oldtyme

Sorry to disagree with you.............my son and I have owned all of the Midwest Stik's and my son still has one of each kit. I have an original Sweet Stik............none of them had dihedral except the re-issue's. All of the original's had fully symetrical wings and they were flat.............no dihedral..........and they flew great. A flat wing means you have to "fly" the airplane, it does not correct itself. It was a good second airplane because it taught you how to fly........all the time. In my opinion, the original Stik series were the best all around planes at the time which is why I still have mine. Any Stik that I have built since that had dihedral.........I took it out and made the wing flat..........it makes for a better aerobatic performer.

Andy

HighPlains

My Feedback: (1)

Dihedral is usually the "Sticky" point on any design. Unfortunately, it is one of those aerodynamic fine points that most modelers fail to understand.

A Stik design with the wing on top doesn't need any dihedral, since the wing location provides a dihedral effect. With the wing on top, right rudder will cause a slight pro-verse roll (rolls to the right). Adding dihedral to the design just increases the effect, but is not necessary for a good flying model.

However, when you put the wing on the bottom with no dihedral, rudder input will give you adverse roll. In other words, right rudder will make the airplane roll to the left. Flyable, but not good control harmony. So as you start to add dihedral, this negative effect starts to go away. If you get the exactly right amount, you end up with a neutral design, where rudder does not roll the airplane either direction.

How much dihedral to put in on a low wing stik? If I were building a low wing version (60 sized), I go with at least an inch under both panels.

Oh BTW, I did build a flat low winged stik about 30 years ago. Right rudder rolled left.

Hossfly

NO PROBLEEM, NO PROBLEEM, Senior!

I just scanned through a bunch of answers. Some good some not-so-good. Back when the finest of the finest, the late Frank Garcher, Mr. Midwest Models, started his lines of Sticks, I was in the NW Chicago area. It wasn't long before a number of us started building the .40+/- size with bottom wings. REASON?? 'Cause we could! Of course good old Frank caught on and thus the Sweet Stick. (If you haven't noticed, Frank Garcher was one of my real Heroes, probably the #1, or tied for #1 with Carl Goldberg, in the model industry)

Turn the fuse upside down. Place the wing in the saddle and go from there. Cut a short slot on the top of the fuse, and in the stab.
Stab goes on flat side of fuse. - top - and the cut the rudder (vertical stab for you purists) to fit into the slots. Use some triangle of your choice, stock or your cut to however you like, and brace it all up. I strongly suggest some additional stock under the stab against the fuse. SIZE? Whatever makes you happy. (When doing these things I always use whatever is handy in the scrap box. Cut to whatever works.)

NOW ONE BIG POINT: The original first Ugly Stik by Midwest, IIRC, had one dowel for the top forward hold-down. I suggest at least TWO, or a bolt-on system whether wing is top or bottom. With a Low wing such as the Sweet Stick was, and the main gear on the wing, then fun-flys that had a lot of touch-&-Go maneuvers could result in the fuselage dropping the wing at the point of go on a T&G. Yep, it happened. Two bolt from then on! [sm=cry_smile.gif]

Years later I had a very large ARF Stick from some importer. I revised it to use as a low wing and a break-in bed for engines .60 thru 1.08. Worked fine. Excellent flier. Sold it to a fellow that very soon returned it to kit form. []

Yes SIR, you definitely can make any Stick as YOU want it. There is nothing so basic as the Stick kits/Arf, or whatever you call them
.

tonyob

Great planes makes a Giant Stik, it's got an 80" wing span


I've got a Big Stik 60 built as per the kit (wing on top) and it does come with a slight bit of dihedral. I'm not trying to refute the above quote, just saying that Great Planes did put a small amount of dihedral in their kit.

oldtyme

My original Sweet Stik by Midwest did not have any dowels in the wing. The wing was held on with rubber bands so dowels were not needed. Granted the new Sticks (notice different spelling too) all have dowels or some sort of tung to hold the front of the wing in but the originals did not.

oldtyme

"NOW ONE BIG POINT: The original first Ugly Stik by Midwest, IIRC, had one dowel for the top forward hold-down. I suggest at least TWO, or a bolt-on system whether wing is top or bottom. With a Low wing such as the Sweet Stick was, and the main gear on the wing, then fun-flys that had a lot of touch-&-Go maneuvers could result in the fuselage dropping the wing at the point of go on a T&G. Yep, it happened. Two bolt from then on! "

