Bob757FL

My Feedback: (15)

Congratulations Reg!!!

regmason

My Feedback: (2)

Greetings all,

The SFK twin video is on our club website "www.baxterfield.com". It contains my most embarrassing moments from the maiden flight. I'm sorry there were no "Andy Kane" kind of aerobatics. While trying to trim, my first thoughts were to keep it right side up and take it home in one piece. It still has to pass muster at our club meeting next month. It will be thoroughly wrung out after that time.

Reg

SALMONBUG

My Feedback: (1)

Hi folks, I have been out of my private projects for a long time (I worked on projects for a european RC company), but this winter I will be back in the workshop on my own planes and will finish this twin sfk. I am happy to read it fly great....... By the way I was sure it would be a perfect bird, its a Bruce Tharpe design after all........

stefanP

My Feedback: (2)

Can one you builders tell me what the wing cord is? Also does anybody know the weight of the plane in the bare bones? Thanxs,stefanP

regmason

My Feedback: (2)

StefanP,

The wing chord is nearly 26 inches. I didn't weigh it in the bones. Sorry.

Reg Mason

PS to all: Since the maiden flight, the King has been doing slow aileron rolls, stall turns, four point rolls, outside loops and inverted flight (that it doesn't seem to happy with).[&o]

stewburner

My Feedback: (1)

Hello Reg, I would like to see more detail of your flap mod . Do you have any more pictures of the details ? Please Stewburner

regmason

My Feedback: (2)

Hey Stewburner,

Got lots of pics of the flap installation. Since you are the first to ask for a copy of the CD, email me your address at [email protected] and I will burn you a copy, no charge. I was so pleased with the way the flap setup worked on the King, I have since used it on another of my big birds. Keep us posted on your progress on this thread.

Reg Mason

stewburner

My Feedback: (1)

TO Reg; A big thank you for the very generous offer . I sent you an e-mail with my address so that you know where to sent the copy to. Stewburner

psbk

Reg,
I'll be finished with the Flyin' King in a couple of weeks and plan to start the SFK. I will be using the Flowler Flaps and a few other of your ideas and would love get of copy of your CD. I'll send you an email with my address. Thanks,
Pat

Skycam41

Pat, you will love your flyin' King and I bet the SFK is twice the fun!

Mike

dwight5760

I have a magnum 4.0 CI 5 cylinder radial. I am very interested in the SFK. Would my engine work on this plane and how do I get the kit or plans?

Dwight Pierce
[email protected]
Birmingham Alabama

BruceTharpe

My Feedback: (1)

Hi Dwight, I'm the manufacturer of the Super Flyin' King kit. You can read more about it here:

http://www.btemodels.com/sfk.html

As for the Magnum, I think it would work just fine. The recommended engine range is 3.7 to 4.9 c.i. GAS, and four-stroke glow engines are pretty comparable to gas engines of similar displacement.

I invite you to visit the website and let me know if you have any questions.

CK1

My Feedback: (60)

Bruce , I again must praise the SFK . I recently flew mine for a candy drop at a local charity flyin , with 5 pounds of candy in the box I couldnt tell any difference
in the flight . I'm guessing that 15 or more pounds wouldnt be a problem at all .
For those of you interested in this plane ,it is simply an amazing workhorse that is a pleasure to build and fly.

mstroh3961

My Feedback: (4)

With that capacity it could make a heck of a cross country plane.

Firewoood

My Feedback: (5)

Fellow Builders

My name is David Fuchs and I am also getting ready to order the SFK from Mr. Thorpe. I am now working on my second normal sized FK. Not to suggest that some of you may be abnormal. :-) The purpose of my post is to discuss the aerodynamics of the SFK with respect to the twin engine version some of you are building and flying. First consider the tail configuration of some recent aircraft. The F/A-18, The F-14 and the F-15 although I prefer Navy. In high AOA flight configurations the nose of the aircraft often blocks the airflow across the vertical stabilizer. When the stabilizers are moved outboard, away from the centerline of the aircraft, the airflow is uninterruppted and the rudder effectiveness is maintained throughout all flight ranges and airspeeds. Other methods of accomplishing this is to increase the height of the vertical stabilizer. On the SFK, with the loss of one engine, the operator (pilot) may have to increase the power on the good engine in order to return to the approach end of the runway. This is the actual purpose of my post. I have often read from others who have built the FK, (normal sized) that they felt the rudder was to small. Mr. Thorpe has reassured us the rudder was the proper size. OK. BUT, in the larger version of the SFK, with the loss of one engine another aerodynamic factor needs to be considered. VMCair. Minimum control speed. If we increase the size of the rudder, with the loss of the critical engine, we may be able to (more effectively) maintain directional control. This could be a factor in returning to the runway in one piece.

