Super Contender Build
03-18-2016, 11:49 AM
#1
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Super Contender Build
#1 bronko
Join DateAug 2013Posts2Gallery My Gallery Models My Models Ratings My Feedback
[h=2]Super Contender Build[/h] Hi every one
I was just looking at some old pictures, and I came across photos of a .60 size contender that i built back in the 70ties. I liked the look of the plane, and i remember it was an good flyer, so after searching through a stack of old plans, I found the original kit plans. Since I fly larger planes now, I thought why not enlarge the Contender to fit my OS 1.60. This is quiet a powerful engine, and my rule of thumb is that it will pull about 80 inch span plane very nicely. After a lot of measuring, I came up with an enlargement factor of 1.45. The reason for this number is that it fitted best to balsa stock sizes. This gave me a span of 78 inches tip to tip. I drew up the plans over several days, ordered the wood an started building.
PS This is my first thread, I am learning, so if there are mistakes, please be patient
Join DateAug 2013Posts2Gallery My Gallery Models My Models Ratings My Feedback [h=2]Super Contender Build[/h] Hi every one
I was just looking at some old pictures, and I came across photos of a .60 size contender that i built back in the 70ties. I liked the look of the plane, and i remember it was an good flyer, so after searching through a stack of old plans, I found the original kit plans. Since I fly larger planes now, I thought why not enlarge the Contender to fit my OS 1.60. This is quiet a powerful engine, and my rule of thumb is that it will pull about 80 inch span plane very nicely. After a lot of measuring, I came up with an enlargement factor of 1.45. The reason for this number is that it fitted best to balsa stock sizes. This gave me a span of 78 inches tip to tip. I drew up the plans over several days, ordered the wood an started building.
PS This is my first thread, I am learning, so if there are mistakes, please be patient
03-20-2016, 04:52 AM
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Deming, NM.
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You picked a fun airplane to blow up. I did a 72" version of the Contender a year ago, and it is a great flier. Mine uses an ASP 1.08 and has plenty of power. It will be interesting to see how a 78" version will do with a 1.60. Nice job on your drawing.
Tom
Tom
03-20-2016, 02:18 PM
#5
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks tomclark
Nice looking plane. The wing looks a bit thin, did you modify the aerofoil ? Mine is really thick 3.25 inches at its thickest point.
I framed up the wing, boy what a barn door.
Nice looking plane. The wing looks a bit thin, did you modify the aerofoil ? Mine is really thick 3.25 inches at its thickest point.
I framed up the wing, boy what a barn door.
03-20-2016, 04:34 PM
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Deming, NM.
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fun of being a scratch builder is that you can build things your way, and change anything to suit you. The thickest wing I ever used for a build is 15%, and the Contender wing is 14%, or 2.14" thick. With todays computer radios, I use flaps and air brakes on every build, not counting the center flap the Contender has. Check out my build log I linked above.
Last edited by tomclark; 03-20-2016 at 04:39 PM.
03-21-2016, 08:51 AM
#7
Really enjoyed seeing pictures of classic older sport designs like you have in your opening post. Really dig the inverted engine for this airplane as well.
Never flew one but I like the design well enough and hoarded two TF kits of the subject that I hope to get to some day... Heard all the criticisms about yaw-roll coupling and was thinking about adding a tiny bit of dihedral to at least one of 'em to try out; also heard simply turning rudder upside down helps put rudder area down low where its needed at the expense of ruining the genuine outline.
Nice clean workmanship and attention to detail.
Never flew one but I like the design well enough and hoarded two TF kits of the subject that I hope to get to some day... Heard all the criticisms about yaw-roll coupling and was thinking about adding a tiny bit of dihedral to at least one of 'em to try out; also heard simply turning rudder upside down helps put rudder area down low where its needed at the expense of ruining the genuine outline.
Nice clean workmanship and attention to detail.
Last edited by H5606; 03-23-2016 at 08:49 AM. Reason: Correction: not Great Planes - rather Top Flite
03-21-2016, 09:44 AM
#8
My Feedback: (1)
I'm always surprised when I see positive inputs about the Contender's flight characteristics. It has the worst proverse roll I've ever experienced on a model. Apparently, it was bad enough that the kits were changed to add dihedral to to the wing tips. If you doubt me, give it some rudder input going straight and level and watch it head for the ground!
03-21-2016, 02:09 PM
#9
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi guys
Yeah you are right, I forgot about the rudder, I think that I will modify mine this time around, add a bit of volume round the bottom.
Here is the rest of the wing bits. Got this heavy duty landing gear from Fults Tooling http://www.fultslandinggear.com/Scorpionseries.html
It sure is heavy duty.
Yeah you are right, I forgot about the rudder, I think that I will modify mine this time around, add a bit of volume round the bottom.
Here is the rest of the wing bits. Got this heavy duty landing gear from Fults Tooling http://www.fultslandinggear.com/Scorpionseries.html
It sure is heavy duty.
03-22-2016, 02:04 PM
#10
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sheeted the wing. It took about an acre of balsa.
I decided to sheet the wing because I didn't like the amount of flex it had, and I didn't want a jet look alike to have protruding ribs.
I decided to sheet the wing because I didn't like the amount of flex it had, and I didn't want a jet look alike to have protruding ribs.
03-23-2016, 06:17 AM
#11
My Feedback: (11)
Just a few things to realize about the Contender....It was designed in the early 1970's as an easy, quick-building airplane. The original kit advertised that you could get it all framed up in 8 hours of labor. I built a kit from the first production run and they were just about right. It just "fell together". The only delay was to let the glue dry overnight (I built with carpenters' glue and slow-cure epoxy). The flat wing was intended to be fast to build, using 48" spar stock for a one-piece wing that was very strong and needed no extra structure in the center to support a dihedral break. People added the upswept wingtips to eliminate some of the adverse roll couple with rudder. When the kit was re-booted in 1998, the upswept tips were included as a build option.
03-23-2016, 12:48 PM
#12
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are right Bax, even as a scratch build, it is going together fast. I never had major issues with my original contender, but I don't use rudder much. I loved its slow flying characteristics, even entered in to a limbo contest one time.
I ran the leading edge blocks over a router to reduce a bit of weight, glued and shaped the leading edge.
Made a little ply wood template to check shape all the way.
I ran the leading edge blocks over a router to reduce a bit of weight, glued and shaped the leading edge.
Made a little ply wood template to check shape all the way.
03-31-2016, 05:47 PM
#23
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did some rough shaping of the cowl . The 160 looks kind of lost in there.
Still waiting for the spinner to arrive. It seems that I spend most of my building time waiting for parts or looking for things.
Still waiting for the spinner to arrive. It seems that I spend most of my building time waiting for parts or looking for things.