SE 5a sorta-scale stunter?

I have been tinkering with this biplane and think it would make an excellent sorta-scale stunter. It has pretty good moments and the fuselage is square with a rounded turtle-deck. Simple to build. My question is: How thick should the wing rib be for a biplane? If a monoplane is 1 1/2" thick, do you halve that for a biplane? I know that is too simple, but any help would be appreciated. Also, does anyone know of any WWI biplane stunters? The Fokker D VII looks like nice moments as well.

Sig made nifty Spad and Fokker D7 profile bipes you could use for starters, or the 38 Special from Brodak. Finally, there was a SE-5 from Johnny Casburn models. They are/were all good sport flyers. The Flying Fool from Sterling was, I hear a real toad, being way too heavy for the size of the model.

Basically the airfoil should have the same percent thickness as a monoplane, something between 15% and 19% depending on how fast you want the plane to fly, and how much power you plan to put on it.

I would set the wings to 0-0, for want of knowing any better, and the intention to fly inside and outside maneuvers symmetrically.

LAST EDITED ON Oct-03-03 AT 03:34 PM (CDT)
 
>Sig made nifty Spad and Fokker D7 profile bipes you could
>use for starters, or the 38 Special from Brodak. Finally,
>there was a SE-5 from Johnny Casburn models. They are/were
>all good sport flyers. The Flying Fool from Sterling was, I
>hear a real toad, being way too heavy for the size of the
>model.
>

Who remembers the "Bipes-n-Tripes" published in the early '70s in American Aircraft Modeler, followed up by Monsters and Monoplanes?

All were sheet balsa profile WWI types for C*x Reed valve 0.049s. Really fun stuff, they encouraged the reader to try combat, or at least flying more than one plane in a circle, and preferably as many as possible. I know I have the plans for the Bipes-n-Tripes somewhere, never bought the Monsters-n-Monoplanes. These include more fighter types and some multi 049 engined WWI bombers like the Gotha. Not serious stunt stuff, but great vacant lot fun for cash starved kids such as myself.

Too Much Fun...

I well remember the article, built the twin bipe and had to add a 3rd baby bee on the nose of the main fuselage in order to get it airborne. I didn't use contest wood and it was a tad heavy, real fun getting 3 baby bee's started at the same time but it sounded real cool.

Ron B.
F4Fguy

The "Bipes&Tripes"article was by John Hunton,a very inovative designer and all round good guy.I contributed (un poco)to this effort in the late '60s/early'70s.The idea was to have a large number of WWI types of approximately equal performance for"combat".There were actually four series planned: Bipes&Tripes;Monsters&Monoplanes;Parasols&Pushers;andWorld War Wierdos.The titles are self explanatory.
Scaling was minimal,just enough to be identified,and construction was the same for all.Wood sizes were also the same and were specified in the"rules"of war.Only Cox reed valve engines were allowed.The designs were such that two planes could be built from one sheet of 1/4",and two sheets of 1/8"for the fighters,the bombers took twice that.

The "combat"was a "war"between two teams,one Allied,One Central Powers,assigned by coin toss.Each team was required to have two Allied and two Central Powers fighters and one bomber of each side.After the coin toss,all aircraft of Allied type went to the Allied team,and the others to the other team.Since you never knew which you would end up with,there was no point in "upgrading".

Each team consisted of three pilots and a pit man.Two pilots flew fighters and the third flew the bomber.The bomber could only change altitude in level flight.The fighters were free to do any thing they could.The object was to "get"the enemy bomber.The fighters role was to protect their bomber and to destroy enemy fighters.The pit man's job was to keep all his planes in the air by repairs and restarts.OH,did I mention that all six were in the air in the same circle at the same time.No streamers,the idea was to ram.Last team to be able to get a plane in the air wins.

We only did this two or three times,but I've never had so much fun or laughed so hard.Remember too,this was before CA so most repairs consisted of tearing off the offending part and throwing the plane back into the air.The Niuport actually "won"one war with only the inboard half of the lower wing still attached.Matches usually went on for hours or until one side got tired and surrendered.The Albatross DV and Niuport 28 are the only ones I have left,you can see they led a hard life.

