Sig Kadet
01-02-2006, 12:19 AM
#27
RE: Sig Kadet
ORIGINAL: jettstarblue
//snip//
Anyone have some pictures and specs for this plane? Hossfly?
//snip//
Anyone have some pictures and specs for this plane? Hossfly?
Mad my comments in the other thread, same title, this forum.
Thanks.
01-02-2006, 12:39 AM
#29
Senior Member
RE: Sig Kadet
If the Kadet you have has the leading edge of the vertical stab straight up, it's not a Mark II. I have an old Sig catalog in my files showing the Kadet Mark II as having a slanted vertical stab. The ad copy stated that the SIG KADET (Not spelled with a "C") was around for over 25 years when that catalog was published. The catalog was from the year 2000, so taking 25 years from 2000, that put the Kadet Mark II arriving on the scene about 1975. SIG probably went to the slanted stab in '75. The Mark II had Ailerons also and was rated for .25 to .40 2 strokes.
I had the opportunity to fly a Mark II during the early 70's. It belonged to a friend who brought it out after finishing it
and he asked me to make the first flight. I later saw his plans and it indeed was a slab sided construction, pretty normal construction for planes in those days. Still with all that wood it only weighed 5 lbs, not too heavy for a .40. In fact this particular airplane was one of the best flying planes I've ever flown. One other thing, the Mark II had Ailerons. If the pilot knew the perculiarities of flat bottomed wings he could make airplane do just about anything in the book, and look good doing it too! I used to like getting it down over the runway in Ground Effect and holding it there for the entire length running at about half throttle. It was a very stable model. Sure made me look good.
It was a tough airplane too and though it suffered a few crashes, repairs were easily made done and it was put back in service. We used to joke that it's fuselage could be used as a baseball bat, or a fence post if need be. Whether you have the older version, or the latter, build it and enjoy flying it. I recommend using a .40 size engine however. The .25 is marginal for it.
I had the opportunity to fly a Mark II during the early 70's. It belonged to a friend who brought it out after finishing it
and he asked me to make the first flight. I later saw his plans and it indeed was a slab sided construction, pretty normal construction for planes in those days. Still with all that wood it only weighed 5 lbs, not too heavy for a .40. In fact this particular airplane was one of the best flying planes I've ever flown. One other thing, the Mark II had Ailerons. If the pilot knew the perculiarities of flat bottomed wings he could make airplane do just about anything in the book, and look good doing it too! I used to like getting it down over the runway in Ground Effect and holding it there for the entire length running at about half throttle. It was a very stable model. Sure made me look good.
It was a tough airplane too and though it suffered a few crashes, repairs were easily made done and it was put back in service. We used to joke that it's fuselage could be used as a baseball bat, or a fence post if need be. Whether you have the older version, or the latter, build it and enjoy flying it. I recommend using a .40 size engine however. The .25 is marginal for it.
01-02-2006, 01:34 AM
#30
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Hawthorne, CA
Posts: 5,839
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Sig Kadet
ORIGINAL: jettstarblue
C'mon B.B., I know ya' got 2 more cents to add.
C'mon B.B., I know ya' got 2 more cents to add.
01-02-2006, 07:00 AM
#31
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ashtabula county,
OH
Posts: 3,204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Sig Kadet
Well that was boring......
Glad we know what version of the Kadet it is now. The original Kadet and the MK II WERE very robust and good fliers. Much more forgiving of CRASHES and also, much EASIER FOR THE FIRST TIME BUILDER, than the Kadet Senior.....I rest my case.
Glad we know what version of the Kadet it is now. The original Kadet and the MK II WERE very robust and good fliers. Much more forgiving of CRASHES and also, much EASIER FOR THE FIRST TIME BUILDER, than the Kadet Senior.....I rest my case.
01-02-2006, 10:55 AM
#32
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Hawthorne, CA
Posts: 5,839
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Sig Kadet
Maybe if you and your dad didn't throw away the plans and then fly it through a tree you'd have a better opinion of the plane. My Senorita survived a whole heck of a lot including a midair and a cartwheel and never needed much repair. If a beginner can't handle beveling the sticks to match the plans then maybe they should stick to ARF's cause it's pretty dang simple. There is a classic beauty to the stick construction that produces a strong yet lightweight airframe and is one reason I chose the Senior for my all purpose project.
01-02-2006, 05:00 PM
#33
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ashtabula county,
OH
Posts: 3,204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Sig Kadet
Maybe we used the wrong glue?
I have a very high opinion of the Kadet Senior, B.B., that's why I built a second one later on. It is a great plane.
