Attached is a picture of my first non-ARF kit, my first attempt at kit bashing, and my first twin. The basic kit is two Tower Uproar 60’s with two Thunder Tiger Pro 61’s for power. 84” wingspan, 52.5” long, 14 pounds with a wing loading of 23-oz/sq. ft. It has retractable tricycle landing gear and a center flap between the twin fuselages. It has a total of 11 servos (2-aileron, 2-rudder, 2-elevator, 2-throttle, 1-retract, 1-flap, 1-nose wheel) and fly’s with a non-computer Airtronics Vanguard radio.

No engine offset is used. On the first flight the plane flew well, after trimming, but seemed slightly tail heavy. That will be corrected on future flights (only one flight has been made to date due to an extended out of town work assignment). The plane is balanced per Uproar instructions. I believe the plane has enough power to pull vertical. No aerobatics were tried on the first flight.

The only fabrication that was not a part of the standard kit was the center wing section, the center tail section, the nose, the center flap, and the retract system. I also chose to taper the ailerons from the center out to each wing tip to give the wing less of a boxy look and I increased the size of the rudders for better engine out performance. AutoCad was used to draw each of these sections full size and then the section was built over a drawing just as you would build directly over the kit plans. The plane was actually much simpler to build than I envisioned. Before I started building I read everything I could about building twins and especially everything that “Twinman,” George Lumpkin, has written on the subject. I contacted George by e-mail and he served as an advisor throughout the project. The guy has a lot of experience to offer.

This kit is excellent for bashing into a twin because it did not have a cockpit built into the fuselage and because of the removable mid wings. Disassembly and transportation is a breeze. I have a canopy that I have not put on yet that will finish the plane out. I would recommend this project to anyone interested in a first twin. It is a simple, relatively low cost approach and is a great looking plane when it does a low pass with the gear up.

Very nice job for a first kit-bash...

But looking at the picture you need a bit more tyre pressure...

Wow, you did a great job on that one! Looks really good.

Looks fantastic. Keep us posted.
As there are few twin, particularly fun flies, this is a good example of how well they can turn out with a little planning.
Good Luck,
Twinman
PS Still think it looks like a 150 foot stand off scale P-38!! My personal favorite!!!1

Rudeboy,

Right you are about the tires. I knew this plane would have to land hot and I thought the foam tires would help slow it down and also give it a little cushion on landing. After is sits on the wheels for a while each tire gets quite a flat spot.

Also, the main landing gear is located to far to the rear causing too much weight on the front gear. I did this because I wanted the main gear to fold forward rather than backward and I had to push the gear mounting back so the tire would clear the wing tube when it was retracted. If I had to do it again I would mount the gear forward and let the wheels retract to the rear.

There are several things other things that I would do differently. I would be glad to discuss them with anyone considering a similar project.

Good job Kelley.Looks great. keep ue informed on future flights

Thats wonderful. Everyone else has said but I just have to give you another pat on the back. That thing is AWSOME.

I finally got home long enough to go fly. After adding 3 oz. of nose weight the plane flew all day Saturday and flew great. The only problem now is that I have to much prop. I will try a smaller three blade next time I am home to try to pick up more RPM and more speed. If that doesn't work I'll switch to a two blade.

More nose gear will be good also.

Look your killing that little wheel!

Kelley,

after looking again at the picture in post #8, I can't help but saying it again: you've got yourself a very cool looking plane there.
The colour scheme is really good for it.

It is a sweet plane! You know his cheeks hurt like the dickens after flying that thing from grinning so much!

Nice to know another one is not going to show up at the field either. Also he gets to say, "No it's not available as a ARF. I scratch built this my self."

Amish Warlord,

The 2 ½” foam nosewheel is undoubtedly overworked. When I was trying to figure out where everything should go and I thought the plane was going to be nose heavy so I pushed everything back as far as I could, including the main landing gear. Now the weight distribution is about 50/50 on the main and nose wheels. Hey, remember I’m a novice at this.

The reason I used foam wheels is to help slow it down on landing. We have not tried out the center flap yet. If it lands nice and slow with the flap, I’ll replace the foam wheels with harder rubber.

I’ll keep you posted. I made several pictures of the plane flying but it was extremely overcast and none of the pictures are very good.

Kelley,

First off GREAT looking plane. Really got the ideas hopping in my head

Could you post some pics of wing separation provisions ? Transporting that thing would be my biggest obstacle. Also can I get a copy of your plans!!!