Just to clarify a point.........you mention that the Sweet Stik was a low wing aircraft when in fact it was not. It was considered a shoulder wing aircraft which had the wing on the top of the fuselage and held down by rubberbands and the landing gear was on the bottom of the fuse......actually the wire gear protruded up the inside sides of the fuse and sat in a slot on the bottom of the fuse. The only Midwest Stiks that had low wing configurations were the Sweet and Low Stik and the Bipe Stik.

w8ye

My Feedback: (16)

That's a nice looking plane
[img]{akamaiimageforum}/upfiles/24142/Gd93548.jpg[/img]

oldtyme

What is that???? An upside down Ultra Stick??

Charlie P.

The Goldberg Hot Stik (ARF - discontinued) was a low wing Stik with no dihedral and it was the best flying plane I've ever owned . . . if you wanted that kind of flying. ;-) It was "antsy" and required constant attention but, damn, it could fly. 3-D and then some.

Just not through trees. :-( If Great Satan, er, Planes ever brings it back after having gobbled up Goldberg I'm buying two.

HighPlains

My Feedback: (1)

Maybe there is confusion on the number of variations of stick designs.

It was originated by Phil Kraft as a quick built test airplane with the plans in the May-June 1966 issue Grid Leaks as the "Das Ugly Stik". This design article was reprinted in model magazines around the world. It had no dihedral, and the airfoil was slightly modified from true a symmetrical section to one where the airfoil was flat on the bottom aft the main spar.

The Kraft design was soon put into kit production by Jensen. The principle design change was the addition of 3 degrees of dihedral. Had it not been for the Jensen kit, it is likely that the Ugly Stik would have been lost to the ages, since most people don't scratch build from plans.

The first major variation of the Ugly Stik came in May 1968 issue of RCM when Larry Leonard's version "Das Liddle Stik" was presented. The concept was the same, just smaller. You could "Build it as a tail-dragger, or trike geared; without dihedral, with ailerons, without ailerons; six channels or full house; .19's to .45's". Note, in 1968 six channel refers to reed radio systems that took two channels for a control function, so six channel means you control rudder, elevator and throttle. Full house means a four channel proportional system.

Less than a year later, Midwest models introduced their “Das Little Stik�. In the early 70’s they also introduced the Sweet Stik for 40 sized engine.

Kraft even redesigned the Das Ugly Stik for RCM. The structure of the original wing was redesigned to work better with film coverings, and of course changes in radio gear.

From that point on there have been many copies, and copies of copies. Kit’s, ARF’s and plans for airplanes powered from 0.010 engines to giant scale gas. A complete list of all might be impossible to make, but it may be close to 100 by now.

oldtyme

You make a lot of good points....I'm looking at the plans for Das Little Stik (Midwest of course) and the plans have a date of 9-81 and the design is by Bud Anders and Larry Leonard approved by Frank Garcher. On the plans for the Sweet Stik (also Midwest) there is a date of 1-81 and the design is by Frank Garcher. I'm really glad I saved these plans for both planes because I love the way they fly. I still have my original OS 45FSR mounted in the Sweet Stik and it still pulls it around like it is brand new. I've had to re-build the wing once due to pilot error but I still have the side-jounted aileron servo in the middle with the bell-cranks for the ailerons and they are still tight and responsive. I think I build this Stik in 1984.

Cheers,
Andy

vasek

My Feedback: (4)

Yes it's a "low wing" Ultra Stick. I was debating if my second US should look like this. This one is NOT mine & that's not me I just kept the pic in my reference file for future use. My 3rd US will be a low wing 4 sure! The US has no dihedral, symetrical wing so just flip the fuse over and glue the rudder on top & voila! The other options like turtle deck are nice but optional. If the pilot in the pic sees this thread, he could post more details about this mod. I hope he does!

Cheers,
V.

bigedmustafa

My Feedback: (2)

I know doing the conversion might be part of the fun, but the VMar Xtreme Stik 40 is available from http://www.richmondrc.com for $89.99 plus $15 s&h:





I'll look forward to reading about your conversion if you decide to soldier on with it.

andboy

My Feedback: (4)

A friend pointed this thread out to me, thanks all!

