By continuing to use this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more
Forum sponsored by:
Forum sponsored by CML

Stol MkII and a bit

Traditional build redrawn larger for a magneto Laser 75

All Topics | Latest Posts

Search for:  in Thread Title in  
reg shaw28/11/2014 17:12:34
avatar
637 forum posts
562 photos

Ordered the plan on Wednesday, received the plan on Friday, now that's good service!! First thoughts are the plan is not the greatest print quality, faded in places but you can get enough info off it.

My plan all along was to redraw the plan to suit my Laser 75 petrol, going from 55" span (that's what the plan says but for some reason I always thought it was less) to probably about 75" or so, but time will tell when I get to the redrawing bit. I'm hoping to stick to the standard design but don't fancy the banded on wings so will do a neater bolt on affair.

It should be a fun model to operate with its slats and flaps, the idea is to make it light and floaty and capable of going very slowly. The plan also shows single servo's for the ailerons and flaps but I'm using 4 to give the option of drooping ailerons and or flapperons or any combination in between!

Let the redraw begin.......

Ian.

Glenn Stratton28/11/2014 17:22:42
avatar
284 forum posts
15 photos

Hi Ian, will be following your endeavours cos I think this will be something interesting! I think I read somewhere that its original wingspan was 48".

John Privett28/11/2014 17:34:56
avatar
5873 forum posts
228 photos

Now that's a "blast from the past" Ian!

Peter Russell's column in which he often talked about his STOL designs (and evolution of, through the various marks) are probably the first thing I recall when I think back to the mags of the early-70s (RCM&E I think, though it might have been Radio Modeller?)

I'll watch this thread with interest.

kc28/11/2014 17:37:54
5820 forum posts
167 photos

The STOL has a very chubby fuselage, have you ever considered slimming it down a little by raising the lower edge to a straight line to tail?

reg shaw28/11/2014 17:43:24
avatar
637 forum posts
562 photos

KC, that's part of Stol's charm, its odd looks! I love how the cowl doesn't 'flow' in plan view, and also what appears to be a very short nose. I've wanted one of these machines since I was a lad and have never got round to it as there is always a reason to do something else. Now there is a reason to do the Stol and for that I thank ye!!

Ian.

Martian30/11/2014 10:48:46
2102 forum posts
1023 photos

I shall be following with great interest Ian. I'm keen to build a STOL myself but more on the lines of a Zenith 750 but not to exact scale

Percy Verance30/11/2014 10:59:53
avatar
7568 forum posts
145 photos

The STOL is a good 'un Ian, you'll enjoy it!

Not built one myself (yet) but did buy the plan many moons ago. A flying buddy built his about 20 years back and had endless fun with it. Still has it tucked away I think.......

Levanter30/11/2014 11:29:52
avatar
826 forum posts
429 photos

Stol is on my list too and I would like to go a bit larger. Very cheeky question Ian but would you sell me a copy of your re-drawn plan. I don't mean just for the copy but a price to reflect your time (which I don't have) and your effort (which I could not hope to match)

Percy Verance30/11/2014 13:03:56
avatar
7568 forum posts
145 photos

Now there's a thought Levanter.......

I think I'd be interested as well, should Ian like to make himself a bob or two. The Stol sounds very appealing at 6 foot plus.........

Pete B - Moderator30/11/2014 13:47:39
avatar
Moderator
7522 forum posts
722 photos

Don't want to be a party-pooper, folks - I like the idea of an enlarged STOL, too - but you you might want to consider if there are any copyright issues, if any, with that proposal, the plans being for sale with MHS and all that... wink 2

Pete

kc30/11/2014 14:40:10
5820 forum posts
167 photos

There is nothing wrong with enlarging the plan for your own non commercial use.

The Plans Handbook shows it as 48 inch span, so I wonder whether the plan as sold now is actually 48 or 55 inch span? It may not matter to Ian but it might affect others who are building it and expect it to fly on .19 engine etc.

Levanter30/11/2014 14:41:00
avatar
826 forum posts
429 photos

Pete. I don't want to breach any copyright but if Ian is redrawing, I had imagined there would be significant design changes (knowing him through this forum) that would probably avoid a problem. Nor would I want to put Ian in any kind of difficulty. It was based on a genuine desire to work from something that is currently not available but I would be more than happy to make a formal request to the copyright holders and it does appear that I have at least one supporter from the mass build and hopefully you too if everything is above board. Anyway Ian hasn't replied yet so it may all be academic.