As for the "classic beauty to stick construction"- I'm well aware of that, as I have built a 3/4 scale Aircamper (ultralight) with that construction technique. Didn'y fly it through any trees to test it yet though.......
I have a very high opinion of the Kadet Senior, B.B., that's why I built a second one later on. It is a great plane.
As for the "classic beauty to stick construction"- I'm well aware of that, as I have built a 3/4 scale Aircamper (ultralight) with that construction technique. Didn'y fly it through any trees to test it yet though.......
01-02-2006, 07:10 PM
#34
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Sig Kadet
ORIGINAL: jettstarblue
Respectfully I'll disagree with you disagreeing with me guys. (It's our nature, B.B.)
1972 is the copyright date, and may not be the date of manufacture. That's why I asked. Since abba3 didn't reply, I'm guessing it IS a Kadet Senior but I'm just guessing, just like js3 is.
Nonetheless, it's worth more built and flying than sitting in the box waiting for what? To become a "collectors item"? I have built several kits from the 30's through the 60's I bought from e-Bay for next to nothing.
Build it, it's a kit not a friggin' artifact! What's the point in cutting out a kit from a kit so you can 'save' a kit in a box? That's just crazy for something like a Kadet Senior.
My Dad flew his into some light tree tops and it turned into a bag of balsa. To take the durability opinions with a grain of salt.
So build it, fly it, crash it, and re-build it.
It was and is a good plane.
Respectfully I'll disagree with you disagreeing with me guys. (It's our nature, B.B.)
1972 is the copyright date, and may not be the date of manufacture. That's why I asked. Since abba3 didn't reply, I'm guessing it IS a Kadet Senior but I'm just guessing, just like js3 is.
Nonetheless, it's worth more built and flying than sitting in the box waiting for what? To become a "collectors item"? I have built several kits from the 30's through the 60's I bought from e-Bay for next to nothing.
Build it, it's a kit not a friggin' artifact! What's the point in cutting out a kit from a kit so you can 'save' a kit in a box? That's just crazy for something like a Kadet Senior.
My Dad flew his into some light tree tops and it turned into a bag of balsa. To take the durability opinions with a grain of salt.
So build it, fly it, crash it, and re-build it.
It was and is a good plane.
01-02-2006, 10:36 PM
#35
RE: Sig Kadet
Seems there is no traffic in the other Sig Kadet in this forum so here is a repeat from there.
ORIGINAL: abba3
To give more info on the sig kadet, it is a kit # R/C 31 wing span 57" - .19 to .35 engines and is 42" long and 4 lbs and was designed by Claude McCullough its called the Sig Craftsmen kit, what is the appropriate engine to buy?
You have not given important information about your kit. It seems to be the original Sig Kadet. If a Mk. II it will have a swept vertical stab. If an original, it is 3-Channel and the fuselage sides have to be cut from the printed plank.
Claude McCullough designed almost all of SIG's original RC kits that were NOT derivatives of the old FOX kit line which came to Fox from the Berkley line so famous/infamous as one cares to remember. Fox resurrected Berkley, and then SIG, originally simply a supplier of Balsa, resurrected the line from Fox.
The original 3-Channel Kadet was the "Trainer" of the times in the mid-70s. It was usually powered with one of the .40s available in those days. I trained a number of pilots with the Kadet before Buddy-Boxes.
If you elect to go 3-channel, just remember that one DOES NOT need 3D power to have a nice performing 3-C machine so well designed to do the job it was meant to do. A RELIABLE 40 will handle all that one should ask of this model, even to pontoons or skis. BTDT.
Edited to add: Regardless of the instructions, give that .40 about 3-5* of down-thrust and all will be much better.
ORIGINAL: abba3
To give more info on the sig kadet, it is a kit # R/C 31 wing span 57" - .19 to .35 engines and is 42" long and 4 lbs and was designed by Claude McCullough its called the Sig Craftsmen kit, what is the appropriate engine to buy?
Claude McCullough designed almost all of SIG's original RC kits that were NOT derivatives of the old FOX kit line which came to Fox from the Berkley line so famous/infamous as one cares to remember. Fox resurrected Berkley, and then SIG, originally simply a supplier of Balsa, resurrected the line from Fox.
The original 3-Channel Kadet was the "Trainer" of the times in the mid-70s. It was usually powered with one of the .40s available in those days. I trained a number of pilots with the Kadet before Buddy-Boxes.
If you elect to go 3-channel, just remember that one DOES NOT need 3D power to have a nice performing 3-C machine so well designed to do the job it was meant to do. A RELIABLE 40 will handle all that one should ask of this model, even to pontoons or skis. BTDT.
