Flying Fool

Stuka Stunt Main Forum · 23 of 23 known posts recovered

Crash2much · Jan 12, 2004 10:39 PM

Anybody had much experience with one of these? If so what did you use to power it and how did it fly? One thing that I have noticed is that this kit always brings a premium price on Da Bay.

Bill

I have no claim to fame, I build more planes than I fly, collect more kits than I build. That about says it, right?

LNeumann · Jan 12, 2004 10:41 PM

#1 source

I have one. It builds overly heavy for the wing area. It flies ok, but doesn't stunt well. And when the engine quits, be ready to plant it, or it will plant itself. (Doesn't glide well.)

If you like bipes, there are better kits out there to build (or get the lans for the Dancing Girl).

Leonard Neumann

Crash2much · Jan 12, 2004 10:51 PM

#2 source

Leonard, I already got the plans for the Dancing girl at the same time I ordered the plans for the Hooptie from you. Both are nice plans sets. Very clear good printing.

Bill

I have no claim to fame, I build more planes than I fly, collect more kits than I build. That about says it, right?

Currell · Jan 12, 2004 11:17 PM

#3 source

Over the years, there have been many, many threads on this good looking, but flying-challenged model. Just build it light, put at least an OS 25 FP or LA on it, and enjoy it in a sport/ mild stunt/use a lot of sky sort of manner. Get ready for some pretty hot landings, too.

Currell

CR · Jan 13, 2004 04:30 AM

#5 source

I've had a Flying Fool since the 70's and haven't flown it yet. I built it in Alaska and took it to Washington and back to Alaska. I now have it here in Reno and hope to fly it soon. This one is powered with a Veco 29.

ScottCL · Jan 13, 2004 08:30 PM

#18 source

You recommended getting the plans for the Dancing Girl. I don't recall seeing that in any of the mags. Where do I get the plans?

Thanks,
Scott

Old Sourdough · Jan 13, 2004 09:51 PM

#19 source

Scott,

Try here:

http://www.clstunt.com/plans.htm

Look under Classic Stunt.

The Old Sourdough
Ruksakinmakiak, Alaska, US of A

Ty Marcucci · Jan 13, 2004 12:52 AM

#4 source

I got to fly a pretty blue and red checkerdd on in 1967. It is well named, and you couldn't give me one. It had a McCoy 29 on it I believe. I'll have to check my photo album.

cyberflyer · Jan 13, 2004 07:39 AM

#6 source

I think that the Fool is a good example of a kit that brings more than it's actually worth on the Bay simply because it's out of production and hence 'rare'.

I built two. Both were due to too large a powerplant, and never good fliers in the strict sense of stunt. But I enjoyed the colorful airshow paint schemes and had a lot of fun with them.

A Flying Fool at the Airshow

Here's an thread discussing the Fool in the archives.

I suspect that if you got a kit and replaced all the wood with really light stuff, paid attention to the weight on the finish and put a strong, light 15 or 25 or so in it you would have a real fun airplane.

Cy.

The Cat Whisperer

Ron · Jan 13, 2004 08:12 AM

#7 source

...speaking of biplanes... How well does the "38 Special" fly?

When I was a kid we had a couple of profile biplanes built from kits, a Spad and a Fokker DR-7. As I recall they flew very much like a Ringmaster and had a glid ratio similar to the Space Shuttle. We flew slow combat with them (only against each other...). It was a hoot!

It would be fun to have a biplane that would perform a respectable pattern...

Can somebody post a picture of a "Dancing Girl"?

catdaddy · Jan 13, 2004 08:45 AM

#9 source

>Can somebody post a picture of a "Dancing Girl"?
Here is Bob Reeves' refurbished Dancing Girl

regards,
Rick "catdaddy" Blankenship

Bill Little · Jan 13, 2004 08:17 AM

#8 source

LAST EDITED ON Jan-13-04 AT 08:18 AM (CDT)

I have one that was given to me, as a kit, for Christmas in 1964.
It has undergone a rebuild (never crashed) and is due for another one. I am going to try and lighten it, replace the tank, and put a RH 29 on it, or a Fox 35. Need to replace the old Perfect bellcrank, and picture hanger wire lead outs,also.
Never have flown it much, but it is like the others say: too high of a wing loading to be a true stunter, but a lot of "fun". Cool looking, too!
Bill <><

EDIT: I wonder if the plane would benefit from a better airfoil?? I really like the looks of the "Fool"!

Disclaimer: I am neither a NATS Champion, engine reworker, engine producer, column writer, Hobby Shop owner, *rockeet* scientist, nor otherwise. Just an old Advanced flier.

Currell · Jan 13, 2004 10:33 AM

#10 source

Ihave scratch built a couple of bipe, with foam wings, in the 38 mode. Also have a Sig Fokker D-7, and some handle experience on a Sterling SE-5.

