Midwest Super Stearman
02-08-2003, 09:55 PM
#26
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Jamestown,
NY
Posts: 660
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Danish Stearman
Peter, thanks for the picture as your Stearman is very nicely done. I hope it flies as well as it looks. Keep us posted as to results when you fly it. 
02-08-2003, 10:18 PM
#27
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Indianapolis,
IN
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Midwest Super Stearman
I built a S-Stearman two wears ago. Powered it with a Saito 91. Covered with Fabric. Had to but 12 oz. lead in the nose, most of it as re-shaped auto wheel balancing weightw(less steel clips) Bent and lait them inside the roll of a fiberglass cowl With epoxy flowed over them for a good looking finish. First flight was perfect. Had a club trainer put it throuth its paces. Did loops. rolls , emmelman beautifully. He put it on its backand handed me the box. It flew with only a touch of up rudder
lands like a dream. Had to dead stick it one time and hit prettry hard. Fipped on its back and skidded 20 ft on asphalt, flared the landing struts slightly (easily repaired) but did no other structural damage. I love it.
Don
lands like a dream. Had to dead stick it one time and hit prettry hard. Fipped on its back and skidded 20 ft on asphalt, flared the landing struts slightly (easily repaired) but did no other structural damage. I love it.
Don
02-11-2003, 05:46 AM
#28
Midwest Super Stearman
I just ordered and receive a back issue of Model Airplane News (Jan, 1997) in which Vic Olivett did a review of the plane. He ended up adding 30 ounces of lead to the firewall (ouch!). He explained that he had to use a lot of rudder to control it as well. I'm going to look at the plans and see how much of the needed heavy items I can put as far forward to avoid adding too much lead. BTW, he reported the Saito .91 was enough to power his model.
02-11-2003, 02:06 PM
#29
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Somerville, AL
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice looking planes
I started building my MW Stearman a couple of years ago and just haven't had the time to finish it up. I had it framed up in about three months but I'm just now starting to cover it. I tried to remove as much tail weight as I could by drilling holes in the turtle deck bulk heads and I also hollowed out the balsa blocks used to shape the tail. I also decided to use pull-pull on the elev. and rud. to eliminate the weight of the push rods. I didn't think my mods would lighten the tail enough so I wouldn't have to add nose weight so I figured, if I have to add nose weight why not add it with a bigger engine. I going to use an old YS-120. After all, the full scale plane as a huge engine hanging on the nose. I hope to have it finished in a couple of months.
02-11-2003, 05:48 PM
#30
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Jamestown,
NY
Posts: 660
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stearman
Yep, the one I own but did not build has a big roll of lead silicone rubbered to the inside of the cowl radiused corner. Not good for the fiberglass cowl as bad landings tend to cause tares around the screw attachment holes due to the massive weight the screws are supporting. But, if you keep the weight behind the firewall, then of course more weight is required to balance, thus higher wing loading; not good. Mine started life flying off asphalt where the original builder, owner had little trouble with it until he tried it off the grass. It still has plastic rub plates under the tips of the bottom wing to prevent damaging the covering if the tips drag on the asphalt. After he broke the landing gear
mounting plate flying off grass by stubbing the wheels in the grass, he sold it to me as totally disgusted. I have flown several times off grass
and it is easy to mess up and turn it over on its nose at landing, doing bad things to the heavy weighted cowl and stiff gear.
mounting plate flying off grass by stubbing the wheels in the grass, he sold it to me as totally disgusted. I have flown several times off grass
and it is easy to mess up and turn it over on its nose at landing, doing bad things to the heavy weighted cowl and stiff gear.
02-11-2003, 07:47 PM
#31
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Aarhus, DENMARK
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Midwest Super Stearman
I agree with Flicka - The best way to reach the right CG is to save weight in the back of the plane. I regret a little that I didn't change the balsa block in the rear end to somthing lighter.
As I wrote in an earlier reply, I have 500 g lead hanging below the engine mounth, plus the quit heavy Dubro damped mounth, which give a total close to the 30 Oz. The manual says 20 Oz.
Regarding the choice of engine - I did by a second hand OS FT160 for the Stearman. A beautiful engine (What a sound!). My argument was - Why put lead in the nose, when I can put in a nice engine instead. But when I saw my Buddy's Stearman with the TT.91 fourstroke I changed my mind. The Stearman is not a construction which need this oversized engines. I don't know how much power the YS 1.20 engine has, but you have to be careful not to overload the Stearman. I own a YS .91AC as well and it is indeed a more powerful series of engine than the OS.
