I am getting ready to take the old kit I have and build it with a third engine on the nose. I plan to make the wing two bays longer on each side and add flaps.

Any other ideas or suggestions?

Thanks
Scott

I think you are talking about a very early set of plans for a twin engine ugly stick.
I based one of those without the instructions and loved it.
Yes, I also eventually put the third engine on the nose.
Good idea to lengthen the wing. With that thick wing, the flaps really will not be necessay.
If you want better control, enlarge the rudder and use pull pull system.
Is this a tricycle or two front gear arrangement for landing gear?
You will hear a chopping sound due to the overlapping propellors, but don't worry about it.
Good Luck,
And send pictures....before the first flight!!!
Twinman

Thanks, Twinman.

No, this is an old midwest twin stick kit that I have had for years. I have build and flown one before and just decided how neat it would be to stick an engine on the front of one. It can be a tricycle gear of have a nose wheel. I will probably build it with the tricycle gear.

How much bigger do you think the rudder should be and how will that help?

Scott

Rudder size?
As I am not sure as to how big it is now, or the length of the fuse, it is difficult to say.
Adding the center engine helps. The problem with wing mounted engines, is that the rudder is not in the air blast to help with the steering work.
On my twin ugly sticks, I increased them 50%. My bashed Ultra Sport 1000, I doubled it.
The reason to want, or need, to enlarge the rudder is that the loss of one engine creates yaw, and you want to be able to counter it as much as possible.
Good Luck, sounds neat!!!
The Kadet that one of the guys at my field has, that I caused him to "Twin" and then caused him to "tri", actually flies better as a tri than it does as a twin.
OK, so when we "Caused" him to go to five,,,,,,,,that was a bit much.
Twinman

I've two of these kits and I've had them for many a year. I built and flew one years ago with two ST. 23's and flew great. I did fold a wing on that model, so you may want to beef up this area.
Soft landings always,
Bobby of Maui

Bobby:

Where have you been? I've missed your postings.

Bill.

Dear Bill;
I've been off line a while and I've been busy starting up a new business...departing from flying (helicopters) for a living and reajusting my life. I'm doing ok...and back into my models.

My three engine Slow Poke is coming along just fine, and now have the left wing almost ready for cover. The engine nacel is built and installed, as well as the spoiler. The full span Fowler flap is built and ready to install. All servo's have been mounted.

I decided to go with ailerons too and now modifing the full span flaps to half flaps and ailerons. This is the last thing I need to do and the left wing panel will be ready to cover. I felt that full span fowler flaps and just spiolers for roll control would be to much to work on this model...concidering I've a "V" tail too...how much can a guy put into a model in a kit bash and expect it to fly...

The fuse and center section are built and covered...ready to fly w/radio gear installed.

I've made a few mistakes along the way and this is my second wing...I tossed my first wing in utter fustration...

I'm on track and the end is in sight. Three C. F. Lee K & B .18's for power and 6 oz. fuel tanks all around.

I read that the slow poke .40 tends to build tail heavy, so I built long wing nacells. It's a tail drager, with dual trexlers for main gear.

I know...it sounds nuts...but this is the method of my madness.

Soft and landings always,
Bobby of Maui

P.S. Bill, did you ever start that DC-6B kit I mailed you ?

Bobby:

Your Slow Poke sounds like it will really be something if you ever get it off the ground.

Thought you were happy with your helicopter driving, but I do wish you success in your new venture.

DC-6B kit? You have the wrong Bill this time. Didn't come to me. But if you want to send me one...

Bill.

PS: Welcome back to the world. wr.

Dear Bill;
Thanks for the reply...and I am keeping my fingers crossed and have enough pieces left over (I pray only one piece) to take home when I do fly this three engine slow poke. By the way...who is the expert on "V" tail flying multi's ? Heck...Any kind of "V" tail.