I have a 60size Ultra Stick ARF waiting to be put together and relieve the rather bashed Ultra Stick that i've been flying for a looonog time.

It looks like it may get flown upside down!

Two positive things, one, it looks amazing. Two, it will cover up the epoxy mess of the guy who put the wing together!

When I start putting it together I shall add a link to the build.

Bax

My Feedback: (11)

Well, actually, just flipping the fuselage over to put the cutout on the bottom works very well. Butt-gluing the fin onto the stabilizer works well if you use a bit of triangle stock to add structure at the base of the fin. You can also cut a slot in the horizontal stabilizer and glue the fin into the slot...similar to how it's done in the ARF. If the kit you're using has downthrust in the pre-mod version, then just use some washers to re-position the engine mount. Just set up the airplane for 0-0-0. Most "Stik" type models use 0-0-0 as their setup.

Again, the most "difficult" part is arranging for the nosegear and main gear placements if you're keeping with tri-gear. Otherwise, you'll need to reinforce the fuselage just forward of the wing to accept the dural main gear.

With the Great Planes Big Stik ARF, you'd likely do best by cutting of the plywood tongue (tung is an oil used in finishing furniture!) and then drilling hole for dowels....or you can reinforce the wing to accept bolts up front. There are a lot of ways to do this.

Hossfly

Thank you much. I'm first to admit to not being good at remembering all the names of all the models that I have passed through. I do know that Midwest made a regular "....Stick" close to the original "Ugly Stick". Turning Sticks upside down was a popular thing. Then Midwest came out with a kit basically just a "Stick" turned upside down. I recalled a name "Sweet Stick" which I related to the upside down one. WRONG! Maybe it was just me relying on a single dowel when I turned mine upside down.

However you banged my memory and you are 101% CORRECT. "Sweet and Low Stick it was."

Thanks again for the JOG!

tacx

My Feedback: (1)

I agree about the dihedral. I had to build a new wing for my Big Stick 60 and I built it flat. It flies great. It goes exactly where it is pointed and stays there. Also, it is ALLOT easier to build !!!

w8ye

My Feedback: (16)

I've had several Ultra Sticks and Super Sticks and none had dihedral but they are essentually high wing planes. There was never any problem keeping the wings level.

A low wing may be another story?

jerzzy

Anyone made a bi-plane from these? I have a stick and two wings, any help?

Ed_Moorman

My Feedback: (1)

If you are worried about the tangs being on the wrong side, try this.
1. Buy some 1/8" birch ply, not lite ply.
2. Trace the root rib & tang forward of the dihedral brace
3. Cut out two new half root ribs & tangs and cut off the old tang.
4. Glue the half ribs together.
5. Epoxy them to the old ply root rib forward of the dihedral brace slot.
6. Glue scrap 1/8" or 1/4" to the rear of the rib aft of the dihedral brace slot.
7. If the dihedral brace isn't set for dihedral, cut in 3 degrees on each side. This amount will stop the opposite direction roll with rudder.
8. Join wing halves. Use 30-minute epoxy on the dihedral brace and wing roots.

vasek

My Feedback: (4)

This could help

goirish

I have the stick with the wing on the bottom.  It is called a giant sweet and low stick.  BTW, a great flyer.  52 gas

cfircav8r

My Feedback: (1)

I have a Midwest Das Little Stik, built in '84 per the instructions with dihedral. It was a great transition from a high wing trainer, especially since I was learning on my own. The fact that I still have it is a testament to it's durability, forgiving nature and fun factor.

rglgatortail

My Feedback: (7)

How about this guys, during a build and covering of a Tower Hobbies Kaos 60 kit I was given a wing from a GP Big Stil 40 and in one picture you can see the wing. What I have done is scratch built a fuse for the wing to put the wing on the bottom but I have also added a surprise, not only is the plane gonna have the wing on the bottom but I also added tricycle retracts. So I am using a wing from a 40 size Big Stik and a custom scratch built fuse now the question is Does this mean that it is still a Big Stik? I am more or less stuck on what to call this plane to be honest.

ng8264723

How did it fly?