psuguru

your wish is my command!

paxolin plate onto maple bearers.
The engine bay has a drain hole at the bottom to get rid of the gunk.
SLEC 6 oz tank is good for 12 minutes and the ply formers were cut to fit it very snugly.

psuguru

tank bay was drained too. Original fuselage forwards of the windows was ruined by a tank leak. When i removed the covering, it fell to pieces! So the tank bay is thoroughly Tuf-Koted and drained.

psuguru

servos on maple bearers as per plan.
the lower longerons are 1/4 maple. I found that the balsa ones would get bashed and dinged over time.

psuguru

Aileron linkage is via piano wire torque rods. i put brass tubing collets through the ribs and bent up attachment cranks out of tubing, flattened at one end then bent through 90 degrees.I then soldered the crank to the piano wire.
the ailerons were top hinged to try to avoid adverse yaw, but even so, there's quite a bit of it AND the differential aileron causes the nose to drop as well. The model really doesn't like ailerons!

psuguru

more aileron linkage

ripmax33

those are really nice photo's, it's like watching an old aircraft in a museum. a very nice vintage trainer and well used i think. what's the thickness of the paxolin?
should be strong enough for a 4 stroke? and why is so affected by adverse yaw[]? does ben buckle knows about this? there must be a solution other wise why
bother to print a plan for an aileron version?

regards
Daniel

pimmnz

All high wing/dihedral models are affected by adverse yaw. Some just a bit more than others. I have a 1/4 Monocoupe that, despite 2:1 differential will, with aileron only, roll left (say) yaw right, and continue to fly in a straight line. the answer is either keep the Super 60 as originally designed and use rudder, or use the aileron/rudder mix on your Tx and mix equal amounts of rudder and aileron. You could, of course, learn to co-ordinate rudder and aileron using the sticks, but that seems to be going out of fashion these days and requires you to learn to be a pilot...
Evan, WB #12.

psuguru

Actually, I've just realised that the engine plate isn't Paxolin, but Tufnol which is a Phenolic Resin Bonded Fibre (PRBF) whereas Paxolin is PRBP (.....paper)

It doesn't tend to fracture like Paxolin in the event of a prang, so maybe isn't too good in that respect, but it has much less tendency to form cracks from vibration. If you intend to use real paxolin, you should consider rounding the internal corners of the engine cut-out to avoid stress concentration.

It is 1/8" thick, but is supported very close to the engine so that's just perfick. Assembly method was to test fit everything and drill the engine holes as required, then assemble the engine to the plate then screw the plate to the bearers. There's 4 oz of lead hanging off the back of the plate too. When I first covered with nylon, that wasn't required. I'd recommend nylon covering for this model, (a) for the vintage look and feel (b) for your satisfaction because clearly, you're getting your switches flipped by the building process and (c) because the model will be stronger and lighter.
The pictures show "Antique" Solartex covering with 3 layers of dope and 1 layer of Tuf-Kote (resin fuel proofer).

reagrds,
Carole

psuguru

I built this befor BB did the 4 channel version. I adapted the 3 Ch kit and maybe the 1/3rd span, deep chord ailerons were not the best choice.

Ldalmas

i give you 2 advises i have buit all colours of super 60, with ailerons with flapps without , th best is 3 channel as intended and i prefered a nylon mount for flying reduces vibration

Mike MJE

Super 60

In 1962 my budget for an RC plane was £10 so I bought a KK New Junior 60 kit and Macgregor Terrytone receiver and second hand ED Racer (I still fly the plane but with new radio gear ). I could not afford the Super 60, so 48 years later and thanks to E-Bay I have acquired a Super 60 for only £25. The plane appeared reasonable in the E-Bay photograph as it was / is covered with yellow Solartex and to appeared not to have flown or crashed. I assumed minimal works would be necessary to get it in the air. How wrong can you be?-the balsa construction was / is a nightmare and if any attempt to fly the plane had been made it would surely have crashed especially as the fin / rudder were just glued to the Solartex on top of the fuselage! I have therefore been re-building the plane which has an aileron wing and have made quite good if not slow progress. Costs have almost reached £90 for parts which has included new Oratex covering as the Solartex has had to be removed.

Engine power will be either a PAW 29 or Enya SS 40 I have made provision for either and quite by coincidence I have read the earlier comments on both engines.

As the wings did not appear to be too bad yesterday I decided to remove only the centre section Solartex and beef up the structure as most constructors have advised. To my horror I uncovered more balsa bodge -ups the worst being that the wings had obviously been built originally for dihedral and converted for ailerons. To achieve this the original constructor had built a flimsy wing centre section and had added both original wings and created a new wing structure that is 68 inches span rather than 63 inches! To date I have not got a Super 60 plan but from what I can determine the Super 60 wing centre section is of a much lighter build than the Junior 60 which has 1/4 inch ribsCan anyone advise?



MJE

Telemaster Sales UK

My Super 60 plan (genuine Keil Kraft, symmetrical tail section,) clearly shows that the centre section ribs are of 1/4" balsa; all of the others are 3/32".

May I echo the predominant view that the 3 channel version is a nicer flier than the aileron conversion.