I've flown rotating wings for over 38 years, and twisting wrenches on them for over 22. I had my third flight...where I was not exactly sure of the outcome of the landing...not a nice experience even in the best of conditions. I had a swash plate bearing failure on a Hughs 369 HS, March 27th. of this year, and was just able to land the machine back on the helo deck...seconds prior to the bearing locking up and the aircraft self destructing...the machine was junk when it was all over, with one blade coming through the cocpit and just kissing my helmet. I don't need these kinds of adrenaline rushes in my life. The tuna flying industry has been going down hill for years, money tight, lousy managment-few spare parts and then questionable replacements too. (All U.S. aviation companies are out of the business now, and I do not speak Chinese...and seriously dislike the food). That was a real wake up call for me. It was time to take a break...build a few models instead of an ARF, and smell the nitro burning in my model engines...maybe even pat the little lady on the tail feathers too. Life goes on...

I thought I sold you that model...God Bless, but I sold that kit to a Bill some where here at R/C Universe. By the way, I've four Kyosho old U-ky kits left to sell, two B-29's, one C-124 and a Connie.

Soft landings always,
Bobby of Maui

Bobby:

I think the expert on Vee tails was Walter Beech, if you know a good Swami type spiritualist you could consult with him. Actually, I've avoided Vee tails for several reasons, so other than basic theory which you probably know better than I, no help here. Bruce Mtthews or JohnG might help.

Sounds like it was indeed time to get out of rotary wings. But all the fish spotters I've ever known flew fixed wing, I had thought you were flying charter and tour groups.

How big are the B-29 and the Connie? Practical for r/c conversion? Let me know.

Bill.

Dear Bill;

All the older U-control Kyosho kits with four engines were in the 82" to 90" area for wing span. I believe the Super G Connie is 83", for I built one At Ninh Hoa, as well as the C-124. The wood then, was acceptable, because there was no other alternative for us to use. The kit wood is not up to today's standards, but you have a full kit to use as patterns, to trace onto good material. Both kits flew quite well, and that sprug main landing gear is a trip. All are set up with fixed gear in the kits, kit wood is not that good, but usable for tracing bulkheads for duplicating. All the wings seem a little more involved then need to be, and if I were to build, I would concider changing the build up with the wings...the fus build up are all straight forward...and there is a bit of carving to do in these kits too.

I flew off of Super Seiners out of American Samoa and Guam. In 14 years doing this work, I ended up making port to discharge fish in all the Pacific Island Nations, from Christmass Island to Thailand...and even in the America's. I went to both China and Taiwan too in the work. The last ship I was on was an American Flagged Vessel, of 1800 Tons, 293 feet long-that was a 62 day trip. I would be at sea from three weeks to three months...and I very rarely flew over land...5600 hrs over water, single engine piston and turbine powered helicopters. I spotted fish up in Alaska in a Robinson, and had a stint flying a DHC-2 too. It was fun and I built some great kits up there and still have them all, and all are still flyable...and yes, a couple have had a rebuild.

As to flying a "V" tail as a twin/three engine model, I know that Beechcraft built and flew one, for I've seen it...and touched it too. NO I did not get to fly it, but I know it is a feasible concept. I did a lot of reading years ago about the problem that Beechcraft had with the "V-tail Bananza (sp?). I read the NTSB reports, I saw the pictures, and helped to modify several Beech "V-tails" myself. The airframe never once failed that I know of, when flown inside the flight manual perimeters. All the catastrophic tail failures accured durring flights outside the flight envelope priscribed in the flight manual. The leading edge would fold down, increasing the load onto the "V" tail, at a high over speed, high G over load. But Beech was blamed, and fixed the problem. The Debonair never had a tail failure, and the airframe was identical, sans the Tail feathers between models. The Debonair is one tough bird...and has T-34 history too in its family.

Beech played around with the angle of the "V"...the angle varies between some Beech Bananza's...mine is set on the model at 109 degrees, and this seems to be the ideal angle from all I can find out about. The center engine should be a plus and asymmetrical thrust, by any out board engine should not be as critical...as just a twin engine model, I do pray...

