How Difficult Was it for You to Build Your First Full-bodied...

We are in the process of redoing the plan and instructions on the "Das Stunter" design, which prompts me to ask these questions.

When you built your first full-bodied, coupled flap stunter:

1) What was it?
2) How difficult was it for you to build it? And
3) What problems did you incur?

Some people have problems with alignment, or getting the wing or fuselage warped.

Some have problems with instructions.

Some have problems with the intricacy of the design.

If you had problems, what were they, and what would you have liked to see changed? (This could be a help to current kit manufacturers if we gave them this feed back as well.)

My first full bodied stunter was a Sig Superchipmunk. Fuselage construction was easy with the exception of the planking of the top of the fuselage. There I was careful to replace the kit wood with butter-soft contest wood so I could make the required bend without cracking the sheeting. I imagine that procedure would frighten off most rookies-a carved top block is much easier and less intimidating.
when kitting a stunter care must be made to match the hardness of the fuselage sides so the rookie doesen't have to fight warps right out of the box-I've seen several kits where the wood for the sides was not well matched. The 1/4" stringers used in the sig stunters does make the sides a bit easier to work with I think.

Mine was a Jetco Dolphin around 1972 or so. Don't remember any specific problems-it went together and flew for quite a while as my only actual dedicated stunter at that time in my flying career, entered a few contests but not much stunt was being flown around here at the time. The Dolphin is a very easy builder. I also bought a green box Nobler about that time, looked at the plans and parts and never built it.
I built a Das Ugly Stunter earlier this year using foam wing.Fuselage sides very easy, upright, non cowled engine is easy, engine crutch, etc. easy. stringer and box former construction method great.
Only changes I would recommend would be to include instructions for sheeting in Tom Dixon lite sheet method where sheeted from spar to LE only, 1.5" TE sheet, and capstrip. Also the absolutely easiest, and probably lightest sheeting method is aliphatic resin glue polimerized with heat(see Dixon article in recent stunt news). Basically, coat 1/16 contest and the foam surfaces where they join with aliphatic resin glue, squeege off excess with playing card, let them dry well, position and iron down with clothing iron for super strong bond with no mess, easy to position sheeting correctly etc. Other very important change would be to include pushrod guide halfway between TE and stabilizer to prevent flex if using music wire pushrod(ask how I noticed this). I also would prefer the look of a rounded fuselage top using soft 1/2 top block.
Seems the Control Line Specialty plans states "for.29 to .40" or similar. A really strong 40 or one of Leonard's 35's is a more realistic minimum. A 46 would be real good. Maybe a .51 also.

First full bodied stunter was a green box Nobler back in the sixties. Critical items for a kit are accurately cut ribs, matched fuse sides, and decent hardware. I would be and I imagine quite a few others would be interested in partial kits which included accurate ribs, formers, crutch components, good pushrods, horns & bellcranks, wheels and of course good plans. All of the other wood could be obtained locally and matching up fuse sides would not be a problem for the kit maker. A manufacturer could charge 2/3rds or half the normal price and still make good money not having to have such a large balsa supply. The builder could choose the wood that suited his purposes but not have to cut complex shapes needing critical accuracy such as ribs and formers and wouldn't have to sub out cheap hardware to have a bulletproof control system.

Sorry Leonard--didn't really answer any of your questions. Major difficulties for first time full body builders are building un-warped wings and un-banana shaped fuses. A good construction manual with lots of tips on how to build straight would be enormously helpful. It'd be great if it would cover how to install a built wing into a full fuse, control and flying surface alignments, and realistic engine and fuel tank recomendations.
A good idea might be to rate plans and kits by the experience needed to build them. Maybe "novice", "experienced" and "accomplished" classifications could be used. I notice that Brodak rates their 1/2A kits similar to this but not the normal large sport and advanced ships. Admittedly this might scare away some customers if, for instance, a Nobler kit was rated for "accomplished" builders but it would save a lot of frustration for a first time builder seduced by the name and the looks but without the cultivated patience and knowledge to do a good job.

