Profile stunters

Got to put my two cents worth in for the Brodak Profile Cardinal. One of the BEST flying stunters I've ever had. Easy to build light and straight. No "mods" necessary for an excellent stunter. Bigger than the warbirds, and will fly better. 40 FP will work fine.

Bill Hummel

If you prefer semi-scale models, the Brodak Lagg-3 is another capable profile, bigger than the other Brodak warbirds.

The Brodak profile warbirds are a definite step up from the Banshee. I have had three so far, all of them have been good flyers. My P-51 and Hurricane were powered by FP-40s and my Mauler is powered by a Fox 35. The Cardinal is another good model, although possibly matched better by an La-46 than an FP, judging by the numbers of people who have done so. I had a K&B 40 on mine. An often overlooked Brodak profile is the Tanager. I've never owned one, but all I've seen fly have worked very well. Its almost as large as the Cardinal, and less expensive. Almost any Brodak job will serve you well, whatever you chose.

Another to look at might be the Excalibur hand cut kit by Walter Umland - (My builditright on this forum)

[photo not recovered: image015.jpg]

>Got to put my two cents worth in for the Brodak Profile
>Cardinal. One of the BEST flying stunters I've ever had.
>Easy to build light and straight. No "mods" necessary for an
>excellent stunter. Bigger than the warbirds, and will fly
>better. 40 FP will work fine.
>
>Bill Hummel

I AGREE WITH BILL I HAVE A CARDINAL AND WITH A LA 40 IT FLIES GREAT AND ITS RIGHT OUT OF THE KIT. SEE YA NEAL BEEKMAN

LAST EDITED ON Aug-18-03 AT 01:13 PM (CDT)
 
What about Brodak's warbird series?

Jim P. has built and flown every one of the Brodak Warbird Series Stunters. http://www.tulsacl.com/photo4.html

I believe his favorite is the Zero with Brodak 40.
He has tried several power plants with all of them including OS 35 and 40 I believe. Maybe he will chime in.

I recently acquired a Brodak Pathfinder and just got back from the LHS where I purchased an LA 46 to mount on this beast. Flew it in Wichita with a SSW 40 and it was an awesome flyer.

BTW Gluedobbers, Russ has TWO Brodak Strega's sitting on his counter top as I write this. Who's going to go get one?

regards,
Rick "catdaddy" Blankenship

p.s. Mr Clean has an interesting series of construction photos for the Brodak P-51, but I've lost the link

Help Mr Clean!!!

For Mr. Clean's P-51B construction series, try:

http://www.northlandflyer.com/brodakp51/index.html

Have fun.

I'll stick that link back up. I had taken it down getting ready to redo the site, then I got another job and it got put on the back burner. No problem to repost it though.

Finaly weight by the way was 34 ounces according to the postal scales at work. I've got it listed several places as 34 and 35 ounces.

>JR
>Well, I just got my first Flapped plane in the air. (a Banshee with several
>of the posted mods) It flys great and I am looking for one more profile
>before starting a winter "project" Of course there is the twister but by the
>time I do all the Mods suggested I'll have a ton of time in it and that's not
>the point.

Did you ever think of building one Twister just exactly as it was designed? It has a short nose already, a fat airfoil, and flies very well in its original guise. The single "fix" that is seriously necessary is replacing the LG arrangement. I'd get dural gear and go from there. But at least find a STEEL coupler to replace the soft brass one in the kit it you use the stock gear legs!

> ... BTW OS 40 FP is the engine I plan to use.

As noted, the Twister starts out with a nose short enough that even if the FP 40 -is- two ounces heavier than a Fox 35, you shouldn't need a great gob of tail weight to balance.

.
Kiwi

John if your good friend did'nt bail on ya you would have a cardnial already on hand... Sorry bout that....

LAST EDITED ON Aug-18-03 AT 06:51 PM (CDT)
 
>What about Brodak's warbird series? Is this a step up-down from the >Banshee?
>BTW OS 40 FP is the engine I plan to use.

I was fortunate enough to build the prototype for the Brodak Zero. When Mike first drew it, I was up there for the Rainmaker Contest and picked up the fuselage drawings. This was, and still has been, the best flying profile I have ever had. Flew it until a line clip was hooked on take off resulting in the removal of the outboard wing panel.

The Cardinal is a great flying profile, but for the OS 40FP, I would definitely suggest a Warbird. The power to weight ratio will be better. I used an almost "worn out" OS 35S on mine, and it had no problems. Can't go wrong with the Nobler airfoil.

Bill

BTW: I'm doing another prototype Warbird right now.

Allan Perret
I have been flying an old (3 years) heavy (2 crashes) Tanager (48oz) with 40FP and it still flys good. It could easily be built in the low 40's and it would be a perfect (IMHO) match for the 40FP. Constant cord wing==easy construction.

The Cardinal is the way to go, but if you want a warbird, I have only built the P51 and it has a Nobler wing!! I believe Mike Garmon did this on purpose or so I was told. Thus you have a great plane. I also have one of the newest, the P40. It's bigger than the warplane series, but not much. Which ever Brodak kit you choose, read the instruction manual. Read the manual. Even I learned something LOL.

