Balsa USA Stingray
08-28-2002 | 10:00 PM
#1
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (16)
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Clinton,
UT
Balsa USA Stingray
Has anyone had experience with a Stingray. I just ordered one and thought about going full wingspan and a .61 two stroke or eliminating a couple of bays on the wingspan and using a .45. Any suggestions? I would actually prefer the .45 and want a"speedster". Thanks in advance, Cliff
08-29-2002 | 02:11 AM
#3
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (16)
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Clinton,
UT
Clarified Question
I am going to build a Balsa USA Stingray 40. Given it's design parameters size, aspect ratio, etc., which would more likely be a better flying plane using top speed as a large factor. The full size plane as per plans using a .61 two stroke or a clipped wing version with a .45 two stroke? While it is obvious that this plane was not designed specifically for speed, I thought the wing design and wide usable engine range made it a good candidate for a clipped wing version. Maybe a clipped wing with a smaller engine would be a little stronger and a little"spicier". Thanks, Cliff
08-29-2002 | 12:59 PM
#4
My Feedback: (1)
Stingray
I have a Stingray that one of my flying buddies built. Presently it is powered with a Magnum .61 4-stroke, which is OK, but not unlimited vertical.
I have flown it full, stick wing and now with 1 bay clipped from each wing. Rolls better and I think you'll like it this way. Like the Sig 4-Stars and Mid-Star it flies better with shorter wings.
Another thing I would do if I built the kit is to go to separate servos in each wing. The stock torque rods can bind in the middle and I had to cut out some of the bulkhead.
I would also increase the size of all the control surfaces, 2-2 1/2 inches on ailerons, 3 inches for elevator and 4 inches for rudder.
Keep it light and keep the CG back. If you go with a .61 which is considerably heavier than a .46, be prepared to put the battery in the tail. Even better for a .61 powered one would be the elevator & rudder servos in the tail. You lose a lot of the benefit of the extra power carrying the extra weight, especially when you have to add lead to the tail. If you plan ahead during construction, you can avoid this.
Actually, a .46 to .61 change is not the best. .46s are just about the pinacle of power-to-weight while the .61s are heavy so they can be punched out into light weight .91s like the OS.
A better engine, in my opinion would be the new OS .50 or the Irvine .52. I don't own either, but have heard good things about both. Another idea to consider is adding a Jett or Performance Specialties tuned muffler.
I have flown it full, stick wing and now with 1 bay clipped from each wing. Rolls better and I think you'll like it this way. Like the Sig 4-Stars and Mid-Star it flies better with shorter wings.
Another thing I would do if I built the kit is to go to separate servos in each wing. The stock torque rods can bind in the middle and I had to cut out some of the bulkhead.
I would also increase the size of all the control surfaces, 2-2 1/2 inches on ailerons, 3 inches for elevator and 4 inches for rudder.
Keep it light and keep the CG back. If you go with a .61 which is considerably heavier than a .46, be prepared to put the battery in the tail. Even better for a .61 powered one would be the elevator & rudder servos in the tail. You lose a lot of the benefit of the extra power carrying the extra weight, especially when you have to add lead to the tail. If you plan ahead during construction, you can avoid this.
Actually, a .46 to .61 change is not the best. .46s are just about the pinacle of power-to-weight while the .61s are heavy so they can be punched out into light weight .91s like the OS.
A better engine, in my opinion would be the new OS .50 or the Irvine .52. I don't own either, but have heard good things about both. Another idea to consider is adding a Jett or Performance Specialties tuned muffler.
07-12-2003 | 11:04 PM
#5
Balsa USA Stingray
We did the Stingray as a club project. I built one to 4 1/4 lbs, lightening the tail and powering with an OS 40 FP. Flew great. Limited verticle, of course, but nice outside loops, cuban eights, etc.
All the others are powered with much stronger engines and also weigh a lot more. Two Irvine .53s, one Evolution .45, a couple of OS .46s, and an Enya 50.
Two have the wings shortened by one bay. One pilot is very experienced and loves it that way, the other is less experienced and also built his quite heavy. He finds his to be a hairy handful. The thick symmetrical airfoil gives all planes sweet flying characteristics, except the heavy one with the short wings. Even that would probably do fine in experienced hands. Built stock it is a superb second plane.
Some eliminated the dihedral--doesn't seem to matter (there is very little anyway).
Landings can be very slow or greased in. Nice rate of decent--not too floaty, but very graceful and easy.
Many of us used dual aileron servos, but a couple members used the stock torque rods and have been OK so far.
Compared to a four-star it has a thicker airfoil which is symmetric, not semi-symmetric, and wing construction is strong as a bridge so you can use any covering material. It is essentially high wing, some might say mid-wing, rather than low wing, but shows little or no roll coupling or pitching with rudder. Delightful plane to fly. A bit of a pain to build, but not bad for anyone with some experience. Jim
All the others are powered with much stronger engines and also weigh a lot more. Two Irvine .53s, one Evolution .45, a couple of OS .46s, and an Enya 50.
Two have the wings shortened by one bay. One pilot is very experienced and loves it that way, the other is less experienced and also built his quite heavy. He finds his to be a hairy handful. The thick symmetrical airfoil gives all planes sweet flying characteristics, except the heavy one with the short wings. Even that would probably do fine in experienced hands. Built stock it is a superb second plane.
Some eliminated the dihedral--doesn't seem to matter (there is very little anyway).
Landings can be very slow or greased in. Nice rate of decent--not too floaty, but very graceful and easy.
Many of us used dual aileron servos, but a couple members used the stock torque rods and have been OK so far.
Compared to a four-star it has a thicker airfoil which is symmetric, not semi-symmetric, and wing construction is strong as a bridge so you can use any covering material. It is essentially high wing, some might say mid-wing, rather than low wing, but shows little or no roll coupling or pitching with rudder. Delightful plane to fly. A bit of a pain to build, but not bad for anyone with some experience. Jim