By the way, I have been wondering about the travel of the elevator. The manual says 1" up and 7/16" down at high rate?
This is my first biplane - I this normal on bipe? All the monoplane I'v build is trimmed with symmetrical travel.
As I wrote in an earlier reply, I have 500 g lead hanging below the engine mounth, plus the quit heavy Dubro damped mounth, which give a total close to the 30 Oz. The manual says 20 Oz.
Regarding the choice of engine - I did by a second hand OS FT160 for the Stearman. A beautiful engine (What a sound!). My argument was - Why put lead in the nose, when I can put in a nice engine instead. But when I saw my Buddy's Stearman with the TT.91 fourstroke I changed my mind. The Stearman is not a construction which need this oversized engines. I don't know how much power the YS 1.20 engine has, but you have to be careful not to overload the Stearman. I own a YS .91AC as well and it is indeed a more powerful series of engine than the OS.
By the way, I have been wondering about the travel of the elevator. The manual says 1" up and 7/16" down at high rate?
This is my first biplane - I this normal on bipe? All the monoplane I'v build is trimmed with symmetrical travel.
02-11-2003, 10:12 PM
#32
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Indianapolis,
IN
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Midwest Super Stearman
Flicka et all---I personally don't think you can save enouch weight in the back to make a signiofiecnt contriburion to front loading. I also feel that an engine larger than the Saito 91 is over -power and will not contribute to good performance. My first three flights were off grass. Take off and landingwas no problem , even with the wheel pants on. My landing style is three-point which I think is safer given the front weight. I also anticipated the estra loading in the cowl and used 7 aluminum cow brackets. I have a total of 32 oz. of lead-24 on the firewall and 8 in the cowl. Talkek with the Midwest technition who test flew the prototype of the model anad he assured me 31 0z. was ok which proved true. mDid not find out how he got away with only 20 oz. on the firewall. I use symetric elevator travel and a 2/3 throttle plane flies level right-side up or inverted with a slight touch of down elevator. LIKE MY STEARMAN!
good luck, Don Mitchell, Indianapolis , IN.
good luck, Don Mitchell, Indianapolis , IN.
02-11-2003, 10:35 PM
#33
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Jamestown,
NY
Posts: 660
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stearman
Don: glad you have had good results with yours as
I don't particularly like to fly a heavy wing loading type of airplane. Don't have a problem on take off or in the air, just on landing. One of our fields has a slope to it and when landing downhill, it is a particular problem with all that weight out in the cowl to keep it from nosing over. Since the cowl has a relatively large hole in the side for the engine head, there isn't much strength left on that side of cowl to resist loads from poor landings. Mine has a crack along that side in it from such nose overs. I suspect that part of the landing problems could be alleviated with a better gear of correct aluminum spec. with more spring to it. Something I am going to try next. Also, going to a larger engine should not affect the performance adversely as long as the larger prop doesn't hit the ground on landing or takeoff. Doing so would eliminate some of the lead weight way up front in the cowl. You do not have to fly at full throttle with a larger engine plus think about those improved hammerheads with more power!
I don't particularly like to fly a heavy wing loading type of airplane. Don't have a problem on take off or in the air, just on landing. One of our fields has a slope to it and when landing downhill, it is a particular problem with all that weight out in the cowl to keep it from nosing over. Since the cowl has a relatively large hole in the side for the engine head, there isn't much strength left on that side of cowl to resist loads from poor landings. Mine has a crack along that side in it from such nose overs. I suspect that part of the landing problems could be alleviated with a better gear of correct aluminum spec. with more spring to it. Something I am going to try next. Also, going to a larger engine should not affect the performance adversely as long as the larger prop doesn't hit the ground on landing or takeoff. Doing so would eliminate some of the lead weight way up front in the cowl. You do not have to fly at full throttle with a larger engine plus think about those improved hammerheads with more power!
02-12-2003, 02:00 PM
#34
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Somerville, AL
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weight ?
Peter is the only on thats posted an overall weight. I forget what the advertised weight is, but what is everyones finish weight with the added nose weight?
