Hab

Thanks Dave............See you 1/4/11

Doog-meister

Just ordered the Super Chipmunk kit from the LHS. I was thinking the OS .91 or perhaps a Saito FA-100. LHS has a magnum .91 RFS on the shelf, so I lightened his inventory. Kit should arrive in a week or so. I've had stellar luck with Magnum engines in the past - still flying a GP .65 I got in 1994.

Plan on two servos for the ailerons, mounted sideways with a hatch. Not too difficult, and appearance is worth the effort, IMO. Balsa wing tips, and the balsa belly pan as well. Think I'll take some of the advice and reinvorce the LG mounts. I broke one of the LG blocks out of my Goldberg Tiger, so am familiar with the 'surgery' required for repairs. Much easier to put the fix in place during the build. Some tri stock and ply doublers on the ribs should suffice.

The question remains - to flap, or not to flap?

Some nice looking planes in this thread.

Hab

Went with dual servos. (Although I've talked with others that have built using the linkage set up and had no problems )
Didn't build with flaps. As you can read in the prev. posts, I used a YS .91 in this one. Glass cowl and pants
from FiberGlass Specialties, with another replacement canopy from them also. No major problems with this one going together. (Although some of the building guide sequence
for the wing(s) were a bit trick.....decieving if you didn't look at it close) I did beef up the gear blocks a little bit more than they wanted.
Won't get to maiden til spring thow......[&o]

Hab

bsw_sr

I have had 14 different CG Chipmonks and for an all around fun plane to fly it is hard to beat. I have had several different size engines on mine. Anywhere for the old FS 90 to a Saito 120. I greatly prefer the Saito 120 on this plane with just a couple of mods. Other than the obvious beefing up of the wing mounts, When building the wings Iput a strip of carbon fiber glued to the wing spars and pinned all control surfaces. Only other thing you may want to do is bend the landing gear wires so the main wheels are further to the front. That makes takeoff and landing much easier. (Not that this one is hard in the first place). I used a 13x10 prop with no problems and set radio up with dual control rates so it can be just as tame or as wild as you want it to be. All in all it has been my favorite flyer and even though Ihave moved up to giant scale Istill keep one of the chipmonks around because it is such a fun plane to fly.

emilsanto

My Feedback: (39)

I had one of theses carl golberg chipmunks i built from a kit.
i added larger alerons, and used a old os 61sf 2 stroke. it was more than enough engine.
i wouldnt go over a 91 4 stroke.
with the larger alerons it would do snap rolls so fast they were blinding.
the roll rate was very fast on a high rate setting with bigger alerons. i didnt mess with the elevator ir rudder size no need to.
i am a very agressive flyer and this was my favorite plane for 2 years. it would lock in tight like a patten plane when you wanted.
and with the larger airlerons it would get down right crazy. it landed so easy.
if i was to build another one i would use 2 steel pins to lock down the front of the wing along with steel wing bolts in the rear.
YES did rip the wing off of it. it was repairable ALSO I WOULD NOT PUT THE GEAR IN THE WINGS I WOULD PUT ONE PIECE LANDING GEAR ON IT. THEY WILL BREAK OFF THE WING.
but i move on to some thing else,

dragonov3

My Feedback: (3)

Thats an awesome looking chipmunk. Excellent work.

Hab

Thanks... my club president saw this .............he was able to put three pics up for me on here.
If you get a chance......go back to the southcounty forum...same place...check out the scratch
he's currently doing of an Acroduster......( Acrodustrer build ) That's a fine piece of craftsmanship.

bkyrdflyer

My Feedback: (1)

I built one of these 2 years ago and it is one of my favorite planes. I have a Magnum .91 on mine. Plenty of power. The only problem is that the inverted Magnum loads up very easy. It took me a while to get it tuned. Rolls and snaps are quick with this plane. I was surprised just how aerobatic it turned out to be.

Hab

Yeah....I had talked with someone about that recently. Shouldn't run into that
problem......or with the problem of having to start and setup inverted every time.

YS runs a pumped system. Have known of others that have run a YS engines
in F3A pattern ships.......didn't have any problems once it was set up right.
Something where loading up on the bottom end makes a big difference in
its performance when competing. First 4 stroker for me. When I chose this
build, I decided on 4s power. Always wanted the chance to run a YS.......
Couldn't think of a better marriage......and deals are out there for them.....seems like every ones
converting to EP these days.

drube

On the Tower website it says "REQUIRES: Engine: .45-.61 (7.3-10cc) (2-stroke)OR .90 (14.7 cc)(4-stroke)"
Would a OS 46AX reallyfly it?
Just curious.

Hab

In Imo, A .46 would be to small ... even though it says a ".45 - 61" I don't think it'll kick a prop big enough to fly a 7-8 lb plane. 3-4 lb plane yes.

Will it fly it, yeah probably, you'd have your hands full ....( straight and level with no wind) ... but that's about it. Not enough power for anything else. I don't even think you'd have enough power to get it of the ground when flying from a grass field.

drube

I was wondering about that. I'm using an Enya 60 lll and it has plenty of go but a 46?

Hab

I'd have no faith in a plane being under-powered by the smallest size motor recommended. I'm running a .46AX on a Kavalier. Between a 10"x7 , or 6. Good motor for a 4 lb
airplane, but think if I tried bolting a 13"x8 or 7 on it and tried pulling an 8lb airplane with it , I'd destroy it in no time. Both plane .... and motor

You got me curious though, I checked recomended prop range for the .46 OS says 10.5"x6 , 11"x6-8 or a 12"x6-7 12x7 would pull it (Chipmunk) but the power
would be down. RPM's would deffinately suffer swinging a 12" prop, and there goes the torque / power curve needed for the weight being pulled.

cfircav8r

My Feedback: (1)

I have flown many models that would be considered underpowered by most flyers, and they flew fine. The problem is that we have become accustom to excessivly overpowered A/C and expect near vertical performance from our aircraft. The reality is that the Super Chipmunk, while fitted with a much larger engine, still required a lot of energy management to perform its routines.

Tarasdad

There's a Fox .50 in my inventory that's slated for a Chipmunk. Just need to get the kit and get to building.

emilsanto

My Feedback: (39)

I have seen the goldberg chipmunk with retracts installed. it took him a little more work but he siad i was worh it.

drube

I would like to hear how it flys. Now go getcha a kit! lol

Hab

Never enough power..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNp_5ZRqFi0&NR=1

emilsanto

My Feedback: (39)

Man that brings back good memories yes im that old. got to love art. he was my hero when i was a lad. not the atsronauts
how about the ribbon pic up.

Hab

Was lucky to see him fly also, at an airshow at SRQ in FL. '78 / '79 ? Along with the Red Devils ........
Tom Poberenzy , Charlie Hillard , Gene Soucy

drube

Cool vid Hab, thanks for posting! The engine sounds good with that whistle.

emilsanto

My Feedback: (39)

here is a vid showing art and his chip munk with retracts and him standing up waving i have to tell you it was art's chipmunk that got me into planes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-kHT...eature=related

Hab

Welcome Drube... Mentioned I saw him at SRQ - ( Sarasota ) .... I was 10.
Been awhile. But have not forgotten.

cfircav8r

My Feedback: (1)

I can't see the vid but if he's just standing in the seat you missed the real thrill. I saw him at the Carlsbad race track in Ca. and he came by through a valley standing on the wing waving with his hand in the cockpit. Now that was crazy. I have to agree he was the reason I got into flying.

cfircav8r

My Feedback: (1)

Oops duplicate post