Baby Barnstormer/BigMig .061

I would like to use my Norvel Big Mig .061 in a Baby Barnstormer that I would scale up in size. How much wing area would be suitable for this engine? Should I scale it up to about 240 sq/in? I have a TD .051 that I would consider using as an alternative. Should it be less than 240 sq/in if I use the TD .051?

LAST EDITED ON Jan-15-04 AT 04:24 PM (CDT)
 
Ah yes, the Baby Barnstormer. I flew mine with a Cub .049 back there in 1955. It was a nice little airplane designed for a mild .049. The Guillows kit price was $2.95, which was as much as a full sized Sterling Ringmaster. I covered mine with the paper covering in the kit and painted it red with black trim. It was my first built up full bodied plane (I had played with some of the hollow log Scientifics, but this was something entirely different). It seemed somewhat underpowered, but about all I knew how to do in those days was straight and level, wingover and inside loop. It turned better than anything I had built up to that time. In 1987 or so I obtained the plans to the big Barnstormer and finally fulfilled a long term goal, to build the full sized plane. It was finished with Dave Brown Skyloft and Sig orange and white from rattle cans. Power is a Fox .35 of the 70's vintage, Tom Dixon balanced crankshaft, Marvin Denny Stuffer backplate and a tongue muffler replacing the earlier stock Fox muffler. What impresses me is that it flies much the same as the 1/2A Barnstormer, very precise and steady. Great airplane, that old Barnstormer. Check out the big Barnstormer at:

http://home.cogeco.ca/~controlline/durrill1.shtml

Wow, that looks nice! I like the full size Barnstormer too. In fact I have the kit for it from Walter Umland. I want to build that one soon. I have a BigMig .061 that is in a T-28 design from Dick Sarpolous(sp?) that I thought might be fun to use in the Baby Barnstormer. I figure that engine would overpower the small size of that plane so I wanted to scale it up.

looks really nice. What I find kind of amazing is that the Barnstormer and the Ringmaster at first glance look to be very similar, but the 'stormer flies so much better than a Ringmaster.

Compared to the Ringmaster the Barnstormer airfoil is sheeted to the spar for better accuracy and it's thicker, the tail moment is longer, the tail has a higher aspect ratio, so less drag driving the model through a corner. Lower vibration, less drag and lighter weight with a well built full fuselage. Without the engine and tank hanging fully out in the breeze, you get cleaner airflow over the wing, and finally the weight is better centered on the wing planform. NO comparison, in my book.

LAST EDITED ON Jan-15-04 AT 08:13 PM (CDT)
 
>I would like to use my Norvel Big Mig .061 in a Baby
>Barnstormer that I would scale up in size. How much wing
>area would be suitable for this engine? Should I scale it
>up to about 240 sq/in? I have a TD .051 that I would
>consider using as an alternative. Should it be less than
>240 sq/in if I use the TD .051?

HI Kurt, Yes to both questions...240-280sq" for the .061;
and 220-240 for the .051.... Tony

From experience I can tell you that a 60% Barnstormer is too small for a Teedee 051. As the Baby Barnstormer is a 50% Barnstormer, I would suggest scaling it 150% (75% Barnstormer).
There was an earlier thread which covered this in depth, but it appears to have been lost in the last system outage.

I agree with Tony G on the areas, but recommend scaling the full size Barnstormer down, not the baby up. You will end up with a much sleeker, lighter model. Compare the plans scaled to the same size, and see.

>I agree with Tony G on the areas, but recommend scaling the
>full size Barnstormer down, not the baby up. You will end
>up with a much sleeker, lighter model. Compare the plans
>scaled to the same size, and see.

Yas Larry, scaling the full sized Barnstormer is a much better
idea.....
Tony

I agree with Larry and Tony.
[photo not recovered: bstmrs2.jpg]

OK, I can scale the full size drawing down. I have a copy of the plans for the full size plane. I'll have to check the drawing to see what the construction differences are. I suppose most of it is in the engine mounting scheme.

Looks like Dave has already done this excersise. Nice looking planes, both of 'em. Dave, did you use a TD .051 in the smaller version? What kind of tank did you use?

It was a Teedee 051 and the model was 60%. I used a plain rectangular tin tank with a single vent. All up weight was 7 ounces. It was fast.

I like that name, "Hutstormer".

Nice Hutstormer. Looks like a plane I would want to build...
So... where can I get a copy of the plan for the 1/2A version?
Could someone please name a source?
Thank you,
Nick Vanmatre

I'll have to say that the Norvel .061 Big Mig "sport" with a 6-4 prop and 15% nitro will amaze you. I started mine inside the shop, and the prop blast blew everything off the work bench (including small tools).

You could easily go to 300+ sq in with this motor. Comparison with the TD 049/051 is not remotely possible.

Ron B.
F4Fguy

I don't know about 300 squares,but you're certainly right about the power available.The Norvell .061 is not only more powerful but less "fiddley"than any cox I've ever owned.I think,if it were myself,I'd stay with about 220-230sq.in and go to a 6-3 or even a cut down 7-2.In any case I'd go with the Norvell.

About the Norvel BigMig 061. If you buy a new one and can't turn it over with a prop, DON'T FORCE IT! These engines have drastic cylinder taper and you could bend a rod or bust a crank if you try to flip a new one.

I used the Joe Wagner method of heating the cylinder with a hair dryer until it could be flipped over without damage. Then it will run while sill warm from the hair dryer. After a few cycles of hot-cold, the compression when cold gets normal and the engine will not be damaged.

The instructions don't caution about tight cylinder/piston fit, but I can imagine a few engines busted by trying to force them.