Flying Fool

What can anyone tell me about the Flying Fool. What engine is most compatable, performance,ext.And what events can it be flown in?

I started building one from a kit, but never finished. I can't remember exactly what became of it. As I recall, there were a lot of shortcomings in the kit.

Now that I'm older and wiser, I would have seen the problems and corrected them. Back then, I "foolishly" followed the directions.

There is a Sterling Flying Fool kit, currently on eBay. Being sold by somebody in Shelby Twp, MI who calls himself "nobler". Has 1155 transcations. I'm curious about who he is. Lives near me.

My understanding is that the Flying Fool is pretty much a sport bipe designed for a FOX .35. I have seen a couple and they generally build heavy for the wing area and large amount of drag. They are pattern capable, but not likely to cause jaw-drops and a big rush on the 'Bay.

See Ya

It's widely reported that a certain "Currell" person lives in Shelby Township,MI. He's into older kits and stuff like that from what I gather here on SSW.

Flying Fool: Started to finish one for hobbyshop I worked at back in the 80's,..never did get it done. I remember that some reported it did not fly as well as say the 38 Special,..but that's just hear-say on my part. Power -v- wing area could be a problem perhaps.

I've dealt with nobler. He is a real, straight shooter.

The best thing about the Flying Fool was the name.

Built two of them. Cranked the top wing back to give it the Great Lakes look.

I put a throttled Stallion .35 on one (see link below) and some other .35 on another.

Both were nose heavy. I think a light .29 or maybe a strong .25 might be good for the design.

A Flying Fool at the Airshow

A Flying Fool on eBay

A Flying Fool on eBay

Shelby Township Michigan. Hmmmmmmm...sounds like Currell...

Hey Andy, are you coming to the meeting tonight? If so I'll bring the goods.

Some people liked them, some didn't. I built a couple of them back in the late 60s. I didn't fly stunt back then and as I remember, it never was meant to be competitive in stunt. I used an Enya 35 in one and a carburated OS MAX with three lines in the other. Below is a link to a sight about Sterling models:

http://home.mindspring.com/~jeff.coons/vintagesterlingmodels/id6.html

Tight lines,

I had one that was fun to fly, but not a stunt ship by any means. I think if you scratch built one using some nice wood and kept the weight down it would be fun. The problem is the lead sled junk wood that Sterling normally provided at you losing the battle from the start. My RSM Ringmaster flies great because it's 24.5oz instead of above 32oz from a stock Sterling kit.

Weight makes all the difference!

Gee, I wonder who that Nobler guy is...

Yeah, the ebay kit is mint. Perfect, never touched, and the decals look great, too...

What the FF has going for it is styling, and one of the few non-scale bipes, full fuselage, that was offered to the CL constituency out there.

They are OK as sport fliers, and build lightly. An OS FP 25 would work well here.

My tick goes in the like column. I've built 2 of them over the years both from kits. I have to admit that I did some substitution on the second one to get the weight down a bit. What amazes me, and we've covered this is previous FF threads, is the power you guys put on them. Both of my were pretty spritely on McCoy .19s, and the lighter one was pretty nimble as well. I can't imagine flying one on a .35 or even an OS .25. Maybe I'll have to built another one and try it.

Anyway, the fool gets my vote for a really fun ship if the weight is kept down, not a bad looker either.

>What amazes me, and we've covered this is previous FF
>threads, is the power you guys put on them. Both of my were
>pretty spritely on McCoy .19s, and the lighter one was
>pretty nimble as well. I can't imagine flying one on a .35

I put a .35 on it because I had the engine already. And not a lot of engines at that.

So I simply bolted the thing in there because that is what I had done with earlier models--put a .35 in it and go flying.

The result was over powered by 1/3 to 1/2 and way too nose heavy to be useful as a stunt airplane.

The throttle control was the redeming feature. I also remember putting a wider aluminum gear on one of them.

I think if you took a dremel and routed out the leading edges, replaced the rib and former wood, carefully selected the rest and build a light, well balanced version with a strong .19 you would have a very good sport plane that could do a lot of aerobatics. Not a true stunt competition machine, but that's not what the design was intended for.

I doubt any kit wood build Fool exhibits the potential of the design.

This is the first big airplane I remember(6 yrs old then), my dad built it, several actually, I was dangerous around them...

