New Kits From Brodak SHARK& STINGER

I was reading the latest Stunt news March/April
and on page 64 are the two new kits. have any of
you have experience with these guys?

jaco - I've seen the Stinger and it really is a neat little plane. Has has a side mounted Fox .35 that is enclosed by cheek cowls. Looks like it would build light and be quite a fun plane for OTS. I have not seen the Shark.
If you're not familiar with Brodak, I suggest you get a catalog (724 966 7335) or contact them at . Brodak's has a very comprehensive line of C/L products and they sponsor a huge fun fly/contest in mid-June.
Bob Z

LAST EDITED ON Mar-29-04 AT 09:53 AM (CDT)
 
The Stinger was a Dale Kirn design, not "small", but not huge, either, kitted in the 50's by whoever kitted the Viking, I'm pretty sure (Consolidated? No, that doesn't seem right after all). There was a smaller version also (perhaps named Vampire). There never had been any fullsize builders plans for the Stinger until our oun John Miller ("Joe Bellcrank") got started on the project a few years ago.

Dale did have patterns from some parts, and there apparently was at least one remaining kit, or parts of one. This particular project took much longer than usual to reach fruition! (Added in edit: I was able to ready the fuzzy text under the photo in the opening message to the thread. Hadn't realized it could be legible -- had to lean in on my 17" display to do it -- but only after Currell reminded me it was F&B's kit!)

I was telling Bob Kruger recently that the designer of the Shark was very obviously a sharp guy. He (Pat Johnston) and I chose the same fuselage and vertical fin outline to use. The plan that Bob sent to me had no dihedral shown on it. My own plane was also based upon a stretched Streak airfoil, but I called mine a Bolo, and I built half a dozen of them back in the late 1970's. I'll have to take a digital photo of the only one left, which differed by having a tapered wing, and stubby, small wing flaps as well . .

.

Kiwi

F & B put out the Stinger. I had the kit a few years ago, but swapped it to someone. Currell

>>The Stinger was a Dale Kirn design, not "small", but not huge, either, kitted in the 50's
>>by whoever kitted the Viking, I'm pretty sure (Consolidated? No, that doesn't seem right
>>after all).
>
>F & B put out the Stinger. I had the kit a few years ago, but swapped it to someone.

>Currell

"Ah, Ha!" Now, why would the initials of F&B slip so totally out of my memory? Doggone Senior Moment leaky RAM in there!

.

Kiwi

I think this is the Shark 402 designed by Pat Johnston. Don't remember it having dihedral. Hmmm...

Fun plane on an OS20 FP or LA. Nice and stable.

WHY??

scott(oh i didn't want to say anything about QC in his kits that he puts out allready so why make more kits)Riese:o

LAST EDITED ON Mar-29-04 AT 12:28 PM (CDT)
 
>I was reading the latest Stunt news March/April
>and on page 64 are the two new kits. have any of
>you have experience with these guys?

I have experience building and flying a couple of Shark 402s. Very nice flyer. Good lift, easy to build, and not at all "twitchy." Also, very economical on wood consumption. Great ship with a Veco 19BB or an OS 20/25FP. Would probably be pretty good with an OS 25LA or the new Brodak 25 when it gets herel, though this is subjective as I have no experience with either on the Shark 402.

Pat has upgraded and updated the Shark 402 design for a couple of years. I have never seen the design with dihedral, though, and wonder why he would add it in the first place. Is dihedral a good thing in a profile stunt ship?

Dunno.

Bob - a few years back, I built a Sterling profile Mustang. As an experiment, I put 1 inch of dihedral (cathedral) in each wingtip. I also fixed the flaps.
I let many people fly it, especially those who had flown one in stock form. Every one agreed that it was the best of any that they had ever tried.
In stock form, the Mustang has a low wing, putting the center of lift well below the (vertical) CG. I think that by raising the center of lift, it just became more stable. Anyhow, it behaved identically upright or inverted. After many flights, it became my all-time favorite profiles.
It brought home quite a few trophies in classic, profile and even PAMPA stunt.
Bob Z

I have been wondering about the 1 inch dihedral, also, as the original plan did not call for that, nor was the original plane built that way. It may be, however, that with the low wing on a side mounted engine, that this was needed to bring the leadouts up to the vertical CG. I don't understand how it is going to add to stability since it is flying on a tether. If dihedral adds to stability upright, then it would decrease stability inverted which is not the case. This is a nice design, however, for a .25 size engine.

Now, however, before everybody gets too anxious, I just called Brodak this morning and was told that the Shark kits would not be ready for a couple of months yet. It is another case of advertising getting ahead of product. Still waiting on the ARFs to be shipped from China as well. After that, it is a matter of how fast they row the boats.

Thanks guys for all the info and history.
Something to look forward to.

>I have been wondering about the 1 inch dihedral, also, as
>the original plan did not call for that, nor was the
>original plane built that way. It may be, however, that
>with the low wing on a side mounted engine, that this was
>needed to bring the leadouts up to the vertical CG. I don't
>understand how it is going to add to stability since it is
>flying on a tether. If dihedral adds to stability upright,
>then it would decrease stability inverted which is not the
>case. This is a nice design, however, for a .25 size
>engine.
>
>Now, however, before everybody gets too anxious, I just
>called Brodak this morning and was told that the Shark kits
>would not be ready for a couple of months yet. It is
>another case of advertising getting ahead of product. Still
>waiting on the ARFs to be shipped from China as well. After
>that, it is a matter of how fast they row the boats.

Thank you

I got Dale to redraw the Stinger Plans a few years ago. F&b had construction plans like Sterling kits. He also sent me a copy of the original canopy and a signed history of the of the plane . There was a 15 size one. Also one with half flaps. I left all this Information with John Brodak about two or three years ago and forgot about it until now, maybe this had some influence on kitting the plane. I built mine with a FP 35.Dale warned me that the plane tend to come out tail heavy, I didn’t pay attention and it came out that way I would make a built up tail and light wood aft of the CG. The landing gear interfered with the OS muffler. Like most old time planes I had to make my own fuel tank to get enough fuel for the pattern .
Willis

I have the F&B kit; the only thing fullsize on the plan is the main spar or a portion of it showing the rib locations.

I watched Willis's one and only flight with the Stinger pictured, and it looked like a handful CG wise!

This might be a good canidate for heavy motors sitting around, if you can get a tank in it. The Brodak K&B 40 ABC comes to mind. It is unquestionably one cool looking plane.

Maybe a canidate for a four stroke??? heavy motor+ small tank requirements. Where's Zambelli when you need him?

Here I am!!
Actually, I thought about that but due to the additional height of the 4S engine, there might be too much sticking out of that cute little cheek cowl.
I will start cutting wood for my Stinger soon and I'll just do my best to keep it light.
I have a new sand-cast Fox .29 that's looking for a home - the Stinger should be it. I'll break it in and see what kind of power it makes. If not enough power, we'll somehow get a Fox .35 in with sufficient fuel.
Bob Z