.60 sticks?
03-04-2012 | 04:01 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: HAFB,
NM
.60 sticks?
What are some quality .60 size stick planes that look like the Ultra stick from hangar 9 or similar? Just looking for a quality stick that's not "ugly" like the GP one.
03-05-2012 | 04:29 AM
#3
My Feedback: (34)
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Ludington,
MI
RE: .60 sticks?
Try this..........40....60....& 120 size.....................I have both the 40 & 60 size & they fly great
http://www.texasrcplanes.com/stickairplanes.html
Tcat
http://www.texasrcplanes.com/stickairplanes.html
Tcat
03-05-2012 | 05:39 AM
#4
RE: .60 sticks?
The Stick design is very forgiving and with a little imagination and some kit bashing you can get your Stick to look a lot less Stick looking, and it won't hurt how it flys any.
Karol
Karol
03-09-2012 | 10:51 AM
#6
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 12,624
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Poolesville, MD
RE: .60 sticks?
Here is what my "Ugly Stik .60" looks like in real life.
I don't find it ugly at all!
VetteV12 they look the way they do, to make them great flyers. Don't fret about the looks.
Get one and you'll LOVE how it flies. You'll find it to be a thing of beauty.
The GP Stik's are very easy to repair, and replacement parts are easy to get.
I don't find it ugly at all!
VetteV12 they look the way they do, to make them great flyers. Don't fret about the looks.
Get one and you'll LOVE how it flies. You'll find it to be a thing of beauty.
The GP Stik's are very easy to repair, and replacement parts are easy to get.
03-09-2012 | 12:16 PM
#9
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 12,624
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Poolesville, MD
RE: .60 sticks?
ORIGINAL: karolh
This is what mine looks like:
This is what mine looks like:
Is that a "Frankenstik"?
VetteV12
I don't recommend making the tail dragger mod right away.
There is something to be said for the trike setup on a Stik.
I've used it heavily at Fun Fly's to protect the engine/prop during "down on the ground" and "limbo" flights.
Plus it aids pilots during those windy days.
03-09-2012 | 01:10 PM
#10
RE: .60 sticks?
Looks like I just found a new name for my model, thanks 
I switched from glow power and the trike gear arrangement when my Frankenstik was 10 years old, however several of the new Stick models are tail draggers and seem to do just as well as their trike gear cousins.
Karol
I switched from glow power and the trike gear arrangement when my Frankenstik was 10 years old, however several of the new Stick models are tail draggers and seem to do just as well as their trike gear cousins. Karol
03-09-2012 | 03:13 PM
#11
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Bend,
OR
RE: .60 sticks?
ORIGINAL: VetteV12
What are some quality .60 size stick planes that look like the Ultra stick from hangar 9 or similar? Just looking for a quality stick that's not ''ugly'' like the GP one.
What are some quality .60 size stick planes that look like the Ultra stick from hangar 9 or similar? Just looking for a quality stick that's not ''ugly'' like the GP one.
03-09-2012 | 09:45 PM
#12
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Arlington,
TX
RE: .60 sticks?
The GP sticks are about one of the best allround flying planes out there, Ive been rebuilding mine as I recently had a nasty wing failure, but since bought a new fuse and she is on the table right now being put back together. I allso have a new still in the box giant stick thats my next project once my 60 is flying again.
03-22-2012 | 02:58 PM
#13
My Feedback: (26)
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Clovis,
NM
RE: .60 sticks?
SCOTT42 - What happened with your wing failiure?
I have a GP .60 with an O.S. .61FX and sport pipe and it flies great. I was worried I wouldnt have the power I wanted but there is more than enough. I enjoy the looks of it more than the Hangar 9 version. </p>
03-22-2012 | 03:58 PM
#14
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Burleson,
TX
RE: .60 sticks?
