buzzard bait

The Pixie, Chickenhawk and Ecktronics Bi-hawk were for .049.

Tried to post, got "Missing Required Field". RCU makes me crazy sometimes.

buzzard bait

Then there's "Wonder Wings". But I got the evil message again. What did I start doing wrong that I didn't do wrong before?

buzzard bait

Also the Sig Aerobipe, 34 inch span for .09, and the earlier version called the "Baron's Buggy" which was exactly the same except for some hokey WWI insignia and the shape of the tail feathers. Do a search and someone's got a build thread on the Aerobipe. Designed for 3 channels but it would be great with ailerons.

Were RC bipes more popular in the 1960s than they are now? There were tons of designs.

Jim

Jaspur_x

My Feedback: (1)

How about a fokker triplane scaled down to about COX 020 size, that would make it about 14-16" span would`nt it ?

MJD

My Feedback: (1)

Hah - tundra tires! But lots of shock absorption I guess.

buzzard bait

RED tundra tires! Where do we get them?

joebahl

My Feedback: (2)

The Q-tee plan is free all over but i found a tiled one also for those of us who dont want to leave home. joe

50+AirYears

Gotta like Bipes. Currently only have 3 in the stable in the posted size limit, a Flyzone Albatross, good flyer in winds under about 6 mph, an old Jetco Yellowjacket FF overpowered with a Cox .010, even though the plans show an infant .020, and a Revell Piloto, which while an indoor single control ERC, is flyable outside in light winds. In the past I've also had a Schoolgirl with a Cox Dragonfly .049 throttled engine, and really ahad fun with an old Ace All Star nicely powered with an HB .15. I had originally set it up to be able to swap between the HB and a Fox Schnuerly .15, but after finding out how well it flew, and talking with several locals who tried to power them with ST .21s, I decided the Fox might be too much power for taking off from grass.
With a little luck, the photo of the Yellowjacket along side a micro RC P-51 for size comparison should come out. Interesting that the little Cox .010 turns the plane into a power drill bit.

Jaspur_x

My Feedback: (1)

I have an old ace all star bipe that a friend of mine built and flew for years,I have never flown it yet,too big for my taste;maybe when I`m old and can`t see well enough to fly the planes anymore I will dust it off and try it.
I wish I had the plans for the all star so I couldscale it down to020 size, or a christen eagle for that matter.

for somereason I have always liked the fokker dr-1 I can`t really explain why , but Iwant one of them scaled down to 020 size too

GallopingGhostler

Here are the plans for the Ace Allstar Bipe. Enjoy!

[link]http://www.outerzone.co.uk/plan_details.asp?ID=1355[/link]



Here's an 8" span micro RC Fokker Dr1, you can scale it up to .020 size.

[link]http://www.outerzone.co.uk/plan_details.asp?ID=3133[/link]



This is a 24" Sterling Dr1 for rubber, glow, etc.

[link]http://www.outerzone.co.uk/plan_details.asp?ID=3234[/link]

GallopingGhostler

Love the photo of the Yellowjacket, thanks for posting it 50+AirYears, it is a classic. Jetco also had a profile CL bipe for half-A power, but I can't remember the name.

MJD

My Feedback: (1)

I looked at that bipe and thought it was a Jetco Dragonfly. I have a kit at home, I'll take a look to see the difference.

aspeed

I made this Guillows kit when I was about 14, 40 years ago. Control line with a Babe Bee. My flying buddy was keeping up to it with his 10 speed bike. Then I put a TD on it and it was a whole different animal. It tipped over at one point and broke the rudder, which I still haven't fixed. Paint matching etc. The wing got loose easily etc.

Jaspur_x

My Feedback: (1)

Thank you very much GallopingGhoster, thats exactly what I was looking for, that *" version will be awesome for a throttled COX peewee 020

joebahl

My Feedback: (2)

Hey jaspur-x here is the all star bibe tiled plan so you can print it out at home.

GallopingGhostler

You are very welcome, Jaspur_x.

GallopingGhostler

aspeed, I bet if you cloned a rudder from 1/16" thick balsa, clear doped it and mounted another Cox .049 to it, you could bring it to life once again. [8D]

aspeed

It wouldn't take much.  I still have the plan.  There was a nice decal on the rudder and stuff that wouldn't be worth the time.  It would be a good candidate for a Norvel  .049 RC.  or even a, ahem, leckie.  I have a Norvel .049 with a mount that will bolt right on to the B Bee pattern, don't need no stinkin rudder anyway;-) We can't run without a muffler, and the grass would wreck it.  (I have all the excuses)  I have been thinking of making one from blue fanfold or depron for RC just because it looks so kool.

