Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > Kit Building
Reload this Page >

Midwest Super Stinker revisited.

Community
Search
Notices
Kit Building If you're building a kit and have questions or want to discuss kit building post it here.

Midwest Super Stinker revisited.

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 03-25-2006, 05:21 PM
  #51  
Texan
My Feedback: (10)
 
Texan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Georgetown, TX
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Midwest Super Stinker revisited.

Super Stinker construction update
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	Rp43926.jpg
Views:	160
Size:	64.5 KB
ID:	432971  
Old 03-27-2006, 12:53 PM
  #52  
LMProd
Senior Member
 
LMProd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Woodland Hills , CA
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Midwest Super Stinker revisited.

Thanks for the great advise. I have a razor plane. I have thought about buying the Great Planes electric plane, don't know if it will work any better. I will add the reinforcement using 1/4 sq. spruce.

I am thinking of using the Saito 220 or I have a Saito 180.

Thanks again,

Gary
Old 03-27-2006, 02:46 PM
  #53  
Texan
My Feedback: (10)
 
Texan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Georgetown, TX
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Midwest Super Stinker revisited.

Gary,

Here are shots of my stringer and tail wheel modifications
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	Om33865.jpg
Views:	176
Size:	46.3 KB
ID:	434088   Click image for larger version

Name:	Rm36486.jpg
Views:	148
Size:	31.8 KB
ID:	434089  
Old 04-03-2006, 01:02 PM
  #54  
Texan
My Feedback: (10)
 
Texan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Georgetown, TX
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Midwest Super Stinker revisited.

Well,

I finally ran into a real problem with the kit. Apparently the cowling side view shown on the plans does not match the plastic cowling supplied in the kit. It is approx. 1/2 inch too short, which is a problem since this cowl is designed to butt up against the firewall. Well, who cares about the plastic cowl, I'm using a fiberglass unit ... right? No, the two major fiberglass cowl suppliers used the stock plastic cowl for their molds. The resulting fiberglass cowls are also almost 1/2 inch too short. Since the kit is no longer in production, there is no chance of getting this resolved.

As a result:

I am going to add a 1/2 inch fiberglass extension to my cowl. This won't be fun. I'll post the results.

Scott
Old 04-04-2006, 11:58 AM
  #55  
LMProd
Senior Member
 
LMProd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Woodland Hills , CA
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Midwest Super Stinker revisited.

Texan,

So if I build the kit to the planes the cowl is 1/2 to short ?? Should I build it a 1/2 longer. I have not started my kit yet. Just purchased it.

Thanks,

Gary
Old 04-04-2006, 12:33 PM
  #56  
Texan
My Feedback: (10)
 
Texan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Georgetown, TX
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Midwest Super Stinker revisited.


ORIGINAL: LMProd

Texan,

So if I build the kit to the planes the cowl is 1/2 to short ?? Should I build it a 1/2 longer. I have not started my kit yet. Just purchased it.

Thanks,

Gary
Gary,

You are asking a good question. If you build per plans and mount your engine as shown, the spinner back-plate stick out approx. 1/2 inch from the cowl. The plans show a nice little 1/16th gap...

Option 1

You can use an aftermarket fiberglass cowl if you are careful about mounting your engine. However, realize that your plane will end up 1/2 inch shorter than the plans.

If you decide to shorten the nose, get your plans (side view) and measure from the cowl faceplate (just behind the spinner) back 1/2 inch. This will be the position of your cowl. Mount your engine accordingly.

Option 2

Mount the engine per plans and modify the firewall. You could build a 1/2 inch extension around the face of the firewall using 1/2 x 1/2 balsa stock around the perimeter and sand to the fuse shape. You would have to increase the length of the hardwood cowl blocks by 1/2 inch. Hey, that sounds like a good idea! I'll check this option before I modify my cowl.



Scott
Old 04-04-2006, 12:58 PM
  #57  
Texan
My Feedback: (10)
 
Texan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Georgetown, TX
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Midwest Super Stinker revisited.

Gary,

Since you have not started your kit yet you have a better option for solving the short cowl problem. Fabricate a balsa cowl shim.

Get F2 and draw an outline on a piece of paper. Ignore the notches and tabs. Now, add 1/8th inch to the outline (for the thickness of the balsa fuse sheeting) and draw an offset outline. From the offset outline you just traced, measure toward the inside 1/2 inch. Draw another offset outline. This will give you a cowl shim pattern to cut from either 1/2 inch balsa sheet stock or two sets of 1/4 inch sheet laminated. BEFORE you glue this to the face of F2, you will need to locate the positions of the five hardwood cowl blocks. Cut clearance notches for the hardwood cowl blocks in your balsa cowl shim. By the way, you will need to fabricate five new hardwood cowl mounting blocks by adding the extra 1/2 inch to the length. Good luck!