02-12-2003, 04:19 PM
#35
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Indianapolis,
IN
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Midwest Super Stearman
Bamaham-- My Stearman finished out at 12# 8 0z dry including 32 oz lead added up front. ( I didn't try to build light). Weight of the Midwest prototype was 11#4 oz including 20 oz lead added. That makes me 8 0z over proto weight. The only changes I would consider would be after-market tempered landing struts and an RCV 90 SP rotary cylinder/valve engine manufactured in England, which woud require no cowl cut. (a powerful and unique sounding engine). Incidentally my cowl cut for the Saito 91 is only 1 1/2 inch square to accommodate the rocker arm covers. They protude only 1/4 inch.
Don
.
Don
.
08-13-2003, 05:13 PM
#36
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Aarhus, DENMARK
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Flicka5
Sorry it took so long time before I wrote a flight report on my Super Stearman.
My first try was in the spring on a calm day and what a day!
Just after take off the Stearman raise its nose and I allmost
stalled it. Because we have some high trees just west of our flying range I had to make 180 degree turn before I could make up some flyingspeed. The turn and the flight on the down wind course was very unstable, but I manage to pick up the speed so I could climb to a safe height. But to be onest - My knees where shaking!
It took a lot of down trim on the elevator before it flew, but it where very tipsy. After some trim round I made a quit fast landing which ended in a nose over. But considering the start, I was quit happy to have the Stearman safe back on the ground.
I decieded to make a recheck of the CG and I must admit that the tail wan't 100% horizontal. After adding 130 g extra under the engine mount the tail raise some 5 cm. On top of the 500 g I allready had places in the nose I now have a total weigth of 5,6 kg! A flying brick perhaps?
Just after summer holidays I decieded for a "Fly or die" day.
But the Stearman was just like reborn! After a very controled take off, where I obviously was very focused on the speed before I started to climp, the Stearman just was cruising around in the sky. It still needed some down trim, but was okay in its behaviour.
After a couple of landing rounds, to see how it handle slow speed, I made a super soft landing. I flew several flights that evening preforming loops and rolls without any panic. I am particularly surprised how easy it is to land. Just line up in safe height a control the throttle until it is safe on the ground. I have tried to provoke a tip-stall in safe height and with very slow speed, but I can control it all the way until a gentle stall occurs.
My conclusion on the Midwest Stearman is that it a nice looking, fun to build, but quit heavy plane. Do not try with less power than 91 four-stroke. It takes a lot of rudder together with the aileron to make a nice turn, but so did Midwest write in the manual. The CG on the plans are just where it should be, so when you preform a stall, it will come gently and not overreacting. But it is a plane with heavy wingloading and therefore it takes some flying skills to handle starts and landings.
My first try was in the spring on a calm day and what a day!
Just after take off the Stearman raise its nose and I allmost
stalled it. Because we have some high trees just west of our flying range I had to make 180 degree turn before I could make up some flyingspeed. The turn and the flight on the down wind course was very unstable, but I manage to pick up the speed so I could climb to a safe height. But to be onest - My knees where shaking!
It took a lot of down trim on the elevator before it flew, but it where very tipsy. After some trim round I made a quit fast landing which ended in a nose over. But considering the start, I was quit happy to have the Stearman safe back on the ground.
I decieded to make a recheck of the CG and I must admit that the tail wan't 100% horizontal. After adding 130 g extra under the engine mount the tail raise some 5 cm. On top of the 500 g I allready had places in the nose I now have a total weigth of 5,6 kg! A flying brick perhaps?
Just after summer holidays I decieded for a "Fly or die" day.
But the Stearman was just like reborn! After a very controled take off, where I obviously was very focused on the speed before I started to climp, the Stearman just was cruising around in the sky. It still needed some down trim, but was okay in its behaviour.
After a couple of landing rounds, to see how it handle slow speed, I made a super soft landing. I flew several flights that evening preforming loops and rolls without any panic. I am particularly surprised how easy it is to land. Just line up in safe height a control the throttle until it is safe on the ground. I have tried to provoke a tip-stall in safe height and with very slow speed, but I can control it all the way until a gentle stall occurs.
My conclusion on the Midwest Stearman is that it a nice looking, fun to build, but quit heavy plane. Do not try with less power than 91 four-stroke. It takes a lot of rudder together with the aileron to make a nice turn, but so did Midwest write in the manual. The CG on the plans are just where it should be, so when you preform a stall, it will come gently and not overreacting. But it is a plane with heavy wingloading and therefore it takes some flying skills to handle starts and landings.
