Mick Reeves Gangster 63 Lite

[Kim Taylor]

Posted by Old Geezer on 15/11/2019 16:07:39:

I'm sure original Gangster 52 & 63 kits would still sell well, and they were so much tougher than these CNC plywood airframes we're stuck with these days - one rough landing can often result in the portion of the fuselage supporting the U/C requiring a major reconstruction (a 3D jigsaw or bodge depending on your talents). Or scrapping it altogether.

I think if you speak to them nicely, you can have an original Gangster 63 from Mick Reeves Models.

Not cheap though!!

Kim

[Old Geezer]

Well, Bless my Soul! Why didn't I think of that.

Thanks for that Kim - I'll just do that thing, there's certainly no harm in asking. Then unless it's silly money I'll have to start looking on eBay for an inexpensive (there's no such thing as cheap these days) old two stroke 60 to pop on the front.

[Andy Stephenson]

Finished, can any one recognise the colour scheme?

[Andy Stephenson]

Here's a clue...

[Nigel R]

"40 sized slab sided (no stringers!) constant chord low winger -- for for us Neanderthals, choice of nose or tail wheel"

You could try Pegasus kits, particularly Galaxy Magician / Hornet / Musketeer.

All slab side foam wing trad kits.

[Wilco Wingco]

I have a very battered Gangster 40 in the loft. Been thinking of doing a re-ferb on it as a NIB kit went on E-Bay for over £100 a couple of months ago.

[Andy Stephenson]

In the early days there was the G48 and the G63. The G48 disappeared and was replaced by the G52. Later I remember seeing adverts for a range of them including G42 G52 G63 and G75. I don't remember a G40 could this be one that was cut down.

I think there might even have been a G38 but I'm not sure.

A.

[Wilco Wingco]

Maybe I should get it out of the loft and check the wing span. Who knows it could be a 38 ???

[gangster]

Gotta be worth a refurb. A very basic and simple model that will be easy to refurb. Believe me I have resurrected a few that have been well planted. As for £100 for a kit seems reasonable to me for a vintage popular kit and bear in mind that you would have paid more than that in real terms back in the day. However did we afford this hobby back then£

[Jonathan M]

Posted by Andy Stephenson on 14/11/2019 13:10:57:

I recently bought the last G63 kit Mick Reeves had in stock, I guess if there is more demand Jim will make another batch....

The new lite G63 seems very flimsy especially at the back end so I made the tail surfaces out of solid 1/4" balsa. Also like Martin K mentioned elsewhere, I put cross braces in the fuz to stiffen up the torsional rigidity. The ailerons were made fully sheeted. This was because I had decided to install an Irvine 53...

I particularly like the triangle slotted wing spar as it makes fitting the ribs easy. There a lot of things I have changed in the build of this kit but then again, I have never built anything exactly to the instructions.

It may not fly till next season but this will give me time to complete the decals as per the original box art as close as I can.

Andy.

Posted by Andy Stephenson on 21/11/2019 19:36:25:

Finished, can any one recognise the colour scheme?

Andy, that looks really crisp! How did it fly?

[Andy Stephenson]

Jonathan,

I haven't got to flying the G63Lite yet. I have been biding my time with the virus, although it's probably about time to get out there and maiden it, I'm just waiting for the weather now.

I had the original version in the 70s but I expect this will be a little different if I can remember how first one flew.

Andy.

[Jonathan M]

Andy, go for it as soon as the weather gods permit, and let us know how you get on.

---

As for mine, after three years on the back-burner and a little more experience under my belt, I've finally made a start! Despite my near-temptation to go electric, I've recently acquired a good Irvine 46 so this will be the power - not too much nor too little (and those already familiar with this elongated thread will recall that the OS 35AX I had originally bought for the G63 is now destined for a Chilli Breeze build, which will follow in due course).

Its clear that the kit is probably overly light in places (reading between the lines would I be right in thinking that it was designed for a ARTF production-run that never happened?). So with an adequate power-plant in place, I'm going to make the following mods which should make for a stiffer, more robust model with little additional weight penalty.

