TEEDOG

FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO DON'T KNOW I AM GOING TO LET YOU IN ON A LITTLE SECRET.
1/2 A COMBAT WITH A .061 OR A .074 IS THE BEST WAY TO GO. ON A TWO OUNCE FUEL TANK YOU SPEND ABOUT 10 MINUTES IN THE AIR. AS LONG AS YOU HAVE FRESH BATTERIES ON THE GROUND AND A FIELD CHARGER YOUR TIME BETWEEN MATCHES IS MINIMAL. THE ACTION IN THE AIR IS GREAT BECAUSE YOU CAN KEEP YOUR FLY ZONE IN A RELATIVELY SMALL BOX WITHOUT BEING NERVOUS. THE NORVEL OR AP .061 IS THE PERFECT ENGINE FOR THE PLANE. IT IS NOT HARD TO GET A GREAT NEEDLE SETTING AND AS LONG AS YOU DON'T FLOOD THE ENGINE BEFORE STARTING IT WILL FIRE RIGHT UP. THE MATCHES IN THE AIR ARE MORE COMPETITIVE BECAUSE YOU HAVE MORE TIME TO REACT TO THE OTHER PLANE AND CAN MANUEVER EASIER AND TIGHTER IN A MUCH SMALLER AIRSPACE THAN SAY A .15 SIZE FOAMIE. THE PLANES ARE BUILT VERY LIGHT AND ARE VERY SURVIVEABLE IN MID AIR COLLISIONS. THE ONLY THINGS THAT I HAVE EVER NEEDED FOR FIELD REPAIRS ARE CLEAR PACKING TAPE AND C/A GLUE. HALF OF THE TIME IN A MID AIR BOTH OF THE PILOTS ARE ABLE TO SAFELY DEADSTICK LAND. THE ONE BIG COMMODITY THAT YOU WILL GO THROUGH LIKE WATER IS CREPE PAPER. TAKE A WHOLE ROLL AND SAW IT IN HALF AND THAT IS THE PERFECT WIDTH AND TWELVE FEET IN LENGTH IS ABOUT RIGHT. FOR THE MONEY THIS IS YOUR BEST BANG FOR YOUR BUCK. YOU GET MORE FLY TIME , MORE COMBAT TIME, MORE FUN TIME, AND LESS BUILD AND REPAIR TIME. TODAY FOR EXAMPLE I FLEW NINE MATCHES ABOUT 90 MINUTES OF STICK TIME HAD ONLY ONE MIDAIR BUT BOTH PLANES SURVIVED. THE WAS ONLY ONE CRASH DURING THE DAY IT WAS THE RESULT OF A TRANSMITTER BATTERY FAILURE. THE PLANE WENT IN FULL THROTTLE AND NEVER REACHED THE GROUND, THERE WAS NO DAMAGE DUE TO THE TALL GRASS. IT IS A GREAT DAY OF COMBAT WHEN YOU CAN FLY ALL DAY COME HOME AND HAVE NOTHING TO FIX.

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

HEY TEEDOG! We have had a great time trying out different designs, so far the most crashproof plane is one with a profile fuselage to the trailing edge of the wing, and 1/4" kite rod back to the tail. The wings are flat bottom, balsa and spruce. The rudder/ elevator version is agile enough for combat and less work and up keep than the aileron version. 36" span and 2" of dihedral in each tip. The 300 MAH NIMH packs give 40 minutes+ of air time. I think we are getting way more combat time in with the least amount of work and hassle, and the quality of the dog fighting is better than what I've seen of the .15 on up stuff. It seems like everytime I get forced down into the grass with my .15 and .25 size planes, the engines get damaged. The performance with the .061s is good if you can keep the RTF weight at a pound or less. It took awhile for the NORVEL .074 to breakin, but now it is a great engine with a 7-3 APC. The next thing to try out is a foam wing, foam/ glass fuselage plane, but actually I am already satisfied that we have the lazy mans' version of glow powered combat covered.

iskandar taib

My Feedback: (5)

There was a picture in Flying Models last year of a Driskill Lighthawk that had ailerons and a fin added to it. Used a VA .049, but a Bigmig .061 ought to fit OK.

http://kittingittogether.com/

Wayne Miller

Hi,

What would be a good starter plane for this?

