sensei

Nice flying Kurt, years ago I liked flying in L/H circles really fast too, but all the same that doesn't make you a builder that knows how to design and build lightweight airframe structure, but again, nice flying anyway...

Bob

Bozarth

My Feedback: (15)

Bob,

Thank you! But please don't make me toot my building horn too!

Kurt

Bozarth

My Feedback: (15)

I can't bite my tongue any longer...Bob, I questioned the legitimacy of your statement, not your legitimacy. You, on the other hand, have only questioned me, rather than the supposed facts in debate.

Kurt

davevh

Sticks, ugly? Ugly Sticks, This is blasphemy LOL!
I like the look of them, very simple and clean. Then again, I like the pilatus pc6 which some say is butt-ugly and flies like a dream. As they say, eye of the beholder and all that...

sensei

So you want proof? Hear is just one of many hyper light build threads I have posted over the years, most are posted on Flying Giants but this one is on RCU, all have supporting flight videos. http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/card...-260-diet.html and here is a video of another hyper light design nearly 40 lbs. lighter then anything else in it's class, I have more if you need but I think I have made my point on the possibilities. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCEQuAIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DH_d GA7VZe6g&ei=wrkQVLqEGYOg8QHU8YCoDg&usg=AFQjCNH_rtJAwIMdEpdexIb4TcNjJLKt5A&bvm=bv.74649129,d.b2U


Bob

davevh

Have Bob and Kurt determined who can pee farther yet? Seriously, way to derail the topic. (Uh oh, I feel imminent wrath headed my way)
I vote for the Hots, 4-60 and Astro Hog ( darn, favorites in rc are hard to determine)

Bozarth

My Feedback: (15)

Good call davevh,

My vote is for the World Models Super Stunts .40

Kurt

Super08

My Feedback: (2)

Great stuff

thailazer

Like mustangman and sensei, I have always followed the old school advice to make the plane as light as possible as lighter planes fly better. Some of the balsa today is so dense it is almost like fir, so it pays to drill lightening holes and sand away excess weight. I don't think "saving pounds" is an exaggeration in at all. You can also get compounded returns if you can use a smaller engine, thereby making it even lighter. My Tiger 2 is 5 pounds while my buddy's is well over 6.

Building light gives me a lot of satisfaction, but that doesn't mean everyone needs to do it. It is certainly up to the builder.

oliveDrab

Good job ........... but ........does air flow in and out of the holes cause undesirable turbulence? Or is that just a picture before you covered it with Ultracote or some other kind-of-cote?

pkoury

My Feedback: (7)

I know it was mentioned earlier but for me the all time best sport plane is the Kaos or Super Kaos 60. Based on the OP's comments regarding other nominated planes I get the feeling that his style of flying and aircraft setup funnels him into a certain aircraft type, nothing wrong with that.
I have been flying RC since 1968, been in clubs from coast to coast and Alaska thanks to my time in the Coast Guard an everywhere I go if the Kaos is mentioned this is the phrase I here: "Nothing flies like a Kaos". I feel sorry for the new breed of ARF modelers that will never experience the joys of building and flying a 60 sized Kaos or Super Kaos. I have worn out several and I am starting a new build of a Super Kaos- this one will have a modern engine in the nose as my OS blackhead 60 deserves a rest.

davevh

This plane reminds me a lot of the D.B Matthews 4-60 in looks. I wonder if they fly in a similar fashion? Wish I had been able to pick up one of these when H9 were selling them (alas, cash waseth not flowing abundantly).

davevh

I think the phrase "Nothing flies like a Kaos" would rip and tear at the phrase "Nothing flies like a hog" until 1 battered victor remains :^)
I totally agree with your view on ARF modelers, a lot of the magic of RC would have been taken away should I never have had the opportunity to build.

davevh

I think the "lighter flies better" guideline is quite a personal one. I have always tended to build on the heavier side, and one of the best flying models I ever had was an overweight Astro Hog. Even my electric gentle lady is 10 ounces heavier than a stock glider, and the thing stays up forever and has better penetration into the wind (compared with my stock non-electric one). When I fly my Mini Ultra stick (also overweight due to park 480) and switch between heavy and lighter batteries, the heavy battery gives better precision manoeuvrability but slightly less vertical, while the lighter battery is a little better for 3D performance. It is hard to explain the differences, lighter just seems to feel more floaty. I suppose the true test would be to have 3 of the same model with 3 different weights, and then fly them back to back with the same routine to determine the nuances in feel. Anything else would supposedly be speculation.
Think we could convince Mythbusters to run a trial on this one??

thailazer

Good point in heavier models having better wind penetration. I know some glider guys carry water or lead pellets. I used to build a lot of scale models and it was always so easy to add weight that it made me have to think about it all the way through the build.

sensei

My vote goes to either of these airplanes. The Taurus, Kwik Fli III, Super Kaos or the Dirty Birdy.

Bob

Charlie P.

I just took the files to a 83" WS model I use as a sport plane - more just a fun flier than a aerobatic performer - that I had bolted enough goodies to that I was trying to lift 17 pounds with full tanks - including 16 oz gasoline and 16 oz smoke oil . . . plus 45" floats and a magneto 26cc that weighs almost four pounds by itself. It had been a test bed and had brackets and hardware for no-longer in service arrangements.

So I did some housecleaning. I went so far as to shorten the engine bolts, reduced tubing runs, re-routed batteries (the smoke pump has a six-cell NiMH), switched the receiver to a LiFe pack, Shaved a whopping 14 ounces off.


