as you well know. If it were not so, David could never handle his little 630 sq.in. model with the PA .75 in the nose, or people flying a Shark .35 with a ST G.51....... ???
I would not feel comfortable with a pair of .25s in a 700 plus sq.in. model the size of the F5F-1
BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM
-
Look down the page a little bit and there is a good discussion on converting an OV 10 Bronco to stunt........
BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM
-
Bill, I think it boils down to more than that, two .25 engines will carry a prop disk area far greater than that of a PA 75,, and it excites more airflow over the flying surfaces as well. I stand by my opinion,, two .25 engines will be PLENTY for a 700 inch airplane that is built within reason weight wise,,
but then that is MY opinion,,
-
Bill, I think it boils down to more than that, two .25 engines will carry a prop disk area far greater than that of a PA 75,, and it excites more airflow over the flying surfaces as well. I stand by my opinion,, two .25 engines will be PLENTY for a 700 inch airplane that is built within reason weight wise,,
but then that is MY opinion,,
I respect that, Mark. But the F5F-1 will get probably two DS .40s. The original had twin Fox .35 and the DS is the same basic size and weight. Like putting a .75 in a plane that might normally have a .46.
BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM
-
hey it aint my airplane LOL,, its your sorry butt that will get dragged around the circle,, LL~ LL~
seriously Bill, I dont think the DS 40 ( from what I have heard) is leaps and bounds more poop than the Fox,, so its probably comparable,, now two aerotiger 36s,, I would want to be there for that,,
** and yes I KNOW you can trim the line tension out,, and I know about speed regulation,, I am just poking some fun at Bill cause hes in a good mood today**
-
Hi Brother John,
Generally I agree with your thoughts on these matters, but with the trend toward bigger engines in all top level planes (it seems), using a pair of .15-.25 size engines on something like the F5F-1 goes against the trend of the day. Trimming is what takes away the enormous pull as you well know. If it were not so, David could never handle his little 630 sq.in. model with the PA .75 in the nose, or people flying a Shark .35 with a ST G.51....... ???
I would not feel comfortable with a pair of .25s in a 700 plus sq.in. model the size of the F5F-1
BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM
Hey Brother Bill.
Being a manly man myself, I used to think the same thing. After all, PJ uses a .61 in a Nobler , and it works pretty good I've been told, but we sorta enter another world when it comes to multi engined stunters.
I believe that what is working so well with larger engines in modern stunters is the effects we get from the increased prop disk area. There are several examples we can look at to help make the case.
We can figure the prop disk area for a normal prop as used on the average .40 engine, say an 11 inch prop. It figures out to slightly under 95 sq inches. It'll haul a decent 600 sq inch stunter without breathing too hard. For the average .60 size engine, we will figure a 13 inch prop, and wind up with just shy of 137 sq. inches of prop disk area.
If you think of the disk area as drag racing tires, the big, (wider) tires get better traction, or power to the track. Similarly, bigger disk area gives more drive to the plane.
Now, let's consider a pair of .15s, running 9 inch props. We've got about 63.6 sq. inches of disk area for each prop, a pair of them has slightly more than 127 sq. inches of disk area. This is very close to the .60, running a 13 inch prop, listed above. A pair of .25s running 10 inch props, is even more impressive, with the pair winding up with 157 sq. inches of disk area. A single prop would have to be longer than 14 inches to equal that.
Now, that pair of .40's winds up with a combined disk area of 190 sq. inches. so the question begs to be answered. Why isn't that even better? Well, it is, until the wind comes up. That's the root of the problem of mucho power on a stunter, but its even more noticeable with a multi engined stunter.
You can trim out the excess line tension, until the wind comes up because, wind up occurs, and you are hanging on for dear life. Gone is your ability to use the positive things about multi engined designs. You have great difficulty finessing the plane through the maneuvers in the wind. All thoughts are towards surviving the flight, not doing the maneuvers correctly.
So I hope you consider the idea that there is a real relationship to disk area driving our planes. It's more than running larger engines, rather larger props they can turn. Multi engine designs inherently get a great ratio just because they are swinging more props and therefore have more disk area than a single engined design.
I'll always remember Paul's B-17 at over 100 OZs performing on 4 OS .15fp's It never lacked for power, as far as I could see. H^^
-
FW-187: nearly as good as the Sea Hornet.
-
FW-187: nearly as good as the Sea Hornet.
OWWW and look at those spinners, scale spinners are ready made for electric flow through cooling,,
-
Here's another: Mitsubishi Ki-46 "Dinah"
-
Mark:
How COULD I forget, here's one for you:
-
...and one for me. Would love to get those tail linkages working together! (then make it a take-apart...)
-
Mark:
How COULD I forget, here's one for you:
yeppers,, they also made a V tail version,, in case one of the V tail adamisin clan ever wanted to do a 109 H^^
-
yeppers,, they also made a V tail version,, in case one of the V tail adamisin clan ever wanted to do a 109 H^^
I recall reading it was built but never flown. I guess I'll have to settle for the v-tail P-39...
