Flying Clown

Started refurbishing an original PDQ Flying Clown that was built by my brother back in 1960. peeled off the accumulated layers of old silkspan and what really struck me was there is no wing spar in this model at all. What a shock that was. I guess they really don't make 'em like that anymore. Must have been pretty tough to keep the wing straight.

I am almost done with converting a Brodak Flying Clown to .15 Navy Carrier. The Wing is conventional spar and capped ribs.

What a Many Splendored Thing the Clown is! Stunter, racer, and (I hope) Navy Carrier.

John, the FC makes a very good first plane for Navy Carrier. You will really like it.
JJ

The original PDQ Flying Clown (and Super Clown) used no spars and were plenty tough. They also used no capstrips or LE sheeting. If you want to pass the "authentic OTS test", there's your key. Granted, the rules say you can change anything internally --- but they also say something about original airfoils, which raises the question of why Sterling's S-1A Ringmaster (sheeted LE) isn't acceptable for OTS when all those "faux Clowns" ARE.

LAST EDITED ON May-01-06 AT 10:05 PM (CST)
 
Agreed Mike. I built my Viking from a plan that was drawn from the original. Gear bent forward about to firewall, no sheeted leading edge, wide fuse, and internal spars. The new one that is out in kit form has, sheeted leading edge, narrow fuse, spars top and bottom under sheeting, and gear straight down form leading edge of wing. Makes the S-1A Ring look pretty good.

I have been flying an old original CLOWN in carrier for over a year now. It has a OPS .15 and I put an OS RC carb on it. Still experimenting with props but APC 7X4 works best so far. Would like to try the 6.5X3.5 APC. Flew it at NW Regionals last year and Portland, OR contest last 2 years. Now working on scratch building a Sniper with a fox .15 BB., also a Brodak guardian with a ST G-34. Joe Just has helped me a lot. He built the Guardian wing and I am working on the rest. We are going to do a team one.

LAST EDITED ON May-02-06 AT 09:22 AM (CST)
 
Hey Dave, I thought I built the fuse, not the wing. I must be having another Senior moment I guess.
Joe
PS I figured out why the Portland score was lower than the previous year. I will explain in person.

Some of the older kits used rather massive machined balsa LE & TE, but no spars.

These are difficult or impossible to duplicate with current materials. Unless you can get 1" x 2" balsa planks and access to a large mill, hence, the current contruction with spars.

Uh-uh. Tony Drago used authentic wing construction in his CLC kit of the Super Clown. People build Ringmasters every day with a shaped LE from 1" square. There's virtually no reason why a Flying Clown or Super Clown can't be built per the PDQ original.

The first 200 Flying Clown kits we made available in the mid 80's all had the solid semetrical airfoil 1" leading edge. The material used was the most expensive part of the kit, but remained true to the original FC. It can be done, but it is nearly cost prohibited now days. I still believe that the runs we made were the best suited for racing.Some day I may have to tell about how and why we helped get Clown Racing underway.
JJ

Okay. So can someone explain why those 'Clown versions are acceptable in OTS when the S-1A (sheeted LE) Ringmaster isn't? (Not that I'd be caught dead with any of them; I'm just curious.)

Well, here's my take. The 3 versions of the FC that were produced by PDQ were all available before the cut off date for OTS. The sheeted version of the RM was not available until the late 1970's.
Joe

Now there's an excellent point. Thanks. Case closed.

So this means I can sheet and capstrip my S-1 Ringmaster and be legal.
Right, Mikey?
Chris...

LAST EDITED ON May-03-06 AT 01:01 PM (CST)
 
Chris: Not for OTS, you can't. See again the "late 1970s" bit. I can't see any reason why an S-1A couldn't fly in Classic, however (assuming that anyone would want to do that).

I don't like seeing OTS airplanes constructed in such a way that they don't look right. I can see where a kit builder might want to change construction for various reasons. However it should still look authentic. If a kit builder advertises a kit as Old Time Stunt Legal, but it has major cosmetic construction changes, I am inclined to say, "No way!". However, I'm sure many modelers purchase that kit for OTS in good faith. What the heck, let them fly and have fun.

My point is that if Brodak makes a kit of a Flying Clown, yet it has all of the leading edge sheeting and cap strips and is deemed legal, then I should be able to use those same structural differences on the S-1 kit and be legal.
I am not saying an S-1A kit. I am saying an S-1 kit with all of the sheeting deemed legal for the Brodak Flying Clown. Follow?

I should be OK, correct?

My logic is sound, if the Brodak Flying Clown is legal. No difference.

Chris...

The fun of C/L flying is that if you do not like incomprehensible rules, you can still have a lot of fun sport flying.

chanlau1