Graupner Kwik Fli MKIII

Graupner Kwik Fli MKIII
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> Pattern Flying >> Classic Pattern Flying >> Graupner Kwik Fli MKIII

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Graupner Kwik Fli MKIII - 4/3/2008 2:34:28 PM

Posts: 675
Joined: 11/20/2005
From: Somewhere Out There, USA
Status: online

Look at what's available at Hobby Lobby!

http://www.hobby-lobby.com/kwikfly.htm

I wonder if it would be SPA legal like the World Models Intruder? Might be a good canidate for a strip down and recover to match the original.

FB

< Message edited by Free Bird -- 4/3/2008 2:36:17 PM >

RE: Graupner Kwik Fli MKIII - 4/3/2008 2:48:11 PM

WEDJ

Posts: 1010
Joined: 2/21/2007
From: East Haddam, CT, USA
Status: offline

Quick Fly is listed on the SPA list

_____________________________

Pilot dog FTW!

(in reply to Free Bird)

RE: Graupner Kwik Fli MKIII - 4/3/2008 2:53:35 PM

8178

Posts: 3031
Joined: 5/25/2004
From: _ , USA
Status: offline

Looks like they got rid of the strange wing tips that were on the early production models. It looks much more true to the original Kwik Fli design than the World Models version of the Intruder. But at 6 ¾ lbs, that sucker is a lead sled.

(in reply to Free Bird)

RE: Graupner Kwik Fli MKIII - 4/3/2008 3:12:20 PM

Posts: 3350
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Warner Robins, GA, USA
Status: offline

Kwikfly always was a lead sled.
Wonder if they are going to ARF the Daddy Rabbit too.

Its rather pricey too.... $50 in balsa and you can build one.

Whats really trippy is the retracts.....

< Message edited by bdavison -- 4/3/2008 3:13:32 PM >

_____________________________

teamflyingcircus.com

(in reply to 8178)

RE: Graupner Kwik Fli MKIII - 4/3/2008 3:29:26 PM

Posts: 2670
Joined: 3/2/2003
From: Over da rainbow, KS, USA
Status: online

quote:

"Kwik Fly MK 3" was originally designed by Phil Kraft, the American and ex-World Champion in the 1970’s.

You got to love the marketing types. While true, (being ex-world champ), when does that ever expire. But since he did it in the '60's..........

_____________________________

In politics if you want anything said, ask a man. If you want anything done, ask a woman - Margaret Thatcher

(in reply to 8178)

RE: Graupner Kwik Fli MKIII - 4/3/2008 3:32:42 PM

8178

Posts: 3031
Joined: 5/25/2004
From: _ , USA
Status: offline

"strong climbs" too!

(in reply to HighPlains)

RE: Graupner Kwik Fli MKIII - 4/3/2008 3:42:39 PM

Bax

Posts: 12458
Joined: 4/26/2002
From: Champaign, IL, USA
Status: online

[deleted]

< Message edited by Bax -- 4/3/2008 3:43:34 PM >

_____________________________

Bill Baxter, Manager Hobby Services/Futaba Service/North America
3002 N. Apollo Dr. Ste. 1 Champaign, IL 61822 USA
Service Phone: 217 398-0007
Email: hobbyservices@hobbico.com

(in reply to 8178)

RE: Graupner Kwik Fli MKIII - 4/3/2008 4:36:26 PM

Posts: 1360
Joined: 12/11/2002
From: USA, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bdavison

Kwikfly always was a lead sled.

That is totally untrue.
I flew them when they were "in" and I have flown them at 6# through 8# both with and without retracts-----not a lead sled in a car load. Engines Enya 60 III, Webra Blackhead .61, Super Tiger .61 and the current (for old times sake) Saito 82--this is a very good match for the A/C.
I never even SAW a KF III that flew poorly--------you can't screw it up that badly!

One of the very few "Every man's airplane"-------because like the Taurus the men doing the winning with them were your regular fliers-----no sponsorship necessary.

I think the only thing you may have established is that you really don't know what you are talking about on this subject.
Sorry, but it is true.

_____________________________

The ground reached up and smote my airplane

(in reply to bdavison)

RE: Graupner Kwik Fli MKIII - 4/3/2008 5:26:19 PM

8178

Posts: 3031
Joined: 5/25/2004
From: _ , USA
Status: offline

With fixed gear a Kwik Fli III should be well under 6 lbs.

(in reply to onewasp)

RE: Graupner Kwik Fli MKIII - 4/3/2008 5:57:40 PM

Posts: 1360
Joined: 12/11/2002
From: USA, USA
Status: offline

I saw Phil's at 5.5 lbs and knew (now also deceased) Dan Lutz who built Phil's A/C. Dan was a former Free Flighter and he built that way.

Personally, I never fielded one at less than 6#.
The ones I liked to fly the best were 7 to 7.5 dry. To this day I prefer a loading of 29 to 30 oz's, even on the later Pattern designs. And yes 7.5# is 26.6 ozs. but don't forget it is on 650 squares not on the 780 to 1000 seen today-----size does make a difference on the effects of wing loading numbers as you well know.

For old time's sake I built one and installed a Saito 82. One hell of a good match in power loading.
It is 6# dry and is a floater (which I detest for Pattern flying).
21 and 1/3 oz's. I do not like and does not give the crispness to the maneuvers which I require for maximum pleasure.
In my opinion there is no way in hell that you are going to score the same as I will----floater vs. my preferred 7 to 7.5#. Particularly in the wind (I love to fly in crosswinds so I am rarely out of my element). :-)
Simply one long timer's opinion-----which I can back up at the field.