-
Bill, I think it boils down to more than that, two .25 engines will carry a prop disk area far greater than that of a PA 75,, and it excites more airflow over the flying surfaces as well. I stand by my opinion,, two .25 engines will be PLENTY for a 700 inch airplane that is built within reason weight wise,,
but then that is MY opinion,,
Mark is right on here, two .25 two strokers would be plenty for 700 inches assuming the model comes out at a reasonable weight. Two .40's is going to be WAY overkill and is completely unecessary. It will mainly just force you to carry more fuel, add more weight, and add to your wing loading. y1
-
V-tail P-39 ? :-\
-
Mark is right on here, two .25 two strokers would be plenty for 700 inches assuming the model comes out at a reasonable weight. Two .40's is going to be WAY overkill and is completely unecessary. It will mainly just force you to carry more fuel, add more weight, and add to your wing loading. y1
I am using what are generally considered "mild" .40s in the overall scheme. I also saw Windy's B-25 with two Hi Po RoJetts That were supposedly special made .36s made from the RoJett .40.
The engine weight of the DS .40 is ridiculously light. Will need about 1 to 1-1/2 oz. more fuel per engine. The trade off seems the best deal to me.
At least for the Del Gatto B-25 (which is WAY smaller) I am going with two Veco .19BB not the .25LA or FPs.
I have seen the difference in going from a .40 pipe engine which flew the plane extremely well, to a .51 and then a .61. The extra power on tap was amazing.
BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM
-
hey it aint my airplane LOL,, its your sorry butt that will get dragged around the circle
It takes more to drag Bill around than it does lightweights like us.
-
Here's another: Mitsubishi Ki-46 "Dinah"
HI Denny,
In Stunt News a few years ago, two gentlemen from Japan had twin engine semi scale planes. A Betty and a Dinah, IIRC.
BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM
-
V-tail P-39 ? :-\
There was a V-Tail Bell P-39 or was it designated RP-63C. Photo from the Air Force Museum.
-
Dennis & Keith
Well I'll be darn. Never knew about this one before. Thought I'd seen them all. Guess not. I learned something today from you guys. Thanks for sharing. :)
-
There was a V-Tail Bell P-39 or was it designated RP-63C. Photo from the Air Force Museum.
Hogwash. Somebody wants to build a stunter like this and convince us it's scale. It is obviously a fake, probably perpetrated by Dennis Adamisin. The aft fuselage was a sloppy job: the color and lighting don't come close to matching. The phony blob on the back to accommodate the elevator control horns is a dead giveaway.
-
Hogwash. Somebody wants to build a stunter like this and convince us it's scale. It is obviously a fake, probably perpetrated by Dennis Adamisin. The aft fuselage was a sloppy job: the color and lighting don't come close to matching. The phony blob on the back to accommodate the elevator control horns is a dead giveaway.
now Howard,, play nice,, LOL
-
Hogwash. Somebody wants to build a stunter like this and convince us it's scale. It is obviously a fake, probably perpetrated by Dennis Adamisin. The aft fuselage was a sloppy job: the color and lighting don't come close to matching. The phony blob on the back to accommodate the elevator control horns is a dead giveaway.
busted!
-
HI Denny,
In Stunt News a few years ago, two gentlemen from Japan had twin engine semi scale planes. A Betty and a Dinah, IIRC.
BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM
The Betty would also be a promising choice. Some of the French light bombers are very good looking birds too. Surpised no one has mentioned the Messerschmidt Bf-110, 210 or 410.
-
The Betty would also be a promising choice. Some of the French light bombers are very good looking birds too. Surpised no one has mentioned the Messerschmidt Bf-110, 210 or 410.
Uh they have Dennis,, they have,,
-
Uh they have Dennis,, they have,,
oooops! :-[ :-[ :-[ n~ HB~>
-
dude, I am like the Me/bf guy,, how could I miss them,, LOL,, that's ok though,, we expect that from the clan that routinely leaves off one third of the tail on an airplane,,
Muah ha ha,, S?P VD~
-
dude, I am like the Me/bf guy,, how could I miss them,, LOL,, that's ok though,, we expect that from the clan that routinely leaves off one third of the tail on an airplane,,
Muah ha ha,, S?P VD~
Fins are a pain in the rear LL~ LL~ LL~
-
I expect I'll be drawing plans for a full fuselage F7F Tigercat.
This won't happen soon, but it will happen.
Anyone interested in a cut kit, let me know.
I mentioned the posibility of providing laser cut parts for a F7F Tigercat before.
At the moment, I'm considering 52" to 57" and .25's to .40's.
Engine choice is yours.
It's a great looking aircraft to model and I believe that "correct scale outlines" can be maintained and used in the design.
Interested?
Charles
-
Prettiest looking twin I've seen is the DeHavilland Hornet. Al Rabe is right. Plus it has very good scale proportions for converting to stunt without making it look cartoonish. Now you can put in light weight electric retracts for only about 4 oz. of weight.
The high aspect ratio P-38 would look sharp too. I've seen several done with an engine in the center pod, which should work well, and avoid the twin engine troubles.
-
I still say the F7F is a great airplane to model.
Barely has a fuselage.
