Yet another fantastic Brodak kit...

Just received my Fancy Pants kit in the mail yesterday. I just love the smell of a new kit when the box is first opened. I guess this is why man or sometime considered 'dogs'. Our sense a smell as a way of exciting us in a way that other things cannot!

Upon inspection of this kit I find yet another excellent quality product. I am just so spoiled by Brodak kits! Lets see, this will make it the 7th Brodak kit in a little over two years.

I have decided to make this FPants a hotrod sport machine with FP.35 and a Leonard tube muffler which emulates the look and feel of a header exhaust. I was first thinking of giving it a 40's era Luftwaffe appearance, but now I am thinking 60's era muscle car, flames and all...

This one is gonna be fun.

Have fun!

See Ya

I replicated the box art diamond motif on the original Consolidated kit as closely as I could. Unusual design.

Have a Sandcast Fox in it right now. Agree that hatching the tank area is a good idea. I had t replace mine; major Xacto surgery. Currell

The Fancy Pants has 430 square inches, a little small, maybe? But...

When we did the prototype work to develop the Magnum 53 engine, we put it on Matt's refinished (and now somewhat overweight) Stuka 96 at 570 square inches. The 53 was 2 1/2 ounces than the previous 35 FP used on this ship, and yet it flew the plane beautifully, with its 13 inch 3-bladed prop and all. I would recommend it. I see no difference between a modified, hopped up 53 on a 570 square inch plane or a modified, hopped up 35 on a 430 square inch plane.

But one misconception we need to get out of our mind, adding power does not mean adding speed. You control speed with prop pitch. But, yes, you can go to longer lines, and we use about 67 foot lines (handle to center of pland) with that engine and the props we recommend. That will give you 5.3 to 5.4 second lap times even with the Fancy Pants. It can't go any faster when set up properly. The prop will limit your speed.

Bingo! That is PRECISELY my thoughts about this airplane/combination as well.

Yes, speed can be controlled with prop pitch. This is something I intrinsically knew, and was reaffirmed by much of my correspondence with you. Thanks again Mr. Stuka!

I PREFER to fly on longer lines, AND am not so concerned with a perfect 'stunt friendly' lap speed. My opening post illustrates this.

Not all of us flyers are devoted pattern people. Some of us are motivated by other flying fancies.

The Fancy Pants w/ FP .35 will be a DYANMITE combination...heck I put an FP. 40 on a Brodak Buster...AND can fly at 85 mph, or 65 mph all by changing the PROP pitch. I must say that the Buster with the FP.40 / 11x6 prop on 70ft lines is a BLAST! And handles the wind quite well.

So, why would many on this board think an FP.35 is too much for a Fancy Pants when many know that a Buster flies just fine with an FP.40, which is actually a SMALLER plane then the Fancy Pants?

I always have prefered to have the maximum power for an airframe (within weight spec//resonably) and tune down with prop and other technque then the opposite.

Same thing holds true with astronomical telescopes. Bigger is ALWAYS better, and if the aperture of the instrument is being limited by turbulent atmospheric conditions, you can always stop it down, thus making it smaller, and more tolerable to the poor atmosphere.

But you can't do the opposite! And when the air is still and transparent, big aperture RULES the night sky.

This analogy works well with respect to airplanes. More power, more flexibility.

I get a kick out of looking at the kit boxes for some of these old time ships... designed for use with .19 to .60 size engine. Yeah, right! With the OTS ships coming out of the ignition era having short nose,long tails, and the power differences of today's slightly heavier engines, I think most OTS ships will benefit! A fox 35 or DoubleStar 40 in a Jamison will need nose weight if built light.I recently used an bone stock OS LA.40 (sorry Len, it was a trade!) in an All American Sr, and it turned out to be an awsome combo. It held a super steady speed, like it was on the pipe!***...And the ship still had more turn than I knew what to do with.