I really learned to fly on a Little Stik. The bigger they get the better they seem to fly. I like the 40 size just because they are a little easier to transport. Here is picture of my new Sweet Stik built from plans. If its calm this weekend I will get to do the first flight. The first RC model I saw was an Ugly Stik covered in transparent red with the traditional color scheme. I thought it was the coolest thing I had ever seen. And it was not ugly at all in my eyes. This is my favorite youtube vid of a Big Stik being flown. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1R30U3qpFs
03-22-2012 | 04:08 PM
#15
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Burleson,
TX
RE: .60 sticks?
If you watched the video you saw the plane had pretty decent performance with just an OS LA 65 motor on it. Even 3D was possible. Why would you need more engine than that? What a nice flying plane.
03-23-2012 | 10:24 AM
#16
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 12,624
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Poolesville, MD
RE: .60 sticks?
There's a lot to be said for a lighter ( but slightly lower power ) engine like the LA 65.
The lighter weight offsets the lower power of the LA design versus say a larger AX, as displayed in the video.
Either work fine.
I fly my .60 with a Supertigre .75 and 3800 mAh battery packs aft ot the wing.
I WANTED the extra weight to further improve the high wind capabilities of my Stik.
The larger engine offset the batteries resulting in good wind penetration and excellent 3D performance with a lower pitch prop.
I like the Stik so much that I'm currently building a GP Big Stik with a SYSSA 30cc ( very light ) engine.
I stuck a 3000mAh ignition battery pack just aft of the firewall, and two 2000mAh flight packs there as well to get it to balance out.
That plane should have the same wing loading ( or far less ) than the GP Big Stik .60 with the OS .65 LA engine.
The lighter weight offsets the lower power of the LA design versus say a larger AX, as displayed in the video.
Either work fine.
I fly my .60 with a Supertigre .75 and 3800 mAh battery packs aft ot the wing.
I WANTED the extra weight to further improve the high wind capabilities of my Stik.
The larger engine offset the batteries resulting in good wind penetration and excellent 3D performance with a lower pitch prop.
I like the Stik so much that I'm currently building a GP Big Stik with a SYSSA 30cc ( very light ) engine.
I stuck a 3000mAh ignition battery pack just aft of the firewall, and two 2000mAh flight packs there as well to get it to balance out.
That plane should have the same wing loading ( or far less ) than the GP Big Stik .60 with the OS .65 LA engine.
03-23-2012 | 03:41 PM
#17
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Bend,
OR
RE: .60 sticks?
ORIGINAL: ratshooter
I really learned to fly on a Little Stik. The bigger they get the better they seem to fly. I like the 40 size just because they are a little easier to transport. Here is picture of my new Sweet Stik built from plans. If its calm this weekend I will get to do the first flight. The first RC model I saw was an Ugly Stik covered in transparent red with the traditional color scheme. I thought it was the coolest thing I had ever seen. And it was not ugly at all in my eyes. This is my favorite youtube vid of a Big Stik being flown. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1R30U3qpFs
I really learned to fly on a Little Stik. The bigger they get the better they seem to fly. I like the 40 size just because they are a little easier to transport. Here is picture of my new Sweet Stik built from plans. If its calm this weekend I will get to do the first flight. The first RC model I saw was an Ugly Stik covered in transparent red with the traditional color scheme. I thought it was the coolest thing I had ever seen. And it was not ugly at all in my eyes. This is my favorite youtube vid of a Big Stik being flown. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1R30U3qpFs
Cheers,
Andy
03-23-2012 | 04:56 PM
#18
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Springfield,
MO
RE: .60 sticks?
Check out BP hobbies 60 stick. Just finished mine up hope to maiden this weekend. Priced @ $97.00 it looks like the ultra stick mine even has ultra stick stickers on it. Comes with flaps. Only set up for trike gear but easy mod to tail drager. No all up weight yet. OS91 FS for power.