I wouldn't do it on my own, I would need others interested.
two .25's
Charles
-
The F7F is a good looking plane too. Having tried, it is hard to get a good balance between those two huge radials, the diehedral, and the fact that retracts would be prohibitively heavy. No WW-II ship should be flying stunt with th e wheels down.
I did happen to overhear Windy at Brodak's one year. Commented on what a handful his F7F could be at times. Apparently it was not an easy plane to fly. That is with 2 36 engines in it. Hard to see how one could get enough power out of two 25's.
-
The F7F is a good looking plane too. Having tried, it is hard to get a good balance between those two huge radials, the diehedral, and the fact that retracts would be prohibitively heavy. No WW-II ship should be flying stunt with th e wheels down.
I did happen to overhear Windy at Brodak's one year. Commented on what a handful his F7F could be at times. Apparently it was not an easy plane to fly. That is with 2 36 engines in it. Hard to see how one could get enough power out of two 25's.
Keep the size down and build light.
Could be a nice challange.
Charles
-
No WW-II ship should be flying stunt with th e wheels down.
Stuka?
-
I'm almost surprised no one has mentioned the P-82 Twin Mustang or is this concept only for single fuselage twin engine types? D>K
Ty,
BANG! You've done it!
The perfect Warbird twin.
There's already Mustang kits to be had and all one has to do is duplicate the fuselage parts, which BTW are already there, add the center wing, sneek in the stab/elevator and you have it!
Probably the easiest way to the twin Warbird goal.
Charles
-
(http://www.controlline.org.uk/userupload/613/0007.jpg)
(http://www.controlline.org.uk/userupload/613/0006.jpg)
Thisisa 67 in odd one , not semi scale ; SCALE : Just a few differant scales . :##
Gotta 78 in one near done , for two 21 /35s , or 21/46s or 21/40s or a 21/40 & 21/46 , or two OS 35 'S ' es .
Then Ive gotta decide If I paint it , Blue, Black, Red , Green , silver , pale green , or , um . . . n~ ;D
D>K H^^
(http://www.clstunt.com/htdocs/dc/user_files/20297.jpg)
-
This suckers probably the most logical , bar the Me 110 .
(http://www.aviastar.org/pictures/england/gloster_f9-37_1.jpg)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v136/paul1/GlosterPeregrineF937.jpg
http://warbirdsforum.com/showthread.php?t=445
http://www.theaviationindex.com/aircraft-types/gloster-f937
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9f/Gloster_f9_37.jpg/300px-Gloster_f9_37.jpg)
The Gloster F - 9 / 37 Reaper , olde Chape . All straight lines , etc , and so on , Yes , ' we've ' got pictures of the perigrine engined one .
The fins look notoriously like the notorious early Halifax ones though , undersize and overcentre overbalace jamming there .
Almostas badasa Barracudda .
Though theres allways this , for someone that prefers something a bit more challengeing . LL~
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTWrR58pQ73cBWJZMpvnXpkpZEHrUofPHf0hIb8PWWTvimcPA_B7w)
TECNICALLY , " its quite straightforward " . ;D
Or , maybe This .
(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQIKUPcsIJ6z1R_yifFDJp2Xq05N5zd3kcML_i_tIeZFSBLeO0TSw)
-
Stuka?
Stuka would be fine. The Zero predecessor had fixed gear and was only slightly inferior to the Zero.
Who but Bob Hoover did aerobatics in a P-51 with the gear down. Even Tony LeVier, who demonstrated the P-38 to the troops, didn't do gear down stuff, just single engine aerobatics.
-
I think the P-61-E & RF-61C/F-15A variants with the two place bubble kinda like the B-47 would be awesome. Mucho wing area and a lot less fuselage side area. This version kinda turned an un-gainly looking airplane into a beauty in my opinion.
I think it could make a good stunter for E-power. Anyone else think so ? :)
-
2004 WC at Muncie: Berringer Caudron.
-
2004 WC at Muncie: Berringer Caudron.
I have quite a bit of video footage of this Caudron. The two Saito 40A's are something else. The plane has a groove that has to be seen to be believed.
-
While at the NATS I flew Windy's B-25 a couple times. There was no input feeling at the handle so it took a bit of getting used to. It is a very good flying model and I was able to complete a couple very good vertical square eights. I'm sure Windy almost passed out.
Tempest
-
This is the P-61 variant I spoke of in the earlier post. Check it out. !! :)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/F15a.jpg..
-
That is the original twin tailed, twin engined F-15. About 25 years ahead of the McDonnell version
-
Certainly is. What do You think about the attributes for a C/L stunt version ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:P-61_aka_F-15A_bw.jpg
-
Some nights I lay awake running numbers for a twin fan A10 stunt ship in my head. Electric power makes it more and more viable every day.
-
I "think" I mentioned this before, (there have been over 80 replies) but from a strictly "Nostalgic" viewpoint I would pick either Paul Del Gatto's B-25 or Jack Sheeks F5F-1.
BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM
-
Certainly is. What do You think about the attributes for a C/L stunt version ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:P-61_aka_F-15A_bw.jpg
Dan, if you can get a look at a 3-view of the F-15A, study the 'plan' (top) view a bit. The proportions and areas look about as good for CL as many Grumman aircraft were.
