Jump to content

New Vintage design project?


Recommended Posts

I thought I’d take a break from designing and build a classic along the lines of the Junior 60. I wanted something light and slow but 4-channel rather than 3.

I found a plan for the 4 channel Super 60 but it’s boxy fuselage shape and angular fin just didn’t ‘do it’ for me. Then I found the 4 channel PD Parasol and got quite excited about it! But, although it’s tail looked beautiful, its fuselage shape (convex top and bottom) was not my (pre-conceived) idea of a vintage classic. Then I found the lovely curvy fuselage outlines of the Deacon and the Viking and the lovely wing shapes of the Dot I, and Black Magic.

I found quite a few 3 channel designs that I really liked the look of but I had my heart set on having aileron control for some slow, low-energy, aerobatics with half-decent rolls. An aerobatic vintage design called the Over & Under caught my attention but I couldn’t see any way that its fully symmetrical section would give a low sink rate when compared to the flat bottomed Super 60 or the semi-symmetrical PD Parasol. I almost decided to just build a PD Parasol exactly as per plan but I definitely didn’t want a one-piece model and I couldn’t visualise an attractive and lightweight way of adapting the parasol and struts to a banded-on wing. I also want something slightly bigger than 60”.

So, it looks like I’m about to embark on a new vintage-hybrid design project along these lines:
Semi-symmetrical wing section of the PD Parasol with strip ailerons as per the Super 60
Curvey fuselage of the Deacon/Cardinal but a little extra nose length and diagonal bracing
Tail feathers copied directly from the PD Parasol which to me look perfect
Wing shape similar to Black Magic
Approx. 10” chord, 70” wingspan, 40” fuselage.
Electric power (I found the 4-max website. What a great resource!)

You’ll have realised by now that I’m a bit of a fussy bugger with quite fixed ideas about what, to me, looks ‘right’.

So before I get my pencil out, if anyone on the forum would like to suggest an existing design that fits the bill I’d be most interested!

Thanks for reading,

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would this low-wing design 'Dragon Fly' by C K Williams from 1938 'Flying Aces' fit the bill?

(I recall an Aeromodeller plan design not dissimilar which was enlarged by the late great modeller Arthur Fox to 84" span for R/C called 'Something??' Müeller'(?) it was published in 'RCME' and featured on the cover if distant memory serves correct.

dragon fly.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks John, KC, & Capt Kremen.
Black Magic is smaller than the approx 70" span I want and I don't like the fuse straight line from the wing to tail.
Barnstormer has the same parasol issue as the PD and is not the sort of classic I'm after.
Dragon Fly looks lovely but is low wing and too big.

Nice tries. Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can thoroughly recommend the Frog "Jackdaw"! Often seen as a rival to the Super 60, it was actually designed as a contest single-channel model, rather than a free-flight design. It was also designed to take "full house" controls from the outset, if desired, and the plans show elevators and ailerons as optional extras.

Mine flies nicely on an ASP30 4-stroke, and is quite spritely with a 25 2-stroke! It is capable of loops and rolls, though it needs a bit of a dive with the 4-stroke to build speed! It suffers slightly from adverse yaw on the ailerons, even with differential, but is very relaxing to fly!

Lots of fun! laugh
--
Pete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're absolutely right Pete. that does look like loads of fun. Although it's not quite the shape I'm looking for. I want more curves! In fact, the only straight lines I want are the TE and LE and even then I want well rounded tips - that's just me being fussy. Each to his own! Thanks though. And I love the video. We are even in the same area (Devon).
Keep flying!
David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted by David Ramsden on 01/02/2021 18:57:36:

I thought I’d take a break from designing and build a classic along the lines of the Junior 60. I wanted something light and slow but 4-channel rather than 3.

I found a plan for the 4 channel Super 60 but it’s boxy fuselage shape and angular fin just didn’t ‘do it’ for me. Then I found the 4 channel PD Parasol and got quite excited about it! But, although it’s tail looked beautiful, its fuselage shape (convex top and bottom) was not my (pre-conceived) idea of a vintage classic. Then I found the lovely curvy fuselage outlines of the Deacon and the Viking and the lovely wing shapes of the Dot I, and Black Magic.

