MJD

My Feedback: (1)

I recently acquired a Keil Kraft Super 60 kit, and am quite excited at the idea of building it this winter. However, the kit is missing the plans. Where could I find a set?

MJD

RFJ

Try - [link]http://www.benbucklevintage.com/shop/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=2_9&products_id=130[/link]

Ray

ukengineman

The Ben Buckle plan does have a few changes from the original. The most significant is the reduction of the dihedral from 4 inches under each wingtip to 2 inches. If using rudder/elevator control I would strongly recommend using 4 inches. I would also advise strengthening the wing, in particular use more substantial dihedral braces. Also make sure the spars are good hard balsa or use spruce. The Super 60 is a straightforward traditional build and is a nice relaxing model to fly.

RFJ

This is the original.

MJD

My Feedback: (1)

Thank you folks. I am looking forward to this model!

mjd

flying pastor

Ray, some pics taken of my original, and very tatty, KK super 60 plan. It is about 40 years old. I have laid my old enya 29 on it for a size comparison as the motor on my plan is a much smaller motor ( Enya 19?).
MJD. Please note the tail construction and the 4 inch wheels. If you build it with less dihedral and ailerons you will need a larger rudder. I have built both and prefer the non aileron version. The wings do need strengthening, as others have said. I last used the plan about 3 years ago and the Super 60 is in my loft ready to fly whenever needed. A .25 2 stroke or a .40 4 stroke are good motors to use. We used to fit Merco .61's for sparkling sports performance but that was a long time ago. I have also flown one with reed eqpt and a Merco .35. This was covered with genuine 2nd world war parachute silk and was very heavy!! It still flew though! They can handle wind better than you might expect and are still to be recommended as a good trainer. You will need to use the elevator a lot as they will balloon into wind.
If you need a plan look on www.aviationmodeller.com and follow the links to r/c sports models where you will find a 75% plan called the mini super. This is an accurate scale down and is not to be confused with the later KK and Ben Buckle Mini Super.
Before I forget the front wing dowel position is very weak most people fit it much lower.
Chris.

RFJ

Chris,

Like you I kept the plan from my original (1964/5) kit, look at it occasionally and wonder if I should build another. Mine started with a Merco 35, Macgregor RX and Commander escapement and ended with six channel F&M reeds.

One of the all time classic designs and just perfect for a 30/40 four stroke.

Ray

jomarmar

For years I had flown a Fox 36 Powered Super 60. It had the 4th channel operating large semi fowler/plain flaps which made it super fun to fly.
JM

ripmax33

it is possible to use an FS 20 four stroke on the super 60, will it have enough power to do basic aerobatics or it is wise to put at lest a FS 40

regards
Daniel

Telemaster Sales UK

MJD,

The earlier Super 60 featured a symmetrical section tail surface made up from ribs and spars.

The Ben Buckle kit has a flat plate tailplane made up from 1/4" strip a la Junior 60.

I don't suppose it makes a lot of differnce.

Happy Landings

DD

psuguru

It depends on how you intend to cover it.
I built a Ben Buckle Super 60 and fitted ailerons.
Originally, it was otherwise as per plan and covered in rip-stop nylon with butyrate dope.
With an OS FP35, it was very sprightly and would aerobat handily, although there was a lot of adverse aileron yaw.
After a re-cover with Solartex and some beefing up of the spars around the wing seat (balsa replaced with spruce and ply formers) the performance with the FP35 is pedestrian and really doesn't lend itself to more than loops. So, I guess the answer would be that even with an FS40, it's not going to be sparkling in its performance.
It never has been able to spin, not enough rudder authority.
Have fun!

ripmax33

did you sheet the wing as per plans? it says that 1/16 balsa sheeting and capstrips on top of the wing only. and the ribs are all of 1/16 balsa.
so i guess that a little modification on the rudder can be appplied, just build it a little bit larger. a SC 52 fs i think should be right then.

regards
Daniel

psuguru

I built it originally exactly as per plan. The Ben Buckle kit had 1/16" ribs and top deck sheeting back to the spar. the LE was square section balsa turned to 45 deg so that the pointy bit was facing forwards.
The ribs were a bit weak and the covering caused one of them to go wavy when it shrank. Also, the tightening of the covering caused washout at the tips, not a bad thing, but I had to be careful about matching it side to side.
The first iteration had the U/C held on with laggy bands and that didn't work well at all. The model would "kneel" upon landing as the wheels swept backwards. I screwed it on permanently with wire clamps in the end.
I covered the tank bay with several layers of 1/32 ply rather than scoring thicker material. As this is the area you grip when starting, it pays to make this strong, and that metthod worked really well.
This is a very old design and was originally for single-channel gear. Consequently, the flat bottom aerofoil gives good longitudinal stability and standard dihedral doesn't really need ailerons at all.
If you want classic performance then I would have thought a FS40 would be fine.