The recon F-15A also does not have that ugly cluster of warts and bulges above the wing - instead, it has a very neat, sleek, lo-o-ong one piece canopy. The P-61 (and F-15A) don't require exaggerated mods to the side view, what there is of it.
And, yeah, it would look much better with the wheels tucked away, but...
-
The name slips my mind (what mind you say?) but the plane that nearly killed Howard Hughs was simply beautiful.
-
The name slips my mind (what mind you say?) but the plane that nearly killed Howard Hughs was simply beautiful.
Some nice pictures of Steve Moon's nice Hughes XF-11 at
http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php?topic=25457.msg247475#msg247475
The XF-11 is a great looking airplane but is difficult to do for semiscale stunt with its high aspect ratio wing. Steve did a nice job with his. He even made this a good looking profile which is not easy to do.
Keith
-
I watched Winfred go through the "teething" process with his twins....I believe that the best flying one was his first....the B-25.
The A/B 26 was his second....and I thought that it didn't fly as well....met its demise when he hit a bird....he repaired it, but the repair later failed resulting in a complete loss.
The Tiger Cat was brilliant...but did not perform as well as the B-25.....I wonder if the large vertical stabilizers didn't result in way too much side area, causing yaw? The twin platform might have accentuated the issue?
All three were essentially the same plan form...
I know that the Moonies have plans for a smalle B-25 based on Phil Cartier's "Gotcha" wing....
The B-25 and Tiger Cat are hanging on display in Windy's attic, along with the remaining semi-scale efforts (Spitfires) and one of Al Rabe's Mustangs....
-
This one flys great.
-
Lou
I'm with ya ! :)
-
If your thinking about an F-81, how about twinning one of Al Rabe's Mustangs? Proven platform X2! Oh yeah baby! H^^
-
If your thinking about an F-81, how about twinning one of Al Rabe's Mustangs? Proven platform X2! Oh yeah baby! H^^
GREAT IDEA!!! All of those fuselages will be super GREAT. Show how to do it, Please.
Keith
-
If your thinking about an F-81, how about twinning one of Al Rabe's Mustangs? Proven platform X2! Oh yeah baby! H^^
He probably meant F-82.
-
Yup, I meant F-82....sorry about the confusion. But really....if you shrunk Al's P-51 about 15%, it would make an interesting F-82 with a couple of .35's. Would have to do a few cosmetic changes and redo the landing gear, but hey, the cool factor would certainly outweigh that! H^^
-
If your going to lug around a whole nother fuselage, you may need a nother wing to carry the extra weight ! :##
-
You mean an F-82 bi-plane!? Oh heck ya! H^^
-
(http://controlline.org.uk/phpBB2/files/img_3871a_186.jpg)
(http://controlline.org.uk/phpBB2/files/img_3869a_190.jpg)
(http://controlline.org.uk/userupload/286/p38_001.jpg)
(http://controlline.org.uk/phpBB2/files/p_38_reduced_152.jpg)
(http://controlline.org.uk/userupload/286/p38_002.jpg)
-
Nice one Matt!
-
I'd still fo with Al Rabe and vote for the DeHavilland Hornet. It looks like an aerobatic airplane. The Tigercat looks good, but those huge radials overpower the rest of the plane. Plus the Hornet could have a fairly simple retract installation and doesn't have the complications of twin booms.
The ME-410 is pretty too. Doesn't have all the bulges and bumps the Germans tended to use. The wing is a bit small though.
-
probably mentioned already, but the DeHaviland Mossy is about as pretty as you can get for a twin. H^^
-
Did Someone mention De H. Hornet . ;D
(http://www.clstunt.com/htdocs/dc/user_files/28066.jpg)
(http://www.clstunt.com/htdocs/dc/user_files/28065.jpg)
http://www.clstunt.com/htdocs/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=301755&mesg_id=301755&listing_type=search
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(http://www.clstunt.com/htdocs/dc/user_files/28235.jpg)
(http://www.clstunt.com/htdocs/dc/user_files/28299.jpg)
(http://www.clstunt.com/htdocs/dc/user_files/28234.jpg)
http://www.clstunt.com/htdocs/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=302673&mesg_id=302673&listing_type=search
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zee links for zee more pictures / deteails .
-
It takes more to drag Bill around than it does lightweights like us.
What ya sayin' there, Howard?? LL~ LL~ LL~
BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM
-
How about the original "Songbird" (Cessna UC 78?) from the old Sky King series?
Jim
-
Do.335, fer sure. LL~ Steve
-
The general lines of the Dornier arnt bad actually . a coward would put a OS10 or cox .o49 driveing the rear prop through a Extn. shaft . or someone less rash .
Rear engine up around the wing'd help .Need a bit of ducting , could be a bit awkward . ;D
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS9n0I6p05V5aY9d4NGBVCfh8NPf_jpyCWCex7sNm5HqXnDQXpn7w)
Have a twin 19 / 25 one of these elongated , Er drawn up .
This one looks intresting too , on paper .
