Ben Buckle kits.

[bees]

Hi, iam thinking off purchasing the Playboy senior but have been looking through some rather old threads regarding poor quality and fitment of various parts.Was wondering if they have addressed this problem in the more recent kits.Thank you for any advice.

[brokenenglish]

I bought a BB Double Diamond kit about a year ago. I haven't finished it yet, but the build is going well, no problems, and the wood quality is superb.

[Pete Collins]

Hi, If you are referring to the Ben Buckle kit, I bought one a few years ago and I don't remember any issues with the quality. Being a vintage model there aren't too many shaped components (Wing ribs, a couple of fus formers, wing and tail tips and that's about all!) the rest is mostly stripwood. I didn't feel obliged to replace anything and I'm usually pretty fussy. It is an old-fashioned build, so there is plenty of work to do - don't expect lots of prefabrication. Otherwise I remember it going together pretty well. I powered mine with a .53 four stroke and it's a bit overpowered. On full throttle it climbs vertically and will keep going OOS if you don't chicken out. You need good strong wing bands if you mean to play those games. It has a very good glide and most of the time just putters around on minimum throttle. I can't remember the weight of mine but its pretty light - just finished in coloured Solartex with a little paint around the nose etc. All in all, a nice build - I'd recommend it.

[bees]

Thanks guys that was what i was hoping for. I fly all electric these days so iam going to convert it to electric. Pete, obviously i want to turn off the motor and extend the flight time even more, did read some where that it would thermal in the right conditions would you say that is correct. Thank you.

 

Edited By bees on 13/05/2020 21:20:26

[Philip Barrett 2]

I built the Playboy Senior a couple of years ago. I changed the wing to allow flat inner sections which then allowed the wing to be split in two halves, using brass tubes araldited in the first couple of bays and carbon fibre rods to make the join. I modified the wing fixing to allow wing bolts rather than rubber bands.

Mine was also electric. I lengthened the nose and used an EFlite 25 motor with a 2700 mah battery on 3 cells. I still needed a fair amount of lead to get the correct centre of gravity, so in retrospect I could have increased the nose length even more.

I can confirm the Ben Buckle kit was excellent,with good quality materials and clear plans. The finished model flew really well, with a great presence given its size. I used Solartex (alas no more!) for a vintage look.

In summary, an excellent kit leading to a great build with an impressive end product.

[bees]

Once again thank you, Just ordered one from Steve webb models, looking forward to starting the build.

[bees]

Hi, I have now received my Playboy and well into the build with no issues at all. On the plan it says to give 1/2inch of washout at the wingtip but does this mean raising the wingtip 1/2inch up at the wingtip at the trailing edge while keeping the leading edge flat while joining to the inner panel using the dihedral braces. Thank you for any help given.

[Philip Barrett 2]

Build the inner panel flat to the board, and as you suggest pack the trailing edge of the outer panel by the half inch at the tip. The best way to do this is to cut a wedge from balsa strip the length of the outer panel trailing edge, half an inch thick at the tip tapering to zero at the root of the outer panel. Pin this under the outer panel trailing edge as you assemble the outer panel, with its leading edge pinned flat to the board.

Hope this helps !

[Mike T]

None of the (5) Playboy senior plans on Outerzone mention the need for washout.

Does the BB plan indicate exactly where this 1/2" should be measured from? The outer panel trailing edge, from the polyhedral break to the tip is almost entirely curved, so at what point would you pack up your 1/2" !?

It would make more sense to pack the inner panel TE - except that no other plan asks for washout anywhere...

[Richard Clark 2]

Posted by Mike T on 23/05/2020 16:54:56:

None of the (5) Playboy senior plans on Outerzone mention the need for washout.

Does the BB plan indicate exactly where this 1/2" should be measured from? The outer panel trailing edge, from the polyhedral break to the tip is almost entirely curved, so at what point would you pack up your 1/2" !?

It would make more sense to pack the inner panel TE - except that no other plan asks for washout anywhere...