GallopingGhostler

That'd be neat to do, aspeed, a foam constructed Spad, it would look kule. I believe Hip Pocket Aeronautics has the Sig 33" CL Spad profile stunter. I imagine a muffled .15 Schneurle would be sufficient power for it, but that would take it out of the 1/2-A league.

MJD

My Feedback: (1)

Is there a Yellowjacket and a Dragonfly? These look alike. I have this little gem tucked away downstairs. The kit is complete, with the decals, and the wing stock is clever - one lower and one upper wing per sheet so the two are the same length and the kit is as short as possible. The trailing edge taper is precut into the wing blanks too. I cut a couple of copies by hand, but I don't like the wood so I should make a couple more out of better stock. It would be great fun to slap one together with a Pee Wee for spring. Or maybe an .010 with a 20 second tank. Hmm.

50+AirYears

I thought I posted a reply about the bipe picture, but I don't see it, so here goes again.
I looked the plane up in my inventory list, and it is the Dragonfly, not the Yellow Jacket. Guess I get mixed up by a decal that looks more like a Yellow Jacket than a Dragonfly. I remember the plans showing an Infant .020 on it, and a suggestion that up to a Spitzy .045 can be used for FF, and I think there were suggestions for converting it to CL. I'm thinking that .020 and .045 must not have much power, because everytime I tried to fly it with the Tee Dee .010, even with backwards prop and super rich, the plane flies with a mean torque roll like a bullet our of a rifled barrel.
I also have a few other small bipes in CL, a Sterling Profile Fokker D-VII and a Goldberg Lil Toots with Black Widows, and a scratch built Nieuport 17 from a full size plan in the August 1959 Flying Models with a very smart Pee Wee .020. Engine runs great, except when I have lines and handle hooked up. I don't think it trusts my flying.
Someday I'm going to have to use the struts somebody sent me and make up a Firebaby Bipe to go with my Firebaby.
Lety's see if this posts.

Jaspur_x

My Feedback: (1)

I did a little loking into building bi and tri planes and a new Q popped into my head.
Would someong help me understand why and is it necessary to have different wing incidence`s in mulit winged planes? Why not have the wing on a true flat parallel with the fuse,tail,etc? 

skaliwag

My Feedback: (1)

It is so one wing stalls before the other.

buzzard bait

Gordon Whitehead, who designed lots of scale bipe models published in RCM and British mags, always sets both wings at the same incidence. He notes that there are two conflicting theories about biplane incidence, and so he splits the difference and makes them the same.

One theory is that with positive stagger you can make the plane more stable by using LESS incidence in the lower wing (reverse for negative stagger). That way as you approach a stall the top wing will stall first and the bottom wing will still be lifting, but the center of lift is further back, so the nose goes down and the bottom wing keeps flying. You can put ailerons on the bottom wing and they won't stall. Of course the counter argument is that this also means in normal flight the bottom wing is just going along for the ride. Do you really need a stab the size of a whole wing? Because that's what it amounts to. If you like the stability, just make a bigger stab and put it in the back where it has more leverage. I assume this is what Scaliwag was referring to.

The other theory for positive stagger is that the bottom wing is flying in the downwash from the top wing, which reduces the effective incidence of the bottom wing. Therefore you should use MORE incidence on the lower wing to make up for it and make the lower wing do its job. Several people have posted regarding sport bipes like the Aeromaster that they get much better results this way. Usually they decrease the incidence of the top wing. At least one guy said he experimented with this very systematically and came away convinced it is the way to go. I'm not sure there is a good counter argument to this.

For scale bipes I think it's best to use the incidence of the full scale machine. Wing incidence is very noticeable, so if you want a scale effect, that's part of it. For sport models I'm inclined to go with the second theory, but I haven't tested it myself.

Jim

50+AirYears

I think in my files I have a clipping from an old American Modeler discussing the old Sterling Wizard bipe. Apparently a lot of people had stability problems with it because of an essentially flat bottom airfoil. The article's reccomended cure was to make sure the lower wing had about a negative 1 1/2 degree incidence, and 0 degrees on the upper.