Sig Banshee question
11-29-2016, 12:27 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Sig Banshee question
I'm no expert by any measure so, What would be the engine size and line length to make the Banshee easily controllable but sporty too?
01-19-2017, 07:07 AM
#4
I flew mine with a Fox 35 Stunt with the Hemi Head, stuffer backplate and tongue muffler. 4 ounce uniflow tank. I did shorten the nose 1.75" but could have shortened it even further, I had to add some tail weight to make it "pop" a little sharper. I flew on 60 foot lines.
01-19-2017, 10:38 PM
#5
straightnickel,
Check the other recommended comments.
The SIG Banshee was designed in the days of 6 1/4 ounce Fox 35s, w/out mufflers, on light wood props. Most modern engines weigh more, plus the weight of the muffler. (The nose is too long for today's power!)
By the way, the Banshee and Twister use the same basic wing. Both fly well, and can be tweaked to fly better with today's gear. Differences are in the wingtips and fuselage...
Adding weight to balance the modern power systems, and using a tamer engine runs into practical limits on the wing and tail layout. Best advice I see in other posts so far is to move the wing forward, Not simple, but keeps a good relationship with the tail. As long as there's room for a 3.5 or 4 ounce tank, most problems are answered.
It is still a simple profile, so dumping extra power into it is a sort of answer, but not (IMO) optimum. The location of the prop is not a major concern, except as it relates to the weight of the engine and room for the necessary tank. The wing is good - strength, airfoil and structure work. Weight overall is a concern...
{Personally. I don't care for the side view.) That gives you the opportunity to "kit-bash" to something you'd rather see at the other end of the lines. Very little would be needed - different "cockpit", different fin, etc. Just keep the flying surfaces near the original, given that you may move the wing further forward...
Good flier as stock, with a light engine and possibly going to 57.5' lines (eye-to-eye) instead of 60' eye-to-eye. Shouldn't need shorter...
Build light and straight, and don't weigh it down with a heavy finish. You'll enjoy!
Check the other recommended comments.
The SIG Banshee was designed in the days of 6 1/4 ounce Fox 35s, w/out mufflers, on light wood props. Most modern engines weigh more, plus the weight of the muffler. (The nose is too long for today's power!)
By the way, the Banshee and Twister use the same basic wing. Both fly well, and can be tweaked to fly better with today's gear. Differences are in the wingtips and fuselage...
Adding weight to balance the modern power systems, and using a tamer engine runs into practical limits on the wing and tail layout. Best advice I see in other posts so far is to move the wing forward, Not simple, but keeps a good relationship with the tail. As long as there's room for a 3.5 or 4 ounce tank, most problems are answered.
It is still a simple profile, so dumping extra power into it is a sort of answer, but not (IMO) optimum. The location of the prop is not a major concern, except as it relates to the weight of the engine and room for the necessary tank. The wing is good - strength, airfoil and structure work. Weight overall is a concern...
{Personally. I don't care for the side view.) That gives you the opportunity to "kit-bash" to something you'd rather see at the other end of the lines. Very little would be needed - different "cockpit", different fin, etc. Just keep the flying surfaces near the original, given that you may move the wing further forward...
Good flier as stock, with a light engine and possibly going to 57.5' lines (eye-to-eye) instead of 60' eye-to-eye. Shouldn't need shorter...
Build light and straight, and don't weigh it down with a heavy finish. You'll enjoy!
Last edited by Lou Crane; 01-19-2017 at 10:42 PM.
01-20-2017, 06:56 AM
#6
What would be the engine size and line length to make the Banshee easily controllable but sporty too?
01-25-2017, 08:54 PM
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Idaho falls ID
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
straightnickel,
Check the other recommended comments.
The SIG Banshee was designed in the days of 6 1/4 ounce Fox 35s, w/out mufflers, on light wood props. Most modern engines weigh more, plus the weight of the muffler. (The nose is too long for today's power!)
By the way, the Banshee and Twister use the same basic wing. Both fly well, and can be tweaked to fly better with today's gear. Differences are in the wingtips and fuselage...
Adding weight to balance the modern power systems, and using a tamer engine runs into practical limits on the wing and tail layout. Best advice I see in other posts so far is to move the wing forward, Not simple, but keeps a good relationship with the tail. As long as there's room for a 3.5 or 4 ounce tank, most problems are answered.
It is still a simple profile, so dumping extra power into it is a sort of answer, but not (IMO) optimum. The location of the prop is not a major concern, except as it relates to the weight of the engine and room for the necessary tank. The wing is good - strength, airfoil and structure work. Weight overall is a concern...
{Personally. I don't care for the side view.) That gives you the opportunity to "kit-bash" to something you'd rather see at the other end of the lines. Very little would be needed - different "cockpit", different fin, etc. Just keep the flying surfaces near the original, given that you may move the wing further forward...
Good flier as stock, with a light engine and possibly going to 57.5' lines (eye-to-eye) instead of 60' eye-to-eye. Shouldn't need shorter...
Build light and straight, and don't weigh it down with a heavy finish. You'll enjoy!
Check the other recommended comments.
The SIG Banshee was designed in the days of 6 1/4 ounce Fox 35s, w/out mufflers, on light wood props. Most modern engines weigh more, plus the weight of the muffler. (The nose is too long for today's power!)
By the way, the Banshee and Twister use the same basic wing. Both fly well, and can be tweaked to fly better with today's gear. Differences are in the wingtips and fuselage...
Adding weight to balance the modern power systems, and using a tamer engine runs into practical limits on the wing and tail layout. Best advice I see in other posts so far is to move the wing forward, Not simple, but keeps a good relationship with the tail. As long as there's room for a 3.5 or 4 ounce tank, most problems are answered.