Thanks,

Wayne Miller

Which_way_is_up

I'll second that, are there any good flying wing designs out there for 1/2A that I can go look at?

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

HI WAYNE, I have plans available for a couple different versions. It costs me $6 to make copies and send them out. Once you get familiar with building on this small of a scale, you will be amazed with how easy an idea can turn into a flying machine. The best plane for getting started is a 28" span, R/E plane that we call the,"LITTLE RIPPER". PM me if you are interested.

Montague

We flew a single 20 round 1/2A combat contest last year (using RCCA rules, max engine is an .061). It was a hoot, though 20 rounds in one day makes for a LONG, exhausting contest.

The big thing we found with the 1/2A ships is keeping them LIGHT. Several of them were a bit on the heavy side, and suffered in flight.

As for the engine, I had nothing but trouble with my Norvel .061. The muffler kept falling off, and getting it running consistanly was a royal pain. I'm sure you can get them running right, but they are harder to work with than the larger engines, IMHO.

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

The NORVEL 061 can sometimes suffer from being too tight. They can be hard to break in, keep the load down [5-3 prop] and run at a slightly rich scream on the ground a few times. I bet you were using a non revlite, early version. I safety wire the mufflers on the old version, but the new clamp should work OK. If you were using an AME, it needs to be run on bladder. LHS fuel gallons should be topped off with caster for trouble free operation. Seldomly do we ever touch the needle on suction setups unless we are switching nitro content. The AP HORNET .061 is an excellent choice at $39.00 through TOWER. MY NORVEL 074 wasn't very impressive for about the first quart of fuel, but now it is a great engine. 10-14 oz planes with 18-24 ozs of thrust make for some lively action.

Raymond LeFlyr

My Feedback: (2)

Guys,

Oh how I wish 1/2A combat would catch on like SSC has!!! But, alas, I fear it will never happen. People I have flown R/C with over the years just don't take the little engines seriously. The claim is that they are unreliable and just toys anyway. Thanks Leroy (OK, tell me that I'm wrong. Please limit "flames" to 50 words or less. No prize will be awarded for the reply that humbles me the most).

Personally, I rather enjoyed the challenge of getting the "pre-Norvel" (Yes, you know who I mean) engines to run consistently - and when they did they ran well. And once the group I flew with got the formula right, 1/2A CL combat was the best, most fun. cheapest, easiest to maintain, etc. Better even than the "real" stuff.

1/2A R/C combat would be my first choice. But I'm sorry to say the one that I framed out from CombatPigg's plans, that I wanted to use to drum up interest in my group, drew little more than ho-hum response. I think I saw it the other day in the attic near the Cristmas decorations.

iskandar taib

My Feedback: (5)

Hmmmm.. How well does the AP Hornet run? Does it take standard Cox/Norvel/Galbreath glowheads?

I love the Norvel Bigmig .061s, especially back when you could get the StartUp kit for under $30 (they're still only $36). They can be made to run pretty fast, are plenty powerful out of the box (use a 5x3 prop) and don't give nearly as much trouble as the Tee Dees and especially Cox reed valve engines. But they can be tough to start in the beginning, and do take some running in. I run both bladders (works with the standard needle valve, even) and suction, depending on the plane (in my case, control line). For cheap, fun 1/2-A sized CL combat, they can't be beat (though, of course, they are too big for the rulebook event, where people seem to have moved on to the Cyclon and Fora .05s). Might be too fast for most people on 35 foot lines - 42 works better.

Montague

My engine was the Norvell AME .061 with Revlite. If you have to run it on a bladder, that might make a difference, I was using suction feed.

Prop was a tornado 5x3.

The muffer clamp was useful right up to the first mid-air that bent the heck out of it, I never was able to get it bent back in to shape to it stayed on after the first bump. (it didn't just fall off in the the air by itself, but any kind of bump or wingslap and it would come loose).

