Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > Kit Building
Reload this Page >

Anyone build an old school Rich Uravitch 52" OV-10 Bronco?

Notices
Kit Building If you're building a kit and have questions or want to discuss kit building post it here.

Anyone build an old school Rich Uravitch 52" OV-10 Bronco?

Old 09-26-2020, 08:56 AM
  #1  
Outrider6
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Metro Atlanta GA, USA
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
Default Anyone build an old school Rich Uravitch 52" OV-10 Bronco?

I am thinking of building one, but since the glow-powered kit building part of this hobby is slowly dying, finding parts and accessories is getting more difficult all the time. I don't want to start building a kit, then find out that I can't get equipment for it.

If you built a Uravitch 52" OV0-10 Bronco, or know of one, what type retracts were used in it, and did they work well? I'm not even sure what type, size, rotation type, etc., that this kit would need, so I need a lead with which to start looking to see what I can find for it.
Old 09-26-2020, 11:31 AM
  #2  
Steelhead13
Junior Member
 
Steelhead13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: North Central CT
Posts: 18
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Hello Outrider6,

Rich Uravitch has a website: RichUravitch.com. I've contacted him via phone and email. He has the plastic parts for your size OV-10....nose, cowls, etc. for abut $35. I have his 81" version and will get those parts. If you contact him, he is very generous with his information and could most likely send you in the right direction re. retracts. His email contact is: [email protected], and his phone number is 321 728-4850. He lives in Florida. Good luck. P.S. I’ve been advised by very experienced builders in my club to go electric with the engines. I was originally going to go with glow, but they cautioned me that if one glow engine quit, the plane would go down. Period. They said in this case, electric is the way to go. And by the way, glow/gas engines are still widely used in my club! Of course the majority of members are older guys.
Old 09-26-2020, 01:04 PM
  #3  
Outrider6
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Metro Atlanta GA, USA
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
Default

Well dang. With twin booms and twin rudders, I figured a flight would be salvageable in the plane, if going to idle or low throttle on the remaining running engine. I don't like electric power in .40 and up sized planes - not the way they fly, and the lack of "feel" that real engines give (I'm not talking about them lacking performance). Perhaps I won't be building that plane after all. That was just about the one and only remaining kit (short) that I could both find and wanted to build. Nothing else out there, unless Balsa USA comes up with some new designs that aren't flying wings or warbirds.

Time to do some scratch building on my next plane, I guess.

Last edited by Outrider6; 09-26-2020 at 01:10 PM.
Old 09-27-2020, 09:34 AM
  #4  
H5606
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: , MD
Posts: 821
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes on 18 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Steelhead13 View Post
Hello Outrider6,

Ive been advised by very experienced builders in my club to go electric with the engines. I was originally going to go with glow, but they cautioned me that if one glow engine quit, the plane would go down. Period. They said in this case, electric is the way to go. And by the way, glow/gas engines are still widely used in my club! Of course the majority of members are older guys.
This sounds like an opportunity to take the nay-sayers claims for glow as a challenge -

No problem with going down; single engine airplanes go down all the time when the engine quits too - it's landing without breaking anything that counts.

Having re-read the November '95 MAN article for the OV-10:

Mr. Uravitch's intention was a simple, light-weight, easy-to-build, airframe designed around twin .20-.25 glow power (not .40!) for 4 channels - to me that means fixed gear - no retracts. Retractable landing gear would add unnecessary weight and complexity to the model. He does say "the right engine should have 3 degrees of right thrust incorporated" when mounting it. He also states that adding area to the span with an additional rib bay can lower wing loading w/o sacrificing appearance which is so easy to do on a constant chord wing.

Someone I know flies a plans-built, twin .18 powered Carl Goldberg Skylark 56 and challenges anyone to fill his airplane - one tank full and the other at half-capacity without his witnessing which tank is low. He never has problems landing with one engine-out and sets throttle trim to cut the running engine when throttle stick is pulled back all the way. So - no "go arounds". He even programmed a throttle mix for differential thrust when rudder is operated. I think conventional twin operation using any source of power (gas, glow, electric, turbine, rubber, CO2) is just a matter of awareness, recognition, and experience.

Since the horizontal stab on the OV-10 is above the blown area behind the props, elevator effectiveness is probably lower - being that its in clean air - than what many are conditioned for. This trait should be a non-issue through airspeed and awareness.

Don't let others sway you against what you want to do - I say go after your dreams if you want to go glow but keep it light...
The following users liked this post:
two shoes (10-01-2020)
Old 09-27-2020, 09:49 AM
  #5  
Outrider6
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Metro Atlanta GA, USA
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by H5606 View Post
This sounds like an opportunity to take the nay-sayers claims for glow as a challenge -

No problem with going down; single engine airplanes go down all the time when the engine quits too - it's landing without breaking anything that counts.

Having re-read the November '95 MAN article for the OV-10:

Mr. Uravitch's intention was a simple, light-weight, easy-to-build, airframe designed around twin .20-.25 glow power (not .40!) for 4 channels - to me that means fixed gear - no retracts. Retractable landing gear would add unnecessary weight and complexity to the model. He does say "the right engine should have 3 degrees of right thrust incorporated" when mounting it. He also states that adding area to the span with an additional rib bay can lower wing loading w/o sacrificing appearance which is so easy to do on a constant chord wing.