Another good P-40 is the Forerunner by John Lowry of Bear Mfg. See link below:

http://clstunt.com/htdocs/dcforum/DCForumID2/376.html

All the Brodak profile warbirds, with the exception of the Lagg and P-40, use the same Nobler derived wing. Mike Garmon took the Top Flite Gieseke Nobler kit and used tracings of the ribs from R-3 to the tips. This yielded a nominal span wing of about 45 inches, which is the base warbird wing. Different tip assemblies in the kits yield spans from 46 inches (Mauler) to 48 inches (Hurricane, P-51, etc). The co-designer of the warbird series argued for a 50" span like the Nobler, but was voted down as 46-48 was felt to be better if a Fox 35 was used. As supplied, the kit will allow the 50" wing to be made if you are using a heavier, more powerful motor. Just move each rib 1/8" inch out from where it is marked on the plans. The supplied spars and sheeting are long enough to accomodate this. They fly good either way....

LAST EDITED ON Aug-20-03 AT 09:13 AM (CDT)
 
Steve,

From what you wrote above, can I fairly surmise that the smaller Brodak Warbirds are tarted up Tutors? It certainly sounds like it.
If that is the case, any of the good .29's or .35's, including the Fox (or even a good FP .25) would be a great engine for those planes. Why do so many folks emphasize the schneurle .40's for them?

Additionally, to increase the span shouldn't one increase the size of each wing bay by 1/8"? If he merely moves each rib 1/8" from its plan location, it would seem to me that the only rib relocation that would add any span would be the tip rib. That would only add ¼" total.

Paul

>Steve,
>
>From what you wrote above, can I fairly surmise that the
>smaller Brodak Warbirds are tarted up Tutors? It certainly
>sounds like it.
>If that is the case, any of the good .29's or .35's,
>including the Fox (or even a good FP .25) would be a great
>engine for those planes. Why do so many folks emphasize the
>schneurle .40's for them?
>
>Additionally, to increase the span shouldn't one increase
>the size of each wing bay by 1/8"? If he merely moves each
>rib 1/8" from its plan location, it would seem to me that
>the only rib relocation that would add any span would be the
>tip rib. That would only add ¼" total.
>
>Paul

Hey Paul, how ya doin'.

Actually you increase the spacing between the ribs by 1/8" every 8 ribs then equals 1 inch of additional span.

For the Brodak warbirds, that could give almost 10 more square inches of wing area for every 8 ribs.

I'm wondering why everything is spinning around?

>Steve,
>
>From what you wrote above, can I fairly surmise that the smaller Brodak Warbirds
>are tarted up Tutors? It certainly sounds like it.

Actually, the way I understand it, if you compare airfoils on the Green Box Nobler, it and the Tutor are in close company. George wasn't a fan of "fat" airfoils. But the Giesecke Nobler is a lot closer to "modern fatness", and according to the word given here, Mike Garmon borrowed from that later design, which the Tutor hadn't done.

>If that is the case, any of the good .29's or .35's, including the Fox (or even
>a good FP .25) would be a great engine for those planes. Why do so many folks
>emphasize the schneurle .40's for them?
>
One of the things that doomed the Tutor's popularity was the great oil crunch of that period, when huge oil tankers were being built with our best balsa used for flotation or some such (what was wrong with good old styrofoam, I wonder?) Contest Grade balsa simply didn't exist for awhile back them. And the Tutor had a pretty small wing for a tall, heavy profile slab fuselage made from the quality wood available (not that TF was particularly good about contest weight wood, but they were better than average for their era, at least).

I would be happy to promote Fox 35's for full-fuselage Orientals, at a true 550 squares, because it's seemingly pretty easy to beat a 40 Ounce figure with one. On the other hand, even Brodak's wood makes the profile Oriental a 40-size plane - it builds heavier. I can understand the tendency to look for a safety margin of extra power (after all, I had one Skylark, the first one, with a Fox 35 in it. At 46 Ounces when it started out, there was no extra power available from the Fox for higher altitudes, for example).

With an extra 60-70 squares above a Tutor, the small Brodak Warbirds are perfect for 35's, just as intended. That's the same size as a Barnstormer, a Stuka Stunt, and a Black Tiger, all of which flew nicely on 35's, and could've flown as well or better on Fox 25's.

Incidentally, I saw a 500-plus wing area quote on Larry R's Midwest reproductions, and it was MY recollection that most of those were in the same 470-480 size range as the small Brodak kits.

.
Kiwi

If you can find a Prowler kit, get it. It's a foam wing, so even a scratch build is easy. It outflies the profile Cardinal, and it's small size makes it feel nicely overpowered with a good FP. Very forgiving of the less-than-delicate touch of a beginner, and a real weapon in the hands of an expert.

There's never been a profile as good as this one.

Rick Campbell

>If you can find a Prowler kit, get it. It's a foam wing, so
>even a scratch build is easy. It outflies the profile
>Cardinal, and it's small size makes it feel nicely
>overpowered with a good FP. Very forgiving of the
>less-than-delicate touch of a beginner, and a real weapon in
>the hands of an expert.
>
>There's never been a profile as good as this one.