I found quite a few 3 channel designs that I really liked the look of but I had my heart set on having aileron control for some slow, low-energy, aerobatics with half-decent rolls. An aerobatic vintage design called the Over & Under caught my attention but I couldn’t see any way that its fully symmetrical section would give a low sink rate when compared to the flat bottomed Super 60 or the semi-symmetrical PD Parasol. I almost decided to just build a PD Parasol exactly as per plan but I definitely didn’t want a one-piece model and I couldn’t visualise an attractive and lightweight way of adapting the parasol and struts to a banded-on wing. I also want something slightly bigger than 60”.

So, it looks like I’m about to embark on a new vintage-hybrid design project along these lines:
Semi-symmetrical wing section of the PD Parasol with strip ailerons as per the Super 60
Curvey fuselage of the Deacon/Cardinal but a little extra nose length and diagonal bracing
Tail feathers copied directly from the PD Parasol which to me look perfect
Wing shape similar to Black Magic
Approx. 10” chord, 70” wingspan, 40” fuselage.
Electric power (I found the 4-max website. What a great resource!)

You’ll have realised by now that I’m a bit of a fussy bugger with quite fixed ideas about what, to me, looks ‘right’.

So before I get my pencil out, if anyone on the forum would like to suggest an existing design that fits the bill I’d be most interested!

Thanks for reading,

David

The Junior 60 is fine on 4/5 channels even with the large 'standard dihedral'.

I put top hinged inset (not strip) ailerons on mine and left the steep dihedral as it was for 'atmosphere'. With about 50% differential, (which is the only amount of differential I've tried) it works so well that I hardly ever use the rudder except for keeping straight on takeoff.

So "Ailerons don't work with steep dihedral" is a complete myth. One bloke who has never tried it  writes this sort of guff in a magazine and other blokes  who haven't tried it either repeat it until it becomes 'fact'.

Edited By Roger Jones 3 on 02/02/2021 07:33:14

Edited By Roger Jones 3 on 02/02/2021 07:38:02

Edited By Roger Jones 3 on 02/02/2021 07:43:28

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Roger Ron and John,

Thanks for your posts chaps.
The Junior 60 is a bit smaller than I want and has too many straight lines for my liking,
The Sig Rascal has a lovely the wing shape! But it's massive.
The Astro Hog is just the right size (72" but I'm looking for a high wing.

I started sketching a hybrid fuselage last night: Curvy like the Deacon, but with a slightly longer nose and with the tail and wing section of a PD Parasol. I will look into the Sig Rascal wing plan. Scaled down to 70" span that could really suit my curvy fuselage idea.

Thanks everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want a sleek high wing 70 inch model then the Laddie Mikulasko ' Easy 100 ' might be suitable. Plan is on Outerzone and can be with wheels or floats.

You might consider the 71 inch Cloud Niner by Bill Winters and maybe look at Vagabond Revisited or Tern from the same designer - a high wing specialist.  All on Outerzone.

Snowy Owl or Gull Sport by A. G  Lennon might also be worth looking at for inspiration and design features.

Edited By kc on 02/02/2021 11:25:35

Edited By kc on 02/02/2021 11:33:50

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted by David Ramsden on 02/02/2021 11:00:35:

Hi Roger Ron and John,

Thanks for your posts chaps.
The Junior 60 is a bit smaller than I want and has too many straight lines for my liking,
The Sig Rascal has a lovely the wing shape! But it's massive.
The Astro Hog is just the right size (72" but I'm looking for a high wing.

I started sketching a hybrid fuselage last night: Curvy like the Deacon, but with a slightly longer nose and with the tail and wing section of a PD Parasol. I will look into the Sig Rascal wing plan. Scaled down to 70" span that could really suit my curvy fuselage idea.

Thanks everyone.

Happy to assist.