Back then we used a K&B Stallion .35 on it. A K&B .29S swinging a 10x5 or 10.5x5 is better and lighter. We recently started another just for the memories. My dad doesn't even want me to fly it (I'm 40 now).

I personally like the plane alot. I remember Dad telling me that the upper wing had to have a slight negative angle to balance right. Something that was learned thru trial and error not plans.

>Back then we used a K&B Stallion .35 on it. A K&B .29S
>swinging a 10x5 or 10.5x5 is better and lighter.

Case in point, man! a Stallion .35!?!?!? How did you keep the tail on the ground?

>>Back then we used a K&B Stallion .35 on it. A K&B .29S
>>swinging a 10x5 or 10.5x5 is better and lighter.
>
>Case in point, man! a Stallion .35!?!?!? How did you keep
>the tail on the ground?
>
>Randy Ryan <><
>AMA 8500
>SAM 36
>BO all my own M's

I hafta agree with Randy...my brother and I had one back in the 60's, and seems to me we flew an O&R .23 on it. (Tried to post a pic but kept getting "file you triee to upload was ____bytes and was deleted" msg.)
--Ray

Tbeard:

I got to thinking about your comment on wing angles (incidence) on the Flying Fool and called an old friend with a bunch of full sized design experiance with biplanes (home builts) back in the 40's and 50's. Yes, I said OLD friend.

He said ideally on a real plane not designed strictly for aerobatics, the smaller/lower wing has a bit more incidence (LE up) than the top/larger. The AVERAGE of the two wings should be roughly what you'd set up for a monoplane. A full aerobatic ship would average around zero.

BUT: he also commented that the need was to have one wing stall before the other. Therefore, you also could go the other way with LE's farther apart to make the top wing stall first. It would work as long as the average angle is correct. He mentioned several obscure Bipes done that way, none of which I'd heard of. He recalled the theory being that in a nose up situation, the bottom wing is in cleaner air than the top and should be made to stall last, hence the LE should be lower on the bottom wing. In either case, one wing would keep flying as the other stalls. Since most Biplanes are more stable flying only on the high wing in a stall situation than the low wing, that's how it's done most of the time. Essentially the same concept as washout to "soften" the stall, except using the entire wing rather than the root-tip relationship.

The gentleman flew FF in the 30's and isn't much for math and degree's. Just horse sense, but another case of modelling knowledge working just fine on the real thing.

Last year while in Fargo, North Dakota at their contest I was watching a young man flying a Flying Fool. Did not check to what he had in it, but, when he was doing the open maneuvers(like loops & eights) it looked good. It seemed every time I turned around he was flying it. But, I beleive, in the second round of competiton he decked it. My memories of my Flying Fool, which had a Veco 35, was after the first couple of flights I immediately made new leadout guide so leadouts could be moved forward. Otherwise it was a good flying airplane. Of course I was not flying competition stunt at the time. I was into Rat Racing, Combat and Navy Carrier. Still am in a way. Later, DOC

PS: Flying Fool will make a great fun airplane that will get more attention than my Nobler.

I built several Flying Fools for sport flying, just because of the looks. The last one I built was for R/C (sorry). I had a Cox .15 and REM control. I used monocote to keep the weight down. It was a good flyer and fit into my Porsche, even with the wings on.

A true classic.

my dad built a FF when i was a wee lad....i remember him cussing over the sawmarks in the wood and getting splinters from it. 'ole pop was never a great flyer and he "dumb wristed" it into the ground flying inverted. bless his heart!

Greg,

While it's a good question, eliciting quite a number of responses, as I understand it you are interested in CL Stunt competition and currently own what cannot be described as an excess of suitable models.

So if you're thinking of building one of these Old Crocks...

...**Don't do it!!**

I have to take my hat off to the modeler who actually got a "Flying Fool" into the air. You did better than me! I got the wings assembled and could not see a satisfactory way to do the fuselage, engine mount and tank department.

As best i can recall, I sold the partially completed project at a Cloudbuster's auiction in a previous millinium.

I do however, have a Sig SPAD with a Veco 35 that flys quite well.

