Lifer

My Feedback: (1)

I just got my hands on 2 NIB control-line kits. One is a Sterling P-38 for a pair of 09-15 engines. The other is a 42" span Ringmaster. I started looking around for engines for the P-38 but found nothing. The Ringmaster calls for B or C-class engines, so I'm sure a 29 or 35 would work. Does anyone still sell new 09 to15-sized control-line engines? Any help would be appreciated!

Bob Jablonski

Cool find. I us a OS .15 so I looked around and evidently Great planes dose not have them anymore. NV (Norvel) has them on there site as out of stock. K&B has a .18 Brodack dose have a .15 in stock. The Ringmaster can fly as low as a .19 motor. Hope this haelps
Mr. Bob
Countyline Hobbies
Grovertown, IN.
574-540-1123
[email protected]
www.countylinehobbies.com

Lifer

My Feedback: (1)

Bob,

Thanks for the reply. I saw the engines you referenced, but they are all ball-bearing types. In the interests of light weight, I'm inclined towards plain-bearing engines. At the risk of heresy, I might consider the electric option. In any event, I'll keep looking. If I don't see anything I like, I'll probably sell them.

greggles47

The Brodak 15 is a plain bearing engine, and quite good.
OS LA 15 PB,
Enya 15 PB.

Modern 15's are probably more power than the kits call for, but you don't have to use all the power.

I use a Thunder Tiger 25 in my Ringmaster - very happy with the combo.

Lifer

My Feedback: (1)

Couldn't find the LA 15. I'll recheck the Brodak and check into the Enya.

Thanks!

Lou Crane

Lifer, speaking of heresy... there are still some RC .15s around, I think.

It isn't hard to lash the throttle wide open and ignore the fact there's a carb on the engine.

Agreed, though, most .15s available seem to be high performance types.

Unless you'd like to try a diesel, or perhaps an ENYA. Diesels are a bit different, and do smell different. ENYAs are great engines, but they take a bit of time and care to break in. I still fly an ENYA 35 I bought in the 1950's! Most are iron and steel, so modern RC fuels may not go well with them. They need at least 20% oil in the fuel, and most of that Castor Oil.

Luck and tight lines!

Lifer

My Feedback: (1)

Non ball-bearing engines are lighter and what the plane was designed for in the first place. I haven't made up my mind on the P-38 yet. The diesel option is one I haven't thought of. As far as the 42" Ringmaster is concerned, the old Fox 35 is probably the way to go.

xby-1

I fly my P-38 with OS .10 FP's, unfortunately no longer made, you might find some on ebay or such. I agree with the Fox for the Ringmaster , it has always been my choice.

Lifer

My Feedback: (1)

O.S..10's would have been my first choice. I haven't had any luck finding any plain-bearing glow engines and I just can't wrap my mind around electric. The plane will probably go to Ebay.

Do you happen to have a video of yours in the air?

xby-1

no video, but I'll take some pic's. I took the .10's off to use on a B-10 I scratch built.

Lifer

My Feedback: (1)

Thanks! I look forward to seeing them.

xby-1

Before you give up on you P-38 you mght want to think about these engines
http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/s...dProduct=52327
several of the people in my club have them and they seem to be very good. Two 15's will really make the P-38 move, i have flown mine with 15's before so it is do-able.

smoking joe

http://www.mecoa.com/kb/aero/controlline.htm

GallopingGhostler

Interesting thread here, I got one of those Sterling Kit S-17 P-38 Lightnings, too and 2 Enya 09-III CL engines I plan to put in it. One of the things I noticed is that the main landing gear is sandwiched between two 3/16 inch thick balsa sheets, when laminated together makes the 3/8 inch thick fuselage cockpit pod. The main landing gears are each sandwiched between two balsa rib sheets.

My impressions are, won't these break out or loosen after a hard landing? No CL always lands gentle and seems this is a rather flimsy way to do it. I'm thinking of somehow sandwiching the landing gear in ply and threaded with thin steel bailing wire.

On your builds, did you build as-is, or did you do something to strengthen the landing gears?

Lifer

My Feedback: (1)

I haven't built any of them. I just acquired them last week. If I end up building them, I will modify according to my experience/judgement.

Lou Crane

George,

I'd probably lash the nose gear wire to a piece of ply the thickness of the wire and laminate that between the 3/16 balsa sides. Shouldn't be hard to carve or sand the balsa to the center pod thickness... Scoop out to clear the wire on that side of the ply piece. Lashing doesn't need steel wire.

I usually strip one side of ordinary wall-plug twin wire and separate the strands. The ply piece should be drilled so you can pass the strands through and really "sew" them together. Pass through all holes at least twice and end up where you first started. Then you can twist the ends together, nip the twist close to the ply and stuff it either in or alongside the gear wire. Run a small amount of epoxy along the gear wire side, and over the other side where the wire loops around to go back to the wire side. NOT MUCH EPOXY, just enough to wet the thin strand and hold it to the gear wire and ply. Wipe off excess; it's unnecessary weight, and usually with weird shapes to fit into your balsa sides.

