RCU Forums - View Single Post - Mud Duck Aviation
View Single Post
Old 11-30-2003 | 10:21 AM
  #4  
JimCasey's Avatar
JimCasey
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
From: Lutz, FL
Default RE: <span class=

My suggestion is to go back to the Mk1 Rev0 mud duck, which had all Balsa construction. Plans published in May '93 MA, if memory serves. I had one and it was the sweetest flyer I ever had. It was a little weak where the vert stab joined the fuselage, but that was a point that sustained damage when you hit something, not in normal flight.

I built a second wing for mine, with no dihedral and ailerons. I liked it. If I build another, it will also have a flat wing and will go on floats.

Foam-core construction is one of those evolutionary experiments that dead-ended. If you want to make a non-balsa airplane, Coroplast is the man-made material that has shown to be suitable for airplanes. Once foam-core is crinkled, its structural integrity is lost.

I had a Crikit, too. I Tried to fly it several times. It crashed on takeoff every time. I think the decalage was off. The weird live-axle landing gear was also a factor, because it made it unstable on the ground. But the plane would not fly even when I tried to hand-launch it. Disappointing.