There was one around here about the time you left. It was auctioned off at the club auction. Terry Freeman got it and did a little work on it and entered it in the next years auction. I got it and didn't do any work on it and entered it in the next year's auction. Roy Fellows bought it and the last I heard of it he still had it. Some one told me that he auctioned it off at the RC auction several years ago. Still partially built. Thought that might have been your old one.

> There was one around here about the time you left. It was
>auctioned off at the club auction. Terry Freeman got it and
>did a little work on it and entered it in the next years
>auction. I got it and didn't do any work on it and entered
>it in the next year's auction. Roy Fellows bought it and
>the last I heard of it he still had it. Some one told me
>that he auctioned it off at the RC auction several years
>ago. Still partially built. Thought that might have been
>your old one.
>
> Bigiron

Good memory, Marvin. That sounds right. I did the wings prety well, but got bogged down on the fuselage. I could not figure out how to do it well enough make me confident. If I was building one today, I'd use a Cox Conquest .15 with a plastic radial motor mount.

>...**Don't do it!!**
>
>Dan

That's what's so likeable about Dan, he's SOOO positive.

Of course in the context of competition he's absolutely right.

I have built and flown several of these bipes. They are as they are intended to be, alot of fun. Be ready to land when the engine quits!

Greg:
I'd do it this way. Buy the E-bay kit if it's priced right. Trace the parts without disturbing the die smashing so you don't lose the original kit integrity. That should be easy since it took an act of God to get that stuff out of the die cut (?) sheets. Then copy the instructions/plans and build it with real wood. Sell the kit to the next guy!

They were neat looking but virtually all were heavy ( a Sterling kit with a lot of wood). Use good wood and make use of modern building techniques and you should get it light and straight. I probably saw a dozen of them and flew 5 or 6, helping folks try to get them "right", back in the "good old days". Never saw one actually light and/or straight, though there were some lovely looking ones. Fox or McCoy 29/35's were the standard though the best I got a chance to fly had a big OK Cub in it--.29 I think. A tip weight box and adjustable leadouts should help like mad!

The straighter ones I flew were stable and predictable until pushed too hard or slowed up. They had an absolutely heart stopping stall, either during maneuvers or on landing. When the engine quit the only safe way to land was dive like crazy and raise level out just above the ground, no higher than you want it to free-fall. Pretty typical of Biplanes but more severe. Wherever it quit you were going to land in some form very shortly thereafter. We had one guy discard the bottom wing after a crash, create a top wing mount for a monoplane set up and it flew better----but looked butt ugly.

As to maneuvers: wide, smooth loops both ways, lazy eights and wingovers were possible but overcontrol and the inevitable stall made life indescribably exiting. The first tailstand I ever saw a control line model do was a Flying Fool stalling on the back of an outside in preparation for a straight on attack on the pilot. Pilot survived, airplane didn't!

Still, a guy should be able to build one 6-8 oz lighter than those days, and a whole lot straighter. A good .25 should do well and help keep the weight down. I'd use a low pitch prop to keep the airspeed steady.

These were big time popular in my area (Minneapolis) for a while, mainly because they were really nice looking, on the ground or in the air. I've often wondered what a light, straight one with a modern power plant would do.

Have at it!

Jeff W.

P.S.: If I get 2-stunters and a Fierce Arrow ahead of the game, I might just try one myself. Of course, at the speed I build (AND CRASH)...................

I built a couple when I was in the USAF in the late 60s. Drilled the maple mounts for the Fox 35, swapped back and forth with the Fox 19. The 19 had the same hole spacing, but a slightly longer cranckcase. Flew about the same with either engine.
They were the only planes I ever flew that could do a saber dance without throttle or running the engine sloppy rich. Come out of a loop and at the bottom, pull full up elevator. The wings would stall and it would just hang at the end of the lines until you pulled in some down.
I have an NIB kit, and a salvaged built up model that was in someones attic for who knows how long. 2 future projects.
An older friend of mine had a copy of the original design, which he thought was published in MAN. Built it from plans shortly before Sterling kitted it. Was lighter, a bit more wing area than the kit, and actually had a sloped flat sided turtle deck rather than the rounded back with a headrest. Flew for about 20 years with it on a Fox Baffle 25 which he said had far more power than the Ohlsen 23 he started with. Gave it to a neighborhood kid who he taught to fly CL. Lasted another 4 or 5 years.