Someone I know flies a plans-built, twin .18 powered Carl Goldberg Skylark 56 and challenges anyone to fill his airplane - one tank full and the other at half-capacity without his witnessing which tank is low. He never has problems landing with one engine-out and sets throttle trim to cut the running engine when throttle stick is pulled back all the way. So - no "go arounds". He even programmed a throttle mix for differential thrust when rudder is operated. I think conventional twin operation using any source of power (gas, glow, electric, turbine, rubber, CO2) is just a matter of awareness, recognition, and experience.

Since the horizontal stab on the OV-10 is above the blown area behind the props, elevator effectiveness is probably lower - being that its in clean air - than what many are conditioned for. This trait should be a non-issue through airspeed and awareness.

Don't let others sway you against what you want to do - I say go after your dreams if you want to go glow but keep it light...
Very valid points. I may just do that. The OV-10 is just about my favorite airplane of all time. When I was a kid, they frequently flew out of my local Air Force base. On one hand, the complexities of twin engines and retracts on a warbird are what I want, but I also want something that is just simple and fun to fly (and look at). Fixed gear would be a good compromise on that.

Also, even though I haven't yet compared weights, before I became aware that Saito stopped making their .30's, I was seriously considering putting those on this plane. One, because I just never really liked 2-strokes, once 4-strokes evolved and became worthy opponents (I am the same way about motorcycles and yard tools). Two, because I think two 4-strokes would sound as cool as anything. But now, the cost on two of those has become prohibitive. Yet it is now also kind of difficult to find two .25 2-strokes that are both the same engine and affordable.

It would really stink to take a while building this plane very nicely (I love building), and saving my money, only to find out that it had become nearly impossible to find engines for it.
Old 10-03-2020, 10:08 AM
  #6  
CanDo
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: SoCal, CA
Posts: 510
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I had both the smaller (52")and larger (80") OV-10s, both had glow engines. I added 4" to the wingspan on the smaller one, it was powered with 2 OS .25FX motors, plus it had Spring Air retracts. As I recall, the RTF weight was 6 1/4 lb, and the plane flew great! The 80" Bronco had 2 OS .91 Surpass motors and Sierra Precision retracts.
I never had an engine out, probably because I was careful to make sure each motor was slightly rich on top end and had a good idle to full throttle transition. Careful tuning is important. Note, I could also practice a quasi engine out scenario by throttling back either motor to idle during flight. The OV-10s are manageable on one engine. The larger OV-10 also handled like a twin engine trainer, very smooth. When you install the main gear, move them slightly forward of what the plans show, it was difficult to rotate for take off in the original position. That's my experience, I hope it helps!
Old 10-03-2020, 01:09 PM
  #7  
Outrider6
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Metro Atlanta GA, USA
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by CanDo View Post
I had both the smaller (52")and larger (80") OV-10s, both had glow engines. I added 4" to the wingspan on the smaller one, it was powered with 2 OS .25FX motors, plus it had Spring Air retracts. As I recall, the RTF weight was 6 1/4 lb, and the plane flew great! The 80" Bronco had 2 OS .91 Surpass motors and Sierra Precision retracts.
I never had an engine out, probably because I was careful to make sure each motor was slightly rich on top end and had a good idle to full throttle transition. Careful tuning is important. Note, I could also practice a quasi engine out scenario by throttling back either motor to idle during flight. The OV-10s are manageable on one engine. The larger OV-10 also handled like a twin engine trainer, very smooth. When you install the main gear, move them slightly forward of what the plans show, it was difficult to rotate for take off in the original position. That's my experience, I hope it helps!
Yes - that helps very much. Good to know. Thank you. There are very few airplanes that I am more fond of than OV-10's.
The following users liked this post:
CanDo (10-04-2020)
Old 10-04-2020, 01:21 PM
  #8  
CanDo
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: SoCal, CA
Posts: 510
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I forgot to mention that because of this aircraft's design, it is easy to make it very tail heavy, it will then require a lot of nose weight to balance. The CG is right on the spar. Spend a lot of time selecting lighter materials for everything aft of of the CG, even in the wing. The nacelles and horizontal stabilizer are key areas to focus on. You have to design lighter airframes initially, removing weight afterwards is extremely frustrating! I used a carbon fiber tube in the leading edge of the horr. stab, plus I used lighter balsa. My stab was ~2oz lighter than the original one. I figured an ounce saved in the tail was about 3 oz less nose weight needed. Like many projects, there are challenges, but this is one plane that makes a good pilot look like a great pilot!
Old 10-04-2020, 03:00 PM
  #9  
Outrider6
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Metro Atlanta GA, USA
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
Default

Thanks for the tips, so far. I'm gonna build one when I get some spare funds. Been wanting to do that since this plane first came out, back when I was really heavy into building models.
Old 10-04-2020, 04:13 PM
  #10  
CanDo
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: SoCal, CA
Posts: 510
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

No problem. I would suggest looking one of the smaller Broncos when the time is right. My 80" one got real pricey. Besides the custom retracts, etc, it also had 14 servos! Keith Sparks at Park Flyer Plastics also has a good kit if you decide to go electric.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.