03-23-2012 | 07:25 PM
#19
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Burleson,
TX
RE: .60 sticks?
opjose if you like a little more weight you would like the new sweet stik I just finished. It weighs about half a pound more than I thought it should weigh. Mine finished out at 6.5 pounds for a 21-22 ounce wing loading. I built a little heavy and the super tiger engine is a little heavy. The friggin muffler weigs 6 oz.! And that doesn't include the manifold to mount it with.
A buddy and I bought one each of these. We both tried to start them today to start the break in process. Neither engine would start by flipping the propeller by hand. Now I guess I will have to buy a $30+ starter to start my $75 engine. I can promise you I will never buy another engine that doesn't have OS on the side of it. No more chinese crap for me.
oldtyme which sweet stik do you have? Apparently Midwest had two versions. One had a flat wing with a 54" wingspan and another with a 52.25 wingspan with dihedral. I have the plans for both but built the 52 inch version. ButI had it enlarged to 54". The sweet stik I had back in 1980 was the 54" version. It had the fuse pieces in several sections instead of one solid fuse side piece. I flew the snot out of that plane and liked it much better when I sawed the wing in half and added dihedral to it. I just don't know what else you could ask for in a model plane. It took off with just a short run. Would do any stunt I could think of and landed at a fast walk. I guess it was the best overall plane I have ever owned. A thunder tiger tiger stik was right there with it though. Next would be the sig senioritas I have owned. A different class of airplane but in a class by itself.
A buddy and I bought one each of these. We both tried to start them today to start the break in process. Neither engine would start by flipping the propeller by hand. Now I guess I will have to buy a $30+ starter to start my $75 engine. I can promise you I will never buy another engine that doesn't have OS on the side of it. No more chinese crap for me.
oldtyme which sweet stik do you have? Apparently Midwest had two versions. One had a flat wing with a 54" wingspan and another with a 52.25 wingspan with dihedral. I have the plans for both but built the 52 inch version. ButI had it enlarged to 54". The sweet stik I had back in 1980 was the 54" version. It had the fuse pieces in several sections instead of one solid fuse side piece. I flew the snot out of that plane and liked it much better when I sawed the wing in half and added dihedral to it. I just don't know what else you could ask for in a model plane. It took off with just a short run. Would do any stunt I could think of and landed at a fast walk. I guess it was the best overall plane I have ever owned. A thunder tiger tiger stik was right there with it though. Next would be the sig senioritas I have owned. A different class of airplane but in a class by itself.
03-23-2012 | 08:05 PM
#20
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Bend,
OR
RE: .60 sticks?
ORIGINAL: ratshooter
opjose if you like a little more weight you would like the new sweet stik I just finished. It weighs about half a pound more than I thought it should weigh. Mine finished out at 6.5 pounds for a 21-22 ounce wing loading. I built a little heavy and the super tiger engine is a little heavy. The friggin muffler weigs 6 oz.! And that doesn't include the manifold to mount it with.
A buddy and I bought one each of these. We both tried to start them today to start the break in process. Neither engine would start by flipping the propeller by hand. Now I guess I will have to buy a $30+ starter to start my $75 engine. I can promise you I will never buy another engine that doesn't have OS on the side of it. No more chinese crap for me.
oldtyme which sweet stik do you have? Apparently Midwest had two versions. One had a flat wing with a 54'' wingspan and another with a 52.25 wingspan with dihedral. I have the plans for both but built the 52 inch version. ButI had it enlarged to 54''. The sweet stik I had back in 1980 was the 54'' version. It had the fuse pieces in several sections instead of one solid fuse side piece. I flew the snot out of that plane and liked it much better when I sawed the wing in half and added dihedral to it. I just don't know what else you could ask for in a model plane. It took off with just a short run. Would do any stunt I could think of and landed at a fast walk. I guess it was the best overall plane I have ever owned. A thunder tiger tiger stik was right there with it though. Next would be the sig senioritas I have owned. A different class of airplane but in a class by itself.
opjose if you like a little more weight you would like the new sweet stik I just finished. It weighs about half a pound more than I thought it should weigh. Mine finished out at 6.5 pounds for a 21-22 ounce wing loading. I built a little heavy and the super tiger engine is a little heavy. The friggin muffler weigs 6 oz.! And that doesn't include the manifold to mount it with.
