Bud Faulkner

My Feedback: (1)

Don't remember what happened to Bob heart attack maybe? Just remember reading about it a few years back. Not sure if Doris is still around or not, gracious and beautiful lady.

Bud Faulkner

My Feedback: (1)

Here's a picture taken at a shopping mall in Vicksburg during a stopover en route. Bob is in truck and Doris and Ed Sweeney hold plane, sorry I forgot the other two gentlemens name but this was 1975.

buzzard bait

I've been looking over the RCM 1/5 Spad too, and great as it looks, something is not quite right. I think it's only the landing gear--compared to the Nieto drawings the RCM model has wider gear. The old photos look like the plane had the narrower gear like the Nieto drawing. Easy to correct.

Jim

jtisch

It looks like the BUSA SPAD kit is out now.

khodges

My Feedback: (1)

I ordered one last week, and called the LHS yesterday to check. He said everything is froze up and deliveries from the midwest have slowed down. He kidded me that mine was probably sitting in a trailer in some truck stop, and it would get delivered about spring thaw. He said by then, moisture would probably have it swelled out to about full scale

From the picture on BUSA's website, it does look like the wings are their typical thick chord, but doesn't look all that bad. It's supposed to be the most detailed kit BUSA has produced yet. I'm looking forward to building it, planning on a Quadra 35 or 42 (got one sitting on the shelf, not sure which size it is)

Bud Faulkner

My Feedback: (1)

I heard it was coming out and considered ordering one since it's my favorite WWI aircraft but the thick wing ruins my taste for scale so after much thought I ordered the GTM DVI instead. Poor excuse for getting the DVI huh? Guess I wanted one.

hsubman

My Feedback: (1)

Received my Spad XIII kit from Balsa USA last week. Very impressive kit. More scale features than any of their other WWI planes.
I've been waiting to build this plane for 30 years. Have had a set of Bill Effinger plans for 20+ years that I never got around to building. Something to do with cutting out all those parts!

The kit appears to be very scale. The wings are 1 piece with scale rib spacing. The plans show 47 ribs in the top wing and 45 ribs in the bottom, which are 1/16 " balsa and look like somewhat of a clark-y airfoil. Scale?

The landing gear has a more scale bungee attached spreader bar for shock absorption. The cabane and interplane struts appear to be scale.

The most impressive part of the kit is the "114 page construction manual" with photos of every step in the building process. I am really impressed with this kit.

It'll be awhile before I start this build, as I have few other projects on the building board to knock out first, but I can't wait! The kit is a bit pricey though. $362.00 with shipping to Ohio.

John

jtisch

Can someone who has the kit post a picture of some of the ribs? It will help me with decision on whether to go with the SPAD or the SE5a.
Many Thanks!

J

hsubman: I also bought the Effinger plans for the SPAD many years ago. Built my first DRI from his plans as well.

hsubman

My Feedback: (1)

Here ya go. I hope this works. The ribs have a chord of 14" and are 1 1/2" at the forward spar

jtisch

Excellent!
Thank you very much.

J

Mustang Fever

My Feedback: (2)

Here's a shot of some of the ribs from the RCM Spad XIII. They're undercambered, like the real one. However, the designer of this one refers to it as sport scale, so go figure.
I don't think the Clark Y had been invented by 1917, but I'm sure the flight characteristics for it are better than an undercambered airfoil.

khodges

My Feedback: (1)

All, bar none, of the BUSA WWI planes I have seen fly very nicely. I think flyability is worth giving up some on scale when it comes to the airfoil. Certainly the Clark Y wasn't around during WWI; I like accurate scale as well as the next guy, but a true scale undercambered wing as thin as the real SPAD would certainly require functional flying wires, and they would have to be accurately adjusted to keep the wing flat, plus the strengthened attach points for them; one thing leads to another, and the slightly thicker cantilevered wing in the BUSA kit makes for an easier build and at-the-field setup, and probably a more forgiving flying plane.

I love the looks of this plane, always have, even though it seems less elegant than a Camel or a Nieuport. Sort of a rugged, no-nonsense, out to kick butt look. Dang wings look like a truss bridge.

John, how will you finish yours? I'm leaning strongly toward Rickenbacker's #1, but I suppose that will be the most popular one to do, and I'd rather not have one like all the others.

Bud Faulkner

My Feedback: (1)

How about smith V from the Smithsonian?

Bud

khodges

My Feedback: (1)

Smith V is very similar; Rickenbacker's has a white "1" where the side # is on the Smith SPAD, plus another "1" left of center on the top wing, and of course has the 94th Aero Sqdrn "Hat in the Ring" emblem on the side, but the camo pattern is about the same.

Mine came yesterday, what a box of balsa!. Looks really good, and the LHS gave me enough of a discount to buy both Vickers gun kits and come out at BUSA's advertised $. I've decided to build it next. One of my flying pals just finished the D-VII, he needs somebody to dogfight with.

RCPilot100

My Feedback: (4)

How did your build go? I am considering the BUSA Spad kit. Thanks.

