Stuka Stunt Control Line Forum
Archive, 2000–2021 · recovered from the Internet Archive
Forums › Stuka Stunt Main Forum

Silk problems may be solved, combat problems are not.

Stuka Stunt Main Forum · 10 of 10 known posts recovered

DJMalott · Jul 16, 2000 11:34 PM

#0 source
I was having silk problem a few weeks ago, but I think I've got it straightened out. The silk was water drying after being doped onto the wing and looked just fine. However, the first two brushed-on coats of clear dope were leaving it loose and wrinkled after drying. Now, I like Brodak's dope as much as the next guy, but it doesn't solve EVERY problem. Here's what's developed.

I ordered some 5 momme Thai silk. That's the lightest they have, and it is for sure not pre-shrunk. I didn't ask about the heavier silks, but I made sure the 5 momme was not. I had been using a little heavier weight (6), but also from Thai Silks.

I brush three coats of unthinned clear on the perimeter of the wing, with a light sanding after the second. The silk is stretched on wet, and I finger rub thinned dope (about 50/50) over it. I take my time, making sure the underlying dope is getting hold of the silk , also making sure the silk remains damp until all edges are stuck down securely. I may start using only thinner for this step, in the future.

I let the wing dry completely, then rub in one more coat of thinned dope around the edges of the wing. From this point on, I've started spraying instead of brushing. The only problem now is that my equipment is too small for a large wing. I got a Badger air brush as a gift, and it has three sizes of tips, but even the largest delivers dope too slowly for a Flite Streak wing. It works fine; it's just too slow. I've ordered a larger spray gun, so that should speed things up quite a bit.

The point is this. Whether it's the lighter silk, spraying instead of brushing or just blind luck, those two coats of clear dope are now sealing the fabric very nicely and shrinking it as tight as I could want. In fact, on another wing I sprayed SIG clear on one side and Brodak on the other side. Once the dope was dry, I really couldn't see any difference between them.

I cut the SIG clear about 50/50 with SIG thinner. The Brodak had to be thinned (with Brodak thinner) quite a bit more, to get to roughly the same viscosity as the 50/50 SIG. I'm not sure if that means the Brodak clear goes further (using less of it) or if you just use more thinner with the Brodak. In any event, SIG's clear is quite a bit thinner, right out of the can.

Anyway, that's my experience so far. That doesn't make me any kind of an expert. I just tried to pick out the best of all the advice I had been given, then act on it. It looks as though it has put me on the right track.

That's it for the silk, at least for now. And now a couple flame-bait ramblings. (1) Ambroid forever! Always liked the stuff...still do.

(2) Let's put slow combat out of its misery, continue to fly a variety of local speed limit events, then settle on (very few, and of the most sensible) rules for a Nats speed limit combat.

I would think something like this would work well: 75 or 80 MPH limit, two or three laps timed before the start of combat. A realistic line length (60'?). Probably a shutoff should be required. They will eventually be mandatory anyway, no matter what speed combat is flown at. Other than that, fly whatever you like, powered by whatever engine you like, fed by whatever fuel system you like, with a tank (or bladder) placed wherever you like.

Optionally, you could set spacing from prop to leading edge and prop to hinge line at something like 10% and 50% of wingspan, respectively. That would keep super light, super turning, DOA Belchfire carbon fiber wings (or some such thing) from being developed just for the event. However, it would still allow the flying of literally any size plane.

With the exception of a shutoff (I just don't see them as simple quite yet), keep it extremely simple. It will tend to pull in more young people and more retreads like me. Face it, there really aren't many fliers with the abilities to handle Fast or FAI combat, financially or physically. But we hear about a whole lot of people flying "super slow" and telling us it's cheaper, easier and a lot of fun.

OK, that's it, and this time I really mean it. Light the fires...flame on!

Old but immature,
Denny Malott

Jim T. · Jul 17, 2000 05:25 PM

#1 source
Shut-off is a dirty word in the Midwest. Or so several ex-combat
flyers (with faces red and fists waving in the air) have lead me to believe.

