New Top Flite Tutor

Thanks.

Answer: I don't think an OS .30 is going to give you enough power to do the full schedule of PAMPA aerobatic maneuvers.
I had an FP .35 on my 39 ounce Tutor when I first restarted and it ended up with an FP .40 on it. The FP .40 really made it fly the maneuvers well, even in some stiff winds.

>... 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've heard that Tutors could build up that heavily, which is really far too much for a small wing (420 square inches, it's a lot smaller than Sig's Banshee/Twister pair), but this one's already a porker, so let's try for something closer to the weight of the Max-S 30 than the FP's. If you can unearth a Max-S 35, it'll do the job, or a McCoy 40. OR, instead of a hulking big FP 35/40, if you want to go "modern," go with a Schneurle 25 and get power similar to the McCoy 40 without trouble getting parts, and without adding extra weight from an engine way too big.

> I had a Fox .35 on a Miss BJ profile that weighed
>39 ounces and it worked fairly well except for the
>'burp.'

Talking about PORKERS, though, if that one is the plane I am thinking of (same general size as a Tutor, + / - a little?) it sounds like IT is a hefty thing! About 30 fewer square inches than a Tutor (?), it should weigh roughly 27-30 ounces to fly best. The Tutor still flies fairly well at 35 ounces (the full span flaps make a difference in how aerobatic a heavy plane can be), and was designed for a light 35 such as the Fox. I've flown a scratch-built Tutor with one of my lovely old 1957 model Fox 25's quite happily (32 ounces).

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.

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'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.

Yes, I have been following with the discussions on various forums during the past few months regarding George's tank. I downloaded the drawing he posted and plan on either building one or buying one from Brodak's if John starts producing them. Am looking forward to trying it out.

The Max 30 is essentially a 35s, and will work. We use the "magic" APC 10.5 X 4.5 prop, spun up to about 9,700 rpm.

Have fun!

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.

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.

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.

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.