Mike MJE

Super 60,

Thanks for the reply. I have modified the Super 60 wing platform to take the Junior 60 wings and fly as a 3 channel radio plane. However the dihedral of the Junior 60 wings is 4 inches at each tip-twice that of the Ben Buckle Super 60 but the same as the original KK Super 60.

It will be a shame to just scrap the aileron wings. Is the performance with ailerons so bad that they are a waste of time?


MJE

Telemaster Sales UK

Well, if you ask ten different aeromodellers, you'll get ten different opinions!

With ailerons it isn't a bad aeroplane and the one I used to have had only about 1" dihedral; I didn't build it, didn't like it much and sold it on.

I find it more relaxing to fly the three-channel version.

ukengineman

I agree with the comments about the Super 60 being most relaxing to fly as a 3 channel. My electric Super 60 is built to the original KK spec (symmetrical airfoil tail, small rudder etc) but with reduced dihedral (2 inches under each tip). It handles delightfully, you can see a video taken on its first outing earlier this year:-
http://www.vimeo.com/11927227

Mike MJE

Super 60

Very impressive flight of the electric model and obviously very relaxing. My original Junior 60 is similar except that it is rudder only plus a throttle. You can fly it to extreme heights without concern as it basically flies itself. I have taken it once to my flying club (Bartons Point Sheerness) and one of the club members suggested the only time it went fast was during it's hand-launch! The other Ben Buckle 1946 Junior 60 fuselage I acquired at the Nationals swap meet has an elevator and a more sprightly performance than the original plane. I was hoping the Super 60 would respond well to ailerons as I am sure using it with 3 channels would not be a lot different to the Junior 60's. I have got a second/third hand Keil Kraft Falcon 96 which of course is 3 channel and again probably matches the 3 channel Super 60 for performance.

I will keep you chaps informed of my progress with the Super 60

Thanks for your replies.

MJE

Mike MJE

Super 60 Wing Re-Build

Having taken into account all the comments posted, the plan of action I have to re-build the wings is as follows:

[*]Build new centre section with 1/4 inch balsa ribs.[*]Adjust outer centre section ribs to allow for 2inches dihedral at each wing tip.[*]Retain and modify the ailerons to suit.[/list]With this strategy hopefully the plane can be flown comfortably with a combination of both rudder and ailerons or rudder on its own with the ailerons retained as just a trimming aid. In the latter guise the ailerons could be linked to the left transmitter stick / 4th channel. I realise that dihedral basically fights the operation of ailerons.

It could also be interesting to create Super / Junior 60 hybrids with the modified wings.

Photos to follow.

MJE

Mike MJE

Super 60

Photos attached show the following:

[*]48 year old nylon covered Junior 60 wings attached to the Super 60 fuselage.[*]Enya SS 40 installation.[*]PAW 29 RC installation.[*]Offending centre section on aileron wing.[*]Servo installation to allow for throttle connections left or right.[/list]MJE

Mike MJE

[img]C:\Documents and Settings\PC User\Desktop\Mike 18-05-2010\Mike's photos\Planes\Super 60 15-01-2011[/img]

Mike MJE

I flew the Super 60 last weekend for the first time complete with the Junior 60 wings and the Enya Super Sport 40 engine.

As I suspected too much power was available from the engine and with slight up-elevator and full power the plane took off like the Space Shuttle almost vertically. However with minimum throttle and virtually no trimming the plane was very comfortable to fly and I can see why it is recommended as a good trainer. As the engine was new I let the plane fly until the tank emptied so the engine had a chance to free up which it appeared to do. Eventually I carried out a 'dead-stick' landing and that was that. Do I need to build the aileron wings?

MJE

Telemaster Sales UK

Why not just build a standard Super 60 wing and see how it compares with the Junior 60 wing?

Mike MJE

I not sure building a Super 60 wing will make much difference with the flight characteristics. However I now have 3 fuselages (1946 JNR 60;1955 New Junior 60, 1961 Super 60) and tailplanes/fins all complete with engines and radio. They all share one pair of wings.if I ever sell the planes as it stands they will all have to go together!

From a flying point of view all 3 planes as they are 3 channel don't offer a lot of progress as stunts etc are extremely limited. I have got two of Chris Olsen's partly built planes in the loft that deserve to be completed (Upset 2 and mid wing Uproar) and may well take priority over another set of Super 60 wings-if only I had the time!

MJE

Telemaster Sales UK

I have a Chris Olsen Uproar in the loft awaiting repair to the wing and waiting it's place in the repair queue!

wilko2

UKEngineman, I am building a Super 60 left over from when I last did aeromodelling (about 40 years ago - the price on the box is £6-0-0.). It was originally intended for a Frog 349 or E.D Racer but now that electric power is so easy I have decided to use that. What power train do you use in your electric version? I obviously want enough power to have a bit in reserve but I don't want to go over the top.

Thanks in advance

Wilko2
.

ukengineman

Hi wilko2, motor is a Scorpion SII 3014-1040, prop is an APC-E 10x5, LiPo is a 3S 3000mAh. Performance is good as seen in the link in my earlier post. Here is a short bit of video I took from the Super 60 a couple of weeks ago:-
http://www.vimeo.com/26012266
Hope this helps, Alan