But my point was not really meant as just a Junior 60 recommendation, that was just an example showing that you need not worry about fitting ailerons to what were originally free flight models models with very steep dihedral. Many were like that and the steep dihedral of them looks very 'vintage' in the air.

Whereas, with respect to Peter, the Jackdaw looks near identical to any modern balsa/ply trainer so I personally don't see the point in it. Each to their own of course.

As for the Rascal It's just a caricature and looks nothing like the model it is supposedly based on. It's nice but it's too 'prettied up' so in the air it looks very much like a real Cessna 177 Cardinal (from the 1970's)  fitted with an an eliptical wing. And for size, if you are building it yourself you can make it any size you want. I built mine from the kit, which is 50 inch span,  too small for me really but I couldn't resist. In the air it's nowhere near as cute as the equally pretty 1950's  Vic Smeed 'Debutante' - another suggestion.

You might try the Southerner, originally a 60 inch KK kit. I've built the 84 inch one for which a plan is available. It's very curvaceous and instantly recognisable and delightfully 'vintage'. A small point - the top of the fuselage near the wing could do with a little improvement, a couple of short extra stringers to improve the 'flow' between wing seat and curved top. (Though such 'disjoints' were common on vintage models so you might want to leave it.)

And personally I think designing your own 'vintage' model is a bit phoney smiley

Edited By Roger Jones 3 on 02/02/2021 14:21:16

Edited By Roger Jones 3 on 02/02/2021 14:24:34

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted by Peter Miller on 02/02/2021 11:06:04:

Why not just get a nice big sheet of paper and start from scratch. That way you get exactly the shape that you want.

Hi Peter,
Because designing is 'my thing' that's almost certainly what I'll do. But beforehand I thought it was worth trying to find out if what I want already exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted by kc on 02/02/2021 11:15:08:

If you want a sleek high wing 70 inch model then the Laddie Mikulasko ' Easy 100 ' might be suitable. Plan is on Outerzone and can be with wheels or floats.

You might consider the 71 inch Cloud Niner by Bill Winters and maybe look at Vagabond Revisited or Tern from the same designer - a high wing specialist. All on Outerzone.

Snowy Owl or Gull Sport by A. G Lennon might also be worth looking at for inspiration and design features.

Edited By kc on 02/02/2021 11:25:35

Edited By kc on 02/02/2021 11:33:50

As for your 4 suggestions, thanks KC but far too modern-looking and too many straight lines for my liking.
Sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

personally I think designing your own 'vintage' model is a bit phoney smiley

Thanks for the great tips Roger. It's great to know that ailerons are effective without reducing the dihedral that helps give vintage models such character. I read differing opinions about strip ailerons and barn doors. There are plenty of examples of both so I guess there's not much to choose between them in some respects.

The Debutante has a lot of straight lines and I think it's trike u/c makes it look quite modern. The Southerner has a lovely fuselage but I've never liked polyhedral wings. Sorry.

I agree that designing a model in 2021 and calling it "vintage" would be phoney. Maybe calling it vintage-style or classic-inspired would be more acceptable. If I design my own maybe I'll call it 'The Phoney'.

As I said at the outset, I have a pretty fixed idea of what I want.
I just thought it was worth putting up a forum post just encase it already exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are all kinds of candidates, such as Stentorian by Phil Smith or Thermal Magnet by Ray Heit.

A more modern vintage style creation is the Centaur by Peter Allanson

Or you could browse through the Bel Air Vintage selection

It also depends what flying characteristics you want. Do you want it to fly like a genuine vintage model, essentially free flight with radio assist, or look vintage but fly like a modern sport model? If the latter, then the Centaur will fly as you wish. If you want vintage flying behaviour, remember that this has great charm but you do get all the handling precision of a bus with flat tyres and worn knuckle joints!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted by David Ramsden on 02/02/2021 15:43:58:
personally I think designing your own 'vintage' model is a bit phoney smiley

 

Thanks for the great tips Roger. It's great to know that ailerons are effective without reducing the dihedral that helps give vintage models such character. I read differing opinions about strip ailerons and barn doors. There are plenty of examples of both so I guess there's not much to choose between them in some respects.