It seems rathar a lot wherever you measure it.. I would have thought it unnecessary. (The problem with washout is that the wing as a whole can never operate at its optimum AoA as it hasn't got one.)

[bees]

Hi, In capital letters it says washout. It says the wings must be washed out1/2 inch at the tip,this means that when the tip panel is placed  on a flat surface the trailing edge is raised 1/2 inch at the tip. The inner panels must be flat by the same test. This is what is confusing me.

Edited By bees on 23/05/2020 18:53:11

Edited By bees on 23/05/2020 18:53:47

[Mike T]

The advice on your plan seems to me to be singularly unhelpful, as the 'tip' of the wing is at the 1/3 chord point, just aft of the main spars! If you pack it there, you don't get washout, you get dihedral...

In the absence of any better guidance, I'd suggest packing the TE at the last rib before the tip, but I don't understand why Buckle's version requires it while 5 others of varying sizes, don't!

[bees]

Hi, As you say its very confusing, I went ahead and lifted the tip by 1/2 inch but made sure that from forward of the tip to the leading edge was flat to the board. After taking the outer tip from the board i eyeballed it from the TE and it just shows a few degrees of washout, hopefully the second tip will be the same. Thank you for your advice.

[Mike T]

I'm sure a couple of degrees either side won't do any harm. Good luck with the rest of the build!

[bees]

Hi, Just tried balancing the Playboy at the correct CG and wow over a pound of lead is needed, i know you guys said it would need a lump of lead but did expect this much.Got to find a spot to stick it now.Going to move the motor forward even more and the hopefully it will cut down the lead of touch

[Richard Clark 2]

Posted by bees on 18/07/2020 15:57:18:

Hi, Just tried balancing the Playboy at the correct CG and wow over a pound of lead is needed, i know you guys said it would need a lump of lead but did expect this much.Got to find a spot to stick it now.Going to move the motor forward even more and the hopefully it will cut down the lead of touch

The old engines were heavier than the new ones.

And the plane didn't have radio. So put the radio battery right underneath the engine and the three servos side by side next to each other right against the firewall. There might be room for the receiver there too.

[brokenenglish]

Posted by Richard Clark 2 on 18/07/2020 17:48:15:

Posted by bees on 18/07/2020 15:57:18:

The old engines were heavier than the new ones.

There's a lot of "modern" theorising here... But this remark is definitely wrong. The Brown and Ohlsson, etc. engines originally used in these planes are far lighter than their modern counterparts.

The CG problem stems almost entirely from the fact that very few people build light any more.
Unless the entire rear part (aft of the wing) is built using high quality "light but firm" balsa, and is covered in tissue or perhaps very fine silk, you will have a CG problem, Period.
Could I quote the example of my Junior 60s.
My first J60 was built using the kit wood (good but not particularly light), and was covered in Solartex. It needed exactly one pound of lead in the nose (but flew great!).
The latest one was built using my own selected wood and was tissue covered. It needs zero weight in the nose and was even slightly nose heavy as built.

That's where the "modern" CG problems come from, plus the fact that some people like to have the CG further forward for RC flying, in relation to the original rearward (FF) CG.

[Robin Colbourne]

Posted by bees on 13/05/2020 21:19:29:

...i want to turn off the motor and extend the flight time even more, did read some where that it would thermal in the right conditions would you say that is correct. Thank you.

That's what Joe Elgin's 1939 original was designed to do!

Edited By Robin Colbourne on 18/07/2020 21:31:41

[Richard Clark 2]

Posted by brokenenglish on 18/07/2020 18:58:04:

Posted by Richard Clark 2 on 18/07/2020 17:48:15:

Posted by bees on 18/07/2020 15:57:18:

The old engines were heavier than the new ones.

There's a lot of "modern" theorising here... But this remark is definitely wrong. The Brown and Ohlsson, etc. engines originally used in these planes are far lighter than their modern counterparts.

