Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > Sport Flying
Reload this Page >

The Ultimate Sport Plane?

Notices
Sport Flying This forum is for those that like to fly just for the enjoyment of flying, and all the airplanes that help them. Discuss here the joys of flying and the airplanes that help you enjoy it.

The Ultimate Sport Plane?

Old 07-13-2014, 04:48 AM
  #51  
WhiteRook
My Feedback: (38)
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: westbrook, ME
Posts: 2,094
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

HOW BOUT a Maule M-7 ? its a STOL AIRcraft , sorta like a cub , but has a different wing

Last edited by WhiteRook; 08-03-2014 at 04:47 AM.
Old 07-30-2014, 07:00 PM
  #52  
ke6gkc
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Redmond, OR
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I just found this thread and I did not see anybody vote for the Bruce Tharpe Venture 60. I just finished one, and it flies like a dream.

Bruce
Old 07-30-2014, 07:02 PM
  #53  
Left-Hand-Dan
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Left-Hand-Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I've never heard of it
Old 08-03-2014, 08:50 PM
  #54  
ke6gkc
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Redmond, OR
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Here is the web site. http://www.btemodels.com/venture.html The designer is Bruce Tharpe, he designed the Four Star 40 for Sig Mfg.

Bruce B.
Old 08-15-2014, 02:34 AM
  #55  
skyraider71
Senior Member
 
skyraider71's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: mount washington, KY
Posts: 837
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

FourStars, GP Big Sticks, and the Sig Somthin' Extra are my faves.
Old 08-15-2014, 02:47 AM
  #56  
smkrcflyer
 
smkrcflyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hamburg, PA
Posts: 1,013
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I emailed Bruce and got the V60 notify-when-ready email list for a kit.
Old 08-24-2014, 06:51 AM
  #57  
ke6gkc
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Redmond, OR
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Here is a picture of my Venture 60.

Bruce B.
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	CIMG1506.JPG
Views:	1555
Size:	1.57 MB
ID:	2025283  
Old 08-24-2014, 08:01 AM
  #58  
smkrcflyer
 
smkrcflyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hamburg, PA
Posts: 1,013
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Very nice Bruce. What engine is that?
Old 08-24-2014, 06:45 PM
  #59  
ke6gkc
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Redmond, OR
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

The engine is the Evolution 15gx with a Macs muffler. With this engine the airplane is a bit on the heavy side. 8lbs 5oz.
It still flies great at this weight.
Bruce B
Old 09-06-2014, 01:55 PM
  #60  
TideFlyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Centreville, AL
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Left-Hand-Dan
I love trainers. If I wasn't so impressed with the pulse my choice would be the GP avistar trainer with the semi-symectrical airfoil. What a fun plane yet still behaves as a trainer should but would roll and stall and snap/spin like a sport plane should. Very hard to find in a trainer.
Learned to fly on an Avistar. A great plane. Had a Pulse 40 and loved it.
Old 09-06-2014, 01:59 PM
  #61  
TideFlyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Centreville, AL
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by skyraider71
FourStars, GP Big Sticks, and the Sig Somthin' Extra are my faves.
Stiks in all their forms and Four Stars would have to be in the pantheon of all time great RC sport planes. So would Super Sportsters. Really enjoy my Four Star 60 (OS 91 FS) and GP Big Stik 40 (OS 46 AX).
Old 09-07-2014, 05:05 AM
  #62  
FPhillips
Junior Member
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Denham Springs, LA
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

After flying sport for over 40 years, I have build a lot of them, flown a ton of them, and have to say that the one plane that is in front is the Great Planes .60 size Super Sportster. It needs to be built as light as possible without sacrificing strength and power it with a .70 to .80 size four stroke, in other words not a heavy engine.