I am open to receive comments [email protected]

Respectfully

Navy Davy

michaelburton01

My Feedback: (3)

In life there are two kinds of people.
Engineers who make great things. And even greater things from already great things.
And Non-Engineers who second guess everything that is great.

Consider if you will the Rockwell Aero Commander and pilot Bob Hoovers.
If anybody could be credited in over testing high AOA in a twin Bob is "Da Man"

http://www.flyrightproductions.com/AboutBobHoover.htm

So, if I was in your shoes... and Bruce says the Rudder is the proper size. I would have to bow to his better judgement.
But remember no amount of proper engineering can forsee or prevent Pilot Error. I am proof of that.

But this is just my opinion.

BruceTharpe

My Feedback: (1)

Thanks for "having my back" Michael, but David's just thinking out loud. I've always encouraged creativity and don't have a problem with guys modifying my kits to explore their own ideas or theories. Truth be told, there's a lot of TLAR (that looks about right)engineering in the SFK, particularly the twin-version. What looks right to me might not to others.

I've also been very upfront in telling customers that I have never actually built or flown the TWIN version of the SFK. Several have been built now by others, including a tri-motor, and nobody's reported any problems or bad flying characteristics. Given that, and the fact that its configuration - high wing with long span and nacelles relatively close to fuse center - is known to have a forgiving nature, makes me pretty confident that it should be an easy flying twin, even with an engine out.

If I was to build the twin, I would stick with the fin and rudder as designed, but there's no real downside to enlarging the vertical area (fin and rudder) if that's what you want to do.

regmason

My Feedback: (2)

David,

The build CD you requested is on its way. I included video of the my SFK twin maiden flights. As you will see, one must stay on the rudder on take off to counteract its tendency to pull hard to the left. I used to worry about a single engine outage, but have never experienced such a situation. I guess I have my Zenoah G38s to thank for that, as they have never given me a bit of trouble. The only problem I have had is a side window falling out during flight. This was due to the fact that I did not use Bruce's method of window installation. Serves me right for not listening to the master.

Good luck on your build! Please keep us posted with your progress.

Reg Mason

PS: I would love to see the tri-motor, as I considered such a configuration during my build. Bruce talked me out of it.

Firewoood

My Feedback: (5)

Michael

Look at the size of the rudder in the photograph at the web site that you provided.

I received my aeronautical degree from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. I flew the U.S. Navy's P-3 Orion for 17 years tracking Soviet Submarines. Additionally I have logged over 8,000 flight hours in US Naval aircraft. I presently work for the Naval Air Systems Command, something to do with naval aircraft.

So than, perhaps you must be the NON_ENGINEER?

This is my last post.

speedbrake

Bruce,
I've been interested in building a tri-motor SFK using two OS 160 twins and an OS 120 twin in the nose. Do you think those engines can handle the airframe weight?

Keith

BruceTharpe

My Feedback: (1)

Hey Keith, believe it or not, it's been done already by another builder! He used three OS 1.60 four-strokes and even at 50 lbs. it had plenty of power. Not 3D power, but good SFK power.

Send me an email and I will put you in touch if you want...

jbarnes

I found this old thread. I recently picked up a Super Flyin King kit here on RCU. I ordered the Twin Kit from Bruce. My plan is to put two DLE 55RA's on the bird. These motors just fit the firewalls on the twin within 1/8" (yikes). I have the center wing section framed up. I've made the following modifications to the center section in support of the large size motors and vibration that may be present.
1) Moved the nacelles 1/2 bay out to support three blade props for the 55's.
2) Use 1/8" light ply for sheer webs on outer three bays.
3) Use 1/8" light ply false leading edge.
4) Use 1/8" light ply webbing for wing dowel anchors
5) Added wing strut support in nacelle to support a wing strut from each nacelle to the fuse.

I'm still nervous about these sig wing connectors. Seem pretty small for such a large wing but Bruce tells me they work so I'm going with the flow and using them.
Thanks, Jerry.

BruceTharpe

My Feedback: (1)

Yep, pretty old thread! As for the Sig wing joiners, I do have a lot of faith in them. But like anything structural, there is a limit. I don't know your flying style or how hard you intend to push the aerobatics. If you are really concerned about the joiners, I would suggest attaching your wing struts to the outer wing panels, one rib bay outboard of the joiners. That would not only stiffen the wing and help absorb vibration, it would take some of the load off the joiners.

jbarnes

Thats going to look pretty ugly! I don't plan on 3D this thing. Its more of a novelty. I did remove 50% of the dihedral.

jbarnes