The CG problem stems almost entirely from the fact that very few people build light any more.
Unless the entire rear part (aft of the wing) is built using high quality "light but firm" balsa, and is covered in tissue or perhaps very fine silk, you will have a CG problem, Period.
Could I quote the example of my Junior 60s.
My first J60 was built using the kit wood (good but not particularly light), and was covered in Solartex. It needed exactly one pound of lead in the nose (but flew great!).
The latest one was built using my own selected wood and was tissue covered. It needs zero weight in the nose and was even slightly nose heavy as built.

That's where the "modern" CG problems come from, plus the fact that some people like to have the CG further forward for RC flying, in relation to the original rearward (FF) CG.

Well, I agree on the covering (Solartex  is too heavy for a 60 inch plane) and the more forward C of G rc planes tend to use.

My Junior 60 is from the Ben Buckle kit so suffers from their usual hard and heavy wood.

Nevertheless with the radio as far forward as possible (servos and receiver right against the firewall so under the tank,  5 cell battery under the engine), its quite heavy OS35 AX, the sound of four strokes not being 'in period', and transparent coloured Oracover it's fine with no added nose weight. despite its slightly rearward C of G.

Edited By Richard Clark 2 on 19/07/2020 04:50:40

[David Davis]

I'd just like to endorse Broken English's remarks about building light.

A couple of months ago I lost my thirty-two year old Junior 60 built fom a Flair kit. It was my first successful radio controlled model aeroplane. We appeared to have no control when it glided into a wheat field behind two hedges on the other side of a road, and though it was finished over all in orange, we could not find it. I say that it was thirty-two years old but it was like Trigger's broom, it was on its second fuselage and third tailplane!

In its first manifestation the fuselage was covered in Olive Drab parachute nylon and the wings and tail surfaces in Natural Solartex. It was powered by a converted Irvine 20 car racing engine. By mistake I had used the hardest wood in the kit for the tailplane and it required one and a half pounds of lead in the nose to balance correctly. It still flew.

I built a new tailplane for it and was able to remove all of the lead from the nose. This proved to be too weak so I built a third. Over the years I fitted a number of engines including a PAW 19, an HPVT 20 which usually required a hand launch and an HPVT25 which didn't. I like the sound of four strokes even if they're not period but when the model was lost it was fitted with an electric motor.

I feel the need to build another Junior 60 because there are a lot of retired beginners in my club and the Junior 60 was ideal for giving them their first experience of radio controlled flight. Unfortunately I already have two models in build and another, a Chris Olsen Uproar, in need of half a wing, but one of the two models on the stocks is a double sized Tomboy. Maybe that will take over the role of the primary trainer. If I do build another Junior 60 it will be covered in Solartex because I have considerable stocks of this material. To me, vintage models covered in film, even transparent film which shows off the structure, do not look right though I realise that this is a popular way of covering vintage models in the USA.

Each to his own.

Edited By David Davis on 19/07/2020 07:14:57

[Richard Clark 2]

Posted by David Davis on 19/07/2020 07:14:15:

I'd just like to endorse Broken English's remarks about building light.

A couple of months ago I lost my thirty-two year old Junior 60 built fom a Flair kit. It was my first successful radio controlled model aeroplane. We appeared to have no control when it glided into a wheat field behind two hedges on the other side of a road, and though it was finished over all in orange, we could not find it. I say that it was thirty-two years old but it was like Trigger's broom, it was on its second fuselage and third tailplane!

In its first manifestation the fuselage was covered in Olive Drab parachute nylon and the wings and tail surfaces in Natural Solartex. It was powered by a converted Irvine 20 car racing engine. By mistake I had used the hardest wood in the kit for the tailplane and it required one and a half pounds of lead in the nose to balance correctly. It still flew.

I built a new tailplane for it and was able to remove all of the lead from the nose. This proved to be too weak so I built a third. Over the years I fitted a number of engines including a PAW 19, an HPVT 20 which usually required a hand launch and an HPVT25 which didn't. I like the sound of four strokes even if they're not period but when the model was lost it was fitted with an electric motor.