We were the ones to introduce the iron on method using aliphatic resin glue. You will find the first mention in Matt's Stuka 97 article in Stunt News. This is something I learned veneering cabinets a long time ago and adapted it to sheeting the leading edge of the wing.

For adhering sheeting to a foam wing, however, we have found the lightest, if not the easiest method (for us) to be using thinned epoxy that we scrape off and then roll on and let cure under pressure after the wing has been reinserted into the cradle. With this method it doesn't totally stick until cured and it can be cured under an absolutely flat situation. With some of the other methods you can actually warp the wing since the sheeting will be attached before the wing is placed back into its cradles. Those foam cores are rather floppy without the sheeting in place, so you have to apply the sheeting with care.

And on Dixon's method of sheeting only the leading and trailing edges plus "ribs" in the center, you are only eliminating about 1/3 of the wood. If you need to save weight, you will achieve the same result by sheeting the entire wing with 1/20 wood instead of 1/16. And you can actually get a lighter wing by going to 1/32 sheeting over the entire surface while keeping the full strength and making it easier to finish.

Would you believe my very first full-bodied stunt plane was a Sterling Spitfire kit and the next one was a Nobler kit! It took me all winter, almost every night doing something to build them. For the beginner, may I humbly suggest GOOD WOOD (because he/she is unlikely to have a clue on this); simplicity of design; an instruction booklet similar to a SIG kit or the one Arrowsmith used to provide; appropriate control hardware; and compatability with commercially available accessories--getting a tank to fit in the Nobler kit plane was a real treat!

Year - 1983
Plane - Ringmaster Jr. Flash with Fox .15 slant plug
Not a difficult build. Most problems incurred were due to the poor quality of the kit. I still remember only paying $6.95 for it new mailorder from Penn Hobbies.
This was my first step up from 1/2A and was a great plane.
If I would do another I would hatch the fuel tank and make bolt on aluminum landing gear for the bottom of the fuse. I distintly remember the wire landing gear that j-bolted to a plywood fuselage former becoming loose. Gee, do ya think the nuts vibrated off the j-bolts even with the Sigment on them. Not posible since Fox engines don't vibrate right?

1994 Control line Classic Oriental. Plans were veque. But I got through it. Hollowing out the blocks with out the proper tools. Not know anything about how to build stright. Some small instruction booklet SHOULD be in all kits. Just to give some pointers. You don't have to go into to much detail. Give some web sites address and a list of C/L Club Address so people can call for pointers. Scott

1) My first was an Impact.
2) It was not difficult. I used a lovely AeroSmith wing.
3) Maybe the main problem was running into things in the shop. I kept denting it. I also had a problem rounding up all the finishing materials, but I used four different brands of paint. Another problem was to follow directions, instead of "improving" things. I had to keep telling myself, "The designer is a World Stunt Champion and an experienced structures engineer. You aren't gonna improve anything."

I'd suggest two things: 1) Describe and provide drawings of the jigs and tooling, as well as the airplane itself, and 2) get a person unfamiliar with stunt to review the instructions. People who've flown stunt and built airplanes much the same way for 50 years assume knowledge that the neophyte may not have.

I like your suggestions, Howard, but an Impact as your first full fuselage coupled-flap stunter?!! Of course, flying combat, you did have a "little" experience in building planes before. And you did have Paul's presence. And...and you did do a good job. (Not too shabby flying it, either.)

I built a Tom Tom and a Super Ringmaster in 1958, and a Sterling Mustang about the same time. So I'd built both full-fuselage airplanes and a coupled-flap airplane. It was just a matter of putting them together. Yes, I had really, really good advice.

>When you built your first full-bodied,
>coupled flap stunter:
>
>1) What was it?
>2) How difficult was it for
>you to build it?
>And
>3) What problems did you incur?
>
>
>Some people have problems with alignment,
>or getting the wing or
>fuselage warped.
>
>Some have problems with instructions.
>
>Some have problems with the intricacy
>of the design.

My first full-fuse kit was a Top Flite Jr. Nobler in ~1974. I can't recall any significant problems building it, but my standards were not high at the time. It flew well, probably by accident.