(http://alain.vassel.pagesperso-orange.fr/images/savoia/capots.jpg)
apparently it was designed so that the pilot wouldnt catch a chill . ;D
(http://alain.vassel.pagesperso-orange.fr/images/savoia/exception.jpg)
http://alain.vassel.pagesperso-orange.fr/savoia.htm wonders of modern tecnology .
fresh water definately preferable . ( they work fine on grass , perhaps .
(http://alain.vassel.pagesperso-orange.fr/images/savoia/sap8.jpg)
though may be a bit FRAGILE . >:(
(http://alain.vassel.pagesperso-orange.fr/images/savoia/sap23.jpg)
-
Dont useually look this strained , thisis been on the backburner for FOUR YEARS . ands gunna needa THIRD Fuse , as thats soft & shippers Fed First.
FUDGE .
(http://img864.imageshack.us/img864/4582/photo0156.jpg)
Thats the 78 in span , couple of ST 21 / whatevers likely , or OS 35S , or , Er , Como , or . . n~ Then , Theres the COLOUR . LL~ %^@ H^^
-
No one has suggested the Fairchild A-10 :"Warthog". Large wing area and the real one is highly maneuverable. It would be difficult fitting glo engines with props to those jet engine nacelles.
Floyd
-
I'm partial to Lew McFarland's P-38. #^
"Tight Lines!" H^^
Wes
-
Wes,I like that one too.Was it more for scale or did it do a nice pattern?Tom Dixon had a set of plans at the Nats and it sure did look tempting as an Electric stunt project.Trax
-
Matt's planes are ever interesting. He doesn't back off, when it comes to trying things out.
-
It might prove a little fragile, but I like the DeHavelline Dragon Rapide. Twin engine biplane. Looks like a dragonfly.
-
probably an ME-110
-
I do like the A-10, and I'm collecting data and 3 views for it as one of my next projects. I'm thinking electric for this one, retracts should be an option as well.
-
I do like the A-10, and I'm collecting data and 3 views for it as one of my next projects. I'm thinking electric for this one, retracts should be an option as well.
Hi John,
It is good to see that you and Bart have resurrected this thread. Indeed, the A-10 would be an interesting project for a twin stunt ship. It would certainly have a "striking" appearance. However, I think it will present some insurmountable challenges to get a truly good performing stunt ship. The basic configuration, though well configured for the mission of the A-10, really does not work well for CL semi-scale stunt. The engines are in the back. So that is problem with weight distribution for a CL stunt ship. There will need to be a lot of weight in the nose or an extra non-scale length of the nose and still use a lot of extra dead weight in the nose to get the thing to balance. The A-10 gets away with this by mounting a canon in its nose the size of a Volkswagen.
More later.
Keith
-
Ducted fans in back...battery and electronics up front. Mmmmm.
Maybe those fans won't be so heavy. I have no experience with fans, electrickery, so I'm sure I humbly mentioned what y'all have already considered.
Oh, and I'm a sucker for the DH Mosquito/Comet.
-
Thanks for the comments, Keith and Jim.
There are several "problems" to solve with the Wart Hog. I think they can be worked out and at least it may be fun, and interesting to try.
Keith mentions the big one, those engines mounted behind the wing. They are the reason I figure E-Power will be the best way to go. Figuring out how to balance the airframe without too much dead weight ballast is a challenge.
It appears that the nose length could allow a rather far forward battery mounting position, that may offset the weight of those engines. It should be that the electric motors should weigh less than IC engines and their fuel tanks. One could run pressure, or a fuel pump mounted in the forward fuselage, but the CG would change as the fuel is used.
Retracts, all being forward of the engines may also help with the balance.
I'm not sure about ducted fans. I've never run them, and don't know if they have what it takes for a Stunt ship. I do have an idea, a system borrowed from an RC design.
All these"problems", coupled with the downright super cool, nasty, looks combine to make me want to try.
-
Thanks for the comments, Keith and Jim.
There are several "problems" to solve with the Wart Hog. I think they can be worked out and at least it may be fun, and interesting to try.
Retracts, all being forward of the engines may also help with the balance.
All these"problems", coupled with the downright super cool, nasty, looks combine to make me want to try.
Hi John, The A-10 will definitely be a challenge for any form of a semi-scale stunt ship. We mentioned the engines in the back. With electric fans, at least the batteries can be in the nose to help with the balance. Then, as the batteries run down, the only weight that is lost is the electrons the fans consume. To use engines, to use the fuel tank location to solve the balance problem, this solution would only work at some portion of the flight as the fuel is consumed.
You mentioned that the main LG would at least be forward of the fans. However, the main gear is still located behind the CG. You could have the gear retract forward, but would do very little to help solve the CG issue.
Sorry for sounding so negative. If there is a solution to make the A-10 a viable twin stunt ship with the engines in the back, you will be the one to do it.
When this thread started several years ago, I mentioned I thought there were three twin engine aircraft that would be good candidates for a good looking stunt twin. One was the deHavilland Hornet. There is a model of this that was started years ago which is a serious attempt to get a competitive twin stunt ship that looks like the Hornet. This has great scale like appearance and has the numbers to be a good performing stunter. There has been some work to get it completed, but I do not know the status.