I feel the need to build another Junior 60 because there are a lot of retired beginners in my club and the Junior 60 was ideal for giving them their first experience of radio controlled flight. Unfortunately I already have two models in build and another, a Chris Olsen Uproar, in need of half a wing, but one of the two models on the stocks is a double sized Tomboy. Maybe that will take over the role of the primary trainer. If I do build another Junior 60 it will be covered in Solartex because I have considerable stocks of this material. To me, vintage models covered in film, even transparent film which shows off the structure, do not look right though I realise that this is a popular way of covering vintage models in the USA.

Each to his own.

Edited By David Davis on 19/07/2020 07:14:57

I think we would all agree about building light.

But getting the C of G in the right place is not the same thing.

Sure, building light in the tail area will help to do both. But replacing any of the wood in a kit and/or altering the design partially negates the purpose in buying a kit at all.

Also covering in doped nylon or Solartex is NOT building light.

Two opposing examples of my building:

TopFlitw kit 63 inch Spitfire OS 81 - ten pounds. (TopFlite's own model was slightly heavier.)

Similar size/engine Prettner Curare from RCM&E plan but structure somewhat altered by me - five and a half pounds.

[David Davis]

"... Also covering in doped nylon or Solartex is NOT building light. ..."

Agreed, but they are both very tough coverings and and ideal for the treatment which I meeted out to it when I was a novice or indeed the treatment it received at the hands of my current crop of trainees. They were all amazed at how slowly it flew and how easy it was to fly once they'd stopped putting in inputs which were too coarse.

I will have the opportunity to report on a Ben Buckle kit in September. My partner is coming over and she is keen to be involved in the building of a Super 60. I expect that we'll cover it in Solartex. She's learning to fly too. She's already a whizz on the simulator!

[Richard Clark 2]

II'vePosted by David Davis on 19/07/2020 12:21:33:

"... Also covering in doped nylon or Solartex is NOT building light. ..."

 

Agreed, but they are both very tough coverings and and ideal for the treatment which I meeted out to it when I was a novice or indeed the treatment it received at the hands of my current crop of trainees. They were all amazed at how slowly it flew and how easy it was to fly once they'd stopped putting in inputs which were too coarse.

I will have the opportunity to report on a Ben Buckle kit in September. My partner is coming over and she is keen to be involved in the building of a Super 60. I expect that we'll cover it in Solartex. She's learning to fly too. She's already a whizz on the simulator!

I've got some of the similar Oratex but have not yet used it. I think both it and Solartex are a bit heavy for such sized planes. Bur then I don't use them as trainers as though an experienced and 'adequate' flyer I do not feel confident to train people.

And unlike you I very much like the coloured transparent film on vintage models as though it is not authentic I think they look 'pretty'. So much so that I almost covered my recently built Mercury Aeronca Sedan with it. But then I came to my senses and used Oracover solid colours

As for my Curare I was on a particularly 'low weight' kick when I built it. But it can get complicated, with tapered wing spars, 'girder' type built up ribs, and so on and I'm not sure it's worth the effort.

PS: Your Junior 60 looks lovely. You have captured the 'atmosphere' of the original. Many people don't achieve that.

Edited By Richard Clark 2 on 19/07/2020 13:04:29

[bees]

Finally maidened the Playboy Senior this afternoon. Did not have high expectations because i must have had half a church roof to get the reccomened CG.How ever to my amazement it took of rather sluggish but gained height then i cut the motor to see how it was at gliding.It would glide but would lose height very quickly and seeing how people have said that it would stay up forever i was rather disappointed to say the least.Anyway i landed and took some lead off and tried again and although it was better it was not brilliant so landed again. This time i took all the lead off that was left and thought bugger it and went for it with out checking the CG. This time with less weight take off was a lot faster and after gaining some height cut the motor and low and behold she flew great with hardly any drop in height Yahoo this is what i was hoping for. Did not have time for another flight so came home a happy chap.

[Andy J]

Well had a Playboy Senior on order from BB but just had the money refunded as the site owner has health problems at the moment.

Looking on other kit sites the KK Southerner looks very nice and I assume it would accommodate the SC 30FS I had purchased for the Playboy.

Would welcome any other suggestions for a vintage design around a wing span of 70 inches and upward.