The only issue I had was painting it, as I did not have any fuel-proof paint. This was the bane of my existence throughout my early modeling career.

My first full bodied kit with flaps was the Veco Thunderbird with the upright engine. Getting the wing true was the only thing I remember as being hard to master. I had just finished a Barnstormer, so the T-bird was a huge step up! The Nobler was next and that fuselage gave me fits with all the holes in the side. My main concern today is getting a wing true on the board. I have finished the Brodak profile Cardinal and that wing came out true, loved the instruction book, only one part left out, and in fact I flew it for the first time Thursday and with the balance point as the plans called for, it was a tad nose heavy. Grooved like a train on tracks. Best profile I've ever built for PA. Most kits, as mentioned by others, do not have matching fuselage sides, and this caused me grief on other kits. Maybe that's why I love scratch building so much, I pick the wood.

Many of the Brodak kits show the CG as being too nose heavy. Better that way than the other way, but you can bring it back. What is bad is when people think they have to make it a lot MORE nose heavy for their first flight. Not!

I am curious, however, what was the part left out of the Brodak instructions?

The part left out was the part that said glue the balsa doubler in place. It had me everything but that. This may have been an early kit as i bought it from a guy in England and it had Windy's autograph on the plastic wrapping around the kit. It was not a big deal as the only thing left for me to do with the doubler was glue it to the fuselage.

This is still fairly fresh in my mind, since it wasn't that long ago!

Not counting previous scratch builds, the first full bodied PA kit, is one I am actually still building, and it's a Tom Morris Cavalier. ( The bit's and peices version, a real kit, not the modular or prebuilt one)

Tom's kit has NO problem with accuracy of cut parts or wood selection. The hardware included is top notch also.

I have never built so quickly and easily because of his step by step instructions with pictures. This truly made it a joy. It was almost like being on autopilot. It allowed me to concentrate on the quality of my work, rather than "am I doing it right?" My biggest fear when building is painting myself into a corner, and having to cut somthing open to fix a mistake. With good instructions, this is less likely.

To emphisize this, my only current problem is that Tom's instructions for this version are not finished yet! I have all the modules built, (Wing, 4 fuse pieces, cowl, flaps elevator etc) but due to Tom's unique building method of a four peice fuselage, I have stopped building right where my instructions ended, and am waiting for Tom to finish.

I guess my point is, if you are building from scratch, you have to do the thought process on your own, and I can handle that. But if I am building a kit, I am working with someone elses idea's, and I would like detail'd instructions for that kit. Even just a worded sequence of events without pictures would be OK.

My comnplaint with most kits and construction articles on designs in magazines is they always assume you have built something before. I can almost write the first paragraph on any article you will see in a magazine.

"If you have built a full-bodied stunter before, you should not have any problem with this one."

Well, where is the one we have built before? That is what I am trying to do is provide a design and a construction sheet for the person who has never been there and never done it and lives 500 miles from the nearest club.

Leonard, you are to be congratualted on you concern and desire to provide a meaningful first experience for the budding PA competition pilot. A difficult and time consuming task.

Asking us, current builders and fliers is a good step, but I wonder in todays world if we really have the answers. Let me illustrate. Most of us have been modeling most of our lives. In my case, I started with solid models when I was 7 or 8 years old. By the time I built my first real PA ship, I had countless Comet and Guillows rubber powered ships built flown and destroyed. I learned a lot about building from them and when I got into CL, none of the then available kits were daunting. Today, many of the newbys don't come from a background like that. They wouldn't know how to final shape a piece or select the best wood, etc.

As you know, I've had the good fortune of being able to draw up many of the plans for Brodak in the past. Time constraints don't allow me to do much of that at this time, but I did learn from John what is important on a set of plans. Show everything. Use lot's of isometric views that show how the sub-assemblies go together. If there's any possible place where some one might get confused, try and make it as clear as possible on the drawing. Build one from the plans and take careful notes, lot's of pictures, and write a good instructional book in as clear and concise way as possible. Try and imagine never building a plane before and cover every question. Now, coupled to the detailed plans, even should there be some confusion, the pictures should work with the written directions to show exactly what needs to be done.