I happen to be finishing up a Prowler which was purchased about 15 years ago. Very impressive kit. Mine is drilled for an FP 35/40 mount and was planning to use a SSW modified FP 35 although I do have an Aerosmith modified Magnum 40 which I'm also anxious to try.

Paul,

John Miller and Kiwi covered most of your questions. (rib spacing, etc) I guess lots of people put FPs on Brodak Warbirds just because they still flew good that way, and FPs were so abundant when these warbird kits came out. An OS 35S would probably be outstanding, and now the Brodak 40 in the same weight class as the S. I saw a Brodak Hurricane/Brodak 40 fly at a contest here and it looked like a great setup. These lighter motors, or even a FP 25, etc, are probably superior to the FP setup-but everybody around here had lots of FPs, so on they went. With the demise of the FP/Tower 40 line and the Brodak 40 becoming more abundant, you will probably see less and less 40 schneurle motors on these planes.
I've built just one Tutor, some years ago, but I don't think it has much in common with the Warbird series. If I recall the wing was a good bit smaller, somewhat thinner and with a good bit more sweep than a Nobler wing. Mine thankfully had decent wood and flew quite well with a Fox35.

Steve,

Allegedly, the Tutor had a Gieseke Nobler wing and moments on a smaller scale. From what I've read, Mike Garmon used the Gieseke Nobler wing around which he designed the smaller of the Brodak warbirds. The specs I've seen for the "small" warbirds regarding length, span and area, are very close to those I see for the Tutor kit I have. This is the basis for my conclusion.

By stating this conclusion, by no means do I mean to denigrate the Brodak offerings or Mr. Garmon, for, indeed, every (stock) kit-built Tutor I saw fly did so very well. In my experience, it was (is) an extremely capable stunt trainer (even with a Fox .35! ) and a similar airframe should perform at least as well.

Paul

It would make sense that the Tutor used a Gieseke Nobler wing airfoil, as I think the kits were released around the same time. At least it would make more sense than using the by then obselete Green Box wing. I wonder who designed the Tutor anyhow? But thats all way before my time in U/C, so others are gonna be more qualified to report on the Tutor development. I do still have the plans for the Tutor, I'll have to compare the airfoil to the Brodak Warbird and see how close they are. My flying partner goofs around with a kit wood built Tutor with an OS 35S on it. Even at 40 ounces, it flies pretty good, but there is some corner lacking at that weight. No apologies or clarifications needed on the Garmon front, I knew you were not impugning him in any way. Mike talked for hours to me about the warbird development over the phone, but I probably missed some of the details.

I have a Profil Tanager. It flys Great and w/ 52" wing span and large wing area it flys on a.46 T Tiger. I have to throttle it down, so a 35 to 40 engine would do good. It adjusts and trims well, Like all planes triming takes a little time to do.

Kiwi: Larry R may be correct. My Midwest Me-109 plans state that the wing area is 504 square inches.

Currell,

So do my P-63, P-51, and P-40 plans. (Actually, my plans don't state anything. Each plan has the area specification contained upon it. ) I always found it a bit odd, that all the large warbird wings had exactly the same area of 504 in², given their planform, i.e., leading edge sweep and tip shape, differences. Maybe only one is correct.

The Old Sourdough
Ruksakinmakiak, Alaska, US of A

I think Charlie Bauer designed the Tutor.

>Currell,
>
>So do my P-63, P-51, and P-40 plans. (Actually, my plans don't state anything.
>Each plan has the area specification contained upon it. ) I always found it
>a bit odd, that all the large warbird wings had exactly the same area of 504 in²,
>given their planform, i.e., leading edge sweep and tip shape, differences.
>Maybe only one is correct.
>
I had one of them that I started to build, began substituting wood for, and then got annoyed at because so little was usable (not even the decals), so I never finished it; I measured the chords at root & tip, and then calculated the area at less than 480 square inches. Similar to those Brodak warbirds, the same wing was in most of the Midwest kits, so I discounted any wing area claims made on the plans.

.
Kiwi

**

All of the Midwest type warbirds I make are strictly patterned from the original plan sizes. I really don't calculate the accuracy of the plan as stated by the designer. I simply use what's on the original box or plan when I make my model lists. All of the M.W. warbirds of the 48" wing span show 504 sq. in. and the Jr. warbirds of the 33" wingspan all show 224 sq. in. The A1e Skyraider in the 33" w.s that I make, I just used the P-51/33" wing area of 224 sq. in. as both wings are the same in the 48" series. Just a carry over from the big birds. It would be interesting to know if all of the wings are actually 504 and 224 sq's. Any one into that kind of thing? As in a previous reply on this forum on copyrights, does any one know if Vince Micchia is still around? He did most of this M.W. stuff and I really would like to know.

Larry: It would be nice to see the Tony kitted too. It was a Flying Models feature one month, around 1960. I have it somewhere. Currell

I am currently working on this and am waiting for plan copies. It won't be until next year though. I will retire in Feb. and will move to Sparks, Nevada. I should have more time to do this work after the move. Actually, I will probably shut down all kit making in December for a couple of months in order to move and get settled in.