regards,
Carole Sherrington

ripmax33

looking again on the plans (super 60 latest version) i agree that the wing ribs are a little bit thin, i think that replacing them with 3/32 balsa would be better and i dont think it will add too much weight
the 4 channel series has only 1/2 dihedral. i think it will be more lively and sport like. i never flew a 3 channel model before and i dont know if it will make nice rolls with only 3 channel. what i like in the
super 60 is that it doesnt look like a common trainer. but its more scale like and very easy to build. it's like i'm fascinated with it. now that i fly and build sport and 3d models why taking the disturb to build a trianer? i'm
thinking. hmmm.....

regards
Daniel

psuguru

The Ben Buckle kit doesn't use cap strips on the wing ribs. I think if you fit them as per KK plan, then that should stiffen up the ribs perfectly adequately.
Have you built this type of model before? ie stick construction?
The single most effective trick I learned was to build the two fuselage sides together one on top of the other, using the same grade of wood for the longerons and cutting the bracing pieces from the same piece of wood. That means they wind up being exactly the same size and they bend exacly the same wwhen you pull the tail together. I used bits of grease-proof paper to separate the glue joins so that the fuselage sides didn't become one huge mass. It's more difficult to use the same technique on the wings, but that's what I did and the model flew straight and true without needing trim at all.
With practice you can bash through a kit like this in no time at all. I built the airframe in a week of evenings.

RFJ

My original KK kit plan (from 1963 ) does not show cap strips - perhaps they changed it later. I covered it with nylon, doped and painted with no distortion of the structure but if I built another I would use them.

Ray

psuguru

yep,
That's how mine was.
However, I did build mine in 1983!
And it's still going strong despite an unfortunate airframe-tree interface incident.

RFJ

Baah...the new fangled, modern version

Daniel. It was quite common back then to use something like an OS 19 but a 20 four stroke would be pushing it a little. A 40 four stroke would be perfect however.

Ray

ripmax33

yes i'm sure a 40 would be absolutley fine, when i had my Ripmax trainer 40 when i started the hobby i had an OS40 fp.
it was quite agile a performing manouvers with little effort. and i think it was heavy or maybe more than a super 60. i think
a super 60 with all that sticks fuselage construction is a very light airframe. but i think with a little four stroke in the front is much
more pretty than a 2 stroke with there ugly big silencer. i think on the aerobatic side then i will need to use a lot of momentum from
the model, more scale like flying.

Daniel

psuguru

Ugly!
I'll have you know sir that my muffler is just perfick.

I like my aircraft to sound like they ought to, not like chuffing steam trains!

ripmax33

sorry i didn't want to offend you. i like your super 60 even the colour scheme. it's just my opinion
if you post more photos showing the radio setup would be nice. the part that i dont know what to use is
the engine mount area. on the latest plans it shows hardwood beams and an aluminium plate to install the engine
on it. i read somewhere in a magazine the on the old version instead of alluminum, paxoline was used.

regards
Daniel

Telemaster Sales UK

Daniel,

You may use any form of sheet material providing it is strong enough to withstand the torque of starting your engine. In the past I've used paxoline, aluminium and 1/4" plywood to mount engines on. I dare say you could use carbon fibre or glass fibre sheet of a suitable thickness if you can find any. The only advatage of using paxoline is that the material will break in the event of a crash, reducing damage to your engine and airframe.


Psuguru,

I'd rather have a chuffing steam engine than a flying chainsaw!

ripmax33

the plan says 12 swg aluminium plate. its about 1/8 or 3mm do you think that 3mm paxolin is strong enough for a 40 four stroke to 52 four stroke?
i like the idea of paxolin in the event of a crash. where can i find paxolin? i tried on ebay but can't find any

regards
Daniel

RFJ

[link]http://www.nexusmodels.co.uk/shop/category_111/Paxolin.html?shop_param=cid%3D%26[/link]

Ray

ripmax33

thanks for the link ray