The second model on my list is the Grumman F7F Tigercat. This one is hard to get into a CL stunt package with its big radial engines. Windy Urtnowski did a great job of capturing the look of the Tigercat, and to me was the most attractive of the series of twins that he generated at the end of his competition stunt career. I had the opportunity to fly Windy's Tigercat at a Muncie Nats one year. It was a very comfortable airplane to fly and it showed why it was competitive. I would recommend someone to build it if they could get Windy's plans.
The third model is the Mitsubishi Ki 83. This was a twin developed in Japan near the end of WW II. I worked up some sketches some time ago to do a stunt twin that would capture the appearance of the airplane. I was using the size and dimensions of the Twin Pathfinder. (John, I know you know a little bit about this airplane. I flew Gordan's twin and it is just an outstanding stunt ship.) Unfortunately, because of the configuration of the Ki 83, it does not translate well for a CL stunt ship. The full size Ki 83 has relatively high aspect ratio wings, a long tail moment and a relatively small horizontal tail. It also has the large radial engines. When I tried to get those factors into something on the scale and configuration of a Twin Pathfinder, coupled with those round engine nacelles, it no longer had the appearance of the full scale Ki 83. The project never went beyond those crude sketches. One thing that allowed the Tigercat to be made into an attractive twin stunt ship is that the full scale Tigercat had a comparatively low aspect wing and was short coupled (like many US Navy fighter aircraft) which allows a stunt stunt version of the Tigercat to still capture the appearance of the full scale aircraft.
I have some good 3-views of the full scale Ki 83 if anyone is interested.
Keith
-
Well, I have a kit on the shelf specifically for "someday" modifying it into an a-10. I wouldn't get fancy, just build it to see what works, and if it does work, then let someone who is a better builder than myself do it up right. But, now I'll loan out my idea if someone else wants to give it a whirl. Sig Twister. Fuselage backwards. Add a rib or two to the wing and relocate it. Hobby King has Dr. Thrust (or used to have them) in 35mm and 50mm fans. (from the little I know, I was going to get a pair of the 50mm) I think the 60+ fan would be too big. I'm sure it would fly, I'm not sure it could do an sort of pattern. Hopefully I'll tell you about it someday or you can tell me about it.
-
Thanks, Colonel for your helpful and supportive comments.
Quote from Kieth "The third model is the Mitsubishi Ki 83. "
Yes, I've looked at that one several times. You showed me your sketch a few years back. The high aspect wing is a problem. The small tailplane can be enlarged to about 24% and still retain some of its scale looks. I believe that's allowed even in scale competition. You've identified The main stumbling blocks.
Still, a great looking plane that would look very good flying the pattern.
David, Ducted fans would look great, but the question is, will they work for PA? How much thrust can one, or a pair generate? Will that be enough, and is the power, similar to prop-driven power?
Need to build a concept model to try to get some answers.
John
-
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/Italian_IMAM_Ro.57_fighter_prototype_front_quarter_view.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Italian_IMAM_Ro.57_fighter_prototype_rear_quarter_view.jpg)
Thisisone Ilikethlookoff . Sort of a Italian Whirlwindish, maybe . Perhaps .
-
Gary Nelson built a Mosquito I think a Jack Sheeks design.
Might have ended up in Tim Wescott's basement. I watched him fly it he said he liked it. I ended up with Gary's "Sky Rocket" a Sheeks design at least I think it is a Sky Rocket I just dug it out this morning...
John L.
-
Hummmmmm! Now wouldn't a good response to the initial question depend upon how one defines "twin ... engined"?? Here's now my buddy Larry and I see it!! LL~ LL~ LL~
-
I get it...twins with lots of engines. Those are real beauties. Any flight video?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgvGlVpNMCI
-
I get it...twins with lots of engines. Those are real beauties. Any flight video?
Yep! But it's nothing all that spectacular ...jus' two videos of two B-29's making numerous laps with two pilots scared to death to make any mistakes concluding with two very nice landings each with only one engine of six still running!! LL~ LL~ LL~
-
It looks like this thread has morphed into offshoots of twins with extra engines that might have slightly compromised stunt capabilities. So here is a twin bomber with an extra pair of engines and another model with two operating engines.
Keith
-
Here is a twin with an auxiliary engine.
Keith
-
This one could really be done as a legitimate stunt ship and be close to scale. It would be a lot of fuselage and nacelles for the wing area. Might be able to squash this into Twin Pathfinder numbers.
Keith
-
Did a profile Meteor NF 11 , on a Oriental wing , so 50 span, 57 length .
Came out at 60 Oz , even with a 3/8 x 1/2 vertical bearer h'wood , at the rudder hinge ( fwd of ) .
Was about 7 in. deep at the canopy , so imagine a four & a half foot 6 x 1/2 in plank perpendicular to the wing / lines . And a 60 ft radius line .
Its preferance was ' Straight Ahead ' , so the 15 thou S S lines took a bit of stress , stretchy stretchy , and 1/4 round delay in the Vert. 8 ,
So intersetion ? was at 3/4 loop , where it'd decide to head over your right ear,thus the imediate ' full up ' had it reapear somehow back forward of you .Allowing for the next 1/4 loop delay , grass cutting, etc .