Scott
Old 04-04-2006, 01:22 PM
  #58  
LMProd
Senior Member
 
LMProd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Woodland Hills , CA
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Midwest Super Stinker revisited.

Scott,

Thanks for the quick reply. I will go over the plans tonight.

Gary
Old 04-06-2006, 04:20 PM
  #59  
Texan
My Feedback: (10)
 
Texan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Georgetown, TX
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Midwest Super Stinker revisited.

Here is an update on my cowl modification. I added a 1 inch strip of .015 sheet fiberglass overlapped 1/2 inch (inside) followed by a 1/2 inch strip of .015 fiberglass butted to the cowl. I used epoxy and microballons to fill the transition.
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	Mk27309.jpg
Views:	124
Size:	47.3 KB
ID:	440065   Click image for larger version

Name:	Kf14373.jpg
Views:	98
Size:	29.8 KB
ID:	440066   Click image for larger version

Name:	Tz66821.jpg
Views:	113
Size:	28.1 KB
ID:	440067  
Old 04-06-2006, 04:50 PM
  #60  
bobzilla
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (63)
 
bobzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 962
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default RE: Midwest Super Stinker revisited.

Now that is nice..what is funny is that my cowl was a white plastic type stuff, not semi clear like yours?
I wonder if maybe MW..changed cowls in some kits?
BTW, the white plastic was awefull brittle and cracked easy, I had to reinforce most the inside to
of it and wheel pants with fiberglass.

Anyway, looks like Mr. Longnose is coming along quite well..hehe

bobz


Old 04-06-2006, 05:27 PM
  #61  
Texan
My Feedback: (10)
 
Texan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Georgetown, TX
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Midwest Super Stinker revisited.

bobzilla,

I threw away the white plastic parts that came with the kit. I'm using a fiberglass cowl from Stan's. Apparently, the molds were made 1/2 inch too short (they were based on the original MW plastic part... which was too short). My option was to add fiberglass strips to make-up the difference. My plane is the exact length shown on the plans.


Scott
Old 04-07-2006, 10:16 PM
  #62  
Texan
My Feedback: (10)
 
Texan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Georgetown, TX
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Midwest Super Stinker revisited.

Update:

Cowl fitted to the plane. Look at the huge hole in the bottom of the cowl that was required to clear the Taurus TS42. Cooling shouldn't be a problem!

Scott
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	Zx70246.jpg
Views:	153
Size:	40.1 KB
ID:	440751   Click image for larger version

Name:	Sn40005.jpg
Views:	161
Size:	64.4 KB
ID:	440752  
Old 05-25-2006, 04:41 AM
  #63  
bobzilla
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (63)
 
bobzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 962
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default RE: Midwest Super Stinker revisited.

With much sadness I have to report I am selling my Super Stinker. I am moving up the the BME 37% ultimate..and must produce some funding for engine. Im gonna miss the SS when she sells, as it is a beautiful kit and great flyer!

[&o]
bobzilla
www.airbornelizards.com
Old 08-12-2007, 08:41 PM
  #64  
medicine_man
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Redcliff, AB, CANADA
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Midwest Super Stinker revisited.

Hi. Just recieved A SS as a gift. It was built and flown several years ago.
As I recieved nothing with it I need to know the CG point, and do you think A GMS 1.20 will fly it?
Weight fully assembled with out motor or radio gear is 8 lb 2 oz
I am just east of Calgary Alberta, elevation 3,000 ft [X(]
Old 08-12-2007, 09:32 PM
  #65  
bobzilla
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (63)
 
bobzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 962
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default RE: Midwest Super Stinker revisited.

my plans show the cg at 1.25" back from the leading edge of bottom wing.
Old 08-13-2007, 06:55 AM
  #66  
Texan
My Feedback: (10)
 
Texan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Georgetown, TX
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Midwest Super Stinker revisited.


ORIGINAL: medicine_man

Hi. Just recieved A SS as a gift. It was built and flown several years ago.
As I recieved nothing with it I need to know the CG point, and do you think A GMS 1.20 will fly it?
Weight fully assembled with out motor or radio gear is 8 lb 2 oz
I am just east of Calgary Alberta, elevation 3,000 ft [X(]
At your altitude, the GMS 1.20 may not provide much performance. Bipes typically require more power to overcome their higher drag. I think something like OS 1.60 or Saito 1.80 would be better.
Old 08-13-2007, 07:42 AM
  #67  
bobzilla
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (63)
 
bobzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 962
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default RE: Midwest Super Stinker revisited.