I'd do about the same for the gears in the engine booms, and probably add some balsa bracing to the ribs so they wouldn't break, or break out, from side loads.


Models like the Ringmaster were kitted more for flying off grass. The semi-scale models may have been kitted with paved circle flying in mind... You CAN grease landings on paving, and it doesn't reach up and flip your model onto its back...

Luck!

Lifer

My Feedback: (1)

Lou,

Just a longshot, but were you related to Bud Crane from Livermore, California?

xby-1

Gallopingghoster
My models were built as shown on the plans. The first one was in my possession only about a year and I gave it away. The second, built in the 70's is still flying. The only mod from the kit was to add some fiberglass cloth where the gear exit. The setup doesn't look strong but it does work as forty years of flying shows.

john

GallopingGhostler

Thanks for the inputs, Lou and John. It gives me a few things to think about. I like the idea of fiberglassing around the landing gear exit, as this would be the highest point of stress. Only thing is the field I fly in is very rough, doesn't have the nicely mowed grass but clumps of brush (what we commonly call grass here in arid New Mexico ) along with highway mastic filling cracks in the RC runway filling a part of the circle that provide snag points for landing gear. Flipping a CL plane such as my Ringmaster Jr. with 1-1/2" wheels during landing is typical. I'm thinking best solution would be to laminate 3 layers of 5/64" ply with center cut out to fit the 5/64" landing gear, carve away fuselage sides to fit, fiberglass exit. For main, make a center 5/64" ply rib and laminate the balsa ribs to side, fiberglass exit. Alternate would be a new main landing gear with torsion run in a block between wing ribs like in RC planes. Anyway, still reconnoitring.

xby-1

Here a couple of Pic's of my model. If you fly a lot on rough ground why not use gear blocks in the wing like the old Midwest kits. The nose can easily be strengthen with ply or glass.

dennis

My Feedback: (90)

The typical Sterling kit is a brick. But even so on the challenged models you need to observe some specific rules. The P-38 is a twin with the wing area of a good modern 1/2A . Forget any 15 unless you have 2 of the old Fox rockets. They are anemic enough to use but you'll soon tire of the effort of trying to get both of them running in an acceptable time. The Chinese 15 with the rear exhaust is a brick as are the K&B 18's . besides your not going to want to see how fast you can turn around in a circle are you? The Enya 09 is nice but borderline heavy and there are better engines although not easily obtained anymore. My first choice is Norvel 074's. Yes, these engines will astound you with their performance and will fly this lead sled with no apparent effort. The easiest is the OS 10's. This is a perfect choice for the old anemic original OS10S engines from the 60's. However, the FSR.FP.and LA will do nicely. With these engines you can go out to 55 foot lines and it will still fly level easily on one engine and it won't care which one dies first. remember this is a brick of a model with not much wing area to support itself so you will find that it lands in about 1/2 a lap. The lighter you can build this model the smaller the engine required and if you get it light enough you might be able to do more than a wide loop and wingover without fear of re kitting the model.
I've had a few of these models over the years and it pays dividends to replace all of the really heavy wood with lighter stock. I've never beefed up the landing gear and if done correctly the mains are imbedded in the tail pods, the nose gear is angled forward slightly and as the model flies flat I've never had a gear problem. Oh and you will get bored flying these models really fast. It doesn't offer enough to keep you interested very long.
The Ringmaster is legendary and it's flaws are too well known. Lighten everything up on it as much as you can and you will find that an OS FP/LA 25 is really all you need for this model.
Oh, and George, Don't even consider using that Gilbert 11 on the P-38, it's worse than the old Fox 15 Rocket. LOL

Dennis

GallopingGhostler

Great looking paint job on your old P-38, John. Your idea of gear blocks is what I was thinking for the main. Twins look good and are always impressive to hear in the air.

GallopingGhostler

Dennis, I think the Enya 09-III CL's will do just fine. Yes, they are just a touch heavier (but not by much) with the more modern OS sport Scheurles, but not bad on power, certainly more than the OS 10S. With wood 7x6 props should provide more than enough thrust and certainly more than the Fox 09 Rocket or even the Gilbert 11 Thunderheads.

In mine the kit wood is actually decent, which surprises me as other Sterling kits I've had were much less than that. I view this as a sport model, which in its day represented something that looked elegant when painted up properly was impressive to view. Compared with a contest flier, yes, it is certainly not that. Then, many CL fliers were non-competitive sport fliers just like our RC pilots today. Wide loop and eight envelopes, wing overs and inverted flying were acceptable; no need for square eights.

Two Gilbert .11's would be a great candidate for a profile P-61 Black Widow. Actually I think something more akin to Hal DeBolt's 26" span 140 sq. in. All American would be more appropriate.

http://www.outerzone.co.uk/plan_details.asp?ID=347



Built light enough, this one should work as power on the Gilbert is within the power class of the McCoy .099 "9".

stuntflyr

Here is the Sterling P-38 with Norvel .061 R/C engines on 3 line JRoberts bellcrank system. Nice little model, as big as i would go is two Cox .09s.
Chris...