I opted to build a nice large "V" tail on my model, so I feel I will have the control authority I will need...(oh please, please work). I've flown several gliders with "V" tails, and all flew well. I've just never flown a "V" tail multi before. It's part what I know, part arm chair aerodynamics, and a prayer in its design.

But three is a problem here too over a twin engine model, and that is if I lose two engines, one on a wing and one on the fus., I will have less power on the side running, due to splitting up of the total power into three power plants, not two. All three engines would be a total displacement of .18 x 3 engines + .54. With a twin engine Slo Poke, I would use two .25's to .36's. I will only have 1/3 the power, not half, so if I lose two on a three engine model, I feel I will need to pull all power, and take what I can get on a landing. It's a no sweat deal if I've only the center engine running. Time will tell. Only the gods know and until it flys, I will not know what my out board wing single engine performance will be, if any at all. Maybe my single engine control speed will be below the stall speed of this model...that would be nice surprise and gift.

I've given this a little thought, and I will admit I'm no aerodynamic wiz... I changed out the full span flaps to half aileron, for at least the first flights. Then I will use expo and slowly dial in the Spoilers for roll control...a little at a time. Any way... with the spoilers, I'm going to have some serious pitch control to play with...

The Dual Trexler main gear tires were a definite brain lock...but looks cool as heck. I've flown Trexler tires for many years, and they have a nice bounce to them.

I choose the Slow Poke to modify because it is a most different looking model. I'm going to buy the ARF model and play with it for a while, then fly my three engine rendition of the kit.

My only real concern is if the tail incidence is correct at Zerro-Zerro, with the main wing. Danged if I know how check it...any advice on this ?

Soft landings always,
Bobby of Maui

Bobby:

Sounds like the Kyosho kits you have are typical 60s and 70s Jap kits, they picked the heaviest and most brittle wood they could find for them. Regardless, give me a PM/email with the shipped price on the Connie if you would, please. Or if you don't care it wouldn't bother me if you just posted it. If I don't like it someone else might want it.

You have 5600 hours in a rotorbird as a fish spotter? Surprised in that amount of time you didn't take a saltwater bath a few times. I don't trust helicopters over dry land, I can't imagine going over water all the time. At least not if I had a choice.

And I have some very old planes too, my oldest in flying conditiion is about 42 years old now. Another that needs some repair is even older.

I have never wanted a Vee tail, I like sport models, and while the bad points of a Vee tail are negated on a racing or general class plane the adverse roll with rudder input has always kept me from using one. Now if the Vee were inverted, the adverse roll would be converted into a positive roll for the turn direction, but then there would be the worry about dragging the tips on the ground, so I haven't seriously considered that either.

But the angle around 110 degrees seems to be where every body using them does agree.

Flying a triple you should never have a situation with two engines out unless you're pushing your fuel. As a fairly high time pilot you know that when one quits you look for the airport, and don't wait for another to quit. Now I will admit a turbo fire in #3 engine of your L-1649 halfway between Travis in California and Hickam in Hawaii doesn't leave you very many options, but your Tri-Poke should always be able to make the runway. And the dynamics of the thing means losing one of three is more like a 50% power loss than one third.

And having VMC below stall speed is very nice - my Tiggerkitty has that feature, but another feature it has is the inability to maintain level flight on a single engine, so with it when you lose an engine it is coming down. No argument. The C-3/10 I've posted pictures of is much different. I have made a complete takeoff, fly around the peapatch, and land with no prop on the right engine, all power coming from the left side. I feel sure all the Duellists and the Twin-Air could do it too.

Using a "Conventional" Vee tail I think you might find you'll have to keep some aileron to counter the adverse roll, even the P-61 using spoilers for main roll control still had vestigal ailerons, though it's said that was mainly to give a more conventional "Feel" to the pilot, I don't know for sure.