Edited to add: Regardless of the instructions, give that .40 about 3-5* of down-thrust and all will be much better.
03-31-2006, 04:21 AM
#36
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: , OH
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Sig Kadet
Hey BasinBum,
Nice pics of the wing you have there. Tell me more about adding the ailerons to this kit. I have started building one half of the wing for a Kadet and want to put barn doors on. How did you build up the ailerons? What did you use for the hinge side of the aileron?
Nice pics of the wing you have there. Tell me more about adding the ailerons to this kit. I have started building one half of the wing for a Kadet and want to put barn doors on. How did you build up the ailerons? What did you use for the hinge side of the aileron?
03-31-2006, 08:01 AM
#37
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Hawthorne, CA
Posts: 5,839
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Sig Kadet
I made it a top hinge. I did it by first building the wing halves and then using a small block of wood with a 15 degree edge added in the trailing edge between each rib. I then flipped over the jig and put in the leading edge of what becomes the aileron. Using pieces of balsa as a shim behind the jig (three when placing the trailing edge and none when doing the leading edge) I was able to leave a gap the width of two pieces of balsa. Once it is all laid in I cut out the aileron and sanded it flush and added a complete strip of balsa to each edge which is the reason for using three shims . The you add in hinge blocks where the hinges will go and you are ready for hinging. I get 30 degrees down travel and all the up I want with a smooth top and a gap on the bottom that doesn't seem to effect the flight performance.
You can also take out most or all of the dihydral when you add the ailerons.
You can also take out most or all of the dihydral when you add the ailerons.
04-06-2006, 07:13 PM
#38
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Earlton, ON, CANADA
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Sig Kadet
I ordered my Sig Kadet in 1974 in order to have a plane to self teach myself to fly. It was as described by Hossfly and the picture in post 27 is identical to the one I built except I do not recall that the box showed MK1. Mine predated the MK1 differentiation because there was no Mk II yet. I powered it with an OS Max S 30 and it was powerful enough especially on the first hairy flights. After a nice 10 minute or so first flight, I simply cut the throttle and it landed itself without any input from me. (Huge open field no landing strip, no club no other modelers nearby) Elated I tried another flight and added more throttle and tried a more controlled landing. The reversed rudder syndrome got me and I crashed it with the engine running almost full bore! After a complete rebuild I managed to fly it well and never crashed it for a long time. My radio was a Kraft Sport series 5 channel of the same year.
A few years later, I was tired of never seeing anyone else but me fly so I pedaled my Peugot bike down to Centralia Ontario (450 miles)to see the end of the Canadian Nationals. There, Warren Hitchcox ( one of the nicest person I ever met) presented me to Maxey Hester and Hazel Sigafoose who were competing at the Nats. It was a thrill for me to meet the builders of my beloved trainer. When I shared my self teaching RC flying experience with a Kadet, Mr. Hester told me that I should have powered my Kadet with a .19 size engine as the plans showed then. He said I would probably have avoided that very damaging crash. In hindsight I must say that he was probably right. In this day where everything has to be so overpowered (including Kenworth and Mack trucks who always need 400 to 500 hp vs the 200 to 300 hp of the sixties) I believe that this Kadet, carefully built lightly would probably fly very gently on a 19. Of course it would not be very powerful to do aerobatics but to learn to fly hummm, I must build another one and try it!
By the way, although it was in the attic while I was at university, I resurrected that plane and flew it on and off about 15 years ago and it is only 3 years ago that I crashed it because my good old Kraft radio's switch harness let go while I was grooving a nice fast gentle curve and it gradually descended at full speed in this glorious crash during a cold november day, crackling as the balsa ripped apart. It was so fuel soaked at the front end that I decided to scrap it. That was a long lived airplane.
I loved my Kadet!
A few years later, I was tired of never seeing anyone else but me fly so I pedaled my Peugot bike down to Centralia Ontario (450 miles)to see the end of the Canadian Nationals. There, Warren Hitchcox ( one of the nicest person I ever met) presented me to Maxey Hester and Hazel Sigafoose who were competing at the Nats. It was a thrill for me to meet the builders of my beloved trainer. When I shared my self teaching RC flying experience with a Kadet, Mr. Hester told me that I should have powered my Kadet with a .19 size engine as the plans showed then. He said I would probably have avoided that very damaging crash. In hindsight I must say that he was probably right. In this day where everything has to be so overpowered (including Kenworth and Mack trucks who always need 400 to 500 hp vs the 200 to 300 hp of the sixties) I believe that this Kadet, carefully built lightly would probably fly very gently on a 19. Of course it would not be very powerful to do aerobatics but to learn to fly hummm, I must build another one and try it!