08-14-2003, 12:40 AM
#37
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Jamestown,
NY
Posts: 660
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New firewall
Peter: glad to hear your Stearman flying success.
I poked my firewall out with a rough landing after engine flameout on takeoff about a month ago. Thinking about the tail heavy condition, I fashioned a new 3/4" thick plywood firewall and glued and screwed this to the old firewall. Now I have an additional 3/4" nose extension plus weight from the heavy ply firewall. I was then able to remove some of the original lead nose weight to balance. Flew it with the new firewall but bent the landing gear in a stall landing toward me. Need to keep the landings so I can see its fuse profile and better judge the landing flair/ground relationship. Good luck with yours.
I poked my firewall out with a rough landing after engine flameout on takeoff about a month ago. Thinking about the tail heavy condition, I fashioned a new 3/4" thick plywood firewall and glued and screwed this to the old firewall. Now I have an additional 3/4" nose extension plus weight from the heavy ply firewall. I was then able to remove some of the original lead nose weight to balance. Flew it with the new firewall but bent the landing gear in a stall landing toward me. Need to keep the landings so I can see its fuse profile and better judge the landing flair/ground relationship. Good luck with yours.
01-02-2004, 05:44 PM
#38
Senior Member
My Feedback: (56)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Batavia,
IL
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: New firewall
I'm just getting around to reading these comments as I build mine. It's getting an OS 91. The kit looks like it was designed by a Great Planes designer. Lots of weight and a not so efficient a design. With all the plywood in the fuselage construction, it seems rugged. But I've broken a half dozen pieces fitting the slot and tabs together. A nice wide piece of wood with a notch 3/4 through it is weak. I was wondering if anyone tried setting the engine forward a litttle to help the balance. I can't see getting much out of the tail. As far as the "soft" landing gear goes, has anyone tried reinforcing the inner surface with a bowed piece of music wire attached to the inside surfaces. I've not seen this done, but read about it. By the way, I have a Kyosh Stearmen ARF in the box to be built. It's a bit smaller, but I might just weigh the parts and compare.
01-02-2004, 08:23 PM
#39
My Feedback: (5)
RE: New firewall
Well I just saw this thread also. I picked up a Midwest Super Stearman "in the bones". Now I got FOC, so I won't complain. I also bought a like new G23 for it, placed it on the firewall and checked the balance. Just a tad tailheavy and this is without the cowl, prop, or spinner. I'm using carbon fiber arrow shafts as pushrod guide tubes for the elevator and the pull-pull system for the rudder. I'm installing a Dubro 12oz tank. Not sure which radio it will go on though. I like gasser's and thought the G23 would provide the ballast and power needed, I hope I'm not wrong! It was also built as the single seat version with a canopy. I hope to have it done by the end of Feb.
01-04-2004, 06:41 PM
#40
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Jamestown,
NY
Posts: 660
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: New firewall
Read the report on this Stearman model as in Model Airplane News mag. from several years ago.
Although I did not build my model, it comes in at 15# with a wing loading of 33 oz. per sq. foot.
Way too much for this type of aircraft; a relatively slow flier. The mag article claims their model came in at 12# with 25 oz. nose lead. Sure would like to know how that is possible????????
Although I did not build my model, it comes in at 15# with a wing loading of 33 oz. per sq. foot.
Way too much for this type of aircraft; a relatively slow flier. The mag article claims their model came in at 12# with 25 oz. nose lead. Sure would like to know how that is possible????????
01-08-2004, 05:40 PM
#42
My Feedback: (5)
RE: New firewall
Ok, here are some numbers:
Fuse 3.6lbs (bare, no covering, rx, servos, etc)
Wings 2.6lbs (same as fuse)
Engine 3.6lbs (G23, cowl and muffler)
For a grand total of 9.8lbs. I'm trying to stay under 13lbs for an all up weight. We'll see what happens.
Fuse 3.6lbs (bare, no covering, rx, servos, etc)
Wings 2.6lbs (same as fuse)
Engine 3.6lbs (G23, cowl and muffler)
For a grand total of 9.8lbs. I'm trying to stay under 13lbs for an all up weight. We'll see what happens.