Trexler wheels make landings look good if they aren't inflated to high, if they're blown up hard the almost good landings look a lot worse.

With your ARF Slow Poke you really could do some development, first change to the Vee tail, then hang nacelles on the wing, most likely be easier to put the spoilers in a wing with all new construction, though.

If you are planning your Tri-Poke to be fully aerobatic, then build it with the stab at zero, the engines at zero, and a symmetric wing.

Planning on spoilers for roll control tells me you will be more of an upright plane, though, and to keep the Slow Poke characteristics you'll have a high lift airfoil. This being the case, the stab will want some negative, as a guess about -3 degrees with the wing at +2 or thereabouts. This will give you strong positive stability for the plane, and avoid the "Nose-Down" appearance in level flight. Along with this you probably will want the nose engine with -4 or -5 downthrust, and the wing engines, at a guess, down about 2 degrees. With the positive wing and negative stab the downthrust is needed to minimize trim changes with power.

Go here:
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/Wher...1063414/tm.htm
for a discussion on incidences and thrust line.

Hope this has at least been some help.

Bill.

PS: Should have told you to see post #5 on the thread the URL takes you to. wr.

<<edit to add PS>>

Dear Bill;

Thanks for all the info and help with thrust lines and incedence angles for my model. The fuse is built, covered and ready to fly...so changing incedence with the tail will be bit of work at this point in the build...the main wing to fuse will not be a real problem...just how to measure it accuratly. The down thrust with the engines will be a no brainer and will follow your advice, and I will ponder the rest...I want to get the wing built. I did not plan on the model to be aerobatic...but all incedinces were set at Zerro, or as close as I could get it to that factor. I've never had a flat bottom Clark-Y wing do good aerobatics and this model has a flat bottom wing.

Thanks for the info in "V" tail aerodynamics...now you have my interest and will do a little reading.

I totally agree to land as soon as I lose any one engine. That has been the way I fly twin's since day one.

Yep you need to keep your Trexlers a little on the soft side, and they will make a so-so landing look good...

I've been in the water three times over the 14 years at sea; once with a tail rotor gear box failure (Bell 47G-2A)...that was fun. An engine cooling shroud failure in a Bell 47G-5, and an engine failure in a 500. Actually landing on water with fixed floats is much easier and safer on water then on land. You can always turn into the wind and have a good spot to land onto, and unless you have one meter waves or more, no real problem. All my emergencies were in calm weather and calm seas. I've never done one with heavy weather at sea, but I've witnessed a few. In all cases the helo turned turtle (up side down), and every one went for a swim. I never once got wet, though I will admit I did sweat a bit and sucked a major part of my seat into an unmentionalble part of my anatomy. If you are not comfortable doing auto's, no matter what machine you fly, it's best not to fly. I used to pop two to three practice auto's each day while at sea...you never get enough practic with auto's. The Bell 47 is the sweetest swing wing in an auto God ever put on this planet. The 500 was nice too, it just happened a bit faster and much more controlable...but I flew with a fly-barless head on my 47's and that improved the manuverability of the 47, and I loved the mod. I loved flying the 47, being underpowered and all, for it does not have a mean bone in its body. The 500 takes a bit of attention, but so manuverable and powerful, that I fell in love with the "D" model...the HS ( "C" model ) was ok, but the "D" was magical to fly...Plus flying at 100 kts. in the 500-D ( we cruised at 85 kts. with the HS) was 40+ kts. faster then the 47. You really could cover some sea in a 500, and with aux tanks, stay airborn for 3+ hours. And then when the boat made a set, you got to herd/work the fish...now that was fun.

I had an engine failure in a Bell 206B III up in Alaska, and that was to ground. Bell helo's auto great, and the 206 is a sweet heart. I went down a couple of times in South East Asia, but that is another story for another time.

Thanks for all the great info, and soft landings always,
Bobby of Maui