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

Quick Fly is listed on the SPA list

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.

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..... [X(]

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..........

"strong climbs" too!

[deleted]

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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....

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

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!!!)

bdavison

In the interest of those here who DO understand ------ my apologies for the noisy interlude. It wasn't intended to provoke it----but the FACTS are there for every one to see.

BTW the thickness of an airfoil has everything to do with the lift drag ratio but little to with lift itself.

If you can structurally sustain a 1/4" flat plate and keep it from bending and twisting it will do very well as a wing------including aerobatics.

As far as flat stabs------full scale Lasers, all Pitts, Challengers I, II and III, Skybolt as well as virtually all bipes use them-------those aren't exactly losers.

NOT having compared a KF III to any current design I hardly would place it in contention with them.
AND as far as being stuck in antiquity, well, ----- A Focus II is NOT really new----but neither is it a dog.
The Black Magic will hopefully be ready before summer is over---- then we'll be totally up to date-----BUT, I can't do much about the years I've piled up other than to say I can still compete and even I find that amazing. :-)

Lead Sled ????????

You obviously have some other airplane in mind .

I thought an F104 was a lead sled!?!?!? lol

C'mon guys... they are toy airplanes!! lol

LOL mith....they didnt call it the Mach 1 for nothing....

Man before 3D stuff came around, we all had lead sleds...that was the thing to do...take some heavy beastly plane with a big throaty .60 you could find to the field. The cool thing to do was inverted passes with the thing hauling out of a full throttle dive, wings whistling monokote being ripped off, and hoping that nothing started fluttering. Going through an entire roll of paper towels, and 409 to clean all the castor off. You had your "flying" clothes, because they reaked of exhaust. Bottom of your pants legs were always a darker shade then the rest of the pants from holding the plane with your ankles in front of the stab...with exhaust blowing directly on your pants.

I'm wondering if either knows what they are talking about.

Here is a very nice example of the Kwik Fli when built by someone that does know his stuff.

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_45...tm.htm#4632734

Having seen it fly first hand, it was very precise and smooth. With a weight of 5.1 lbs to boot.

Cool!! I hope not to offend, but those are among the reasons I'm coming back to the hobby of my youth....buying big throaty 60's, some without silicone parts just so I can smell burnt castor- even on the way home from flying! Ahh, the good old days....

Some days I miss it....till I pick up a clean electric, and my hands arent greasy.....then the nostalgia fades away.
5lb sounds more like a reasonable wingloading highplains.

My dad even built the Flea-Fly....the tiny version of the Kwik-fly.
Still got plans someplace for it.

Heck, the grease is half the fun Bryan. Sometimes you gotta break a nail.

Tom

I had a Castor Oil soaked right shoe thru school!!! lol