Second from the left in this image. Now, I'm not putting it forward as the "ultimate sport plane". But it sure is fun. It's a good shoulder-wing Stik type and is certainly versatile. Turf tires, floats, skis - it has been on them all and keeps chugging along. And with the gas engine it just sounds like it's having fun as well! Kick in the smoke and it's a real hoot.

Eaglepilot2

I agree with Dave. Surprised that the Astrohog hasn't been mentioned more. I have had numerous hogs and all flew great. Have two right now waiting for new covering jobs! Also had an original Skytiger. Fantastic airplane!

davevh

Hmm, I always saw the Tiger 2 and never gave any thought as to a Tiger 1 existing! Any major differences in the way they fly?
Stumbled upon this giant tiger that I thought may interest you (unfortunately the vid quality is not great):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kygXMhFOOl8

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

I'm from the school that lighter fly's better as well. As such I make efforts to build as light as I can without sacrificing strength. Sure some guys will believe that the heavier airplanes work better for windy conditions. My take on that? A heavy poorly set up airplane will react less to the wind better then a poorly set up light airplane. However a well set up light airplane will out perform them all.

As far as the ultimate sport airplane. My original vote was for an old school pattern airplane. For the past few months I have been flying my 40% Extra more then anything. My new answer: whatever you are having fun with at the time.

sensei

+1, end of story!

Bob

Eaglepilot2

The Skytiger was (I believe) the original Tiger for Goldberg. It was essentially a Eagle 63 (Original to the Eagle 2) made into a low wing. 63" wingspan and the vertical stab was a little more vertical. I think they added a couple inches to the wing and swept the vertical fin a little more for a more sleeker look. Don't think there was much difference in the flight characteristics, Goldberg just wanted to update it somewhat. It was never marketed as well as it should have been, or I believe there would have been many more sold. I still have the plans and original box from my Skytiger. One day maybe...

Lifer

My Feedback: (1)

It's all a matter of experience and preference as to whatever "ultimate" will be and it is very individual. For me, it's an old design called the NotForSale. I have scratched about 18 of these including several given as Christmas gifts to close friends. I have also used the basic design characteristics to build twins that have excellent engine-out flight performance. The planes always generate comments ranging from confusion, rudeness but are followed by praise when they see it fly. I like the plane. I am scheming a version of the twin for a pair of DLE 20's and an 80 in span.

AA5BY

I agree that there are no hard rules. One person may require fully aerobatic and another simplicity of setup or some other criteria. One of my criteria of recent years is I don't want to mess with a cradle to either haul or setup the plane. It is not a big thing, but just enough of an annoyance that a plane requiring one wouldn't get my #1 vote.

Also on my short list of requirements for #1 sport plane is that it be gas. Electric would be ok if I flew electric, but glow powered even though I've still got some and fly them, they are falling out of favor.

I'm tempted to say it would be my stick.... but have to agree with the ugly comment and that it is hard to pick something that doesn't have esthetic excitement and some sporty looks. And, as mentioned, sticks have some aerobatic limitations such as they don't knife edge worth a hoot.

In my hanger of twenty models, it comes down to two, but no one will certainly have the one I designed and scratch built and the other was a kit from many years ago. I'd like to say my design but doing so wouldn't be right... it should be a plane that others might know about or have experienced.

So... going against my issue with glow, I have to go with an old design from many years ago kitted by Pilot. My reasons for choosing it #1 are, first - it is very fun to fly. Second - it looks good. Third - it is easy to haul (.20 size), setup (rubber bands for wings and no struts or cabanes), and start (Saito .30 starts so easily no starter is required). Fourth - it is quiet,I've heard electrics that make more noise. Five - It is economical on fuel and thus doesn't have a huge clean up issue. Six - it is very lightly loaded at around 15 in oz. Seven - it is like a park flyer and can be flown in close if desired. Eight - it has no cowl to complicate things. Nine - even though it has a tail skid, it has impeccable ground handling manners (tracks perfectly straight on takeoffs). Ten - the four stroke .30 Saito sounds really cool, you know... kinda like an airplane.

It is a Das Box Fly by Pilot, circa late 1970's


btw... I would like to have picked my deign but doing so wouldn't be right

mustangman177

Did not cover the plane after this. Don't notice any turbulence problems. Been flying planes like this for 10+ years ?. When drilling these holes, it's important to offset the holes so that the structure stays rigid.

My last "Big Build" was a Pica 1/5 scale Mustang. Took a year or so to build. Anyone who has built one of Pica's kits know that they leave a.lot of sanding-designing to the building of the plane. Was my Pride and Joy of my fleet at the time, but was tooo scared to fly it. High Pucker-Factor. To make a long story short, it met its end when it stalled on landing and hit a telephone pole. Devestated. Almost quit the hobby at the time. Previously had built 20 or so "kit planes" with much success getting started into the hobby and leading up to this big build.

Friend at the time introduced me to the SPAD building concept and the simplicity-cheap building process and I have never looked back. to balsa that is. Sure they are not as
pretty, don't get that "I built this from a kit" satisfaction. When you're flying 300-400 ft in the air, you can't see details in the plane anyway. Plus you fly less tense, knowing if you have a mishap, it can be easily repaired, survives a beating easier. Also can modify the plans to match your flying tastes (which I did with this one). or come up with your "own" design. Did not mean to turn this into a SPAD vs. Balsa debate-----PLEASE no flames!!