Brodak Viking

Just started to build one, does anybody have info about the plane. What power set-ups work, etc.....

I was thinking about using a 40FP or a Brodak 40.

Thanks in advance!!!

I have a ST 46 in my Viking, works fine. The 40 size engines seem
too weak to pull this plane with its big wing. Built feather-lite,
the 40 may be ok, build it, fly it, and find out. Good luck:-)

>Just started to build one, does anybody have info about the
>plane. What power set-ups work, etc.....
>
>I was thinking about using a 40FP or a Brodak 40.
>
>Thanks in advance!!!
>
>John

John,
I am currently running a Fox 36 (CS Mk V)in mine with plenty of power. Last time I weighed it, it was around 42 oz. It would seem that the 40s would work well. Note that mine is the CLC version, but that should not matter too much. Good luck.

Combat Specials, 40s and 46s in a Viking??!! My, oh my...

While a Zilch X has retired my own Viking, the latter was built for, and still has installed, a Fox 35. It flies well enough that a couple years ago I could/woulda/shoulda won the OTS event at the NW Regionals. And may well have done so except for Chris Cox borrowing the model, putting up one test flight and then winning the event.

While such may have been limited to my kit, or crummy building skills, or something else unknown to me at this time, I did end up with "S-" shaped ribs in one panel. At one point in time the Viking was flying a little bent, I was pulling warps in and out by heating the Micafilm, just as one would do with any other film. This lead to strenuous duty for several ribs, leading Heavy Stunt to one time ask, "Is that the kept-balsa building process which left your wing ribs all squiggly?"

The ribs for my Zilch Z were undercut 1/16", narrow capstrips installed. I don't believe anyone has ever noticed this change; the wing simply looks as if it were built with 3/32" ribs, even though the capstrips are nearly 1/8" wide.

Gang,

I just went and looked at the Brodaks' site...aaahhhh...whats a Viking?

I missed it...if it's at the Brodaks site, I went right past it...and am not familiar with the Viking, is this an OTS model?

Picture would help,

Thanks

LAST EDITED ON Jul-05-03 AT 10:44 PM (CDT)
 
>I just went and looked at the Brodaks' site...aaahhhh...whats a Viking?
>
>I missed it...if it's at the Brodaks site, I went right past it...and
>am not familiar with the Viking, is this an OTS model?
>
Think of what a Chief looked like, wingwise at least, and make it without any flaps, and with a slighly thicker wing. (There are some few quibbles that I have with the variations that Brodak introduces in the design that differ from the priginal kit.) Simple box fuselage, upright engine, straight constant-chord wing shape. Yes, it was produced before 1952 and is eligible for OTS.

The earliest of these was flying when large sparkies were still used, so plenty of the oldest Vikings had 60's mounted on them. It came with husky 1/2 by 1/2 maple bearers, and 1/4" balsa fuselage sides, but its production overlapped well into the 1950's, when it was flown with glow 29's and 35's, and wasn't considered too large for those.

(That latter was added because of Watt Moore's comment, as follows:

> I have a ST 46 in my Viking, works fine. The 40 size engines seem
> too weak to pull this plane with its big wing. Built feather-lite,
> the 40 may be ok, build it, fly it, and find out.

. . and I didn't agree with that at all, although there were 29's I would've considered to be at best "marginal" for a Junior Streak in 1955, like any OK Cub {or any O&R} smaller than a 60.)

.
Kiwi

If I remember correctly, it is one of Dale Kirn's designs. I still like his "Belfry Bound" best though!.
Hey Joebellcrank, where are them plans for this puppy!

I inherited one of Eddy's old Vikings, which he ran a FOX59 in, and ran it well enough for him to take home hardware in the Expert and Classic PA classes with it too. So I put one of my FOX59's in it, and can tell you it is a very FUN combination with a BY&O 12x6. Turn's on a dime and gives a nickel change. If you can dig one up somewhere or already own one, it's a blast.
EricV

I have the wing built, seems to be light. Going to install the 40 LA or 46 LA simply because I have them in stock.

North Carolina's Tommy Luper had one of these powered by a Lew Woolard Fox 40. It certainly did not lack power, and the plane/engine package racked up an obscene total number of flights. Toward the end of its career the wings would bend alarmingly in maneuvers but the model kept on trucking.

The Brodak version is built different, the wing has the leading edge sheeted back to the spar, the 1/4" spars have shear-webs. Very strong wing, I'm surprised how light it turned out. The Brodak kit had some very light sheeting for the leading edge, very nice kit.

>The Brodak version is built different, the wing has the leading edge
>sheeted back to the spar, the 1/4" spars have shear- webs. Very strong
>wing, I'm surprised how light it turned out. The Brodak kit had some
>very light sheeting for the leading edge, very nice kit.
>
That addition to the wing makes the Brodak version of the Viking "look wrong" compared to the pictures inside my mind of the only ones I saw when the original kit was still in production, so even if Brodak's kit is the basis for a Viking that I do, I want to leave all or most of it off mine.

.
Kiwi

Kiwi,

Yes it is wrong. I have one of the Brodak kits too. John Ramsden showed me a picture of two he build with leading edge sheeting that only goes back about 1&1/4 or 1&1/2 inches from the leading edge. That one looks a lot more like the Viking is suppose to look in the wing planform. He also used 1/16 X 1/8 or 3/16 cap strips. I plan on duplicating what John did with the Leading Edge sheeting. It wouldn't be hard to do with the Brodak Kit version. Just move the 1/4" spars forward and cap strip over the old spar holes. Also since the Viking wing has some center section strength issues I plan to use some sub-sparring in the center section and use the suspension method to mount the bellcrank. Hope this helps some.

I guess Brodak changed the wing construction to strengthen the structure, which it does.

Yes,

It does strengthen the wing, however it changes how the wing planform looks from the leading edge front view. John's method does not change this - the covering sag between the ribs is still present with John's method. I don't think a Brodak kit version would be legal under GSCB rules.

Sure it's legal, it says so right on the box "Old Time Stunt Legal". Are you telling me that Brodak is wrong, your not......are you???

There are two sets of Old Time rules - PAMPA's and the Garden State Circle Burners. GSCB's rules are more stringent than PAMPA's rules. For example. The Jamison Special and Humongus are not GSCB eligible planes due to the fact they were neither kitted or published before 12-31-52. Hopefully Zambelli or someone from the GSCB's will jump in here and explain the differences between PAMPA's rules and the GSCB's old time rules and why I think the Brodak kit version would not be eligible under their rules. Under PAMPA rules just about anything that the CD O.K.'s to compete is eligible.