Brodak 2004

What a day received ny new Stunt News along with my Brodak Entry Forms , life is great:) See Ya At Brodaks , Neal

Neal:
I am listed as the ED of the two racing events....Clown and Foxberg. I am still awaiting the Foxberg rules...I'll give it another week, then either steal Phil's or make my own up entirely.

See Ya

I agree with Jim. I have a MAX .30S on my son's Brodak Tomahawk and it does a great job. I have an FP25 on his Sig Skyray and it also is a good combination. 41 ounces is too much weight for the 30S to pull in the more demanding manuevers. Try a MAX 35S, 40H, FP25, FP35, or FP40 (one of Len's would be very nice. I had a Fox .35 on a Miss BJ profile that weighed 39 ounces and it worked fairly well except for the 'burp.' The Tutor has less wing to carry the weight than some others in its class. They are pretty good flyers, though.

Kiwi:

You must be thinking of a different Miss BJ than I built. Mine is the Bobby Jones profile from the 1970's that Larry Cunningham based his Mo'best series on. Nice sized wing on the order of 525 sq in or so. 39 oz wasn't a bad weight for it, although I could have gotten it down to 35-36 oz with more judicious paint application.

>You must be thinking of a different Miss BJ than I
>built. Mine is the Bobby Jones profile from the
>1970's that Larry Cunningham based his Mo'best
>series on. Nice sized wing on the order of 525 sq
>in or so.

You're right, I had a smaller plane in mind when I said that, and now cannot guess what it might've been. For awhile there in the late 1970's to early 1980's everything seemed to be named "Miss This or That."

Of greater interest in the long run is the stunt engine symptom usually referred to as the Fox 35 outside turn burp.

I'd included a comment about that in my message:

> > P.S. I never had profile engine burping with the old square wedge fuel tanks, with standard atmospheric venting. But several of my 4-2-4 "stunt run mode" engines have acted less friendly with some uniflow setups and definitely disliked the very deep-bodied Veco "profile" fuel tanks. I've had OS engines that burped & snorted when matched to deep-section fuel tanks.

That was an exaggeration. I had one Max-S 35 on one plane with a T-28 Veco tank that hated the tank the way my Fox 35's always did.

I have a "NIB" Tutor that I have been eager to get to since I got it four years ago. I noted with interest, therefore, the comments of KIWI and PEABODY about Tutors being "notoriously heavy", at least for the wing area.
With those comments in mind, it occurred to me that when I get to building the Tutor it would be a good candidate for a Millennium wing, a Larry Cuningham/Mo'Best fuselage, and a built-up horizontal stabilizer. Looking at the plans for the Tutor, I can see no reason why those modifications could not be made.
The question then becomes: Would the extra effort be worth it? If, as a result of those modifications and judicious wood selection, the weight could be reduced to the low 30's, would the performance of the plane be noticeably improved?
Thanks for any comments or suggestions.

There are particular (fairly light) wing loadings that seem to work best with the thin airfoil that the Tutor has. Essentially, it's a profile Nobler with the wing about 25% smaller than the Green Box version (about 530 squares, not the oft-advertised "550" size).

They will fly decently at 35 ounces, and really very well at 32 ounces. Over 38, and they aren't nearly as aerobatic as they could be - I have no personal knowledge of how any of them might fly at 30 ounces or less. Shortly after they were released, it was a popular modification to extend the wing one additional bay on each side, but I can't recall what the claimed wing area was with that change.

K.

KIWI: Thanks for your input. Do you perhaps recall whether folks who increased the wing span of a Tutor also increased the span of the stab/elevators (maybe a half inch port and starboard)? And the flaps: Did they extend them to full span or did they fix the portion of the flaps on the added bay?
I have never built or flown a Tutor nor have I seen one fly. So, I guess I still have the question: If built lightly, is the Tutor a good enough plane to justify a Cunningham/MO'BEST type fuselage, millennium wing, and built-up stab? (For reference's sake, "good enough" for me means moving from the beginner's pattern to learning the modern.)
Thanks for any further thoughts that you might have.

> also increased the span of the stab/elevators (maybe a half inch port and starboard)?

It's my recollection that the size increase was even greater than that.

> And the flaps: Did they extend them to full span or did they fix the portion of the flaps on the added bay?

Extend the flaps almost all the way to the tip, adding about 3/16" to the chord of the outboard flap.

> I have never built or flown a Tutor nor have I seen one fly. So, I guess I still have the question: If built lightly, is the Tutor a good enough plane to justify a Cunningham/MO'BEST type fuselage, millennium wing, and built-up stab? (For reference's sake, "good enough" for me means moving from the beginner's pattern to learning the modern.)

Since it's a sized-down Nobler, it has all of the plusses and minuses of that design, which continues to be the design that holds the record of the most stunt events won, placed, and shown. So: yes, it's good enough to be worth that extra effort, and it certainly will reward the builder who puts forth the effort.

The Tutor, as a slightly scaled down Gieseke Nobler, is an excellent trainer/flyer. I watched three local flyers learn the pattern with this plane about ten years ago. Only one built the plane from a kit. The others scratchbuilt them using the first's plans and home cut, non-cored foam wings. These, I'm certain, weighed more than the stock kit version, but still flew very well, nonetheless. The planes were powered with stock Fox .35's (2) and OS Max-S .35's (1). Even though I never built or flew one myself, I was very impressed by these Tutors and the way they flew. If I were you, I'd build your kit and use it up, after making patterns of the parts not shown full size on the plans. That way if you like the way it performs, you can duplicate it by scratchbuilding others.

If you have none of the engines I've mentioned, you might very well look at the OS FP .20 and/or .25. The Thunder Tiger duplicates of them would be an equally good if not better choice.

I have a "NIB" Tutor that I have been eager to get to since I got it four years ago. I noted with interest, therefore, the comments of KIWI and PEABODY about Tutors being "notoriously heavy", at least for the wing area.
With those comments in mind, it occurred to me that when I get to building the Tutor it would be a good candidate for a Millennium wing, a Larry Cuningham/Mo'Best fuselage, and a built-up horizontal stabilizer. Looking at the plans for the Tutor, I can see no reason why those modifications could not be made.
The question then becomes: Would the extra effort be worth it? If, as a result of those modifications and judicious wood selection, the weight could be reduced to the low 30's, would the performance of the plane be noticeably improved?
Thanks for any comments or suggestions.

New Fuselage, new wing, new areas, new flaps, new tail, sounds like George Washington' Hatchet of the air.....A new airplane. Not a bad idea, and I suspect lots of 'new' designs grew up just that way. Call it something of your own, too, and the world will have a new profile stunter. Not a bad idea.

I am flying one that weighs 33oz. that I built from a kit. One note though, don't taper the fuselage toward the tail as I did - it needs the weight there to balance the nose.

Forget building up a horizontal stab and elevator also unless you are going for increased thickness in the airfoil.

I use Dave Brown lectra-lite wheels to keep the weight in front of the CG Down.

Flys a pattern well with a bone stock Fox 35 with OS 25 needle valve asby and a GMA pinch corner tank that is uniflow vented.