Jim

Bigiron13 · Jul 17, 2000 05:49 PM

#2 source
Denny You got my vote . I would go for 80 MPH and I wouldn't be too much against shutoffs IF one is developed that is somewhat reliable at the lower speeds. No flames or barbs from here.
Bigiron

Iskandar Taib · Aug 03, 2000 11:44 AM

#7 source
>Denny You got my vote .
> I would go for
>80 MPH and I wouldn't
>be too much against shutoffs
>IF one is developed that
>is somewhat reliable at the
>lower speeds. No flames
>or barbs from here.
>Bigiron

The Fourmost shutoff works very nicely at 75mph. Not only that, it's cheap ($6) and virtually indestructible.

The Kiwi · Jul 18, 2000 08:22 AM

RE: ... combat problems ..#3 source
LAST EDITED ON Jul-18-00 AT 02:29 PM (EST)

>... And now a couple flame-bait ramblings.
> (1) Ambroid forever! Always liked the stuff.
> ..still do.
>
Naah!

>(2) Let's put slow combat out of its misery, continue
>to fly a variety of local speed limit events, then
>settle on (very few, and of the most sensible) rules
>for a Nats speed limit combat.
>
I'm not sure we need a slower event at the Nats Level, myself.
>
>I would think something like this would work well: 75
>or 80 MPH limit, two or three laps timed before the
>start of combat. A realistic line length (60'?).
> Probably a shutoff should be required. They will
>eventually be mandatory anyway, no matter what speed
>combat is flown at. Other than that, fly whatever you
>like, powered by whatever engine you like, fed by
>whatever fuel system you like, with a tank (or bladder)
>placed wherever you like.
>
>With the exception of a shutoff (I just don't see them
>as simple quite yet), keep it extremely simple. It
>will tend to pull in more young people and more retreads
>like me. Face it, there really aren't many fliers with
>the abilities to handle Fast or FAI combat, financially
>or physically. But we hear about a whole lot of people
>flying "super slow" and telling us it's cheaper, easier
>and a lot of fun.
>

>Light the fires...flame on!
>
Mears had a drawing on his web site of his version of shutoff. I would consider his to be about as simple as you can get. (Pause here while I look up a URL to send folks looking at.) Well shoot fire! I must have it on my other compter! Sorry about that.

This isn't a flame, as such, but whatever it is, let's not take it as entirely negative. Several times the last few years, the Houston group has tried a Super Slow event with the engine limited to a Fox 35. As anyone who has been around these forums any length of time should know, I developed a strong affection for those old Foxes and have no hesitation about admitting to it.

But even with 52 foot lines instead of 60's, the old Fox engines don't keep the planes out at the ends of the lines in the kinds of sudden maneuvers that Combat consists of. I had plenty of fun flying that version of Super Slow, but don't think it really meets the definition of what combat is, any more than some of the early stuff with wheeled, fuselaged planes did.

Flying "Combat" that (SUPER) slowly, and with that low power, is HARDER to do than flying in the 80 mph range, really.

P.S.
I decided to pick up this next piece from where it had moldered without attracting further comment, and attach it right here:

The exchange below attracted my attention, and I asked about the VF 25's at another C-L forum as follows:

>> Bradley <[email protected]> wrote:

>> I have an OS 40 VF rear exhaust pipe motor NIB with the carburetor. Will sell for reasonable offer or trade for ST 60's or G-21 46.

> Leonard Neumann <[email protected]> wrote:

> Masahiko Yamato is looking for one. [email protected] Work out the details with him. I will be happy to serve as intermediary if you wish.

> Leonard Neumann

I've seen a number of reports that the VF's were among the highest-output of glow 40's. I'm looking at a bunch of 25's for different uses, including Speed Limit Combat. I like the OS "F" series and clones so far (FISE type Schneurle BB engines), although I don't have a TT Pro 25 in hand yet (ordered one from Eirman a couple of hours agom though).

Anyone among those who kibbitz around these electronic forums have any direct comparison comments you can make? The VF's apparently never were widely sold, and very few have come through the used/resale channels that I've been watching. Incidentally (you knew it was coming?), one potential plus for the VF's for Speed Limit Combat is that mufflers could be used, tucked in behind where they are less likely to be a hazard of case damage in a crash.