A buddy and I bought one each of these. We both tried to start them today to start the break in process. Neither engine would start by flipping the propeller by hand. Now I guess I will have to buy a $30+ starter to start my $75 engine. I can promise you I will never buy another engine that doesn't have OS on the side of it. No more chinese crap for me.
oldtyme which sweet stik do you have? Apparently Midwest had two versions. One had a flat wing with a 54'' wingspan and another with a 52.25 wingspan with dihedral. I have the plans for both but built the 52 inch version. ButI had it enlarged to 54''. The sweet stik I had back in 1980 was the 54'' version. It had the fuse pieces in several sections instead of one solid fuse side piece. I flew the snot out of that plane and liked it much better when I sawed the wing in half and added dihedral to it. I just don't know what else you could ask for in a model plane. It took off with just a short run. Would do any stunt I could think of and landed at a fast walk. I guess it was the best overall plane I have ever owned. A thunder tiger tiger stik was right there with it though. Next would be the sig senioritas I have owned. A different class of airplane but in a class by itself.
Later,
Andy
03-24-2012 | 09:59 AM
#21
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 12,624
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Poolesville, MD
RE: .60 sticks?
ORIGINAL: ratshooter
A buddy and I bought one each of these. We both tried to start them today to start the break in process. Neither engine would start by flipping the propeller by hand. Now I guess I will have to buy a $30+ starter to start my $75 engine. I can promise you I will never buy another engine that doesn't have OS on the side of it. No more chinese crap for me.
A buddy and I bought one each of these. We both tried to start them today to start the break in process. Neither engine would start by flipping the propeller by hand. Now I guess I will have to buy a $30+ starter to start my $75 engine. I can promise you I will never buy another engine that doesn't have OS on the side of it. No more chinese crap for me.
Once you break it in, it will start by hand just fine.
I've never had one quit and the power the ST produce is pretty good especially considering the cost.
I always use an electric starter though. I consider it a necessary tool, like a glow ignitor, needed for any engine.
The LA's start pretty well by hand even when cold given their lighter porting, but I often need the electric starter to get my O.S. AX's running for the first time during the day.
That is not endemic to the engine brand.
03-24-2012 | 01:20 PM
#22
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Burleson,
TX
RE: .60 sticks?
Hello opjose we did get both engines running today but it was only after I went and bought an electric starter. I don't thinkthis engine is going to lack in the power department. When we did get them started both leaked like crazy between the head and the cylinder. The instructions stated the low speed needle should be set so close to correct that no tuning would be needed. What a joke that was. They were both so rich that I had to turn both of them in one and half to two turns. The low end was so rich the engines would just flood out and would barley transition from idle to full speed.
One thing I did do while at the HS buying the starter is I picked up an O.S. LA 46. Wow what a neat lightweight little motor this is. I am going to leave the super tiger on for now but if it aggravates me any more I will swap out engines. Anyway we never made it to the flying field.
I admit that I really don't like to use an electric starter. All my other engines start withjust a couple of flips.I cringe when I watch a youtube video and some guy jams a starter on his engine and cranks away for 15 to 30 seconds. Thats someone who needs to learn how to adjust an engine so it starts with just a bump of the starter.
One thing I did do while at the HS buying the starter is I picked up an O.S. LA 46. Wow what a neat lightweight little motor this is. I am going to leave the super tiger on for now but if it aggravates me any more I will swap out engines. Anyway we never made it to the flying field.
I admit that I really don't like to use an electric starter. All my other engines start withjust a couple of flips.I cringe when I watch a youtube video and some guy jams a starter on his engine and cranks away for 15 to 30 seconds. Thats someone who needs to learn how to adjust an engine so it starts with just a bump of the starter.