By the way, although it was in the attic while I was at university, I resurrected that plane and flew it on and off about 15 years ago and it is only 3 years ago that I crashed it because my good old Kraft radio's switch harness let go while I was grooving a nice fast gentle curve and it gradually descended at full speed in this glorious crash during a cold november day, crackling as the balsa ripped apart. It was so fuel soaked at the front end that I decided to scrap it. That was a long lived airplane.
I loved my Kadet!
11-16-2015, 03:16 PM
#41
Great story dionkadet! You rode your Peugot bicycle 450 miles to go to the Canadian Nationals? Very cool. How old were you then? Did you camp on the way?
I made overnight trips on my Huffy Sportsman back in the early 60s and people I'd meet were always amazed when they saw my camping gear because no one was doing that at the time. I was flying models at the time too, but never cycled to a model show.
Jim
I made overnight trips on my Huffy Sportsman back in the early 60s and people I'd meet were always amazed when they saw my camping gear because no one was doing that at the time. I was flying models at the time too, but never cycled to a model show.
Jim
11-18-2015, 12:34 PM
#42
My Feedback: (6)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Mountain Home,
AR
Posts: 2,684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is an especially interesting thread to me as I have recently finished both an LT40 and a Seniorita and I also have a highly modified Senior. The Senior is a very old plane that has been recently modified with enormous tail feathers, a drop box and a fully enclosed nose. This airplane was originally built by a very experienced and skillful builder and recently (three years ago) stripped and modified by his son, who is probably the best builder I have ever been around. I just recently pulled this airplane down from the ceiling to check everything out, charge the battery and run the engine. At that time, I noticed serveral of the sticks that form the fuselage loose inside the plane. This happened just from sitting as I haven't flown it since the rebuild. As I mentioned, the rebuild/modification was done by an expert so the covering is immaculate. If I want to fly it, the loose sticks will need to be replaced. To replace those sticks, I have to strip or at least partially strip an immaculate plane as I can't imagine a way to get in there to re-glue them.
Fast forward to about six months ago. A fellow flier gave me a Sig Seniorita kit that he was never gonna build. It sat around for awhile until one day I got extremely bored and decided to build it. As the build progressed, the all stick fuselage seemed so flimsy to me that I was really afraid they would begin to come apart as did the Senior from just sitting, let alone flying and having a less than perfect landing. I built it as per plans which meant that balsa sheeting was glued on the sides of the plane to just behind the wing. At that point, I wondered to myself "why not just extend the sheeting to cover the entire fuselage over the stick skeleton?" So I did. The three sheets of balsa I selected to finish sheeting the plane weighed less than four ounces before cutting them to fit, so I guess I added somewhere around 3 ounces to the plane. The window arrangement was also a bit tricky to do, so all in all, I considered this a rather tough build. But then I took it out and flew it, and what an absolute sweetheart to fly, It takes off after just a short roll out, flies like a dream, mild aerobatics included, and lands at a crawl. It also doesn't have the tendency to float on landings, making you have to fly it into the ground, but from a couple hundred yards out, just point it at the ground and cut the throttle to just above idle, and it lands at the place you pointed the nose from the couple hundred yards. Probably the best flying plane I ever flew.
So then I decided to try an LT40 since the Seniorita flew so well. This was a very different story altogether. This kit was one of those rare kits that you just shake the box a little and pour in some glue, and viola, you have a finished plane. This was by far the easiest kit to build I have ever done. And the flying is superb as well. This one floats a little more on landing than the Seniorita but not bad at all. The
Seniorita is flying on the wing as it has an old worn out LA .46 in it, while the LT40 flies on the prop as it has a Saito .72 four stroke in it. But they are both absolutely well behaved planes.
So I tend to agree with Jettstarblue on the building of the stick planes as opposed to the slab sided planes. The stick planes are much more difficult to build and the window arrangement also is more difficult. As to how they fly, I prefer the Seniorita to the LT 40, but they both fly beautifully.
I now plan to pick up an LT 25 to continue the Kadet series. They are marvelous fliers.
