Rickey rat, lil tony,el bandito,pole kitty
07-11-2003, 05:24 AM
#1
Rickey rat, lil tony,el bandito,pole kitty
Does anyone know anything about these planes? I just got them , they have nice fiberglass fuses, real skinny little wheel pants, and look like a teeny shoestring. I have no knowledge of thier age or value. They are in good shape. Can anyone help me out? Thanks........Dave
07-12-2003, 10:54 AM
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Brantford, ON, CANADA
Posts: 3,305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rickey rat, lil tony,el bandito,pole kitty
Some years ago there were two principle Pylon racing classes. Quarter Midget which used .15 size engines and Formula 1 which used .40 size engines.
I know for sure there was a "Pole Kitty" Quarter Midget model. I THINK it was produced by the Adamisin family. If that is a smaller fuselage than the other three it is probably that model.
El Bandito, Rickey Rat and l'il Toni were Formula one racers.
All of them were produced in the same manner as racers today, sort of on a cottage industry basis.
Ed S
I know for sure there was a "Pole Kitty" Quarter Midget model. I THINK it was produced by the Adamisin family. If that is a smaller fuselage than the other three it is probably that model.
El Bandito, Rickey Rat and l'il Toni were Formula one racers.
All of them were produced in the same manner as racers today, sort of on a cottage industry basis.
Ed S
07-12-2003, 04:18 PM
#3
Rickey rat, lil tony,el bandito,pole kitty
I had a couple of Rickey Rats years ago in the Formula One event. It was a nice looking plane and flew well once it had taken off and was flying. What I mean is the take-off with the Rickey Rat was an adventure of its own.
For the first three seconds after take-off the plane just did whatever it wanted to. It went wherever it wanted to. You could do nothing about it. You had to hope for the best. Of course this was a 5 pound model (or more with fuel) with Formula One engine and prop rev-ing @ 22,000 rpm. Lots of torque etc.
Some popular opinion was that the tail on the Rickey Rat was too small for a proper take-off. All the rudder input in the world on take-off would never help. In fact, it just seemed to make it worse. You just had to let her go and hang on for the ride for about three seconds. Once it started flying (wing and tail and propeller biting) it flew well.
Randy S.
For the first three seconds after take-off the plane just did whatever it wanted to. It went wherever it wanted to. You could do nothing about it. You had to hope for the best. Of course this was a 5 pound model (or more with fuel) with Formula One engine and prop rev-ing @ 22,000 rpm. Lots of torque etc.
Some popular opinion was that the tail on the Rickey Rat was too small for a proper take-off. All the rudder input in the world on take-off would never help. In fact, it just seemed to make it worse. You just had to let her go and hang on for the ride for about three seconds. Once it started flying (wing and tail and propeller biting) it flew well.
Randy S.
07-15-2003, 09:59 PM
#4
Senior Member
My Feedback: (7)
Well-behaved midwings
Randy,
I have personally observed the antics of which you speak. The big Pole Cat and the first version of the .15 Folkerts also had this problem. Besides the too-small-tail theory, there was the tail-in-the-wing-wake theory. When I designed my first Stinger (.15 size) I made the stabilizer area 15% of the wing area and made sure to place it 1/4" above the wing so it wouldn't be in the downwash. On the first takeoff, I fully expected it to Dutch roll, snap, and bury itself in the dirt as I'd seen the others do. However, I evidently did something right. Since then I've reduced the tail area but always placed the tail 1/4" to 1/2" above the wing (depending on whether the plane was .15 size or .40 size) and never had a gut-check on takeoff.
Dave,
If you plan to build and fly any of those kits, you might want to check the stabilizer position and modify accordingly. Seems like a no-lose proposition unless you're trying for "museum scale."
DHG
I have personally observed the antics of which you speak. The big Pole Cat and the first version of the .15 Folkerts also had this problem. Besides the too-small-tail theory, there was the tail-in-the-wing-wake theory. When I designed my first Stinger (.15 size) I made the stabilizer area 15% of the wing area and made sure to place it 1/4" above the wing so it wouldn't be in the downwash. On the first takeoff, I fully expected it to Dutch roll, snap, and bury itself in the dirt as I'd seen the others do. However, I evidently did something right. Since then I've reduced the tail area but always placed the tail 1/4" to 1/2" above the wing (depending on whether the plane was .15 size or .40 size) and never had a gut-check on takeoff.
Dave,
If you plan to build and fly any of those kits, you might want to check the stabilizer position and modify accordingly. Seems like a no-lose proposition unless you're trying for "museum scale."
DHG