Interestingly in stock configuration (less the Saito used) it will do knife edge reverses so long as that is what you call for ---out of sight.
Point Rolls, ten second slow rolls, (start 'em early finish 'em as a speck----on a long field),snaps spins, reverse rolls are all on the money.
It would still fly better (my likes) with another pound.
The four stroker with 12x9 or 13x8 will give unlimited (but not too fast) verticals and towering figure M's----any one of the multitude of options you choose. Kind of my "signature maneuver" if you will.

< Message edited by onewasp -- 4/3/2008 6:08:25 PM >

_____________________________

The ground reached up and smote my airplane

(in reply to 8178)

RE: Graupner Kwik Fli MKIII - 4/3/2008 7:10:18 PM

Posts: 3350
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Warner Robins, GA, USA
Status: offline

Each is entitled to his own opinion.
And in my opinion...any plane that weighs 6.4lbs on a 600sq.in. wing is a FLYING BRICK!

Please post video of a Kwik-Fly doing a reverse KE.....this I have just got to see, cause I aint buying it.

Im also confused...you said 6lb, then said 21oz? um....21oz is no where close to 6lb

< Message edited by bdavison -- 4/3/2008 7:22:59 PM >

_____________________________

teamflyingcircus.com

(in reply to onewasp)

RE: Graupner Kwik Fli MKIII - 4/3/2008 7:44:59 PM

Posts: 136
Joined: 10/11/2002
From: Tallahassee, FL, USA
Status: offline

The oz figure is referring to a wing loading quoted in oz/sq ft. A figure in the range of 23-26 oz/sq ft is not unusual for a pattern plane. An 8 lb plane with a 750 square in wing are would give 24.6 oz/sq ft which is fairly typical of the planes flown with retracts and tuned pipes. Actually, I wish that my planes had come in at 8 lbs back then (they were usually closer to 9). The figures quoted for the Kwik Fly in the ad (6 3/4 lb on 660 sq in) would give 23.6 oz/sq ft. That's a bit less than some that I've flown but about the same as the Cutlass I am currently flying.

Jeff

_____________________________

Skylane N9214G
SPA 243

(in reply to bdavison)

RE: Graupner Kwik Fli MKIII - 4/3/2008 8:42:39 PM

Posts: 1360
Joined: 12/11/2002
From: USA, USA
Status: offline

bdavison

Now you are wrong for the second time. Really second AND third.

I have to admit that I was pleasantly surprised at the KE abilities considering the side area or lack thereof but there it was. Analyzing it later it has to be a function of the extremely large canopy as designed. It is in the right position and it is extensive-----13.125 inches long and about 2.5" tall. Couple that with the four stroke torque and the prop loading and you've got it.

To further impress you with the apparent impossibility, while it takes about 30 to 35* of rudder its alpha is definitely NOT high-----not flat but no where close to high!

As far as posting a video to soothe your feelings forget it as: a) I have no access to a video camera and b) your understanding of wing loading is non existent so why bother.

What you 'buy' is of little interest to me as you have defined yourself pretty well.

Politely, ----- sorry BUT true! ----and I mean each.

< Message edited by onewasp -- 4/3/2008 8:48:27 PM >

_____________________________

The ground reached up and smote my airplane

(in reply to bdavison)

RE: Graupner Kwik Fli MKIII - 4/3/2008 9:11:57 PM

Posts: 3350
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Warner Robins, GA, USA
Status: offline

Well, when you do finally clue in to what a good wingloading is you'll put that antiquity away. If it wasnt for that rediculasly thick airfoil, the thing probably wouldnt even fly. The plane is decent for a sport plane or senior pattern...and thats about it. When placed in the air against a good modern design, its gonna get left in the dust.

My dad has had his Kwik-Fly for well over 30 years, and it will not do a sustained KE. The only way in hell that stock plane would do a sustained KE flight is if it was grossly overpowered, had the CG moved back, and a larger rudder. And even then...it would probably still have horrible coupling from the dihedral in it. So until I see visual proof that a Kwik-Fly will fly KE, past experience proves otherwise.

The older designs like the Kwik-fly, Daddy Rabbit, Curare, Kaos....they are all lead sled airplanes. Rocket planes, thats just how they made them back in the day. To cure the speed problem they stuck thick draggy airfoils on them so that you could get it to slow down for a landing.

And I wont even go into the fact that it has a flat stab....

_____________________________

teamflyingcircus.com

(in reply to onewasp)

RE: Graupner Kwik Fli MKIII - 4/3/2008 9:39:03 PM

Posts: 675
Joined: 11/20/2005
From: Somewhere Out There, USA
Status: online

Guys, guys, guys - lets stay with the topic and not throw stones at each other! Opinions are just like belly buttons, we all have them. What worked for one, may not work for some one else. We all can agree that the Kwik Fli series of models were outstanding ships in their day. Lets leave it at that!

FB

(in reply to bdavison)

RE: Graupner Kwik Fli MKIII - 4/3/2008 9:42:06 PM

Posts: 680
Joined: 7/16/2003
From: adelanto, CA, USA
Status: offline

My Mach I didn't have a thick airfoil...

I have flown since 1973...
Compared to todays common ARF's.. the Kwik Fly is a toad.

it is an old design from 40 years ago using what they had back then....
If Phil was alive today, and had a chance to fly any pattern plane from the past
10 years, I am sure that Phil Kraft himself... FORMER World Champion, would
without hesitation admit his design is significantly less capable then todays
models....

It is what it is... a 1960's state of the art pattern plane when Turn-Around/ARESTI
didn't exist and 60's had less power then todays common 40.

(Wish I had a Mach I again with a Rossi 60 and a tuned pipe!!!)

_____________________________

TEAM FUTABA
gandalf_stormcrow_1313@yahoo.com

(in reply to bdavison)

RE: Graupner Kwik Fli MKIII - 4/3/2008 9:43:08 PM