Larry,

According to PdHM, designer of the Dancing Girl and another bipe that appeared in FM a within the last four years or so, both of those planes were dogs until he mounted the upper wing with one plus degree of negative incidence. I can't speak for the 38 Special as I've never built one.

Paul

You are right. I recall Peter Miller, designer of the Duchess and Cavalier bipes saying the same thing--possibly in Flying Models in the last couple of years.

Ummmm.. could you clarify that language a bit?

I think you meant "somewhat more than 1 degree of negative incidence", i.e. the leading edge of the top wing is lower than the trailing edge compared to the lower wing.

The "one plus" combined with "negative" threw me.

Hal Debolt found out the same thing with his original "Bipe" back in the '40s. With zero degrees, the model was a real toad- changing the angle made it come alive, and the "Bipe" became vastly popular- I think he sold over ten thousand kits in the first year of production alone.

Here's a nice one.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3148335479&category=34054

Yep Miller talks about the wing incidence in both articles. I have a Dancing Girl I built in the 70's, it will fly the pattern but you have to finesse it through the corners. May have something to do with it being overweight, the poor thing has been crashed and repaired so many times I don't think it has one single piece of wood that hasn't been broken and glued.

Interesting side note, I am planning on building another Dancing Girl and was thinking a 38 Special kit would give me a head start by using the wings. I compared the ribs from the 38 Special to the Dancing Girl plans and except for the spars they are identical.

DO A BI SLOB UP TO LOOK SORT OF SCALE AND YOU WILL HAVE A BIPE THAT WILL STUNT REAL GOOD. I HAVE A 38 SPECIAL WITH AN LA46 IT FLIES BUT MY BI SLOB FLIES THE PATTERN BETTER.

I'm still waiting for someone to do a Fairey Fantome' (AKA Feroce), probably the most beautiful of all biplane fighters, save for perhaps the pretty little Firefly.

Sterling kitted both the SE5a and the DVII. The SE5a is vintage legal and the DVII borderline. C/L plans for both aircraft were published in the UK in 49/50, the DVII being claimed to be fully aerobatic. The Sterling DVII went quite well with a Frog 500 but mine wouldn't do outside manoeuvres.
I think you would need to reduce the dihedral on the SE.

HI Glenn. A long time ago, far far away, a company called Sterling put out a few good looking planes, mostly racers, ala Mr. Mulligan, Pete, etc. Then they came out with an SE5A that was white in color. This was in the 1951/52 era, so it is OTS legal. It has symetrical airfoils, top and bottom and the lower ailerons are hooked up to act as flaps, tiny flaps, but flaps nevertheless. (is that one word?) Any how, I was given one with the caveat that I repair it and I am now in the process of preparing the stripped surface for covering. It was a heavy model, all balsa fuselage, and had a Fox .29 in it. I am tempted to install an K&B .61 in it. Just kidding. It was supposed to be a stunt flyer, but I have seen only one fly, in circles, and land. I built the later time era kit of the Steerling Neiuport 28. What a piece of heavy junk. Looked good, but flew like a porpoise. Balance, what's "thet", hah? Oh, well, I tried.
After I finish this SE5A, I will try it as a stunter. The upper wing does have a positive angle of attack, about 2 degrees.
Jack Sheeks put out a biplane in Flying Models and it had a reverse stagger to the upper wing. A very famous bipe and I can't think of the name. Most were bright yellow or red. Ah, Beech Stagger Wing. Yea, that's the one. Try it. Plans are still available from FM.

I presently have a Sig Fokker profile with a GMA ABC piston and liner, stuffer, hemi, etc. Haven't flown it much, but it is OK, much better than a Flying Fool (admittedly, damning with faint praise here).

This model represents a Personal First for me...the only model I've even flown that had a landing gear strut metal fatique failure. I assume it was metal fatique, because the music wire sheared cleanly off during a landing. Kind of like a real D-VII, come to think of it.