Dan

R/C Ray

My Feedback: (6)

I have finished my BUSA Spad Xiii last year. The good news is that I placed 2nd in the WRAMs Show this year. The bad news is that the plane crashed on takeoff on its 5th flight! I have enough to force me to rebuild, but its not going to be easy. The plane came out on the light side at 17 lbs, power was from a G38. I really don't know if the G38 is enough engine for this plane. The most RPM that I could get was 6,700 using a 18X8 Prop. The takeoff of my plane seams to be VERY SHORT. The plane tends to leap into the air before it has time to gain enough airspeed. Thats what happened when it crashed. Not enough airspeed that cause a "Stall" condition. I had to open up a hole under the Screen on the side of the fuse for the carb to breath. My question for everyone out there....Does this plane fly well or does it have unresolved problems!? I've read other posts on this plane and they often refer to Stall Conditions?

Thanks,
Ray.

cocobear

My Feedback: (2)

It flies nicly when treated with respect. Never fly it with an aft CG. I would want more power than the G38. I have flown simarily powered BUSA SPAD's and it's just enough. A Fuji 43 would be perfect. They will snap when stalled. But again, it is a blast to fly if you keep the fact a stall is a bad thing in mind.

DJ

Mustang Fever

My Feedback: (2)

Ray:

I'm sorry to hear about your mishap. You did a lovely job building that bird. Maybe the following will be of help to you.

I built a 1/4 scale BUSA DR-1 and this is what I did to it:

1. As much down thrust and right thrust as I could get and still have the cowl fit. I have so much right thrust, I actually have to give her a touch of left rudder during initial acceleration on TO.
2. Removable stabilizer held on by bolts, so I could put washers under the leading edge and get positive stab incidence. (I have about 3 degrees, now.)
3. Counter torque weighting in the right wing tips. (1.20 engine times 2 = 2.4 oz of lead for countertorque.)
4. A cheap engine turning a large, fine pitch prop at a relatively low rpm to keep the airspeed down and the thrust up. These birds don't like to be flown fast. They generate way too much lift and you have to fight them to keep the nose down where it belongs.

My DR-1 is still a DR-1, and flying it is like herding a stack of dishes around the sky, but I can nail the throttle at any speed and all it does is accelerate. No more of that "point at the sky" syndrome, which is what I think got you. Mine weighs 14 pounds, and I've set it up with a O.S. 1.20 AX two stroke and a 17x5 prop that pulls it around at 40 mph maximum. That's all it needs. With the CT weighting and the right thrust, TOs and landings are non events. It's very controllable and has none of the nasty habits my old GP DR-1 ARF had. With that fine pitch prop turning 9000 rpm, I have almost 19 pounds of thrust on tap, which makes it really fun to fly.

THP says you had over 50 mph and 13 pounds of thrust with your engine/prop combo. A bit fast, and maybe you could have used more thrust. When you rebuild it, I'd suggest going with a 19x6 prop. That should let your engine get up close to 7,000 rpm. At that rpm, you'll see close to 40mph and about 18 pounds of thrust, which will make her a bunch more fun to fly. With your wing loading of only 18 oz per square foot, 40mph is well beyond twice stalling speed, and anything faster than that doesn't look scale anyway.

Cheers, and hang in there.

MerlinV

He calls it sport scale because although undercambered, the ribs still are more than twice as thick as the original and are not even similar to the full scale profile.

The Gary Sunderland 1/5 Spad VII has close to scale ribs. He even shows on the plan how they do differ from scale. It's done for ease of building and for ease of flying (Reynolds numbers). The scale airfoil at 1/5 or 1/4 would stall as soon as you look at it.
The Balsa USA rib profile is purely to enhance flyability.

Hugh

gabriel voisin

Hi,

I can not understand that are used in such a large scale, no original ribs.

The Spad lives on this design and I think you should have already been using this razor-sharp profile.

How abu said,.... so fat profile fit only for the Fokker's, even if you edit something.

Please see the machines in the Musee de l'Air in France, and you'll understand what I mean.

Sorry, is my opinion.

greetings Gabriel

MerlinV

Here's a shot if the rib profiles on the Sunderland design (Sorry, the sheet was not sitting quite flat).

You can see just how thin the profile is and how sharp the leading edge. Stall city!

Gary Sunderland has compromised to try to create an wing that will be easy to build, will fly well in the hands of the model flyer and yet still look reasonably like the original.

The BUSA design is purely for flyability... Not even sport scale in my opinion. Not to say that will stop me building a BUSA kit.

Cheers,

Hugh

Maxford USA

Now a 1/5 Scale ARF is available here.

http://www.maxfordusa.com/nieuport-2...as68arf-1.aspx

jmohn

I just got one of these:

http://www.maxfordusa.com/nieuport-2...as68arf-1.aspx

Very nice kit with some great scale stuff too. Mine will be electric with a full working cockpit too.


Jeff

abufletcher

Gary Sunderland is really one of the great scale designers. I love the fact that Sunderland includes the true scale outline of the rib for comparison purposes.

MerlinV

And he lives about an hour and a half from where I do. So if you have trouble trying to work out what some bit of the plan actually means, you can just call him and ask... Even better, you can go and discuss it with him in person!

I have had discussions with him regarding scale subjects I am planning... There is pretty much nothing WWI he has not modelled.

He used to build full sized spruce and silk gliders in his younger days.

Cheers,

Hugh