</p>
03-25-2012 | 03:14 PM
#24
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Burleson,
TX
RE: .60 sticks?
Thats a nice photo BT. You guys are making me want a larger stik.
I did go fly my Sweet Stik today. It was rock solid in the air. I never even switched to high rates. I just did a few loops and rolls and mainly just cruised around. The rudder response was excellent. I use rudder a lot and make lots of turns with just rudder and elevator. This plane turns with the rudder like a 3 channel plane with lots of dihedral. I was worried since its a little on the heavy side that it would land fast. It didn't. With almost no wind to help it still came it at what would be good high wing trainer landing speed. Very controlable all the way to touch down. It landed as slow as my buddies 1936 gas stick model (basicaly a swizzle stick) and my plane is at least a pound heavier.
Now that the engines have been tuned and leaned out they start with just a bump of the electric starter. They still won't start by hand. I got my head leak fixed by just tightening the head bolts. I took the head off my buddies engine and cleaned it good and put it back on and it still blows bubbles pretty bad. We may send that one back.
I have never owned a gas engine so I am not familiar with the displacements. But isn't a 20cc the same as two 60 size glow engines in displacement? If it is why would you put that much (or more) engine on a 60 sized plane? Do they not put out as much power as a glow engine? I like the idea of having a spark plug and being able to use gasoline for a fuel.
I did go fly my Sweet Stik today. It was rock solid in the air. I never even switched to high rates. I just did a few loops and rolls and mainly just cruised around. The rudder response was excellent. I use rudder a lot and make lots of turns with just rudder and elevator. This plane turns with the rudder like a 3 channel plane with lots of dihedral. I was worried since its a little on the heavy side that it would land fast. It didn't. With almost no wind to help it still came it at what would be good high wing trainer landing speed. Very controlable all the way to touch down. It landed as slow as my buddies 1936 gas stick model (basicaly a swizzle stick) and my plane is at least a pound heavier.
Now that the engines have been tuned and leaned out they start with just a bump of the electric starter. They still won't start by hand. I got my head leak fixed by just tightening the head bolts. I took the head off my buddies engine and cleaned it good and put it back on and it still blows bubbles pretty bad. We may send that one back.
I have never owned a gas engine so I am not familiar with the displacements. But isn't a 20cc the same as two 60 size glow engines in displacement? If it is why would you put that much (or more) engine on a 60 sized plane? Do they not put out as much power as a glow engine? I like the idea of having a spark plug and being able to use gasoline for a fuel.
03-26-2012 | 08:40 AM
#25
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 12,624
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Poolesville, MD
RE: .60 sticks?
ORIGINAL: ratshooter
Hello opjose we did get both engines running today but it was only after I went and bought an electric starter. I don't think this engine is going to lack in the power department. When we did get them started both leaked like crazy between the head and the cylinder. The instructions stated the low speed needle should be set so close to correct that no tuning would be needed. What a joke that was. They were both so rich that I had to turn both of them in one and half to two turns. The low end was so rich the engines would just flood out and would barley transition from idle to full speed.
Hello opjose we did get both engines running today but it was only after I went and bought an electric starter. I don't think this engine is going to lack in the power department. When we did get them started both leaked like crazy between the head and the cylinder. The instructions stated the low speed needle should be set so close to correct that no tuning would be needed. What a joke that was. They were both so rich that I had to turn both of them in one and half to two turns. The low end was so rich the engines would just flood out and would barley transition from idle to full speed.
I have yet to see the needles correctly set on any engine out of the box, on anything other than an O.S.
The ST's take a bit of dialing in and breaking in. But once done I've found them to work well.
-
Re: LA 46
I put an LA 46 on a Spacewalker II .46 size plane, because it was one of the recommended engines.
The plane came in at about 6-7lbs AUW. I was not impressed with the performance of the plane, so I replaced the engine with an O.S. .46 AX for more power.
I took the LA 46 and put it into a .32 sized Extra 300, and it's stayed there.... I've been very happy with that combo.