"50 plus":

Your comment on seeing your first Saber Dance caught my interest. Since most of the one's I saw and flew had more power, they tended to keep moving. What's interesting to me is that all the times I saw them get close to a Saber Dance it was accidental and they were totally out of control, seemingly looking for the best way to introduce the pilot to a rotating prop. I can see where a smaller engine might make the tailstand possible but what allowed yours to stay stable and hang out escape's me. Something in the trim, CG, wing settings, lead outs etc ?

My experiance was that the stalls and slowing down seemed to create an untamed beast. You were doing something right that we weren't. Might be that the smaller engines let the airspeed drop rapidly to zero and get through the transition easier, like a throttle would. Also, the CG might have been too far forward with the bigger engines. That OK Cub would have been lighter and lower on power so it make's sense that it could have been more docile.

In any case, looking at the replies, it seems most have had fairly similar experiances with them.

By the way, my first Comet kit ($.10) was given to me at age 6, in 1951. Didn't finish it but learned about waxed paper, common pins and Dad's used razor blades. Mom thought it was safer than having me in the workshop with the power saw. Ended up doing both! Sound's like we're about the same vintage.

Best wishes,

By the way, my first Comet kit ($.10) was given to me at age 6, in 1951. Didn't finish it but learned about waxed paper, common pins and Dad's used razor blades. Mom thought it was safer than having me in the workshop with the power saw. Ended up doing both! Sound's like we're about the same vintage.

I started also around 6 or 7 and like you used my fathers old double edge razor blades broken in half and taped on the backside. My brother made up the blades as he was in the hobby and was about 6 years older. Still in todays overprotective society can you imagine any 6 year old being allowed anywhere near anything so lethal as a razor blade. Were we smarter then or too dumb to know that it could be dangerous.
Dennis

Dennis, As a curious young modeler at around 7 yesrs old I was in the kitchen modifying a 1/72 scale plastic plane. I had no engine at the time, but my imagination at that age took the better of me. I found a single edge razor blade prepairing to cut away the nose of the plane to mount an engine that I didn't have. I remember vividley the blade slip through the plastic and slicing deep into my left wrist. MOM I yeld, I cut myself real bad. The funny thing though is while in the surgery room I remember the Doctors asking me questions of my family life as to them I tryed to kill my self. Funny thing is, later as they were done coming back into the room they were totaly embarassed. and overly apologetic. Great start in the curiosity of a young boy. Do you have such a story?

>By the way, my first Comet kit ($.10) was given to me at age
>6, in 1951. Didn't finish it but learned about waxed paper,
>common pins and Dad's used razor blades. Mom thought it was
>safer than having me in the workshop with the power saw.
>Ended up doing both! Sound's like we're about the same
>vintage.
>

I started oupt about the same way/time. My favorite uncle (Dad's "baby" brother) had just returned from USAF hurricane-hunter duty, where he was a pilot/meteorologist. He stayed with us for a few weeks in 1952 while planning his future.

During this time, he helped me almost finish a Comet Taylorcraft. I still have the framework somewhere.

Actually, that was a Fox 19, but all we could get at the BX was the Perfect 4 ounce wedge tanks, and ours came out fairly heavy with GI Butyrate. Also pretty nose heavy. They balanced at the LE of the top wing. About all we did was set the maximum right thrust that the 35 would allow, and set the rudder to just miss the elevator. 10-6 on the 35, and 9-6 on the 19. Supprisingly, they flew about the same. Also, our fuel at the time was medicinal castor from a buddy in the base hospital squadron, Methanol from a 55 gallon drum donated from motor pool, and a couple squirts of lighter fluid, your basic 80-20 FAI mix. We also wrapped the right upper wing spar with slightly more than the reccommended amount of 1/8" wire solder. Used 60' .015 wires, large Perfect adjustable handle.
Took some practice till we got where we could do it when we wanted. Also, we usually had a good 10 or 12 knot wind at our backs coming off the Sahara.

I still have my Flying Fool. Haven't flown it for many many years. McCoy powered. 29 I think. It would seem to "gallop" as it did its maneuvers. Your right about its glide. I broke the rudder a few times when it flipped over on the grass.

Typical Sterling plans, no full size except for the turtle deck sheeting templates.

Scott