Honker Bipe
10-04-2012, 05:46 AM
#1
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Stockholm, SWEDEN
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Honker Bipe
Hi all
I have just become a very happy owner of a Honker Bipe kit, a model that has been on my want-to-build-list for a good while now. But I don't know what engine I should choose for her. I am almost a complete newbie to methanol-engines and don't have very much experience of electric sport planes either. On the other hand, with my electric gliders I have the frequent-crash-stadium behind me and my gliders are (mostly) without dire need of repair after a flying day.
That said, I would appreciate some guidance for a suitable motor to Honker Bipe. The plan says ".09 - .15 for sport flyer, .19 - .25 for advanced flyer", but some of the very few comment I have found about this girl says to not put anything smaller than a .23 on her. I wan't an engine that's not so strong I can't handle her, but not so weak that I can't get out of trouple when it appears.
I've been piling up some engines I've got cheap in other deals, and those that might be in suitable range are:OS 10 FP, OS 20 FP, Irvine 25, Enya 35. If anyone of theese is a good match for the plane - fine. Otherwise I'm fine with buying a new (more modern) one. What's your advice?
/Stefan
P.S If anyone have the original build article from RCModeler March 1974 I would be very glad for a scan. PM me for my mail-addres.
I have just become a very happy owner of a Honker Bipe kit, a model that has been on my want-to-build-list for a good while now. But I don't know what engine I should choose for her. I am almost a complete newbie to methanol-engines and don't have very much experience of electric sport planes either. On the other hand, with my electric gliders I have the frequent-crash-stadium behind me and my gliders are (mostly) without dire need of repair after a flying day.
That said, I would appreciate some guidance for a suitable motor to Honker Bipe. The plan says ".09 - .15 for sport flyer, .19 - .25 for advanced flyer", but some of the very few comment I have found about this girl says to not put anything smaller than a .23 on her. I wan't an engine that's not so strong I can't handle her, but not so weak that I can't get out of trouple when it appears.
I've been piling up some engines I've got cheap in other deals, and those that might be in suitable range are:OS 10 FP, OS 20 FP, Irvine 25, Enya 35. If anyone of theese is a good match for the plane - fine. Otherwise I'm fine with buying a new (more modern) one. What's your advice?
/Stefan
P.S If anyone have the original build article from RCModeler March 1974 I would be very glad for a scan. PM me for my mail-addres.
10-04-2012, 10:43 AM
#2
RE: Honker Bipe
A friend had a Honker bipe, back in the mid 70's...he had a Super Tigre .23 on it, and it was adequitely powered. Of your engines you list, I would think the Irvine .25 would work nicely. Modern radio equipment is significantly lighter, so I wouldn't think you'd need more than the .25 to fly it well?
I would use a light covering material to keep the weight down. Since the wings are virtually all Balsa, you don't need to do much other than to seal out the exh. residue...
I would use a light covering material to keep the weight down. Since the wings are virtually all Balsa, you don't need to do much other than to seal out the exh. residue...
12-03-2012, 04:52 AM
#4
RE: Honker Bipe
I've a Honker in my hanger powered by an Enya .19 and it flies well with the exception that with no headwind it is a little hard to get up to speed for takeoffs. It is actually a good windy day flier and is of course no problem to get airborne with wind. Once in the air, it flies well. I'd not go under a .19 and would think a .25 would be the better choice.
I consider the Honker a proto park flier as it can be flown in a fairly small box.
Good advice from those suggesting light servos, as the Honker is best when kept light. Don't hesitate to use a hole saw on the wings and some opaque light covering and a small battery pack and foam wheels.
I consider the Honker a proto park flier as it can be flown in a fairly small box.
Good advice from those suggesting light servos, as the Honker is best when kept light. Don't hesitate to use a hole saw on the wings and some opaque light covering and a small battery pack and foam wheels.
12-05-2012, 01:02 PM
#5
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Stockholm, SWEDEN
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Honker Bipe
Thank you all for your advice!
Since you all agree Iwill use the Irvine .25 for it. I'm very eager to start building it, but I have two projects before it in the building queue. Also a big thanks for the tips of making lightening holes, I wouldn't have dared it otherwise.
By the way;AA5BY says a .19 is marginal to take off without headwind but nevertheless the box says a .09 is enough (and the radio gear was quite a bit heavier back in the days this one was produced, I believe). Do you think they were hand launched back then, or is the 'promises' about a .09 more of a marketing hype?
/Stefan
P.S. Still no one got the original build article from RCModeler, March 1974?
Since you all agree Iwill use the Irvine .25 for it. I'm very eager to start building it, but I have two projects before it in the building queue. Also a big thanks for the tips of making lightening holes, I wouldn't have dared it otherwise.