It is still a simple profile, so dumping extra power into it is a sort of answer, but not (IMO) optimum. The location of the prop is not a major concern, except as it relates to the weight of the engine and room for the necessary tank. The wing is good - strength, airfoil and structure work. Weight overall is a concern...
{Personally. I don't care for the side view.) That gives you the opportunity to "kit-bash" to something you'd rather see at the other end of the lines. Very little would be needed - different "cockpit", different fin, etc. Just keep the flying surfaces near the original, given that you may move the wing further forward...
Good flier as stock, with a light engine and possibly going to 57.5' lines (eye-to-eye) instead of 60' eye-to-eye. Shouldn't need shorter...
Build light and straight, and don't weigh it down with a heavy finish. You'll enjoy!
What about using the Banshee kit to kit bash it into a Ringmaster S-1 Specificaions?
Would it be a good candidate? I have a good McCoy 35 I want to use?
Last edited by jayseas; 01-25-2017 at 09:00 PM.
01-28-2017, 03:05 PM
#10
I replied to this Q: as forwarded to me as email.
The gist: IF model is intended for OTS event flying, no. The Ringmaster wing has a swept forward trailing edge; the basic Twister/Banshee wing does not. That makes for a highly visible different wing, aside from the obvious area and airfoil differences.
Also, the S-1 Ringmaster has NO spars visible at the airfoil surface, where the Banshee/Twister wing is built with visible spars at the max depth of the ribs. Also highly visible. If the model is intended not for OTS events, but for a nice flying model for other purposes, Great!
Keep in mind that starting from a kit Banshee, the nose must be shortened or the wing moved forward to allow building a good model which does not need added weight to bring the CG to where it should be for quite good flying.
(Clarification) I merely wrote to keep the layout proportions like the original. Should have said that the proportions and relationships of the tail and wing need to be considered...
For enjoyment, go for it! If hoped to be accepted in competition events where reasonable fidelity to the original is a factor, no.
\BEST!
The gist: IF model is intended for OTS event flying, no. The Ringmaster wing has a swept forward trailing edge; the basic Twister/Banshee wing does not. That makes for a highly visible different wing, aside from the obvious area and airfoil differences.
Also, the S-1 Ringmaster has NO spars visible at the airfoil surface, where the Banshee/Twister wing is built with visible spars at the max depth of the ribs. Also highly visible. If the model is intended not for OTS events, but for a nice flying model for other purposes, Great!
Keep in mind that starting from a kit Banshee, the nose must be shortened or the wing moved forward to allow building a good model which does not need added weight to bring the CG to where it should be for quite good flying.
(Clarification) I merely wrote to keep the layout proportions like the original. Should have said that the proportions and relationships of the tail and wing need to be considered...
For enjoyment, go for it! If hoped to be accepted in competition events where reasonable fidelity to the original is a factor, no.
\BEST!
Last edited by Lou Crane; 01-28-2017 at 03:14 PM.
01-30-2017, 04:07 PM
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Idaho falls ID
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I replied to this Q: as forwarded to me as email.
The gist: IF model is intended for OTS event flying, no. The Ringmaster wing has a swept forward trailing edge; the basic Twister/Banshee wing does not. That makes for a highly visible different wing, aside from the obvious area and airfoil differences.
Also, the S-1 Ringmaster has NO spars visible at the airfoil surface, where the Banshee/Twister wing is built with visible spars at the max depth of the ribs. Also highly visible. If the model is intended not for OTS events, but for a nice flying model for other purposes, Great!
Keep in mind that starting from a kit Banshee, the nose must be shortened or the wing moved forward to allow building a good model which does not need added weight to bring the CG to where it should be for quite good flying.
(Clarification) I merely wrote to keep the layout proportions like the original. Should have said that the proportions and relationships of the tail and wing need to be considered...
For enjoyment, go for it! If hoped to be accepted in competition events where reasonable fidelity to the original is a factor, no.
\BEST!
The gist: IF model is intended for OTS event flying, no. The Ringmaster wing has a swept forward trailing edge; the basic Twister/Banshee wing does not. That makes for a highly visible different wing, aside from the obvious area and airfoil differences.
Also, the S-1 Ringmaster has NO spars visible at the airfoil surface, where the Banshee/Twister wing is built with visible spars at the max depth of the ribs. Also highly visible. If the model is intended not for OTS events, but for a nice flying model for other purposes, Great!
Keep in mind that starting from a kit Banshee, the nose must be shortened or the wing moved forward to allow building a good model which does not need added weight to bring the CG to where it should be for quite good flying.
(Clarification) I merely wrote to keep the layout proportions like the original. Should have said that the proportions and relationships of the tail and wing need to be considered...
For enjoyment, go for it! If hoped to be accepted in competition events where reasonable fidelity to the original is a factor, no.
\BEST!
06-04-2017, 10:48 AM
#12
Flew my Banshee on 60' lines then as I entered RC, I converted the basic Banshee into an RC airframe, not changing the wing position, just reinforcing the wing. The radio gear/battery/servos were all mounted near the fuse, midway between the leading/trailing edges. Using a Fox 40 with a tuned pipe, and 3 radio channels, throttle, ailerons,, and elevator, it literally flew out of my hand on a vertical launch. Reading this post because I want to build a control line version again with a refurbished McCoy 35. Chic
12-03-2019, 05:44 PM
#15
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To really improve this planes handling, shorten the nose, Cut it off at the rear of the current engine mount location and relocate it back. It will be much more responsive and accurate.
12-03-2019, 06:37 PM
#16
I agree with you, but do you think the opening poster is even interested considering the time that has elapsed? I'd be surprised if he even still flies controline.