Technical writting is an art itself, and a good writer can use words, as we use balsa, to create a clear meaningful explanation of the process. After writting a manual, set it aside for a few days, then go back and re-read it. Is it still clear and consise? If not re-do those portions until they are. Have someone else read it and listen to their suggestions.

My first full PA ship was also a Green Box Nobler. It was started by one of my flying buddies, but was too much for him to build at the time. I got it with the wing framed partially and a few pieces missing. Because of my previous experiences, there was no real problem with finishing it. It was until recently, my best ever PA ship.

John Miller

Pretty much said it all. I started out on the "stick and tissue" Comet, etc. rubber FF Scale stuff, so this was never an issue to me. Alignment and how to properly maintain centerlines on surfaces seems to me to be the most obscure part. Another thing is exactly WHEN to fit and finally install something, i.e. do THIS before or after carving, sheeting, finishing, etc., THAT portion of the structure.

John K

Wow, where were you in '52 when I started my Barnstormer?

Top Flite Jr Nobler - only my second kit and @ age 13 (circa 1965). Went together pretty well, some warps (flaps) but they seemed to cancel each other out. This was pre-monokote days. Orange Ambroid cement, silk on the wings, silkspan on the rest and Aerogloss dope.

I built a 2nd JN about 15 years ago and was amazed how well the notched parts went together. You could dry fit then hit the joints with CA. This 2nd attempt came out very well but I lost it on the first flight coming out of the wingover when a leadout snagged inside a rib (I think).

Biggest drawback to the JN was lack of suitable stunt engines (the Fox baffle .15 seemed about right) and minimal prop clearance for grass takeoffs.

The Jr. N was indeed designed around the Fox .15 "Rocket" steelfin, which GMA refered to as a "Baby .35 Stunt" in so far as it's running character went. The little OS Max .15 I & II and the III are other light .15s with good power of the era.

JK

Just a reminder - Tony Cincotta/Saturn models do a Junior Nobler kit.....

Len,

It was mighty hard for me the first time, I was only 13, but I did have some help from my Dad on weekends when he wasn't away working somewhere. The Plane was a Veco Smoothie. Their diagrams were somewhat helpful, but what I really needed was some explicit instructions on building the wing straight and warp free! As it was, the wing came out O.K. but that was probably pure luck. Adding a fool proof jigging system to the kit is the best way I know of bulding straight wings. I havn't had a problem with the Lincoln log system! I have had some problems with built up flaps warping though. Maybe a flap jig would also be useful.

First full fuselage model was a Veco Tom-Tom (cira - 1964).

As is usual for a beginner, it was built with few of the tools that make work a snap today. Single edge razor blades, slow drying Ambroid, rubber bands, mother's dress pins, a couple of Dad's rusty pliers, a hand drill, an ancient 25 Watt soldering iron. So, the hard parts were getting the motor mount holes drilled straight once the mounts were glued in, getting the pushrod elevator horn keeper soldered after the elevator/stabilizer was glued on, getting the fuselage turtle deck sheeting to hold in place and meet at a tight seam, getting the push-rod the right length, and how do you ever get a canopy glued on so it fits and doesn't have finger prints all over it.

Oh yes, how do you fit a tank in a space not made for it? The amazing thing is that it flew until trying to impress my girl friend with a low and perfectly executed wing over recovery that didn't. Since then I've learned that impressing the girls has nothing to do with full fuselage stunters, but mostly with cleaning the glue off your fingers tips.

Bruce

>First full fuselage model was a
>Veco Tom-Tom (cira - 1964).