By the way;AA5BY says a .19 is marginal to take off without headwind but nevertheless the box says a .09 is enough (and the radio gear was quite a bit heavier back in the days this one was produced, I believe). Do you think they were hand launched back then, or is the 'promises' about a .09 more of a marketing hype?
/Stefan
P.S. Still no one got the original build article from RCModeler, March 1974?
12-05-2012, 01:25 PM
#6
RE: Honker Bipe
I would think the .09 would be a bit under-powered, with the heavy radio equipment back then. Maybe a Tee Dee .09 (no throtte, just 2 channels...or perhaps an Enya .09, which are nice little engines )
Wing loading is probably the most important part with small planes like this....and after thinking about it some more, your O.S. FP .20 might actually allow it to balance better? (not only Center of Gravity wise, but over-all balance of power to weight, and general flyability)
If the Irvine .25 is a ball bearing engine, it might be a bit on the heavy side...with the muffler especially. Around here, we rarely used mufflers back then, on the smaller stuff.
What are the weights of the .20 FP vs. the Irvine .25, just out of curiosity...?
Have a look in the "Clubhouse" for the long thread on RCModeler Magazine...there are guys there that have virtually every issue, and might be able to put you in touch w/ a way to get the plans.
Wing loading is probably the most important part with small planes like this....and after thinking about it some more, your O.S. FP .20 might actually allow it to balance better? (not only Center of Gravity wise, but over-all balance of power to weight, and general flyability)
If the Irvine .25 is a ball bearing engine, it might be a bit on the heavy side...with the muffler especially. Around here, we rarely used mufflers back then, on the smaller stuff.
What are the weights of the .20 FP vs. the Irvine .25, just out of curiosity...?
Have a look in the "Clubhouse" for the long thread on RCModeler Magazine...there are guys there that have virtually every issue, and might be able to put you in touch w/ a way to get the plans.
12-05-2012, 02:17 PM
#8
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Stockholm, SWEDEN
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Honker Bipe
ORIGINAL: proptop
What are the weights of the .20 FP vs. the Irvine .25, just out of curiosity...?
What are the weights of the .20 FP vs. the Irvine .25, just out of curiosity...?
ORIGINAL: proptop
Have a look in the "Clubhouse" for the long thread on RCModeler Magazine...there are guys there that have virtually every issue, and might be able to put you in touch w/ a way to get the plans.
Have a look in the "Clubhouse" for the long thread on RCModeler Magazine...there are guys there that have virtually every issue, and might be able to put you in touch w/ a way to get the plans.
ORIGINAL: landeck
Does someone have a picture of the Honker Bip?
Does someone have a picture of the Honker Bip?
/Stefan
12-05-2012, 04:57 PM
#9
RE: Honker Bipe
A Honker can be seen on my web pages.
http://pages.suddenlink.net/arlyn/honker.html
I reconditioned and recovered it as my first project after getting back into RC in 2001. While I no longer fly glow on a regular basis, the Honker gets flown a few times a year.
My previous setup many years ago used some ACE servos that were offered as kits and somewhat lighter than standard servos of that era. I of course used small modern servos when reconditioning.
The point made by proptop about mufflers was true here as well. Originally I didn't use a muffler with the Enya .19 but when placing it back into service in 2001 used a Dubro flow through that is quite heavy but all I had and frankly not a great deal quieter than without... but satisfies the current requirements of having a muffler.
The landing gear strut is a bit of a weak link on the Honker and it might be a good idea to trade if for a light weight aluminum strut. I added a couple of wires to brace the landing gear so between they and the heavy muffler, my plane is heavier than I'd like. I also soldered four small metal gear straps to the one piece gear with two beneath and one each side to firm up the gear as some oil soaking had left the gear inadequately supported. After drilling holes for the eight small mounting screws, CA was inserted in the holes to firm them up and this has proved to be a good remedy but I'd think going with an aluminum or possibly carbon fiber gear strut initially would be a better choice. I used very light weight foam wheels and they have worked fine. Surprisingly the plane does well with the aft skid and though it is wood, mine has survived for a very long time.
IIRC, because of the inadequacy of the strut that was held on by rubber bands, we often/mostly hand launched the Honker and left off the rubber band mounted gear strut, which was no problem due to having a plush grass strip then. When reconditioning, such a nice strip didn't exist so the gear strut was needed again.
Though it had been many years since flying the Honker, it didn't seem that it flew as well with the gear and muffler weight added so keeping it light is important.
It might be that the .09 option intended to leave off the gear and hand launch. I think that would be doable.
Good luck with your Honker... it is a fun plane to fly and surprisingly is a good windy day and small box flier.
http://pages.suddenlink.net/arlyn/honker.html
I reconditioned and recovered it as my first project after getting back into RC in 2001. While I no longer fly glow on a regular basis, the Honker gets flown a few times a year.