Beyond just the shut-offs, I can conceptualize that even Combat fliers might have to face up to the noise situation.

Kiwi


([email protected]


Iskandar Taib · Jul 21, 2000 10:37 PM

RE: ... combat problems ..#4 source
Well, we'll have to make darned sure a Super Slow event gets
asked for at the Nats planning meeting in September.

Strangely enough - Super Slow rules are already in the rulebook,
sort of. Have a look at the Shutoff rule.

DJMalott · Jul 21, 2000 10:49 PM

RE: ... combat problems ..#5 source
Iskandar,

I'll take a look at the rulebook. I guess I was thinking of its having an official event number, or some such thing. Is the planning meeting at the AMA? Is the date and location on the AMA website?

Denny

Brett Buck · Jul 22, 2000 11:34 AM

VF (was RE: ... combat problems ..)#6 source
Kiwi wrote:

> The exchange below attracted my attention, and I asked about the VF
> 25's at another C-L forum as follows:
>
> >> Bradley wrote: >> I have an OS 40 VF rear exhaust pipe motor NIB
> with the carburetor. Will sell for reasonable offer or trade for ST
> 60's or G-21 46.
>
> I've seen a number of reports that the VF's were among the
> highest-output of glow 40's. I'm looking at a bunch of 25's for
> different uses,including Speed Limit Combat. I like the OS "F" series
> and clones so far (FISE type Schneurle BB engines), although I don't
> have a TT Pro 25 in hand yet (ordered one from Eirman a couple of
> hours agom though).
>
> Anyone among those who kibbitz around these electronic forums
> have any direct comparison comments you can make? The VF's apparently
> never were widely sold, and very few have come through the
> used/resale channels that I've been watching. Incidentally (you knew
> it was coming?), one potential plus for the VF's for Speed Limit
> Combat is that mufflers could be used, tucked in behind where they
> are less likely to be a hazard of case damage in a crash.


The OS 40/46VF is probably the second best stunt motor ever built, having won 6 NATS in the past 10 years (Paul 5x, and Ted 1). It's (in my opinion), *by far* the easiest piped engine to set up and operate. The PA61 is better, but its surprising how comparably the 40VF flies my airplane. The only downside is the sound, which does tend to the annoying. Despite hand-wringing about the nickel plate, it also tends to last essentially forever, at least long enough for 10 years of me flying it.

The 25VF is also an excellent stunt motor, as proven my Mike Starret and my local buddy Bill Howe. Don't be surprised if a "name" flier shows up with a Nobler deriviative using a 25VF at next year's NATS...

I am looking for a 40VF for a kid I am helping. I have other engines I could set him up with, but the 40VF is definitely the right choice for a newbie. If anyone does have one for sale in decent condition, I would be interested.

Brett

Iskandar Taib · Aug 03, 2000 11:54 AM

RE: ... combat problems ..#8 source
>This isn't a flame, as such,
>but whatever it is, let's
>not take it as entirely
>negative. Several times the
>last few years, the Houston
>group has tried a Super
>Slow event with the engine
>limited to a Fox 35.
> As anyone who has
>been around these forums any
>length of time should know,
>I developed a strong affection
>for those old Foxes and
>have no hesitation about admitting
>to it.
>
>But even with 52 foot lines
>instead of 60's, the old
>Fox engines don't keep the
>planes out at the ends
>of the lines in the
>kinds of sudden maneuvers that
>Combat consists of. I
>had plenty of fun flying
>that version of Super Slow,
>but don't think it really
>meets the definition of what
>combat is, any more than
>some of the early stuff
>with wheeled, fuselaged planes did.

Yeah, the mistake was specifying the Fox Stunt. Even in Super Slow, the Fox Stunt is inadequate. They're hard to start when hot. Most won't even do 70mph and slow down in the turns, to boot. They may be a nice stunt engine, but a really poor choice for Combat.

Bigiron13 · Aug 03, 2000 02:52 PM

RE: ... combat problems ..#9 source
Hear Hear Amen and two beers from the front pew.
Bigiron