The Sterling SE-5 (mine had no flaps) wasn't that bad of a flyer, at least for a bipe. McCoy .35.

Jay: What is interesting about the Flying Fool that you kindly posted for us is that the builder came very close to duplicating the paint scheme of the original Sterling FF box art.

This is, at least from what I can see, one of the better "built" CL models that I have seen on ebay.

Anyone make out what the motor is?

Jake: You are right about the Fantome. You sent me an article about this plane once, and I have filed it in my "bipes" section.

Other asthetically pleasing bipes, at least to me:

High Speed Fury

Doolittle's Laird Super Solution Racer (may not have the name right)

Avia 534 (WW 2 fighter)

Waco Cabin

Nieuport 28

You?

Peter Miller wrote an article in Aeromodeller in July 1974 and published a plan in August 1974, plan number CL1230.
He shows an SE5A in the article but does not mention how it flew.
Basic numbers.......
Wing-span 36 inches, chord 6 and a quarter
LE of wing to rear of spinner 6 inches, TE of wing to LE of tail 6 inches all measured to bottom wing.....
Tailplane is 80 sq ins, half of which is elevator, which needs to swing 45 degrees either way.... YES 45 degrees.
Wings are 6 inches apart, top staggered forward 2 inches.
Top wing with 1 degree negative incidence.... adds stability like toe-in on car front wheels.
Thrust-line and tailplane in line, 3 inches above lower wing.
Remember this is for 30 year-old 35's Fox, K&B Stallion, old Merco etc.
I hope this helps

On the Fool...the head is rather prominent. OS Max 29 or 35? I, II or III?

Thanks for all the great advice fella's. I am a little confused about the top wing incedence though, is it 1 degree positive or negative? I have had a Flying Fool biplane and found it a lot of fun, but it was too fast. I thought it was because the wing was to thin. How thick should I make the wings, 1/2 as thick as a monoplane stunt wing?

As I understand it you need the wings to "toe-in" a little.
That is..... front of top wing should be closer to front of bottom wing than the rear of wings, only a degree or so.
This is from what I read, I have never tried a Bipe.
Makes sense for stability....
Imagine....you have the plane set up like this....
You are flying along straight-and-level...something happens so the plane deviates....Say the nose goes down ( for whatever reason )
In this case the lower wing will be "straight" so no action...
The top wing will have a larger profile to the "wind" so will push the plane nose-up.
Net result is that the plane will stabilise into level flight.

Has anyone built one of the profile Bi-planes from plans sold by Gary Weaver on eBay that he calls "Tiger 40"? I was thinking of building one for kicks & giggles. When I bought the plans I emailed Gary and he had not yet built or flown one and could not tell me how it would perform, so after making the ribs I put the project on hold. Should this also have the "negative incidence" on the top wing?

I like the looks of the Tiger 40, but I am not sure I am qualified to be the "test pilot" for his design....

After all 3 of the Sig Biplanes, (profile .19-.35) two Sterling Nieuport 28s, 4 or 5 Flying Fools, S-1 Ringmasters with filled wing blanks and fitted with bi-wings, (Even used a "Combat Kittens Twin Kit" for wings on one!) 2 Sterling Wacos, 1 Sterling Stearman PT17, and then the scratchbuilts, I did research on this very subject. My testplane was a Jet-type profile fuse, wings were scratchbuilt with 7/8" rib thickness, 23" W.S. lower, 28" W.S. upper. Top wing was attached on a wide swivel at center Cabane Strut, with outer struts adjustable R/C links. (4-40 w/ clevises, attaching to small control horns at the trailing edges of wings.
First flight was at zero incidence, plane flew like a Dolphin. (not the stunter) Lucky to land it, I then cranked in my 1 degree negative incidence, (raised trailing edge of upper wing) and it was like another airplane! No more 'rolling', tracked nicely, and had consistent pull. I had built some of the other Bipes with this incidence, but had begun to think it was an old wives' tale.
By the way, the wings are symmetrical.
Mike

excellent...thanks to everyone, and to you Mike for the perseverence!