Ben in SC

Ben,

Removing the wings is very simple. I have a 1" x 31" shower rod running through the center section and into each wing. The rod fits inside a paper tube that goes completely through the center section. Matching tubes are built into each wing. I leave the tube in the center section all the time although it is removable. You can see this rod in the picture. The plane is hanging on the wall with a string loop around each side of the tube, suspended from the ceiling. Each wing has a nylon bolt built into it that protrudes into the center section and is held with a nylon nut. The aileron servo leads pass through a cutout in the center section. A removable hatch in each fuselage allows access to this area. All of this is standard Uproar stuff and enough paper tubing comes with the two kits. I did buy the shower rod at a hardware store because the rod that came with each kit was not long enough for the added width of the center section. Go to Tower Hobby.com and search for Uproar. There is a link to an online instruction manual for the Uproar. If you page through the manual you can see how the wing is held in place.

Without the wings in place the plane is only 21.75” wide by 52.5” long. Each wing is only 31.25”. It is easier to get into my son’s Camero than his 40 size P-51 and because of the twin fuselage it sits very stable in the car and doesn’t roll around.

If you can open AutoCad files I will send you the special sections that I made up. All I ask is that you keep me posted in how your project progresses. This kit makes a simple conversion to a twin and I am interested in seeing how someone else does it. Like I said, this is the first one I have built and there are lots of things I would do differently. If you would like I can give you a list so you don’t make the same mistakes.

For anyone else interested, here is the overall sketch that I created to help me know what I was suppose to end up with.

Thanks for the info Kelley. I can open dfx/dwg files so any further info would be great.

Once I complete my current 2 projects, building a new trainer for my father and rebuilding a scratch built low wing, I plan to order 2 uproars and build one of your planes.

I just happen to have 3 or 4 .61's laying around

Ben in SC

Kelley:

You have probably already thought of it, but I'll stick my nose in anyway.

On the next one put the retract mechanism behind the wing tube as you did, but have the strut pass under the wing tube putting the wheel in front of the tube when retracted.

Does wonders for wheel loading. Makes take off rotation easier too.

Stand way off and squint P-38,
. but even up close it still looks great.

Bill.

I plan to play with the gear location a bit once/if I get a copy of the cad plans from Kelley. I am VERY excited about this one!!

You out there Kelley?

Ben in SC

Looks like you have a nice looking bird there I Love the way my twin handles also. I have a Hanger 9 1.20 TwinStick W YS 1.20fz engines on it The hovering is way cool and Stable as heck. I've made many for friends. And they all love em

John Limbach
[email protected]

P.s I tried it on OS 91 Fx engines but it just didn't have the zip I required.

Two YS 1.20 engines... I bet you've got enough power...

How much does that plane weigh?

OK, I promise, this is the final picture. I have added a canopy from a Kyosho F-86 and a Robart strut on the nose gear. I moved the main landing gear forward 2 inches plus the 1/2 inch I gained with the special 15 degree bend in the Spring Air main wire struts. That gave me a 70/30 split rear to front. Still not great but you can't believe the improvement in ground handling and landings. I now consider the plane finished. It has been flown about 15 times with no problem. It always draws special looks and questions at the field. I would recommend this type of bash to anyone who wants to build a simple twin and is not shy about striking out without complete instructions. I would be happy to share the AutoCad plans that I drew for all the unique pieces (tail, center wing section with center boom).

My hanger 9 Bashed Ultra stick 1.20 TWIN came in at 15lbs but the YS 1.20fz 's have power to hower at 1/2 throtle and is Very stable in a hover.

What a rush when the hover is perfected.

To kelley

Looks great and hope you are having a ball.
What about engine out characteristics.......Hope I just did not jinx you into the first......uh........got to go.....
Twinman

Twinman,

Good news and bad news. The good news is that I have never had an engine out. The bad news is that I have never had the nerve to purposely fill one tank less than the other to induce an engine out for practice. The engine centerlines are 16” apart so I believe that gives me an advantage. I built it for 12 inch props but I am running 11 inch 3-blade props so I could have pushed it together even more.

Before the first flight of the day I start each engine separately and let it warm up and then check the RPM with a tachometer. I make sure they are running within 200 RPM of each other.

I have always followed your suggestion of checking each engine carefully before each flight. I always run them up together and listen for the synchronization of the engines. I also always hold the plane vertical and listen for any change in the sound of the engines. So far, with new engines I have never had a preflight problem so I have never aborted.

You’re right, it is a blast to fly and to answer all the questions about “What is that?” and “How did you do that?”

DON'T SAY THAT!!!!!! Bad karma!!!!!!! Just like taking a picture of the first flight!!!!
If you follow the procedure you out lined of always checking with vertical test, the probability is much lower of engine failure.
I also think that with the large wing and rudders, you will not have a major problem with and engine out.
I wonder how many times the vertical test has shown one engine to sag, that you could fix on the ground.
It saves me all the time, and sometimes even after other flights and the ambient temperature changes, one will sag and requires a tweek.
Good luck
Twinman