• Tail parts will be from 1/4" sheet.
• Elevator will be snake-controlled with a U-shaped wire joiner to connect the two halves.
• Rudder will be snaked as well.
• Wings will have 1/16" sheer webbing doublers to beef up the spars (i.e. cover the triangular slots for each rib entry needed for construction) at least as far as the UC bearers if not all the way to the tips.
• Ailerons will be sheet.
• Fuselage wing-seats will be doubled.
• Triangular stock will be added to the first 2-3 formers.
• Cross-grained 1/16" decking will be added to the top inside rear fuselage.
• I'd like the cowl to be removable (for engine thrust-line tweaks etc) so will make a fibreglass one.

(Some of these mods have been borrowed from Martyn Kinder's build thread, Andy Stephenson's above, etc - as they all make sense!)

• Engine will be either normal or side-mounted, not sure yet which...?
• Standard servos for the tails, Hitec 225 mighty-minis for the ailerons, 81 for the throttle.
• 4.8v Eneloop NiMh, Etronix aluminium double-pole power switch.

I've cleared the decks for the next week or so, and hope to report rapid progress!

Jon

 

Edited By Jonathan M on 24/08/2020 08:59:45

[Kim Taylor]

Hi Jon

I have a Gangster 'Lite' powered by a .61 4 stroke (same case size as a .52, so no extra weight). I too believe that the 'Lite' is the still born artf but produced in kit form.

It was built as per the book, but I did build in some extra triangulation in the tailplane and fin and also backfilled the triangular cut outs in the main spar out to the ailerons, and reinforced the u/c plates as these looked a bit fragile just glued on to the ribs. I built up a balsa cowl as I split the kit one whilst drilling the fixing holes - it really is nasty.

To get it to balance where I wanted it to, I had to add (from memory) about 30g of lead to the tail. This gave me a c of g around 90mm from the leading edge, vs the recommended 75mm, at which figure I found it to feel very nose heavy and also difficult to slow down for landing.

Anyhow, I haven't flown it for probably a year or more, as I wasn't happy with the 'starved horse' appearance, so decided to strip it and sheet it all over, on the basis that most of the additional weight will be where I had been forced to add it before. Before doing this, I replaced the pushrods with snakes as I wasn't happy with the movement apparent with the former arrangement. I also included a hatch in the forward deck using the latch from my own dead WOT4 artf as I may decide to electrify it in due course, so a lot of common thinking going on between all of us!!

I am going to cover it with brown paper and either pva or quick drying water based varnish with a sprayed colour coat over that, followed by a coat of 2k laquer if it stays i/c powered. At the moment it's sitting up in my loft as I've just moved house and I've lost my workshop until I can get something built in the garden!

When it's done, I'll post a few pictures. Good luck with your build, I bet you get yours done before I finish mine!!

Kim

[Jonathan M]

Cheers for that Kim - seems we're all more or less on the same page!

The instructions do state 75mm for the CG, but given what MR says on his own website, your preference for 90mm seems just right:

Much lighter than the classic Gangster. Model was tested
with an 20 year old 40 engine. It showed all the qualities
of smoothness and predictability of the original, and was
also very aerobatic. With the CG at 3" very small loops
and knife edge were possible. With the throttle well back
and full up elevator, the model would fly along slowly
without stalling. The CG on the original was 1" further
back and this would give a livelier model for the expert pilot.
Flying weight 1800 grms.

At a rough guess this quoted 1.8kg would give a pretty light loading of about 15oz/sq ft, which is much lighter than typical ARTFs like the Ripmax Wot4 and Acrowot (circa 20oz/sg ft). His Gangster 63 'Classic' is billed on the same page as 2.5kg (21oz/sq ft), so there's clearly a lot of scope to toughen up the Lite's structure without getting anywhere near these heavier loadings.

The fuselage and tails are straightforward to beef-up as described previously, but sheeting the wings fully (or adding cap-strips to the ribs) using 1/16" would involve first thinning the chord of each rib aft of the spars, which is not hard to do as long as this is done before building the wing!

