Kit Wood or Pick Wood?

Not new to models but, new to stunt. I have just discovered the joys of flying a really light stunt ship as opposed to the lead sleds I had before. Wow, what a difference.

So, how do you like the wood in the Brodak kits? I have a profile Cardinal kit I got as a package deal I couldn't pass up. I might not build it because, I think it might be heavy and, I really wanted a profile Tanager anyway.

I was thinking of getting the plans and building the Tanager from scratch in hopes of making it very light. Is it worth the trouble or, should I just get a kit?

Thanks,
Giffy

P.S. Anyone want to send me their old Tanager plans?

I have built three Cardinals from kits and one from scratch. In all the kits, there was one piece of wood I felt was too heavy. In each case it was one of the flaps. I just put the heaviest piece on the outboard side if possible or replaced it. Other than that, at times I felt some of the wood might be too light, such as the fuselage. Virtually every Brodak kit I have looked at or built has had excellent wood in it. Possibly the only other kits with better wood are the hand selected, lazer cut kits of Builditright. My first Cardinal came out at 40.8 oz ready to fly sans fuel. The rest are in the 43 to 46 oz range and with ST .46, OS .40 FP or OS .46 LA engines, they have never been heavy. Just be sure to follow the instructions and you will have a great plane.

Just checked out the Cardinal kit today. The flaps, one elevator and some planking is a hard C grain which I'll probably replace. The fuselage is a bit heavy but, I can carve some shape into the cross section to compensate. All in all not bad. Is there a better way to do those solid wing tips? I think I'm going to make different wing tips, put the rudder on backwards, add a funny canopy and call it the Blue Jay.

Is there a reason to have so much fuselage/rudder area behind the elevator hinge line? It looks like you could move the rudder forward a little and, cut alot of weight off the back and underside of the fuselage.

Giffy

LAST EDITED ON Aug-17-03 AT 07:10 PM (CDT)
 
Is there a better way to do those solid wing
>tips? I think I'm going to make different wing tips, put the
>rudder on backwards, add a funny canopy and call it the Blue
>Jay.
>
>Is there a reason to have so much fuselage/rudder area
>behind the elevator hinge line? It looks like you could move
>the rudder forward a little and, cut alot of weight off the
>back and underside of the fuselage.
>
>Giffy
>
>------------------------------
>I Fly

Giffy, kit bashing is an old and honored tradition. Please let me offer the following suggestions in regards to the Cardinal as kitted by Brodak.

The shapes as kitted lend the distinctive looks that say this is a Cardinal. The design has proven to be a very good, if not excellent, flying plane, make sure the changes you are considering will not only change the looks, but add to, rather than take away, from the fine flying characteristics the designer worked so hard to provide.

There are lots of ways to do the wing tips. They are done as they are to make it easier to diecut the parts. You could use blocks of soft balsa split, hollowed, and glued back together. I've seen them built up similar to the Nobler tips.

Changing the shape of the rudder is fine, but be careful that there is about the same amount of area, in the same place.

Shortening the tail, or removing the material behind the elevator hingeline, could very well make a large difference with the plane. Most Cardinals seem to require some tail weight for final trim. Removing material would likely require more dead weight to be added to achieve proper balance. weight removed from the wrong area is not going to equal a savings by the time you add weight to get it to balance.

So go ahead and make some changes, just give some thought to how your changes might affect the balance and flying properties of the design. I've known of planes altered without forethought turning out to be a lot less than what was started with.

I'm wondering why everything is spinning around?

>
>There are lots of ways to do the wing tips. They are done as
>they are to make it easier to diecut the parts.

You could
>use blocks of soft balsa split, hollowed, and glued back
>together. I've seen them built up similar to the Nobler
>tips.
>

here Ya go John, a little help on the split wing tip method

Nice, but I still can't see light through it!

Before you glue it on the airplane, add a few coats of clear dope to the interior surface.

[photo not recovered: 3e69bb3870f12ad5.jpg]

"If you lend someone $20, and never see that person again, it was probably worth it."

>Just checked out the Cardinal kit today. The flaps, one
>elevator and some planking is a hard C grain which I'll
>probably replace.

Don't outsmart yourself trying to save weight. Replacing the flaps to save an ounce, but winding up with flexibility problems is a poor tradeoff.

And the flexing Brett points out goes big-time for the aft fuse area as Ty notes below.

Anything that lightens the fuse aft will probably make it more flexible--its long, and the horizontal tail group is large. These can twist and wobble alot in flight.

If I'm not mistaken, Windy recommends 1/2 or 3/4 oz glass cloth on the fuse. This will add alot to the rigidity of the structure.

FWIW

Giffy be glad the fuselage is hard. My first one was so light it flexed in flight under load, something you do not want. I'd keep the flap, especially if it is the outboard flap. That weight won't hurt there. As to the tips, I had some second thoughts, but decided to use them as shown and they turned out very light once they were hollowed out as per the instructions. The outboard tip is needed tip weight, so less lead is used for trim. This is a great flying plane stock, and you will see at least 40% Cardinals at larger contests. It is one of the best profiles to come along and is in good company with the Magician in its heyday.
The wheel pants add to the overall look, but like most pants or spats, can be a royal pain in the grass. I never seem to get them just right, so now I leave them off.

> My first one was so
>light it flexed in flight under load, something you do not
>want. I'd keep the flap, especially if it is the outboard
>flap. That weight won't hurt there.

The flaps need to be well-matched in compliance, which usually means that they are well-matched in weight. Having one stiffer than the other will tend to cause all sorts of problems. Same with most things - that's why I don't necessarily recommend putting all the "heavy parts" in the outboard wing. It might save a miniscule amount of tip weight (or if taken to the extremes, cost you by requiring weight in the inboard tip), but it can easily result in trim issues due to differential flexibility.

I am finishing up a Brodak Cardinal right now. The only pieces of wood that did not satisfy me were the pieces for the wheel pants. I don't have a final weight yet, but it appears that it will be fairly light. Build the Cardinal. They are a great flying airplane.

Same here. The wood in my Legacy kit was VERY good.

>I am finishing up a Brodak Cardinal right now. The only
>pieces of wood that did not satisfy me were the pieces for
>the wheel pants. I don't have a final weight yet, but it
>appears that it will be fairly light. Build the Cardinal.
>They are a great flying airplane.
>
>Bill Hodges

What he said. I want one. Steve