Fast forward to about six months ago. A fellow flier gave me a Sig Seniorita kit that he was never gonna build. It sat around for awhile until one day I got extremely bored and decided to build it. As the build progressed, the all stick fuselage seemed so flimsy to me that I was really afraid they would begin to come apart as did the Senior from just sitting, let alone flying and having a less than perfect landing. I built it as per plans which meant that balsa sheeting was glued on the sides of the plane to just behind the wing. At that point, I wondered to myself "why not just extend the sheeting to cover the entire fuselage over the stick skeleton?" So I did. The three sheets of balsa I selected to finish sheeting the plane weighed less than four ounces before cutting them to fit, so I guess I added somewhere around 3 ounces to the plane. The window arrangement was also a bit tricky to do, so all in all, I considered this a rather tough build. But then I took it out and flew it, and what an absolute sweetheart to fly, It takes off after just a short roll out, flies like a dream, mild aerobatics included, and lands at a crawl. It also doesn't have the tendency to float on landings, making you have to fly it into the ground, but from a couple hundred yards out, just point it at the ground and cut the throttle to just above idle, and it lands at the place you pointed the nose from the couple hundred yards. Probably the best flying plane I ever flew.
So then I decided to try an LT40 since the Seniorita flew so well. This was a very different story altogether. This kit was one of those rare kits that you just shake the box a little and pour in some glue, and viola, you have a finished plane. This was by far the easiest kit to build I have ever done. And the flying is superb as well. This one floats a little more on landing than the Seniorita but not bad at all. The
Seniorita is flying on the wing as it has an old worn out LA .46 in it, while the LT40 flies on the prop as it has a Saito .72 four stroke in it. But they are both absolutely well behaved planes.
So I tend to agree with Jettstarblue on the building of the stick planes as opposed to the slab sided planes. The stick planes are much more difficult to build and the window arrangement also is more difficult. As to how they fly, I prefer the Seniorita to the LT 40, but they both fly beautifully.
I now plan to pick up an LT 25 to continue the Kadet series. They are marvelous fliers.
11-18-2015, 02:59 PM
#43
Sounds great JP, I'm sure your solution will make a sturdy and long-lasting airplane.
But I'm surprised that Sig has only butt joints for the sticks in those fuselage sides. My VK Fokker triplane has 1/64th ply gussets at those joints (see photo, fuse lying on its side), which I have always thought of as standard practice, except in light rubber-powered models. I remember Don Srull, in some magazine article, pointing out how much more strength they give, and he was building 2 channel .049 powered airplanes at the time. It's certainly standard practice in full scale design, where the joints are either metal fittings or ply on both sides (see Pietenpol photo).
Your all sheet method sounds good too, and it's interesting that it only added 3 ounces, but for anyone looking for another solution, thin ply gussets work great.
Jim
But I'm surprised that Sig has only butt joints for the sticks in those fuselage sides. My VK Fokker triplane has 1/64th ply gussets at those joints (see photo, fuse lying on its side), which I have always thought of as standard practice, except in light rubber-powered models. I remember Don Srull, in some magazine article, pointing out how much more strength they give, and he was building 2 channel .049 powered airplanes at the time. It's certainly standard practice in full scale design, where the joints are either metal fittings or ply on both sides (see Pietenpol photo).
Your all sheet method sounds good too, and it's interesting that it only added 3 ounces, but for anyone looking for another solution, thin ply gussets work great.
Jim
11-18-2015, 04:43 PM
#45
My Feedback: (6)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Mountain Home,
AR
Posts: 2,684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
buzzard bait. did those gussets come with the kit or did you have to cut them? I like that idea, but cutting those to fit each joint would be more labor intensive than sheeting the side. Might be worth it though.
John, what is your picture supposed to show? No message with it.
John, what is your picture supposed to show? No message with it.
11-18-2015, 05:02 PM
#46
JP, the gussets came as diecut parts with the kit. Srull just cut triangles, I have cut little diagonal bits from balsa sheet, but they don't fit as snugly. It would be nice if some laser cutter would sell sheets of them. Probably all I'd have to do is send a drawing and ask for them.
Yeah, I couldn't figure out John's photo either.
Jim
Yeah, I couldn't figure out John's photo either.
Jim
11-18-2015, 06:55 PM
#47
My apologies, I have been trying for hours my computer is behaving in a very pecular manner.
That Photo is a mod that a local made of a kit built cadet senior five years ago and it is not really intended as reinforcement but a brake down of the fuselage for transport. This discussion reminded me of that. Sorry for the confusion. Maybe I can get the self explanatory two more photos to work now.
The airplane is doing fine still. Its a mod I would have liked to incorporate with some of my new ships lately but have just been too lazy and working on other types of bashing. Will try agine with a new post shortly.
John
That Photo is a mod that a local made of a kit built cadet senior five years ago and it is not really intended as reinforcement but a brake down of the fuselage for transport. This discussion reminded me of that. Sorry for the confusion. Maybe I can get the self explanatory two more photos to work now.
The airplane is doing fine still. Its a mod I would have liked to incorporate with some of my new ships lately but have just been too lazy and working on other types of bashing. Will try agine with a new post shortly.
John