I made no actual progress on this model today, as I was too busy test flying the club's new Boomerang trainer... now there's a heavy beast!

[Jonathan M]

I've actually been quite busy over the last week. The fuselage is 90% built, but I've left off the final sheeting etc until I've completed the installation of engine, servos, snakes, etc - I'll post photos of everything I've done, including mods, shortly.

What has taken the time is the fact that the kit has many shortcomings, the design is just that little bit too flimsy and economical on materials (so needed thought as to where and how to make it more resilient without adding too much extra weight or setting up stress-points), plus the lack of a plan and/or decent instructions/illustrations leaves too much to be guessed at.

Maybe a more experienced builder would have approached it all in a quicker biff-boff fashion, but that's not my style.

A very experienced chum told me that he once mostly built the kit but became so irritated with it for similar reasons that he gave it away. He advised me to do the same, but I'm pressing on because its both a learning exercise and an interesting challenge!

[Andy Stephenson]

Maidened the G63 lite yesterday and I can't say how it flies compared to the original foam version from the 70s as it's so long ago. What I can say is that with the Irvine .53 and at 5lb 5oz (2.4kg), it's very lively, much more so the the old version with an HP .61. The first flight was a bit hairy because it was so far out of trim and I also had a dead-stick. I needn't have worried about the dead-stick because it floats so well. The C of G is stated at 3" in the instructions so I thought it might be tail heavy but actually was not bad at 3 1/2" back from the LE. I may move it further back as it takes full power and a lot of rudder to knife edge. The aileron throw needs to be at maximum otherwise it rolls very lazily. Stall turns are very easy in either direction. The general conclusion is that it will be a good practice model for the classic aerobatic schedule.

Andy.

Edited By Andy Stephenson on 02/09/2020 14:21:36

Edited By Andy Stephenson on 02/09/2020 14:22:14

[Jonathan M]

Great to hear that Andy - well done!

Doesn't sound heavy at all at 2.4kg given its size and wing area (makes the design spec of 1.8kg seem anorexic) and your .53 is surely more than ample.

Mine is progressing day by day - your flight report has inspired me to step up a gear and get mine finished and maidened before Autumn gets too much of a grip!

Jon

[Peter Jenkins]

Posted by Andy Stephenson on 14/12/2019 11:55:56:

In the early days there was the G48 and the G63. The G48 disappeared and was replaced by the G52. Later I remember seeing adverts for a range of them including G42 G52 G63 and G75. I don't remember a G40 could this be one that was cut down.

I think there might even have been a G38 but I'm not sure.

A.

I was lucky enough to acquire an unstarted G75 kit and a brand new ST90 to power it some time ago. I eventually got round to building the G75 (I did a build thread on this forum) and in comparison with one of today's aerobatic airframes my G75 weighed in at 4.7 Kgs which is way too much to allow even a ST90 on a Hanno pipe to give it unlimited vertical. "My" G75 has a foam wing and a very strong fuselage with solid tail feathers. I did take the precaution of building a bigger rudder and elevator than provided but went with the aileron size advised. The ailerons needed to be much longer span as it is impossible to do a decent snap roll with the deflection available. If it were a Kg lighter (mostly from the wing) it would be a brilliant performer. Perhaps the G63 lite is a bit too lite but the G75 is definitely too heavy. Yes it will stand up to arrivals where the main wheels hit the wing (so a club mate told me of his) but if you can land the aeroplane half decently you don't need to build a brick as the trick with aerobatics is to have the lightest strong enough airframe. If you look at one of the Seb Art 50 size airframes you will see what I mean.

[Andy Stephenson]

I think the G63 was the optimum size although there was a lot of success with the G48, I was disappointed to see replaced by the G52 which was just a bit too much for a .40 size engine of the time. The G63 lite wings don't have much structure and are very light. The only thing I thought necessary to do with the wings was to fully sheet the ailerons which are now of the inset style rather than the traditional strip type of the old design G63.