I agree with texan...I had a MOKI 2.10 is was well suited for this biplane..I also had used a ST2300 and it also flew ok...but don't ask me why I hate that engine so much! You will need something that also can use a pitts style muffler..and that may limit your use of the GMS
as it has limited muffler choices. YOu could also go small gas, like the evolution.

bobz
Old 12-31-2007, 10:53 AM
  #68  
PointMagu
My Feedback: (11)
 
PointMagu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cottondale, AL
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Midwest Super Stinker revisited.

I posted on another thread before I "discovered" this one...

Here's mine so far with a Zenoah G23:

PM
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	Tr50000.jpg
Views:	169
Size:	58.5 KB
ID:	838442   Click image for larger version

Name:	Ni24314.jpg
Views:	127
Size:	55.9 KB
ID:	838443   Click image for larger version

Name:	Wc77553.jpg
Views:	167
Size:	56.0 KB
ID:	838444  
Old 12-31-2007, 11:19 AM
  #69  
Texan
My Feedback: (10)
 
Texan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Georgetown, TX
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Midwest Super Stinker revisited.

Dem bones are lookin' good! That Zen fits great... looks like minimal nose surgery.
Old 12-31-2007, 11:42 AM
  #70  
PointMagu
My Feedback: (11)
 
PointMagu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cottondale, AL
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Midwest Super Stinker revisited.

'ppreciate the kind words...

I have a question if I might. All my previous bipes have 2 aileron servos situated on the lower wing with con-rods to the upper control surfaces. The SS has provisions for 4-aileron servos and I'm curious if I'm going to have to invest in additional electronics to synch them all together.

I purchased 4 new JR digital servos specifically for the ailerons, JRPS-821. At their rated torque even at 4.8v, I felt them to be sufficient. I run 6.0v on most of my planes but have had issues at this higher voltage using JR products.

Has anyone used only 2 higher torque servos and utilized the con-rod variation on this airframe? If this is "do-able" it would sure make for a less complex radio install, (cheaper, too). Remember, I don't fly anything other than pure Sunday-style. Being my very 1st gasser, I'm trying to focus on areas that I haven't prior experience. Heck, I just read about the kill switch necessity on gas. Lots to learn after flying glo all these years, LOL...

PM
Old 12-31-2007, 11:57 AM
  #71  
bobzilla
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (63)
 
bobzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 962
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default RE: Midwest Super Stinker revisited.

STick with the 4 servos. use a Y-cord to hook em up so you can easly use a 6-ch radio. nice thing about have two sets of ailerons, if one set goes bad, you still get to land the plane..

as far as kill switch...we use chokes on all our gas engines, serves us well for starting our engines, and for killing the engine when needed. a separate servo channel with kill switch is useless in my book.
Old 12-31-2007, 12:45 PM
  #72  
Gray Beard
My Feedback: (-1)
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hemderson, NV
Posts: 14,396
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
Default RE: Midwest Super Stinker revisited.

The kill switch for the engine is A safty feature and A must have if you ever fly at an IMAA event. With the switch if something happens during start up the holder can hit the switch and kill it, if you have something go wrong with your radio you can hit the switch and kill it. For A couple of bucks you have one and they don't weigh anything, not A must have thing but just A good idea.
Old 12-31-2007, 12:58 PM
  #73  
bobzilla
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (63)
 
bobzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 962
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default RE: Midwest Super Stinker revisited.

ah..so right IMAA...we don't fly there..
Old 12-31-2007, 03:46 PM
  #74  
PointMagu
My Feedback: (11)
 
PointMagu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cottondale, AL
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Midwest Super Stinker revisited.


ORIGINAL: PointMagu
Remember, I don't fly anything other than pure Sunday-style.
Guess the IMAA comment was for them that do....

So back to my original 4 servo vs. 2 scenario:

If using 4 servos, I'd connect the top 2 with a "Y", the bottom 2 with a "Y" and then those 2 "Y's" with a 3rd, going to the receiver with no mixing involved. Is this correct?

Since I fly a Futaba CAP8 computer rig, mixing these should be able to be done...I'd just hafta figure out the programming in order to set trims on each and end points, etc. Anyone have any guidance on that programming? The manual just doesn't cover this that I can see...

T'anks,
PM
Old 12-31-2007, 04:17 PM
  #75  
bobzilla
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (63)
 
bobzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 962
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default RE: Midwest Super Stinker revisited.

the is correct..but if you use 2 channels you can more easily trim your plane, instead of having to adjust linkage.
put one y-cord into the aileron channel and other into flaps or aux. Then set radio to Flaperons and use the Pmix 5 or 6 to sync.

bobz



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.