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

The AME is probably the strongest .061 you can get [for the money], but it needs to be run on bladder. The fuel consumption is high, so 2ozs seems to go through it in about 5 minutes. The crank can be chucked in a drill motor, and a slight relieving of the main shaft 1/8" from either end will reduce rotational friction. Use 600, then 1000 grit. The BIG MIG and AP .061s are my favorite, with a 6-3 prop the action is slow enough to avoid mid airs, but lively. The glowheads all interchange between COX, NORVEL and AP. The only way to inspire interest is to demonstrate. My son and I have been averaging 30 sorties per week [300 combat minutes] for the last month and have had to repair 12 plane fatalities that took anywhere from 1/2-1 hour to complete. At 2 ozs of fuel per plane, per sortie, that works out to 1 gallon of fuel, 2 rolls of crepe paper and 2 glow plugs per week.

iskandar taib

My Feedback: (5)

For the money, yeah. There are more (quite a bit more) powerful ones out there, including the Cyclon. Most of these are used in the F1J event, and the smaller .05 versions (still a lot more powerful than an AME .061) in 1/2 CL Combat. But they are a great deal more expensive, and I don't encourage CDs to allow their use mainly because they'll drive up costs.

Incidentally, if you run these engines a lot, and are finding glow plug costs high, get a Galbreath head, which takes a Nelson plug. The heads cost $10, the plugs $3.25, and on an .061, the plugs last literally forever. I've also heard you gain a fair amount of RPM. Also try cutting the props down a little or try one of the little fiberglass props George Cleveland sells (not cheap, though).

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

Well, if money is no object, the GZ .061 with a full length pipe will make a CYCLON look like a BABYBEE! The idea about using a 6-3 prop for RC combat is to limit the speed to a point where the action is more like aerial dog fighting and less like brain dead jousting. The faster the action is allowed to go, the more that dumb luck becomes a factor.

iskandar taib

My Feedback: (5)

Actually, the GZ is the CS. The .049 is popular in CL Speed circles, but it takes quite a bit of rework to get them to perform, plus quality control is a BIG problem (and this is true of all CS engines). For example, you're supposed to check the rod for hardness - some of them come with soft rods. They're actually pretty cheap (US$70):

http://home.earthlink.net/~whizzz/Compete.htm

They aren't used in CL Combat because they're relatively heavy, and have aforesaid quality problems. Besides, for Speed you want something that'll swing a small, high pitched prop at high RPMs, and you can coax it into the proper RPM range by whipping the plane. I don't know how they'd work with Combat sized props. In Speed, they have to compete against the custom built barstock engines, and they do surprisingly well. I don't know if they're THAT much more powerful than a Cyclon, but yes, they can be made to perform (especially with a pipe).

See:

http://home.earthlink.net/~whizzz/doug.htm

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

Hey RAY! If combat buddies are scarce, go to a party supply and get some helium baloons. Tie them off at different heights above the ground and possibly float a streamer from one on a windy day. It is a lot more difficult than it sounds to score on a balloon!

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

I have drawn a sketch of our favorite 1/2A plane, the " LITTLE RIPPER". I think there is enough info here for anyone to be able to take the dimensions given and do a version of this one. The dihedral should be set at 4" with one wing panel laying flat, 1/8" spruce or hard balsa for the dihedral brace. The decision as to how wide the fuselage should be is based on your choice of fuel tank. A slim 2 oz tank is a good choice. I hope some of you guys give this one a try.

Raymond LeFlyr

My Feedback: (2)

CP,

Oooo, I like the balloon idea. I would never had thought of trailing a streamer in the wind. Do you use some sort of upwind anchor line to prevent the balloon from "laying down"?

As for the "Little Ripper", I wasn't able to print out a version big enough to read but I just kind of made a rough sketch. The only question I have is what's the wing chord?

The good news is that at today's get-together of our local combat bunch, one of the guys actually said he might be willing to try 1/2A R/C combat. The bad news is that he qualified it by saying that he would have to wait until he had "enough" 2610 and open B models in his stable. Alas, I won't hold my breath. But I will bring the other 1/2a design of yours that I built (but haven't shown to my combat clutch) along with me next month.

