harphunt

I recently took possession of a Sterling Stearman about 90% complete. I'm wondering how to finish off the nose - Dummy radial engine or aluminum cowl (or both?).

Could you owners of this model post a picture of the finished product to help in my decision making? I would very much appreciate this!

Also, the elevator and rudder hinges have been epoxied and pinned. Any thoughts on covering around this? I'm sure silkspan was the norm when this model came out, but I'm considering solertex or coverite (fabric-type covering). Any other opinions or caveates are welcome.

Thank you in advance.

Ernest-T

My Feedback: (7)

It just ain't a Stearman without the radial engine hanging out there. Here are some photos of mine. I used the plastic engine that comes in the kit. This plane is still flying after 15 years, and the dummy engine has held up well. I did reinforce it with expandable foam inside the cylinders, and dowels cemented between cylinders to prevent flexing.

OS 91 4 stroke for power gives very scale flight, but it is a heavy plane with lots of lead in nose for balance. Probably would be even better with a 1.20. If you balance as per plans it will fly well. Just don't be surprised at how much nose weight you need.

Mine is covered with combination of super coverite which is painted (yellow surfaces), and Permagloss (pre-painted fabric which is no longer available).

If your hinges are pined you can cut off the ends of the pins and separate the surfaces for covering repair.

harphunt

Very cool!! Exactly what I was looking for. You must have used an after-market motor mount. Mine has the wood beams (which I can cut off). The firewall hasn't been glued on. What would you recommend for a two-stroke? I'm wondering how much more of the dummy radial I'd have to cut out for a pitts muffler.

The problem with the hinges are that they are epoxied in as well as pinned through the wood. I need to cover the tail surfaces w/o being able to wrap the covering around and then paint the wood that is not covered (?).

Any more pics out there?

Thanks again!

LesUyeda

Personally, I would not profane the poor beastie with a 2 stroke. Mine flew quite well with a pre-surpass, used and worn, OS 91. I worked a lot lightening up the tail surfaces and wing, and with Robart struts, it came in at 13#. The dummy engine is Williams Brothers.

Les

harphunt

Thank you too for the pics, Les. I've done searches and haven't come up with much, hence my request for pictures. Did either you or Ernest cover the planked area on the fuselage, or just the ribbed area and then seal and paint the nose section?

You're probably right about the 4-stroke, except for the cost (I'd like to save up for one to go in a spitfire, my next project).

Thanks!

more appreciated

Ernest-T

My Feedback: (7)

I would definitely recommend covering the whole thing all the way to the firewall. Otherwise you would have to glass the front and paint. A finished fabric covering like Solartex (Worldtex, Colortex) would be easy, and really looks better than plastic on this bird.

I agree with Les that this plane begs for a 4 stroke as do most biplanes (this is a nice project for a 91 4 stroke, or the Saito 100, or even an old used 1.20 that you could find fairly cheap). A 4 stroke lets you swing a larger prop which helps the prop clear that wide nose. I suspect you could fly it on a 2 stroke, but it would be harder for me to pick one. I think a 60 would be too small (at least for the way I like to fly). Maybe a 90?

Les also brought up a good point about lightening the tail. If you can, I'd recommend lightening the tail as much as possible before covering. An ounce saved in the tail, probably equals 5 or 6 ounces saved in nose weight on this plane.

As for the hinges, I thought you meant they had a pin through the hinge line. If I'm reading you right someone built the plane then permanently hinged the control surfaces before covering. If this is the case, I'd recommend cutting the hinges, covering then re-hinging the surfaces. It will save you time in the long run. You could use Robart Hinge points, hinge next to the existing hinges, or remove the existing hinges and re-hinge in the same location.

I also recommend the Robart Struts for this plane. Really cool. My photos show the Robart plastic strut covers, but I later added the real stuts to my plane also.

LesUyeda

I covered the whole fuselage. It was easier than trying to make the transition from "rag" to "sheet metal". I also found that the Robart struts (that he makes for this bird) were essential. Everyone that I have ever talked to had problems with the stock landing gear wandering around. Made for impossible ground handling.

Les

MAJSteve

My Feedback: (-1)

I'm working on my 4th. 20th Century fabric all the way, and then I'm going to fill and paint the "metal" areas. I'm using 2-56 for the flying wires, cut away most of the inside engine bearers to fit a large fuel tank and give me access to the attachment points. I used cut clevis' for the attachment points, screwed through the bulkheads. On the rear flying wires, I bent the clevis' open and am in the process of mounting the wing so I can get the right angle before I epoxy a plate over them.

I made my attachment brackets from aluminum and am through bolting them with 1-80 brass screws and nuts. Seems to be a pretty good way to do it so far. This is going to be a pain to set up at the field, so I'll probably leave it assembled and just have the charging jack and switch in the front cockpit.

I had an ASP 1.08 on the last one and it flew OK with no extra lead in the front. This one is going to get a Magnum .91 FS, so I'm going to have to work out cutting the firewall open more to let the carb go inside the front of the fuse and the needle valve stick out somewhere.

I agree with lightening the tail up, and then using functional wires to stiffen it. Too bad the rear isn't scale. It'd be a lot simpler to do the tailwheel and wire attachments.

mangolo

I am about to start building my Sterling PT17,will you please give me the strut and dummy engine models number so I can order them before I start.

Thanks

WALDO.

bassman

I realize that this is an old thread but if any of you are listening I have questions. I am flying a Sterling PT 17 that I picked up at an auction. It has an old OS 91 four stroke on the front and is in really great shape. It was covered in see thru material so I could tell that it was never crashed. Here's the problem. It flies like a truck. It digs in on the turns or just wants to slide out. It won't roll unless I try to make it snap and then is a slow roll that it wants to fall out of. I really like the plane and wish it was more flyable. It has plenty of speed and power. Is anyone flying one that is a nice flyer or are they all sky trucks. What is the proper wing incidence? Where is the proper balance point? Many more questions if someone gets back to me?!?!?!?!?

Bassman

MAJSteve

My Feedback: (-1)

I use the factory "full scale" setting for the incidence. 4 degrees on the top wing, 3 on the lower and stab. Last one was set up at 0 all the way around but I had a 1.08 on it. Worked fine that way, but I wanted more lift.

CG on the front of the lower wing.

Steve

LesUyeda

Bassman. It is a truck. With a 91, what you see is what you get. It flies very scale like.

Les

bassman

Thanks for the info. It's not what I wanted to hear. I guess this one is going to end up as auction material again. I have so liitle flying time that I am not going to waste it on a plane that isn't fun to fly. I have a number of good flying planes that are eaiser to set up at the field. Have any of you flown the new Great Planes Super Stearman?

Bassman