My previous setup many years ago used some ACE servos that were offered as kits and somewhat lighter than standard servos of that era. I of course used small modern servos when reconditioning.
The point made by proptop about mufflers was true here as well. Originally I didn't use a muffler with the Enya .19 but when placing it back into service in 2001 used a Dubro flow through that is quite heavy but all I had and frankly not a great deal quieter than without... but satisfies the current requirements of having a muffler.
The landing gear strut is a bit of a weak link on the Honker and it might be a good idea to trade if for a light weight aluminum strut. I added a couple of wires to brace the landing gear so between they and the heavy muffler, my plane is heavier than I'd like. I also soldered four small metal gear straps to the one piece gear with two beneath and one each side to firm up the gear as some oil soaking had left the gear inadequately supported. After drilling holes for the eight small mounting screws, CA was inserted in the holes to firm them up and this has proved to be a good remedy but I'd think going with an aluminum or possibly carbon fiber gear strut initially would be a better choice. I used very light weight foam wheels and they have worked fine. Surprisingly the plane does well with the aft skid and though it is wood, mine has survived for a very long time.
IIRC, because of the inadequacy of the strut that was held on by rubber bands, we often/mostly hand launched the Honker and left off the rubber band mounted gear strut, which was no problem due to having a plush grass strip then. When reconditioning, such a nice strip didn't exist so the gear strut was needed again.
Though it had been many years since flying the Honker, it didn't seem that it flew as well with the gear and muffler weight added so keeping it light is important.
It might be that the .09 option intended to leave off the gear and hand launch. I think that would be doable.
Good luck with your Honker... it is a fun plane to fly and surprisingly is a good windy day and small box flier.
04-20-2013, 08:40 PM
#10
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New Bethlehem,
PA
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Honker Bipe
I scored a Honker Bipe from a buddy, and am in the process of putting it together (I hesitate to use the term building). will be using a HURC Fire Power 10 Sport (electric) motor and expect the AUW to be about 36 oz. I hope that will not be too heavy for this airplane. John
04-21-2013, 05:41 AM
#11
RE: Honker Bipe
Lucky find. A local built up a Honker electric powered last year and it did well. I've still got one flight worthy with Enya .19 but don't fly it very often and especially after completing a Das Box Fly Bipe, which is similar in size to the Honker but a better flier.
The Das Box Fly Bipe with a Saito .30 is a delightful flier with very good take off manners, and flight manners typical of light loading. It also has a fuel tank hatch that would be ideal for electric power. If you enjoy this size bipe and want to go electric... a Das Box Fly Bipe find would be a treasure.
Enjoy the Honker... good flier when kept light.
ps... I just weighed mine and it is 47oz and as noted previous, it flew better without the muffler and gear strut. I'd guess they weigh six oz or more. The weight of yours is cause for envy and should provide much better flight than mine.
The Das Box Fly Bipe with a Saito .30 is a delightful flier with very good take off manners, and flight manners typical of light loading. It also has a fuel tank hatch that would be ideal for electric power. If you enjoy this size bipe and want to go electric... a Das Box Fly Bipe find would be a treasure.
Enjoy the Honker... good flier when kept light.
ps... I just weighed mine and it is 47oz and as noted previous, it flew better without the muffler and gear strut. I'd guess they weigh six oz or more. The weight of yours is cause for envy and should provide much better flight than mine.
05-02-2013, 10:22 AM
#12
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New Bethlehem,
PA
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Honker Bipe
Finished up the honker Bipe, and took it out for a taxi test, too windy to fly. AUW is 38 oz (too heavy). <font color="#0066cc">http://www.rcuniverse.com/gallery/galleryItem.cfm?itemID=238902&dummy=3473.44243 66615713&opener=/community/profile.cfm%3Fsection%3Dgallery%26memid%3D496076</font></p>
05-09-2013, 09:52 AM
#13
RE: Honker Bipe
ORIGINAL: jbrooks02
Finished up the honker Bipe, and took it out for a taxi test, too windy to fly. AUW is 38 oz (too heavy). http://<font color=''#0066cc''>http:...D496076</font></p>
Finished up the honker Bipe, and took it out for a taxi test, too windy to fly. AUW is 38 oz (too heavy). http://<font color=''#0066cc''>http:...D496076</font></p>
2lbs. 6oz. doesn't sound too heavy to me...back when this plane was designed, a "light" 4 channel airborne set-up would weigh a good 10 - 12 oz. or so...
This airplane will fly different from most modern designs, because of the slightly higher wing loading, but 38 oz. would be considered fairly light back in the 70's.
A lot of airplanes nowdays are basically just a skin of covering material with barely enough of a wood skeleton to stretch the covering into the shape of an airplane...
That is great for flying characteristics...but not very durable...which was more of a factor back when radio systems were somewhat less reliable than todays systems.
