None except the glide rate. If you have a dead stick you really need to keep the nose down or they will stall faster. That goes for slow speed flying. If your turning and going too slow it will go into a snapping spin. The AM isn't too bad about that but it's how I lost my Krier Kraft, showing off doing a side slip landing. The short fuse makes ground handling a bit different but once you have taken off a couple times it's easy. Not much different then a Cub. I flew nothing but Bipes for a few years and enjoy them. I just didn't care for the small AM as much as flying the giant scale.

Thanks Gray Beard, I just want to take off fly and land nothing fancey,thanks again. This AM is a big plane for me.

I just traded off mine last year. The original AMs flew better then the Great Planes model, that one used rubber bands to hold the wing on and had an open front. GP got it and made a lot of changes that added weight but made it look better but the added weight kept it from flying as well. Mine was the GP model and I flew it for several years. The build was a fun one and I use the way the cowl was built on a lot of different models I build. The AM has a better glide rate then most of the Bipes I have built. Once I went to the .91 engine I was happy with the plane but about then I was tired of flying Bipes and moved onto other types of planes. Today I would like to build a giant scale Fokker D-VII. I have built a couple in 60 size and liked how they flew too. For it's size the AM is one of the smoother little Bipes, you should enjoy it a lot. There is a photo of my little Master in my gallery.

Thank you for all the great pictures, I will fly mine one of these days when the wind dies down.

Your in Texas, from what I'm told the wind never dies down!!!

Right! The only time it stops is when it changes direction!!!! I had the same problem with my bipe,so i bought an inclosed trailer to carry my planes back an forth,best investment I ever made.

I started mine about three years ago. I got as far as you see here, became interested in larger IMAC planes, and ran out of building steam.

This is definitely a complex build. I'll finish it one day; I'm getting the building bug back, but will start off easy with a Sig SE kit...

Back in the 60's, the Airomaster was my favorite plane. I built and flew 7 of them. One thing I found out was that they all flew best when you made sure the upper wing was about 1.5 degrees less incidence than the lower wing. I did a lot of experimenting with that aspect with all versions (both wings straight, upper wing only swept back and both wings swept back) and that held true for all versions. All of mine back then were powered with the old Fox 60's. Since then I built one of the Great Planes Super Airomasters with a Quadra 75 cc gasoline engine. It flew as well and a most enjoyable plane to fly.

I was in the same club with Lou Andrews and had one of the first Aeromaster kits. It was great airplane. Wish they were still available.

Paul

Not much, they are usually short coupled so ground handling isn't as good but a few flights will get you used to that. Some will stall very fast when flying too slow in a bank. A lot depends on the plane itself. You would have to name the Bipe you are thinking of flying to get more then a general answer. I find them easier to land because they slow down faster and have a lot more lift. The easiest one I have ever flown is the Tiger Moth, the best stunt plane was the Ultimate. Most of the ones I have built were of the WWI vintage and they were very easy to fly other then the ground handling and that depended on the coupling of the plane. Setting up the incidence is the hardest part of the build but a good incidence meter takes care of that.

Way back in the '70s, when the Aeromaster was produced by Lou Andrews, two fellow club members in Illinois would lighten up the bipe while building, then power them with Super Tigre 46 engines. (Most used Super Tigre G60 Blue Head engines in the Aeromaster in our club) These guys would then fly the bipes within the confines of the flying field and just in front of themselves. They could sure put on a show! Oh, and they built an Aeromaster from box to flying in a week!!! To this day, I am still impressed by both their Aeromasters and their flying abilities.

Oh, I just got a GP Aeromaster from a good friend who built it, covered it with Coverite and painted it white with blue trim. Now if I can find a good, used ST Blue Head...

Jake

I'm getting closer to starting on my GP Super Aeromaster! I have planned to put my OS .91 Surpass in it, but I also have ST .75 and a ST .90 needing a job. Hmmmmm. Any thoughts Guys? Do I go nuts and stick my OS 1.20 pumped 4-stroke in it?
I'm collecting all the bits & pieces needed for the build - electronics, hardware, etc. Still have time to consider the coloring scheme.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red_Jeepster

I'm getting closer to starting on my GP Super Aeromaster! I have planned to put my OS .91 Surpass in it, but I also have ST .75 and a ST .90 needing a job. Hmmmmm. Any thoughts Guys? Do I go nuts and stick my OS 1.20 pumped 4-stroke in it?
I'm collecting all the bits & pieces needed for the build - electronics, hardware, etc. Still have time to consider the coloring scheme.

I would go with the OS 91 Surpass. The sound would be great and it would haul it around with authority...not like a rocket!

Jake

I think the Aeromaster is one of the nicest flying bipes there is. I have built and flown 7 of them, one of them being the Giant Airomaster. The one thing I found true for all of them was that the incidence of the upper wing should be about 1.5 degrees less than the lower wing for best flight characteristics. Also, all of mine required about 3 degrees downthrust and some right thrust. This held true for a wide range of engines used, all the way from .56 size to 1.20 on the different models. On the Giant, I had a 72 cc gasoline engine but it still wanted the same incidence settings and thrust settings for best performance.

Thanks Rodney for that info.
I think the OS .91 is the way I'll go. Still a bit of time before I get to that point.

Looking to buy an Aeromaster kit any size.
Please reply to Dale at 9894224892 or [email protected]

I gave away my plans but I think it's shown in profile so you can cut your own kit if you find some plans. As I recall I did some repairs the hard way then a year or two later someone asked for the plans and when I pulled them I discovered they had the templates?

Not a kit, but the plans. Outerzone has both the original 48" span plans and the 53" span Aeromaster Too wing set.

Aeromaster: http://www.outerzone.co.uk/plan_details.asp?ID=1971

Aeromaster Too: http://www.outerzone.co.uk/plan_details.asp?ID=1972


Mark

Are you interested in selling yours as is?
Thanks
Dale

I have plans for a Great Planes Super Aeromaster with the building manual.
They appear to from the kit, which I believe is no longer in production. My question is, not having the pieces that I believe would have been provided in the original kit, I'm confused about the the structure, location or function of the box-loc tie in the fuselage. If anyone could provide a description, dimension or even a photo of these pieces, I would be very appreciative.

Regards
Michael. [email protected]