The Debutante has a lot of straight lines and I think it's trike u/c makes it look quite modern. The Southerner has a lovely fuselage but I've never liked polyhedral wings. Sorry.

I agree that designing a model in 2021 and calling it "vintage" would be phoney. Maybe calling it vintage-style or classic-inspired would be more acceptable. If I design my own maybe I'll call it 'The Phoney'.

As I said at the outset, I have a pretty fixed idea of what I want.
I just thought it was worth putting up a forum post just encase it already exists.

The Southerner original kit and later plans are arranged to build either poiyhedral or straight wings. I'm NOT going to try ailerons should I ever build a polyhedral one but they do look more 'vintage'.

The Debutante's very short coupled trike undercarriage means it almost always tips over onto a wing tip when taxying. I made a new (unenlarged) rc one simply because it was the first free flight power model I ever built. Way back in the early 60's.

My latest effort is an Aeronca Sedan from the 1950's Mercury kit plan. (I always liked it but could not then afford the sixty-three shillings the kit cost back in the day) I flies fine but is a bit of a disappointment in the 'vintage' area. It merely shows that balsa/ply construction techniques have not really changed at all. I have made the wing one piece, unlike the original.

Other recent efforts have been enlarged 'classic' control line stunt models converted to rc. They were all originally designed to look especially attractive to the stunt judges and though I don't compete in anything I have been careful to keep that important point with the original colour schemes, etc. . They make great 3D planes and are also fine on low rates for regular aerobatics. So far I've done the KK (Dave Platt) Spectre, the Bill Werwage Ares, and the Juri Sirotkin Spacehound, the latter with fully enclosed exhaust and retracts rather than the original spats. At least they are something different from the usual run of the mill stuff,

Cheers.

 

Edited By Roger Jones 3 on 02/02/2021 16:51:35

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Jonathan,
Great recommendations! Thank you. Not so keen on the Centaur but the Stentorian and Thermal Magnet look almost perfect. Lovely wing and tail feather shapes.

I'm not sure about adding ailerons to an under-cambered wing section but there's probably plenty of members who will jump in and say they've done it with success.

In terms of handling I'd like SOME of the manouverability of the PD Parasol **LINK** and the slow gentle flight of a Junior 60 **LINK**

Thanks again.
David

Edited By David Ramsden on 02/02/2021 16:55:15

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Other recent efforts have been enlarged 'classic' control line stunt models converted to rc.

Hi Roger. Converting CL aerobatic models to RC 3D sounds interesting. If you ever do an enlarged RC version of the full-fuse version of the Peacemaker please DO tell me. I'd love that (and probably build one). My last design was a slope soarer inspired by the Peacemaker. I called it the Mediator. I didn't 'stay true' to the original but I respect you for doing so.

Coming back to the 'vintage-inspired', I don't know if you are familiar with the Stentorian that Jonathan recommended (above) but that's very very close to the 'look' I want but probably not the right wing section to give me the handling I want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted by Roger Jones 3 on 02/02/2021 14:08:17:

As for the Rascal It's just a caricature and looks nothing like the model it is supposedly based on. It's nice but it's too 'prettied up' so in the air it looks very much like a real Cessna 177 Cardinal (from the 1970's)

So what? It looks great and is an excellent flier, including aerobatics.

@David - as for size, it’s actually made in 4 different versions, 49”, 80”, 110” and a real monster at 168”! As I said above, I haven’t been able to find a plan to build one from but the 49” instructions have a full set of details of all of the laser cut parts so that could be scaled up to suit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a Mick Smith Mercury which is a very rounded shape and about 78 inch span. A famously good looking design

That PD Parasol looks very much like the Barnstormer! It seems they both were published 1969. I have just found there is a Barnstormer 72, as awell as 52, 63, and 90.

RCME did an RC Peacemaker in Dec1980 and Jan 1981.   

Edited By kc on 02/02/2021 18:34:32

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...