So, the Moral of This Story , is if your building a profile equivilant of a 4 1/4 foot 6 inch plank , you just might need some fairly tough lines . The 18 thou. Laystrate seem pretty good .And 60 Oz. is fine for
the schedule . The 262 is good'n accurate F2B pattern , if your with it and on it with the timing etc . And line tensions good . LL~
(https://aflyinghistory.com/photos/gloster/meteor/oo-arz/8236-northolt-1959.jpg)
Was like this. Shoulda kept the sucker . Last seen in Qld
-
The Westland Whirlwind - another twin candidate. High aspect ratio wing, big engine nacelles, and high horizontal tail position all combine to not fit into a practical semi scale stunt design. Otherwise, an interesting design.
Keith
-
Except for the high placement of the horizontal stabilizer I think the OV 10 Bronco would be a goo candidate.
-
Except for its high aspect ratio wing which does not do very well for CL stunt, the Hughes XF-11 is a neat looking aircraft. Steve Moon published a credible looking profile several years ago without such a high aspect ratio wing.
Keith
-
Like the H1R , the XF-11 was conceived with two wings , long & short . Ive got scale drgs that show both , Though maybe the shorter one was never tried ? .
-
I believe one of these showed up at Muncie a few years back, competing in stunt with two SAITO 40s, counter rotating.
Dehaviland Comet.
Bob Z.
-
Like the H1R , the XF-11 was conceived with two wings , long & short . Ive got scale drgs that show both , Though maybe the shorter one was never tried ? .
What you are talking about is an entirely different and earlier Hughes design. It was an all wood, twin engine, twin boom design, designated the D-2, powered by PW R-2800 Twin Wasps. Only provisional drawings of its configuration exist. Its configuration was similar to the Northrup F-15. It was a private venture by Hughes for the U.S. Army. It was flown twice at a remote desert site in California and was destroyed in a hangar fire in 1944.
Keith
-
I believe one of these showed up at Muncie a few years back, competing in stunt with two SAITO 40s, counter rotating.
Dehaviland Comet.
Bob Z.
Hi Bob, I believe the airplane you are talking about that was in Muncie some time ago was a semi scale twin of a French design called a Caudron Typhon. The model was flown by one of the members of the French team at the World Championships held in Muncie that year just prior to the Nats. There is a photo of it in the Sep/Oct '04 issue of Stunt News. This airplane has a configuration very similar to the deHavilland Comet. The full size Typhon was used as a mail plane.
Keith
-
I THOUGHT THIS'D HAPPEN . ;) >:D
Oh Dear . Yr Right Keith . isa D2 . Were in the P-38 folder . The long wing would be like my P-38 , which was pretty good .Though I think two 25s & 68 span'd better 78 . Lines in proportion .
The booms are a bit fat on the XF 11 , but profiled make life easier .
Be lows a " XF 11 " , must be semi scale .
(https://nebula.wsimg.com/d7c3c4cf9ace14caee4c2213ca2d6a3a?AccessKeyId=905671C8274BCE88E783&disposition=0&alloworigin=1)
60 in. span, Steve Moon flying muddles plan . Two. 40 4S .
-
Beringer Caudron Typhoon .
(http://www.f2d.dk/cl-unionen/konkurrencer/resultat-04/pics/usa10.jpg)
Eres Me de H 88 , Sanding four fings , progress is slow. Much better letting them ' kick off' De Gass fully, anyway. Not so much clogged sandpaper .
(https://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=45265.0;attach=317491;image)
Mayve overstepped the mark a bit here . Over 60 Oz seems to be a bit of a wrestle , at times .
Smaller version was nice , sensative , light & steady on the wires . So theres always hope ! ..
Believe it or not , itll thread in through the front door there , If you adjust the seats right . H^^
-
How about....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnbzMxEvJ5Q
Hell, it even has a cool name. :D
TTFN
John.
-
This one could really be done as a legitimate stunt ship and be close to scale. It would be a lot of fuselage and nacelles for the wing area. Might be able to squash this into Twin Pathfinder numbers.
Keith
Quite a few choices shown here, late WW-II to late 50's, have high mounted stabilizers for operational reasons such as jet exhaust, bailout clearance, etc. Since Thanks, Colonel for your helpful and supportive comments.
Quote from Kieth "The third model is the Mitsubishi Ki 83. "
Yes, I've looked at that one several times. You showed me your sketch a few years back. The high aspect wing is a problem. The small tailplane can be enlarged to about 24% and still retain some of its scale looks. I believe that's allowed even in scale competition. You've identified The main stumbling blocks.
Still, a great looking plane that would look very good flying the pattern.
David, Ducted fans would look great, but the question is, will they work for PA? How much thrust can one, or a pair generate? Will that be enough, and is the power, similar to prop-driven power?
Need to build a concept model to try to get some answers.