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

RAY, the balloon and streamer idea works best with 2 lines. It can make an expert pilot look pretty dumb because it exercises your depth perception. The wing chord on this thing is 8" and the airfoil is 1" thick. If you do the stack sanding method, the ribs can be made by the dozens in no time. This plane outperforms the earlier design and is less work to build and repair. The wing tips should be 1/4" balsa to tie the framework together and wimpy frames like this one need to be unwarped after the covering goes on, I always end up taking out a twist[ no big deal]. I make the control horns out of 1/16" plywood, and cut slits into the control surfaces after they are covered to glue in the plywood. I have never had a failure. If you really watch your Ps and Qs, it is possible to build one of these at less than 9ozs with a park flyer RX and 150 MAH NIMH pack. Remember RAY, if you build it, they will come...

iskandar taib

My Feedback: (5)

This sort of thing is called "Balloon Bust". There's even a formal AMA event for CL Balloon Bust where you have to fly over a pole, then do a steep dive and hit a row of balloons in sequence.

One thing to avoid - tying the balloons to strings. When the wind blows, the balloons lie down on the grass and it becomes almost impossible to hit them. They did that at last year's Malaysian Air Carnival and it was really funny to watch people try to get at the balloons. The best model for it turned out to be a 2 meter glider with an engine on the nose. I suppose taxiing up to the balloons would have worked as well, but no one actually did it. One plane got strained through a bush (fuselage came out the other side).

The CL Balloon Burst event specifies that the balloons be attached to the top of 3/16" balsa sticks. That keeps them from lying down on the grass, and it also means you don't need helium. That'd be the thing to do.

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

Here is a shot of the LITTLE RIPPER. This one is equipped with HS 81 servos, a 4ch RX , 300 mah battery and 2 oz tank. It was built out of 1/8" balsa almost entirely and ended up weighing 11.8 ozs [ less fuel]. The push rods that connect the servos to the control flaps are .032" music wire, this is all you need and it is very light when compared to 2-56 rods. For sport flying, a wing with ailerons is the way to go, but for combat this is the easiest setup and the manueverability is still great with just a rudder to turn with. The engine on this one is the AP 061 with the carb wired open. When I have time ,I will make a venturi just to see if I can get more power, but as it stands it will put out over a pound of thrust. The lighter you can make these things, the less damage they inflict on themselves when knocked out of the sky, if you can induce a spin to the ground, they go in pretty softly. The less structure you have, the "cleaner" the damage is after a midair also. If any of you "combat hounds" build these, remember to check the wings for straightness after covering, and set the CG for 2 inches back from the L.E.

MikeSell

My Feedback: (2)

I've been flying a combat gremlin for just a couple of weeks and enjoy it so much I'd like to find a 1/2a version. Does anyone know of one? I have plans for a 1/2a scimitar plane but I may just scale down the gremlin to my best guess size if I can't find plans.

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

If you can come up with a coroplast plane with 240 sq" and weighing in at 14 ozs or less[RTF], then you would have a great little machine. If it can't be held to that weight limit, then it will just flub around like a drunken pig!

MikeSell

My Feedback: (2)

Why would I want coroplast? The Gremlin isn't coro and neither is the Scimitar. Both are just flying wings with enough fuse to mount an engine and house a tank and enough vertical stab to keep it straight.

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

My mistake! One of the local clubs introduced me to their "GREMLIN"a few years ago, and it was a coroplast/ yardstick spar kind of thing. I have quite a few different versions of 1/2A flying wings that we have flown combat with that are stick built. They fly well, but the action is faster and there are more midairs. If you build a SCIMITAR, it will have better yaw control than a wing when you catch a streamer on the wingtip. The problem with elevons/ ailerons is they are more difficult to work around when doing a field repair, compared to a simple wing with nothing hanging off the trailing edge. These rudder/ elevator planes actually do axial rolls and don't take a back seat to the aileron ships for combat manueverability. The "modular" aspect of the rubber banded wing also has it's advantages. One way to keep costs and weight down is to use craft store cellophane and spray adhesive for covering these things.