>...the hard parts were getting the motor
>mount holes drilled straight once the mounts
>were glued in, getting the pushrod elevator horn
>keeper soldered after the elevator/stabilizer
>was glued on, getting the fuselage turtle deck
>sheeting to hold in place and meet at a tight seam,
>getting the push-rod the right length,
>and how do you ever get a canopy glued on
>so it fits and doesn't have finger prints all over
>it.
>
>Oh yes, how do you fit a tank in a space
>not made for it? ....>Bruce

Interesting set of questions. On the "Das Stunter" design the motor mounts are built as a crutch that is drilled for the engine before being set into the fuselage. Much easier to get at and to get square. The pushrod is soldered to the flap horn and the elevator horn before the fuselage sides are even wrapped around the wing. The "turtle deck" is another crutch piece that is book matched to the bottom, and the fuselage sides are wrapped around both ensuring straightness and no gaps. The pushrod is made to proper length over the plan and, after assembly, the stabilizer can be slid back and forth in its slot to get perfect elevator alignment with the flaps. The tank is made removable, sliding into its compartment from the front, and both filler and overflow tubes go up (yes up). And, as to the canopy problem, there isn't any. These problems, at least, were easily solveable on this design.

I had the privilege of growing up with a father that was a c/l stunt flyer. My Dad won a few contests in the southern California area in the early 50’s. He must have been the best flyer in the world because he had quite a few trophies (at least I thought he was the best). I can still remember holding and launching his models for him at a few of these contests. When I was a little older and wiser (around 5 or 6). I started building my own models with a little help from Dad (ok maybe a lot). As my building skills improved he would not offer as much help which would make me figure out the building sequence or problem for myself. If I had messed something up he would make me fix it before backing myself into a corner.

After reading the post that was placed by Leonard, one particular model comes to mind. It was a Veco Thunderbird with the upright engine (it was a Xmas present from Mom and Dad) that was a real bear to build. When I was trying to sheet the leading edge of the wing I kept inducing a large warp into it. After three or four attempts at this I had to go ask dear old Dad what the heck was going on. He took one look at it and said the balsa sheeting was too hard and would not form around the ribs without pulling the wing out of shape. After pedaling my bike to “Luke’s” hobby shop (Escondido Ca) and back, I replaced the wood and sheeted the wing without any problems. The wood that was supplied for the fuselage was an even bigger disaster. This stuff was so hard that if you dropped a piece on the floor it sounded like a piece of aluminum sheet. To make a long story short I must have replaced 60% of the wood in the kit. It wasn’t until years later when I worked for Sig that I found out the reason that such hard balsa wood was used in kits. When you die-cut balsa parts the harder balsa wood produces the best die-cut parts. Also when you see a die-cut part that is crushed around the edges, it is not because the dies are dull. It is because the balsa wood is too soft and crushes instead of making a clean cut..

Take it from a guy that has designed a few models that have been kited. When you draw a set of plans and write an instruction book you always try to make every step as easy to follow and precise as possible. Both the plans and instruction books are far better today than they were years ago. In addition many of the kits you buy today have step by step photo-illustrated instruction books that explain each step. Some books also include a few isometric drawings to help clarify a particular step.

Mike

Leonard --

To your main question, do you do simpler designs or better instructions? In the case of DUS, the foam design is quite simple, and should not be changed. For a built up wing version, I would favor a constant chord wing for a beginner, whether a kit or scratch-built. Odds of a straight wing are better with an non-tapered wing, as you know.

If I were selling a kit today like DUS, I would try to out-Brodak Brodak in the instructions. A word is indeed worth 10 to the minus 3 pictures! People read less well than they see. Pictures help. When we read, we read the first line and say to ourselves, "I got this figured out." Which is the way you are reading this, right?

DUS is perfect in my mind, but as a straight wing guy if you go built-up wings.

Well said, Larry - I would only add that a few words near each picture that actually have to do with the picture would be really helpful. I'm all set to begin building my first full-fuse coupled-flaps stunter - a Brodak Original Smoothie. When I first got the kit, the first thing I did was examine and mark every part so I knew what everything was, then I read the instruction book from cover to cover, twice. The kit and the manual are both beautiful, but the only thing that sort of bothered me a bit was that the pictures and the text seemed somewhat disjointed. It was sometimes hard to figure out what picture(s) the text was talking about. I'll be building the Smoothie during this next Building Season, and I'll let you know how it goes.

Tim

Tim