John
John, for the fans, visit an RC field and try to find some flyers with mid-sized DF planes(36" span or so). Ducted fans are similar to full-size- they generate high speed and small area so they have problems producing good thrust at relatively low speeds. All the airliners use almost teeny turbojet cores to drive fans that produce huge volumes of lower speed exhaust to balance low speed thrust and high speed thrust at high altitudes. The small electric fans don't produce much thrust at low speeds such as trying to hover vertically.
The high mount stabilizers on many late WW-II through the 1950's were done to balance structural and flight performance- pilot escape or ejection, clearance from the exhaust, landing clearance.
Pardon the weak memory, but one flyer showed up at Brodak's with an F-104 with a scale T-tail stabilator. It seemed to fly just fine. The nose was shortened an the tail momemnt lengthened. I'm pretty sure it took some time balancing stab size, area, and movement but it was easy to recognize. Ir didn't place, but then only 3 flyers out of 25-30 DID place.
The Meteor, DeHavilland Vampire and Venom, Grumman F9F Panther and others should be able to as well as the F-104. Just be prepared to build a couple of development planes first.
-
Phil, thanks for the suggestion and insights relative to Ducted Fans. You've helped me realize that my first impression, regarding their use for CL PA, was probably the right one.
I'm planning on attempting the A-10 for Stunt. If nothing else I should learn something from the project.
John
-
This Gloster F9/37 , sorta a British Me110 , would be one of the more straightforward to keep fairly scale .
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Gloster_f9_37.jpg)
(https://i0.wp.com/www.destinationsjourney.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/reaper-4.jpg?ssl=1)
Still Prefer the METEOR though .
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8f/Gloster_Meteor_NF.14_WS841_264.HMT_BLA_6.9.55_edited-2.jpg)
-
but one flyer showed up at Brodak's with an F-104 with a scale T-tail stabilator. It seemed to fly just fine.
NOW YOUVE DONE IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A Rubber Powered F-104 would have to be pretty good , your comments regarding LENGTH did it . !
Cor , ya could fit a ton of rubber in there . VD~
-
Sort of a twin (Well 2 of them with an extra engine). The Heinkel 111Z Zwilling....
(http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/LCBW11/He111Z1f-s.jpg)
Seeing the interest in the Meteor How about the "Trent Meteor"
(https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/gloster-trent-meteor-f-mk1-jpg.514147/)
TTFN
John.
-
I'm surprised this Thread was rekindled. But I'm glad it was.
I will build the "Songbird." I'm working on plans now.
Anyone wish to cut my foam wing for the concession to sell the foam wing to others?
CB
-
Why stop at two? The B17 has already flown the pattern. Who's going to up the ante with a B36?
In all seriousness, I've pondered this and when I put pen to paper and do the math a Cessna 414/421 seems to work out pretty well. You'd need dihedral to get the vertical CG right but that's passé for semi-scale stunt ships now anyway.
-
Why stop at two? The B17 has already flown the pattern. Who's going to up the ante with a B36?
Heh, heh.
-
Heh, heh.
A "serious" B-36 project for CL Stunt was started on the West Coast in the last several years. What happened to it. Does the "Heh, heh" from Howard mean anything?
Keith
-
Youd think this was designed for STUNT . ;D S?P
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ca/f9/d4/caf9d4ab3775f9723d35391f4f4d4c3a.png)
With all this electricty , youd think EVERYONE would be flying ' Multi's ' . :(
(https://www.the-blueprints.com/blueprints-depot-restricted/modernplanes/modern-bm-bz/bristol_167_brabazon-84930.jpg)
Dennis Adamisin Version . ;)
(https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/data/attachments/14/14230-55ac8185b5616a2add280818066db3b3.jpg)
(https://www.printcollection.com/files/1/0117/3662/products/Quantas-Empire--Airways.jpg?v=1482568592)
-
A "serious" B-36 project for CL Stunt was started on the West Coast in the last several years. What happened to it. Does the "Heh, heh" from Howard mean anything?
Keith
I sent a note to the alleged perpetrator suggesting that he may wish to participate in this discussion.
-
Perhaps these two unauthorized photos of a certain Lost-Foam fixture will prompt the mystery designer to take credit - or perhaps blame - here.
Later - Bob Hunt
-
Let us hope that the "mystery designer" will find that six engines will help compensate for the limitations that a high aspect ratio creates for a competitive stunt ship. Whatever the results, it will be completely and totally impressive.
Keith
-
The Martin B-26 configuration can be adapted quite nicely to CL Stunt proportions. Tom McClain did a serious model of it basically with full scale dimensions/proportions.
One reason it would work well is that it is fairly short coupled with a horizontal tail with a good amount of area compared to many full size aircraft with comparatively long tails and small horizontal tail surfaces. Fuselage and engine nacelle diameters can be dealt with for a semi scale stunt ship a bit easier than many radial engine twins.
Keith
-
Here is another twin that would be an "interesting" candidate for a twin semi-scale stunter. Might not want so much taper on the outboard wing sections. A bigger horizontal tail would not distract from the scale like appearance. Something a bit different than the He 219 with its tricycle gear. This could be blended into Twin Pathfinder numbers.
There are versions with more typical "rounded" spinners.
Keith