[Jonathan M]

Now that I've been actually making the thing, I've now finally got something to talk about!

First indication that the structure is probably a bit too 'lite' and was definitely going to need a bit more beef was when gluing the sides together - the second 3/32" former behind the cockpit gave way under the lightest of finger pressure.

That mended, the very next thing to do was add 3/32" doublers to the whole of the forward structure - not just the tank-bay as per the supplied parts - plus extra narrow ones just aft of the ply cockpit headrest former to avoid a stress-riser.

Almost all of the build is being done with thin CA, but I used aliphatic for this doubling.

I also later make up some 1/4" posts to reinforce the forward formers-sides joints.

 

Edited By Jonathan M on 05/09/2020 22:05:51

[Jonathan M]

I then turned my attention to the rear fuselage. The large cutouts span two bays each, leaving unnecessarily large and vulnerable voids (hence the 'starved-horse' others have commented on), so at each intermediate former I scribed in 20mm wide sheeting plus radii to curve smoothly at the corners.

I can only imagine that the reason for this 'oversight' was that MR wanted to squeeze as many components onto as few sheets as possible - as per the other parts visible in the cutouts - rather than saving any real weight?

Edited By Jonathan M on 05/09/2020 22:17:21

[Jonathan M]

Next up was dealing with the engine bulkhead area. A good tank is supplied in the kit (I do like the recessed nut in the back of the bung; some cheap tanks don't have it with the risk of stripping the thread in the plastic or aluminium back-plate), but the pre-bored hole in the doubled ply formers was far too small. I considered leaving it as is - just big enough for the three fuel tubes to run through - but that would have meant moving the tank back which I'd prefer not to do, so I enlarged it.

Ooops! Enlarged hole not quite centred first go (later relieved it for an even gap all round which will be packed out and sealed with silicone after final installation) but at least the three copper pipes just clear the nose-leg.

Finally, having been undecided for a while about whether to mount the engine upright or to the side, I plumbed for the side-winder option. With the engine and supplied mount in place, I was then able to make up the throttle control-rod.

[Jonathan M]

I then wasted three long building sessions trying to sort out the control-run for the steerable nose-leg!

I'd had a notion that - to save stripping the gears in the rudder/steering servo in the event of a 'forceful' landing - I'd build in a large Z-bend to act as a spring, so initially mounted the servo on the opposite side to the main control run.

But the whole thing proved quite hopeless: far too much bending and springing, friction and catching - not helped by the fact that I was hoping to use an adjustable clevis rather than a small z-bend or plastic keeper at the leg end of things! The thing worked so badly that I was also completely unable to get adequate turning one way, no matter how much fettling I did.

I was also mindful of the fact that I really don't like the idea of large cutouts in the engine bulkhead - basically just entry points for industrial quantities of fuel to eventually penetrate into the engine bay - so the system had to be fully resolved before encasing the jolly great hole, which the photo below shows partially blanked off with a piece of thin ply.

[Jonathan M]

The only solution was to hack it all out, straighten out the steering control-wire and swap the servo over to the same side, including a much smaller (20mm) z-bend to absorb shocks. This, combined with using a simple keeper at the leg end, then proved entirely successful.

I could then turn my attention to hermetically sealing the bulkhead where the steering rod plus keeper plus a bit of the leg-horn enter the fuselage. It took a few goes to get the size and geometry right (while keeping the whole thing clear of the fuel tank) but got there in the end with a combination of scrap balsa, lots of CA and a Dremel grinding bit.

[Jonathan M]

As a light-hearted relief from all this nose work, I then attended to the control runs for the tails using my favourite Sullivan snakes. The instructions suggest traditional balsa lengths with wire bound to each end, and a pair of arms to horns on each of the elevator sides, but the snakes are simpler and I'll make up a standard wire joiner for the elevators.

Perhaps I went overboard with supporting the snakes at every former right down the length of the fuselage, but I don't see the point in going to a load of trouble to build a whole model just to have sloppy control runs because I couldn't be bothered to dot the 'i's and cross the 't's... which is half the fun anyway!