***The jury really is still out on this one, I know it ran great in this combo, but my AA SR only weighed 28 Oz all up, and the engine didn't have to work at all. Put my LA 40 in a 50 Oz Nobler runnig hard with a cowl and everything, and I can't say how well it would do, or how long it would last.

Hey buddy, did u watch Pearl Harbor again? Let me reiterate: we had the last word dude, remember the words Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Look at the numbers..

Pearl Harbor: 2300 dead Americans
Hiroshima/Nag.: 200,000+ dead Japs.

Lopsided eh? Thats okay, paybacks are a --tch right?

Also, dear airplane/axe friend, when are you going to get through that big skull of yours that I dislike Fox 35s? I wouldn't buy one if Abe Lincoln made it himself!

Peace Homey..

The Fancy Pants "looks right" with older style engines sticking out of its upright mount. I think it will fly just fine on a decent 19 or 20. If I were planning to put something seriously different up front, like an FP 35/40, I think while building it I would lengthen the tail some and move the bearers up so the motor would stick out the bottom in a more modern style to match the engine.

The four-bolt GH Torps upped the weight factor to 7 for the 35's, slightly more for the 29's, and the 35X's/ 36X's started out at 7 1/2 ounces. FP 40's weigh right at 8 ounces, and the 35's are just slightly heavier than that.

The various slower-turning, low compression "stunt" engines that would perform a natural 4-2-4 (- not even when we include the Testors McCoys -) were never the big sellers, BUT they did tend to have the longest useful lives, and a serious percentage of older modellers value that tendency.

I wore out about six sets of cylinders and pistons and two cases for the Torp 35's I used up in a few short years from 1954 to 1957, running them hard, on high nitro, low oil, fuels like Missile Mist and Blast. The three- bolt Veco and Torp engines did not run that hard, and didn't encourage their users to do so to the same extent.

(Although they weren't 4-2-4 motors, and thus would be "speedy" engine choices for a Fancy Pants.)

When the Fox "X" motors came along, they stood up to the hard usage better than the Torps had done. I used them for fun flying as well as some combat. But I was in a minority among most of the other modellers I knew, who weren't anywhere nearly as competitively oriented as I was. When Slow Combat was still fairly new, many fliers tried to keep on running slow engines, and using hopefully superior turning respenses to equalize things.

Bill Estill was both a reluctant convert to hot ST 35's, and a front runner in developing foamie winged models. His planes were excellent, but his engines were turkeys.

The Fox 35 earned its place in model history. They are neat old engines. I have several. But in general I have never used them nearly as much as I have my other engines, new or old (some exceptions for short periods and special purposes). Looking down on them for any reason doesn't make any particular sense to me at all!

Kiwi

Paul is a friend of mine, and we have had many arguments over the Fox 35. I have one and I like it, except for the burp. So far, I've only used it on a profile stunter.

I also have the Brodak Fancy Pants kit, I bought it with the intention of using the Fox in it. I plan on using a clunk tank with uniflow plumbing, and running muffler pressure. I HOPE this will minimize the Fox burp. Also, the full fuselage will handle vibration better than a profile.

It is my experience that the Fox .35 exhibits little or no tendency to burp when mounted upright or inverted. I almost always get the burp with a side mounted Fox .35 but not with the upright mounted one on my current Banshee. The OS Max-S .35 has always run with much less of an obvious burp side mounted for me than the Fox .35.

Feed your Fox .35 the recommended fuel and, if it is completely broken in, You'll love it on your Fancy Pants, plus you'll have a lot fewer problems getting the ship set up correctly than your buddy Paul will. Maybe that will help some in the discussions/arguments you fellas will have in the future.

have a lot fewer problems getting the ship set up correctly than your buddy Paul will.

******Am I to assume that you have tried this combination before, or you know someone that has? If not, how can you say this with such conviction?

If you read some of the other posts on this subject, I mentioned my success using a Buster with an FP.40. That plane turns very quickly and smoothly, and this is a smaller plane then the fancy pants including a shorter tail moment and less wing area. The airfoil itself is somewhat similar in that it is nearly equally thin..like many of the older planes.

