mikekosatka

My Feedback: (7)

Jerry Smith's ( yes, That Jerry Smith!) Big Boy and his Spoiler are the highest evolution of the stick-type aiplane, both what you would call a 120 size. I have also had a custom built Ultra-Stik 120 that was lighter than the GP Ultra-stik Lite 120. I've mainly flown them with Saito 180s or a 26 cc gasser on them. What a hoot to fly7. I also enjoyed the GP Ultra-stik 40.

krashkart

My Feedback: (5)

I just got back into RC and i went with a Stick too after talking to many.
It seems to me, the more I look at it that I had something very similar in the 50-60s era when I fly U Control.
I don't know if they have been around that long or not but it sure looks familiar.

MrMulligan

My Feedback: (314)

A lot of the guys in my club like the World Models Super Stunts. There is one that a member electrified with a Scorpion Motor and A123 cells. What a beauty! He can bring that over the fence for landing at a walking pace. I recently started flying an Electrifly Electrostik. It's a nice .40 sized Stik and flies, well, like a Stik.

ameyam

If you look at the trailing edge outer corner of the wing, you will notice a flattened corner. I observed a similar design on many 3D planes including my Phoenix Topstar, the Phoenix Funstar, GP UCD, H9 Twist / Flip etc. Though I am no aerodynamics expert, I believe these are called Vortex generators i.e. they induce a tip vortex that increases lift just prior to the stall. This may be the secret of the very low stall speed in addition to the very clean design and moderate camber.

Ameyam

Hewey19

I think their relative light weight also has alot to do with why they fly so great. 

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

Yes, I think if you can detect a performance difference between 2 similar models, the lighter model will most likely be the winner. The differences really start to stack up when you get involved in any sort of competition.

SushiSeeker

Midwest made a twin version of this plane called the Twin Stick.


I bought one at an auction. Definitely *not* my favorite plane...
It had a high wing loading and flew like a brick with two engines.

MrMulligan

My Feedback: (314)

I have a Twin Stik. It's in the cellar, very lonely. I built it when they first came out over 25 years ago. I flew it with regular OS .25's and switched to OS .25FSR's. It was much nicer with those. It did have a problem getting airborne and I usuall used a bump at the end of the field to help out. Never could get the engines in sync very well. When I would go to idle to land, one would die. I soon learned to regulate the throttle to prevent that. I blew a throttle servo once, it was an early mini from Ace, and both engines shut down on final approach. No problem on the landing. Replaced it with a Kraft KPS-15 and never had another problem. That was a great servo. I stopped flying it as I had trouble keeping the covering on. It was Fabricote from the Monocote people. Terrible stuff, didn't last long on the market. Maybe one day I'll recover it and electrify it as I don't do glow anymore.

Charlie P.

They did . . . kind of.

Remember the Marshall White designed kit-built Der Jager D-IX of the 1970's? It even had a dummy bomb.








Back to the Ugly Stik: Rugged, simple, adequate control surfaces without being extreme, exposed engine for maintenance and cooling, simple enough to build (or buy & assemble) that pilots FEEL comfortable when flying it.

I lost mine to my only mid-air. She is mourned.

PipeMajor

My Feedback: (1)

My UltraStick 40 was my 2nd RC plane after my LT-40 trainer. While I flew my LT-40 for four seasons (and zero crashes), my flying greatly improved with the US40. Powered by a Saito .62, it's not overpowered but more lively than my Thunder Tiger .46 Pro LT-40 and certainly a lot more maneuverable.

I have taken the US40 out on 20-25mph winds and flown with confidence. My son flies a Mini UltraStick and I just bought the UltraStick 25e for no slime flying. Got a set of floats for the 25e as well. Gonna be a great summer!

TimBle

The "stik" range of aircraft flies well because of the wing.

Most aircraft are scale therefore the wing is shaped inplan form, chord depth and thickness to look scale. The problem is reynold numbers don't scale with the looks.
the Stik range is designed as a model and therefore the fluid mechanics have been devised for the best performance of the model, not the fullscale.
Model designers made a few trade off with scale planes in order to scale the full size wing down to a model but in that compromise comes the performance trade off.

A Stik would probably fly well at full size as well because there is no scale look that needs to be transfered.

Its for this reason that scale warbirds are evil beasts in the hands of inexpereinced pilots. Tip stalling from full size is often exaggerated in the scale model (for example).

Hence 3D aircraft also fly well, they have no limitations imposed that requires them to look scale.

LArge scale aerobatics aircraft have  wings that are often highly adapted from the full size in order to retain the performance.

Scale sport and warbirds are far more compromised here.