lmckee1065

My Feedback: (1)

Does anyone have any experience building a Midwest Super Stearman? I am looking for some tips on building (and flying) one. I plan to put a Saito 100 in it. Do you think that it will have enough power? Thanks, Dave

LuvBipes

My Feedback: (4)

No direct experience, but remember reading a couple of magazine reviews and online comments from a few years back that it would fly on a 91 4-stroke, but tended to come out tail heavy due to the short nose moment.

I would recommend a 120 4-stroke only because you might as well put the needed nose weight to some good use and it's nice to have a reserve of power on a large draggy bipe.

lmckee1065

My Feedback: (1)

Hey- thanks for the info Luvbipes. I'll keep that in mind. I have a hog bipe now with a 91 saito and weighing in at less than 7 pounds it is nicely powered. Have not been able to find any info on the Stearman except for the one that is having problems. Thanks again, Dave

FlyingPilgrim

My Feedback: (26)

Dave,
I have the same kit/engine combo sitting on my shelf waiting for the time to build it. I bought the .91 as it was the largest recommended engine in the kit description, plus the plans showed that same engine in the installation. I agree that if you have to add lead to balance, you might as well put in the heavier engine! Please let me know how yours turns out and if you are happy with it. I may consider going with a larger engine if it looks like the .91 is anemic.
Thanks, Jeff (Flying Pilgrim)

lmckee1065

My Feedback: (1)

I've been hearing a few reports that the Stearman still needs more weight up front even with a 120 and it is a very heavy plane. I am waiting to hear from Midwest before I decide whether I will build that plane or not. If I decide to build it I will definitely let you know how it goes... Dave

flicka5

My Feedback: (2)

Have one that I am flying with the old OS .90 4 stroke. It was built by an expert builder and done correctly. In order to balance, a ton of lead is used in the nose. It becomes so heavy that it is not a fun flyer. The thick aluminum gear is so soft that it will bend with the slightest snag of the wheels in grass. Hard to land without nose over. Overall. I give it a thumbs down for flyability. They need to redesign the kit to lighten up the tail.

lmckee1065

My Feedback: (1)

Thanks for that information. Its exactly what I was afraid of. I probably will not bother trying that plane. Thanks again, Dave

Topgun2mo

My Feedback: (45)

I have a Midwest Stearman kit and a YS 120 that I am going to use in it. I also plan on using Monocoat in lieu of cloth/paint just to keep the tail lighter. I have also purchased the Robart Struts for that airplane and properly balanced, it should perform beautifully. It sounds like the one tipping over could use shifting the balance point aft. I set up all of my bipes with a little negative incidence on the top wing, tail and lower wing at zero and the motor with right and up thrust. On both a Sig Skybolt (done up as a super skybolt before the GP version was available) and a phaeton 60 that setup provided a neutrally stable aircraft at all different power settings.

Mike

lmckee1065

My Feedback: (1)

I was considering building the Stearman after all and modifying the front for better balance without adding a lot of weight. I am also considering a 120 OS or Saito. I love the way my hog bipe flies and was hoping the Stearman would perform as well. I guess covering with monokote would help too. Thanks, Dave

flicka5

My Feedback: (2)

Mike : you mean shift the CG toward the rear so it flies tail heavy??? The supplied landing gear is part of the landing problem becaus it is 1/4 thick, soft aluminum that bends permanently instead of flexing when your landings are not 100% perfect. UGH!

Topgun2mo

My Feedback: (45)

Not to the point it flies noticable tail heavy, but usually there is some leeway there. I usually judge how tail heavy the craft is by how much down elevator I need in the inverted attitude.

FlyingPilgrim

My Feedback: (26)

I was looking at the plans on mine and trying to figure out how to lighten it up. The planking on the fuse has to add a lot of weight, maybe substituting some stringers instead? (Although I am not that ambitious to alter plans too much!) I think I will use a 1.20 Saito instead of my .91 also. The plane is just too pretty not to build it. I just read the Midwest website description, and they brag about how beautifully it flys and handles. I guess you can't believe everything you read, huh? Maybe another idea will be to cram all the radio gear into the nose.

lmckee1065

My Feedback: (1)

I am currently working on the Phaeton 90 from Balsa USA but may build the Stearman as my next bipe if I get any good reports about its flying capabilties. I'd really like to know how you make out with yours, Dave

flicka5

My Feedback: (2)

Also have the Phaeton 90 with a Webra .90 and it flies five times better than the Midwest Stearman
because it has a lot lighter wing loading with no weight added for balancing.

flicka5

My Feedback: (2)

Just to include a pic. of my Phaeton from a year ago when flying it with a Fox .74 ABC. Now as I indicated above, it has a Webra .90 because of problems making the Fox run right even though it ran the first season without a problem. The Webra has a Super Tigre 3000 carb which works just fine
because I didn't like the original Webra slide valve carb.

daw

My Feedback: (6)