There are many that are similar, such as the Bruce Tharpe Venture 60, the Sig Four-Star 60, and the Goldberg Tiger 60. Those planes have longer wingspans, 70" or more, which is super for transitioning from a trainer to a low wing, but the longer wings limit the sport pattern abilities. Plenty of pilots remove a bay or two off of those long wings to make them fly like a Sportster. The Super Sportster only has a 61" wing, the wing is thick, fully symmetrical, the wing transitions at every speed, will not stall, and touch-n-goes and greased landings are really fun to do. The thick wing also works well with a 4-stroke which slows the plane down so you can enjoy super slow, controlled flight. Tower Hobbies still offers the kit. It is a bit of a builders kit in that it requires sanding and old school techniques to shape it, but it is so worth it.
Try one and it will always be in your hangar, no matter what else you fly. I feel like every flyer, no matter how advanced, needs a Sunday Flyer to fall back and just relax and shoot touch-n-goes as the sun goes down and the wind dies down.
Thanks for reading. FPhillips
Old 09-07-2014, 05:17 AM
  #63  
Super08
My Feedback: (2)
 
Super08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Fort McMurray, AB, CANADA
Posts: 4,121
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

It is one of my favorites too. I just built one this spring with a 61FX for power. It goes like a raped ape. I posted pics of the build in the kit building forum.
Old 09-07-2014, 06:41 AM
  #64  
HighPlains
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Over da rainbow, KS
Posts: 5,087
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

I have never seen a light weight Sportster. What passes for light weight these days in traditional airframes seems quite heavy.
Old 09-07-2014, 08:38 AM
  #65  
FPhillips
Junior Member
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Denham Springs, LA
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

What I am referring to is to do all I can to lighten up the plane during the construction stages, such as sanding the whole airframe a good bit where the wood is non-structural, like taking extra weight out of the nose block. Since the stab is solid, thick balsa, I have used lightening holes in the stab. Another technique that I have used is to put lightening holes down the bottom and sides in the long rung of planking. Sportsters tend to be tail heavy because the wood is all solid, as compared to more modern laser cut or skeletal designs. When I lightened up the airframe, don't use too much epoxy, a 60 tp 80 size engine is lighter than a heavier .90 and up size, and the performance is still solid with adequate vertical. Lighter wing loading naturally fly better and more agile and I find that little or no nose weight is needed to balance it.

Sorry I did not clarify my statement the first time. Good question.

Thanks for asking.
Old 09-07-2014, 09:43 PM
  #66  
Bozarth
My Feedback: (15)
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Aurora, CO
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

How many ounces are you saving with the techniques your are mentioning?

Kurt
Old 09-09-2014, 03:14 AM
  #67  
sensei
 
sensei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: SAN ANTONIO, TX
Posts: 2,826
Received 17 Likes on 15 Posts
Default

Ounces... How about pounds, it is possible to lose pounds with this technique, this little 52" airplane weighs right at 3 lbs. with a OS.32 on the nose and the battery pack mounted in the tail under a removable hatch, this airplane design has always came in at between 5 and 5.5 lbs. so anything is possible with the effort.

Bob

Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	107.jpg
Views:	1294
Size:	125.5 KB
ID:	2030426  
Old 09-09-2014, 09:50 AM
  #68  
Bozarth
My Feedback: (15)
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Aurora, CO
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

So I can save pounds by "sanding the whole airframe a good bit", "taking extra weight out of the nose block", cutting "lightening holes in the stab", putting "lightening holes down the bottom and sides in the long rung of planking", not using "too much epoxy.".......No way this will save you pounds....Oh I forgot, put A LIGHTER ENGINE ON IT - that might help. But "saving pounds" is an exaggeration.

Kurt
Old 09-09-2014, 01:05 PM
  #69  
sensei
 
sensei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: SAN ANTONIO, TX
Posts: 2,826
Received 17 Likes on 15 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Bozarth
So I can save pounds by "sanding the whole airframe a good bit", "taking extra weight out of the nose block", cutting "lightening holes in the stab", putting "lightening holes down the bottom and sides in the long rung of planking", not using "too much epoxy.".......No way this will save you pounds....Oh I forgot, put A LIGHTER ENGINE ON IT - that might help. But "saving pounds" is an exaggeration.