Plus, as I said, am not all that interested in making it the perfect pattern plane, but more of just a good looking hot rod sport plane. I think the airplane with the FP.35 will be just fine...

"Transgression and progression; something of change in and with new methodology, without dogma, that makes many minds think fresh and anew"

I have no doubt that you will be able to make your Fancy Pants fly with your FP .35. However, from what I've seen with a local flying buddy's experiences with the same plane and the FP .35, i.e., the fact that he needed to add two± ounces of weight to balance the plane any where near a reasonable point to get an acceptable turn rate, I personally wouldn't use that combo. So equipped, the plane flew much faster than he liked, and, in the end, he replaced the FP .35 with a Max-S .35, removed most of the extra dead weight and had a much more satisfactorily flying airplane.

I see no reason to go to extra trouble to MAKE something work when other combos will work better. If I wanted to fly a Fancy Pants with a modern engine, I'd use the much lighter FP .25 or one of its clones, and run it in the high RPM/low pitch mode.

Please note that I haven't tried this plane at all, but my thoughts ARE based on observations of another's experience and ultimate conclusion. I do not criticize you for your choice of the combo. I merely give my opinion based on those observations. I choose to have the airplane weigh as little as possible to better its performance in my eyes. Different strokes for different folks.

I can tell by your many knowledgeable/helpful posts that you have been doing this hobby for a very long time. I could be wrong, but the experience profusely bleeds through your text.

My first real CL experience dates back to about 1986 when I purchased my first 35 sized airplane. The hobby shop owner originally sold me a Fox .35 with the airplane. I built the plane and tried flying it with the Fox. I had lots of problems with the engine. I promptly returned the engine to the hobby store and he swapped it out with an FP .35..in fact, the same FP .35 that is slated for my fancy pants. The moment I saw the OS I could see that it was a far more modern, and better quality engine. The machining was superior, the materials seemed superior, the cyclinder itself had twice the amount of cooling fins, and it's movement, yet to run, seemed better. I took it home and mounted it on my cosmic wind. It started perfectly the first time, and within a hour I was flying my new plane and lovin' every minute of it.

I haven't looked back since. It's obvious my friend that you hold much sentimental value with respect to Fox 35s. I can seriously respect that, and do understand that the engine carries with it a great legacy of CL flying from past.

But for I, who witholds no sentiment towards Fox 35s, prefer to use engines that work with near perfection right out of the box, and continue to do so with care. FPs fit that bill perfectly. I own 5 of them and love em' to death. They all work perfectly all the time as long as their clean, and with good glow plug.

I am not concerned so much with nostalgia, I just want a cool, fast, good flying bird, and this seems to be the right ticket to what I want.

The old Fox .35 Stunt works just fine too, "out of the box", especially on an upright mount. I have had them all the way back to the "sandcast" (still have one). I think I still have 4 of them, plus the sandcast and one .29 Stunt. Feed it the right fuel, and it still works. I want to point out that the old dog won PA at the Australian Nats last year (OLD airplane too!, A "Coy Lady" from 1959).

The Foxes are as much "out the box" motors as the FPs, except that the FPs will break in quicker. I'm sorry to hear that you had problems with your Fox.

Don't judge motors by the amount of cooling provisions. Duke Fox balanced weight, cooling ability and structural rigidity in an artful way. Fox was one of the first "uniblock" engines. OS stuck with separate cooling fins a lot longer, and, I think, was influenced by the Stunt. The OS 35-S of the late 60s-70s certainly seems to be a response (and an excellent one) to the Stunt. In the opinion of some, anyway. Currell

Baatan death march, didn't we cross this before? What about the Euro-American's near completed GENOCIDE of the American Indian?

Everyone in this world has dispicable blood on thy hands homey!

This topic is FINISHED, and MY LOGIC, as usual, RULES!

ha ha ha ha ha..

The OS .25FP's weight is very close to that of a Fox Stunt.