I've flown one built by a friend of mine. It flies beautifully with an OS 91 4-stroke. It took some weight up front to get the CG correct, I think 8oz. He has had problems with the gear. He is looking at fitting in the Stearman style struts by Robart. From what I've seen modify the landing gear as you build it but do'nt be afraid of the 91.

mikeh

My Feedback: (2)

I have just completed the building(not the covering) of this kit. I have read the comments about the soft aluminum gear. I talked to Robart about using there struts on this plane and they said it was to late. You must make changes to the structure which would be difficult to do after the plane was built(darn). Is it possible to harden the aluminum gear? I hate gear that is always bending!!!!!

mikeh

My Feedback: (2)

Flika5, tnt makes a T6 aluminum landing gear for the midwest stearman. I have been told that T6 aluminum will not bend and that tnt is a good company to deal with. The price is $20 there web site is www.tntlandinggear.com hope this helps your problem (and mine).

flicka5

My Feedback: (2)

Thanks for the heads up on new gear avilable for the Midwest Stearman. If you notice my landing gear on my Phaeton 90 above is not the original wire gear supplied by Balsa USA. Had trouble with the wire gear wood anchors and replaced it with a commercial aluminum gear that I just happened to have used in my basement No problems with this gear and no problems with wire gear if the anchoring method in the fuse is correct. Did not
build the Phaeton and would have changed or reinforced the gear anchoring block method if had a chance while under construction.

Bamaham

I've had my Stearman framed up and ready for covering for about a year now. I just haven't had the time to finish it up. While building it I drilled holes in the turtle deck former and hollowed out the balsa blocks used to make up the tail. I have also set it up with pull-pull wires on the elev. and rud. to eliminate the weight of the push rods. I mounted a YS 120 on the nose to help offset the weight of the tail. I had even toyed with the idea of mounting a G23 on it but I already had the YS. I hope to get it covered this winter.

Peter Bejerholm

I've just finished building a Midwest Stearman,but its still to cold in Denmark to get in the air. A buddy of mine have been flying with one for a couple of years now. He gave me some hints that I've followed.

He did not have problems with the soft aluminum gear, but broke the plywood inside the buddy, so I've glued an extra layer of plywood on top of the other. Regardig weight, its in the rigt end of the plane.

Another vital point is the angel of the upper wing. Our kits had both the same problem. The rear cabane is to low, so we had to add 8 mm of wood to the wing where the rear cabane is fitted to the wing.

I'm using an OS.91 fourstroke engine with punp on a Du Bro mount. To get the CG on the right place I had to add 500 g of lead in the nose. The total weight is 5,1 kg including a pilot. (Sorry guys in Europe we use metrix, so you have to calculate)
My buddy is using an TT.91 fourstroke and his plane preforme very scale-like.

Best regards

flicka5

My Feedback: (2)

I was in Copenhagen two years ago on way back from St. Petersburg through Helsinki and Stockholm. Found a bookstore not too far from the harbor that had some interesting aircraft books in the window. Would have liked to buy some but it was Sunday and they were closed and I had to leave for Oslo that night. Earlier, saw a JU52 fly over Berlin near the Brandenburg Gate. I suspect they give rides to tourist in the JU52 as I saw it fly over and then shortly, come back over the city. Anyhow, quite a sight for an old Aero Engineer. I also suspect that the JU52 wasn't a welcome sight in Denmark 50 yrs+ ago.

Yes, also had my plywood landing gear anchor break away from the fuselage in my Midwest Stearman in a very mild snag on some high grass. But, also think the aluminum gear is the wrong specification as being too soft and lacks proper springing action partly due however, to the thick metal cross section. In any case, after market replacement gear is available for sale which is fabricated from proper aircraft grade aluminum. Your decision to add plywood to the gear mount is a good one not only for strength but replaces the equivalent lead weight you would need in the nose for balance, anyhow. As you mentioned on the "right end"

What was the incidence angle of your top wing with respect the bottom wing when you finished your alinement?

Here is another view of my gem!

Peter Bejerholm

No the JU52 in Nazi paint wasn't welcome in Denmark during WWII. I think the JU52 you have seen is the one Lufthansa has restored. You can read more about it on this link: www.lufthansa-ju52.de

The incidence angle of both wing of my stearman is zero degree according with the plans from Midwest.

Best regards

flicka5

My Feedback: (2)

Thanks for the wing incidence information as I do not have the Midwest plans as I purchased my Stearman built from a good friend who was disgusted with the flight/landing characteristics. Now I can check the actual incidence angle against the designed plan data value to see if it is in agreement. Also, appreciate the link to the site about the restored JU52, very interesting. Keep us posted about your flight results with the new Stearman.
Regards

Peter Bejerholm

Hi Flica5

It was my intention to upload a picture of my Stearman with the last reply, but I could not get the picture resolution down to a size which was accepted by the forum limitations. Anyway here it is.