All of them fly better than the FF, which is faint praise. The largest foamie profile has spans of 48" and an FP 40, and it does OK.

Currell

GravityWell · Jan 13, 2004 11:42 AM

#11 source

I had a Flying Fool for a short time. It was over-powered with a RH 29 on it. Flew way to fast and had the glide ratio of a set of car keys. But it was a blast to tear up some sky with! The top wing seperated from the rest of the plane during one of its flights and acted like a dethermalizer on a freeflight plane. It just floated down to terra ferma; best landing I ever made with thar ship! I flew it without the top wing for the remainder of the day. It flew like a Buster. Fond memories of that funny little ship. Wished I had the plans (it was given to me), I'd probably build another. Just thicken the wing a bit, lengthen the nose 1/2", reset the incedence on the wing and I think the little ship would be a great flier. Well thats my two cents anyway.

“I have never crashed, but I have proven the theory that gravity sucks!”
Glenn Reach
[email protected]

dennis · Jan 13, 2004 11:56 AM

#12 source

by any act, error, or omission, I have, intentionally or
unintentionally, displayed any breedist, disciplinist, sexist, racist,
culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, localist, ageist, lookist, ableist,
sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, socioeconomicist, ethnocentrist,
phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist, or other violation of the rules of
political correctness, known or unknown, I am not sorry and I encourage you
to get over it.

This is a plane that we all have memories of fond or otherwise. Wouldn't it be great if someone would make a revised Flying Fool, by that I mean enlarge it slightly, give it more wing area, open the stagger between the wings. Certainly better wood and a strict weight reduction and we could actually turn a toad into a prince.
I always liked the looks of the plane but hated the way the 2 that I had flew
I actually think that it would sell after all not everyone is going to fly P/A all the time and you need a 'fun' plane , don't you?
Dennis

Old Sourdough · Jan 13, 2004 03:40 PM

#17 source

LAST EDITED ON Jan-13-04 AT 03:41 PM (CDT)

Dennis,

Your request has pretty much been accomplished already with the "Dancing Girl" except for the fact that it is not now, nor has it ever been, a kit.

The Old Sourdough
Ruksakinmakiak, Alaska, US of A

Ty Marcucci · Jan 13, 2004 11:58 AM

#13 source

In most of the posts, most say to change this and that. Then it wouldn't be a flying FOOL. If a brick had wings it would fly better too.

dennis · Jan 13, 2004 12:17 PM

#14 source

Ty, one of the problems is that the memories may be pleasant but the reality of the plane wasn't.
Yes your right it would not be the Flying Fool that we had but then again does it really have to be.
I think we like the aesthetics of the plane so what is suggested is to improve the aerodynamics of the plane keep the looks of it and create some new memories. Dennis

C/L Gee Bee · Jan 13, 2004 12:49 PM

#15 source

Flyin' Fools, I've had 4, or 5. Fox .35, McCoy .35, Fox .29; all were certified "rockets", and turned a wide, fast loop. Lazy 8s were possible, but with much 'pucker factor'. Then I discovered Sig's Spad, and Fokker DVII. Experimenting hinted at adjustment. Spad got some negative incidence in top wing, what a difference. C/G moved rearward also changed things.
It was time for another Fool! This one got 1 degree of neg. incidence at top wing from the GET, was powered with a McCoy .19, an early one. I also limited elevator travel, made a nice flying airplane. (Sport, not World Threatening P.A.) LOADS of attention at the field, but landings felt like 55 MPH!!!!
Yeah, I'm building another now, too. Can't stop.......

Mike in Atwater,
'When I fly, the plane gets nervous'

CR · Jan 13, 2004 12:52 PM

#16 source

Here is an Ultimate Bipe that showed up at the flying field in Anchorage awhile back. Powered with an LA 46 and flys pretty well. He does have an Al Rabe type rudder and it definitely needs it in maneuvers. Seems like some of these RC Biplanes might be a lot of fun to play with. This would be fun with a larger 4 cycle. The pilots name is Arnie Grimes and he has a whole lot of interesting planes in his hanger.

Old Sourdough · Jan 13, 2004 09:58 PM

#20 source

I, too, have seen this one fly. It looked like it was going to fall out of the sky until a prop switch was made. I don't remember whether the switch was from a 10-6 APC to a 10-5 APC or vice versa or some other size (It was two summers ago!), but the difference was enormous. One of the other flyers almost forced Arnie to use his proffered prop at gun point. It was worth it.

The Old Sourdough
Ruksakinmakiak, Alaska, US of A

jmmroz · Jan 14, 2004 05:27 PM

#21 source

Mine flew poorly. Of course, that was when I was more in experienced at building and all. It seemed if it was just meant to fly level.

Crash2much · Jan 14, 2004 08:58 PM

#22 source

Thankyou for all the opinions whether they were pro or con.

Bill

I have no claim to fame, I build more planes than I fly, collect more kits than I build. That about says it, right?