01-08-2004, 09:22 PM
#43
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: River City, TX
Posts: 400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: New firewall
I have built a Stearman also about 5 years ago and installed YS 120 and I seem to recall it needed 15 oz. of lead in the nose. I was not very happy with the way it handled in the air, always seemed like it was ready to fall out of the sky. I never stuck it on a scale...guess I was afraid to, I ended up selling it. I had other people tell me the same thing with thier Stearman...the club prez built one and he had a YS 91 in it and it flew like a rock...damn sad too because it comes out to be a good looking plane. Both planes were covered with 21st Century Fabric, as I look back on it now I could have shaved a bunch of wieght, maybe tried to move the nose out an inch or more, get the wing loading down to 25 oz/ft.
01-08-2004, 10:25 PM
#44
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Jamestown,
NY
Posts: 660
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: New firewall
Thanks Boss248 as I was beginning to think I had the only lead sled Stearman around! Just too high a wing loading to be a comfortable flying machine. Sometimes there is nothing light about lite ply, period!
I wonder how the natives would handle this one?
I wonder how the natives would handle this one?
01-08-2004, 11:26 PM
#45
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: River City, TX
Posts: 400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: New firewall
AHHH...ha Flicka...that does not look like NY in the pic....unless NY is in the Bahama's
The plane did fly but even with a 1.20 it just seemed like it was struggling to stay in the air. I had a 2400mah rx pack tie wrapped to the firewall and still needed 14-15oz's in the nose. I did the test flight for the club prez's Stearman with the YS .91 and it flew heavy but he still fly's it but he just is not happy with it either...maybe Stearmans fly like that, hell I don't know but as I said earlier there is many places to cut the weight down.
If had had a couple of years I would love to build the Flair Stearman...the reveiw looked real good but it is a scale build but a radial would sure be nice to own.
I don't want you folks that are building or getting ready to finish the bipe to think that it won't fly because it does fly and looks good in the air but keep it lightttt as possible...maybe use Monokote..lite wheels...no metal gear servos and do what you can to the rear end to keep it light and you will have a good, strong plane.
The plane did fly but even with a 1.20 it just seemed like it was struggling to stay in the air. I had a 2400mah rx pack tie wrapped to the firewall and still needed 14-15oz's in the nose. I did the test flight for the club prez's Stearman with the YS .91 and it flew heavy but he still fly's it but he just is not happy with it either...maybe Stearmans fly like that, hell I don't know but as I said earlier there is many places to cut the weight down.
If had had a couple of years I would love to build the Flair Stearman...the reveiw looked real good but it is a scale build but a radial would sure be nice to own.
I don't want you folks that are building or getting ready to finish the bipe to think that it won't fly because it does fly and looks good in the air but keep it lightttt as possible...maybe use Monokote..lite wheels...no metal gear servos and do what you can to the rear end to keep it light and you will have a good, strong plane.
01-08-2004, 11:48 PM
#46
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Jamestown,
NY
Posts: 660
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: New firewall
Boss248, your right it isn't NY but 200 miles north of the equator and 1000 mi. due south of Hawaii.
Don't think these youngsters have ever seen an airplane, let alone a Stearman. Another image that takes the chill off our 5F temp. here tonight! No, not a privy but the only jail on the island and one room at that!
Don't think these youngsters have ever seen an airplane, let alone a Stearman. Another image that takes the chill off our 5F temp. here tonight! No, not a privy but the only jail on the island and one room at that!
01-18-2004, 12:08 AM
#47
Senior Member
My Feedback: (9)
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: scottsville,
NC
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Midwest Super Stearman
I've had one five years now. Has a Saito 170 radial which balances it perfectly. It is done in PT-17 style. Looks great in fast or slow flybys. It will do nearly unlimited vertical rolls. Weighs 11 lb, 5oz.
I'd attach a picture, but I get a Java script error.
I've found this to be an exciting plane, but I too have had trouble with the landing gear. Anybody got some used Robo Struts for sale?
I'd attach a picture, but I get a Java script error.
I've found this to be an exciting plane, but I too have had trouble with the landing gear. Anybody got some used Robo Struts for sale?
01-18-2004, 12:35 AM
#48
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Jamestown,
NY
Posts: 660
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Midwest Super Stearman
Fox 35, what a difference 3.5 lbs. makes: 15-11.5 = 3.5#. There is new after-market aluminum gear available for the Stearman made from "real" aircraft grade aluminum (about $20)! Not that soft junk supplied with the kit! BuR...............RRRRRRR!