Kurt
For guys like you Kurt, your right, saving pounds would be an exaggeration. It's always the same arguments from you armchair builders and flyers, you come in here and talk the talk but you have never shown anything that you can actually walk the walk.

I guess it is just easier to sit on the sidelines and express your "expert" opinion as illustrated above without ever making any real effort to find out for yourselves like F Phillips has done. Then you ask your uneducated question like how much weight can you save by doing these things you do while building because you obviously have never done them yourself or you would have your answers; then when somebody gives you honest, educated positive feedback answer from experience mind you of the real possibilities... POOF the armchair expert appears and comes out with a negative uneducated feedback argument statement by printing "No way this will save you pounds.... "saving pounds" is an exaggeration.

I guess you are now going to tell us that you "honestly" really knew the answer to your question all along and you were only trying to see if anybody else really knew.


Bob

Last edited by sensei; 09-10-2014 at 04:13 AM.
Old 09-09-2014, 02:58 PM
  #70  
Bozarth
My Feedback: (15)
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Aurora, CO
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Go Bob!

Kurt
Old 09-09-2014, 08:37 PM
  #71  
HighPlains
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Over da rainbow, KS
Posts: 5,087
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

Let's all cheer a large polar moment of inertia.
Old 09-10-2014, 03:34 AM
  #72  
mustangman177
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Cisne, IL
Posts: 747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Took off 1 lb. by cutting the lightning holes. Went from 13 lb. 6 oz. to 12 lb. 6 oz.


Last edited by mustangman177; 09-10-2014 at 04:11 AM.
Old 09-10-2014, 04:16 AM
  #73  
sensei
 
sensei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: SAN ANTONIO, TX
Posts: 2,826
Received 17 Likes on 15 Posts
Default

Great job Mustangman177!

Bob
Old 09-10-2014, 10:25 AM
  #74  
Bozarth
My Feedback: (15)
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Aurora, CO
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by sensei
For guys like you Kurt, your right, saving pounds would be an exaggeration. It's always the same arguments from you armchair builders and flyers, you come in here and talk the talk but you have never shown anything that you can actually walk the walk.

I guess it is just easier to sit on the sidelines and express your "expert" opinion as illustrated above without ever making any real effort to find out for yourselves like F Phillips has done. Then you ask your uneducated question like how much weight can you save by doing these things you do while building because you obviously have never done them yourself or you would have your answers; then when somebody gives you honest, educated positive feedback answer from experience mind you of the real possibilities... POOF the armchair expert appears and comes out with a negative uneducated feedback argument statement by printing "No way this will save you pounds.... "saving pounds" is an exaggeration.

I guess you are now going to tell us that you "honestly" really knew the answer to your question all along and you were only trying to see if anybody else really knew.


Bob
Bob - I can't keep up with you when you keep editing your comments. I don't need the harassment - I'm already married!!!
...but back to our discussion...If you reduced a plane's overall weight from 5.5 lbs down to 3.0 lbs, and assuming your radio/engine/etc weights an estimated 1 1/2 pounds, then you reduced your airframe weight from 4 lbs down to 1.5 lbs. Either the 5.5 lb weight is an exaggeration or your 3 lb weigh is an exaggeration.

Mustangman177's weight reduction is much more reasonable.

Next, thank you for allowing me to repost the video of us armchair builders flying some of the planes we built (yes, some have ARFs, but we let them fly with us on special occasions). I hope you enjoy watching it as much as I did making it!

Kurt

http://youtu.be/IXh-lUcX8Pw
Old 09-10-2014, 10:33 AM
  #75  
Bozarth
My Feedback: (15)
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Aurora, CO
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Bob,

More arm chair flying. I won't say which one I am.

Kurt

http://youtu.be/RezzEldftyk

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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.