I have seen evidence on this forum that if it is influenced by Ian, aerodynamically tested by BEB, covered by Danny and moderated by Pete B the model could have considerable value! wink

David Ashby - Moderator30/11/2014 15:25:47
avatar
Moderator
10830 forum posts
1620 photos
604 articles
Posted by Pete B - Moderator on 30/11/2014 13:47:39:

Don't want to be a party-pooper, folks - I like the idea of an enlarged STOL, too - but you you might want to consider if there are any copyright issues, if any, with that proposal, the plans being for sale with MHS and all that... wink 2

Pete

No issues at all, enlarge or shrink to your heart's content Ian thumbs up

Pete B - Moderator30/11/2014 15:27:56
avatar
Moderator
7522 forum posts
722 photos

No, I don't think any model designer would have any objection to one enlarging a plan for one's own use - it was more the mention of making a bob or two etc, rather than the complexities of copyright, which prompted my comment smile

The plan as sold by MHS describes it as 48" span, kc.

I have to say any involvement of mine is much more likely to be the kiss of death on a project, rather than any added value, I can assure you!.....teeth 2

Pete

kc30/11/2014 16:01:22
5820 forum posts
167 photos

Lets hope the enlarged 75 inch model is a success and that RCME may publish it as a plan.

Pete, I know the website and plans handbook say it's 48 inch span so that's why I think we should find out if the plan as sold now is printed to 48 inch. Is it just a caption on the plan that says 55 inch or has the plan been enlarged in error? This will be important to any beginners who may intend to build this as part of the Mass Build.

Pete B - Moderator30/11/2014 16:33:53
avatar
Moderator
7522 forum posts
722 photos

Perhaps Ian can enlighten us with the actual measurement on his plan?

Pete

jeff2wings30/11/2014 17:10:59
avatar
755 forum posts
1763 photos

old mag 3 001.jpg

reg shaw01/12/2014 09:40:05
avatar
637 forum posts
562 photos

Blimey, not looked in here for a couple of days, been away testing toy aeroplanes in the nice weather!! I haven't started redrawing the plan yet, but if anyone wants a copy then I'll have to draw it in a more organised way than what I had planned!! Obviously the copy could be freely available if thats OK with the plans folks. I haven't measured the span on the plan yet, but it definately says 55" in the title box on the plan. The text has clearly been altered though. I'll measure it and get back tonight. Regarding any modifications, I'm trying to stick faithfully to the original but the fuselage might be a bit flexible without any diagonals, but again that is part of the design and its charm. I built a similar designed fuselage a few years ago which was stiffened up by running another 4 longeron down the inside corners of the fuselage and that worked sufficiently without spoiling the look of the original structure. Another change I think will be to the mainspars. Keep the spar sizes in ratio but shear web front and back in balsa as opposed to the single spruce infill between top and bottom spars (to form an I beam) I'll get the plan out and lay the Laser on to work out the sizes.

Ian.

David Davis01/12/2014 16:12:15
avatar
3252 forum posts
547 photos
Posted by reg shaw on 01/12/2014 09:40:05:

I haven't measured the span on the plan yet, but it definately says 55" in the title box on the plan.

Ian.

 

I have just measured my plan and it's definitely 55 inches. The plans handbook and website have it wrong.

 

Edited By David Davis on 01/12/2014 16:13:15

kc01/12/2014 16:47:15
5820 forum posts
167 photos

As you will see on the plan shown by Jeff it is described in print as 48 inch and the old handbooks show 48 inch too. There were many, many items about the STOL in Peter Russel's column -Straight& Level- but I don't recall anything about the wing span being changed or being incorrect. I do recall there being an item about the error in the flap or aileron bellcrank 'handing' and several modified wings ( mark 2 etc) but nothing about span.

I wonder whether it has been redrawn and become larger in the process. Has the bellcrank 'handing' been corrected? So it's all down to owners of the original plan or models to tell us what the span really was. And confirm the width of formers etc. If it has now been reprinted at a 15 percent larger size it is unlikely to fly well with old engines of the original size (.19 to .25 I think) although modern engines might be more powerful now.

And if it's just the plan being enlarged without the material sizes being increased then a bigger risk of wing failure. As I recall the articles said the wing was built very lightly with minimal material, so there would now be little safety margin left if the plan has been enlarged by 15 percent!

All Topics | Latest Posts

Please login to post a reply.

Magazine Locator

Want the latest issue of RCM&E? Use our magazine locator link to find your nearest stockist!

Find RCM&E! 

Latest Forum Posts
Support Our Partners
Slec
CML
Pepe Aircraft
Gliders Distribution
Revoc
Motion RC
electricwingman 2017
Wings & Wheels 2018
Advertise With Us
Sarik
Latest "For Sale" Ads
Does your club have a safety officer?
Q: Does your club have a safety officer, or is the emphasis on individual members to each be their own safety officer?

 Yes we have a SO
 No, it's down to everyone

Latest Reviews
Digital Back Issues

RCM&E Digital Back Issues

Contact us

Contact us