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

SIG Magnum Building Tips

Stuka Stunt Main Forum · 16 of 16 known posts recovered

Village Idiot · Apr 12, 2004 07:24 PM

#0 source
What, if anything, needs to be done to this plane beyond what the instructions/prints specify while building in order to have a fine sport stunter? I plan on using a TT PRO .46 converted to C/L spinning an APC 12.25 x 3.75 prop, use a uni-flo tank and fly with .018" x 70' 7 strand S/S lines. Typically, I build very light, so that shouldn't be a problem.

Eugene S. Chernosky
AMA 639635

There is a fine line between hobby and mental illness. Some are way over the line.

Bill Little · Apr 12, 2004 07:33 PM

#1 source
V.I.,
I haven't heard of any real changes to the plane that need to be made. We scratch built one (still have it, refinishing it now) and the only thing I can remember that might not have been on the plans is cross fill between the engine bearers. (??)
Also, a 4" bellcrank, modern long horns, CF push rods, etc.. i.e.: a Tom Morris system or equivalent.
Bill <><


Just an Old Advanced flyer.

TigreST · Apr 12, 2004 08:31 PM

#2 source
V.I.,
Not knowing the weight of the TT46 but thinking it may be lighter perhaps then the late model ST-60 (just a guess) I'd suggest building extremely light all over but in particular in the tail end of the model, or at least beyond the c.g. point. Any weight savings here will only help. I currently own what may be the heaviest Magnum in history (un-recorded history. Although Hoovie may argue that point,..but his has flown ) It's so heavy... this is where the Johnny Carson crowd say, "How heavy is it?" Answer "It so heavy that I must call Fort Knox so they can move the gold to counter balance my Magnums' placement on the globe so as not to send the earth careening out of orbit toward the sun."

Knowing what I know now. I would a)hollow all blocks as per instructions and then some, tips, top,bottom blocks. b)sand all factory wood to min. thickness to net both lighter and smoother finish. c) keep tight control of the paint prep and finishing process in all area's aft of the c.g. d) maybe move the engine forward as far as possible to effect better out of the box balance (assuming lighter motor weight). e)trash the heavier kit wood for lighter material where needed. f) maybe go wider on the bulkhead formers around the engine mount area at the front,..my ST-60 fit tight here,..I'll be fixing that on build #2.

My knowledge on this kit is somewhat (read: "Very") dated. I built mine prior to Computer/I-net/SSW and used all of my "then" school boy techniques, plus a few new ones: "How do you spell Lacquer primer anyway? I think thats spelt HEAVY..if not sanded off. So it is not typical of the great
"Magnum" flyers that are out there. Fact is it's so heavy it has not flown.(maybe that says enough in it's self?) But some day it will. A "down to the wood" re-finish is planned, which I'm sure will net great returns. It's just a matter of finding time to begin the process. Currently there is no time. ( recurring story of my life).

Regarding the answer to your other question:

a) Million six,..unmarked bills plain brown wrapping?
b)Porsche 911 twin turbo station wagon?
c) Ultra Hobbies Impact and RO-Jet BSE .60 combo?
d) Your thanks,...that should cover it?


I'm likin' "d" myself. Glad to be of help Gene.

Tony

bigseminole · Apr 12, 2004 10:00 PM

#3 source
LAST EDITED ON Apr-12-04 AT 10:11 PM (CDT)
 
Hi!
Those Magnums usually came our pretty much on-the-money balance wise with the ST-46 and IMHO, if kept light, that is plenty of power. If your engine is about that weight, you'll be ok and have power to spare.

I have been led to understand that the kit was designed to build with off-the-shelf Sig wood but I would think about replacing ALL of the wood except for the ply, unless Sig mistakenly put descent wood in your box.

I once saw one with a rounded turtle deck that looked real slick and a molded one wouldn't be hard to do. That would help keep things light. The kit that I had came with wing sheeting that was pretty heavy, so plan on replacing that as well. At leaste you'll have some wood to make the kids a few gliders with.

Definately use a crutch front end, with a slide-in tank compartment and a modern 4-Inch control system too.

Several builders have gone with fuse mounted gear and if you fly off of grass or have the occasional 'rough' landing, that might be a good idea as well.

In the end, If I was gonna build a magnum, I'd just order myself some cores, a set of plans and scratch-build the thing. The structure is pretty simple and you could make yourself a copied-kit in a couple of evenings at most.

Well, at leaste you have a set of patterns and when youre done, you can sell the kit to the next guy!

I guess thats why you see so many Magnum kits at swap meets...

Bigs

PS: I almost forgot... Ditch that long cowl for a much shorter one or a no-cowl type front end. That will make for a much stiffer front end and a longer lasting plane, with a better motor run.

Peace

Charlie Chan · Apr 12, 2004 10:09 PM

#4 source
I built two of them. Still have them.
I beleive you need more engine.
Talk to Jim Pollock .He had a ST51 in his.
That engine won,t go with full length lines, unless you build it to the point of weakness.
My honest opinion.

Charlie Pate

Jerry_Raimo · Apr 12, 2004 10:28 PM

#5 source
I think the Sig Magnum is fine out of the box except for the landing gear. I built my foirst one stock and had gear problems after just a few flights. I think body mounted gear is the way to go if you ever fly on grass like I do. My first kit built magnum had an ST 60. Got by with a 6 oz tank with .295 venturi. Flew great. My second one had a Randy Smith foam wing that he called an enhanced magnum airfoil. Slightly thicker. Built it about 12 years ago and flew it for 8 years, also with an ST 60. Flew great also.

I also bought one fully assembled about 2 years ago that was from a stock kit. Accidently tore the gear out of the wing on about the 20th flight. Has fuse mounted gear now like it's predecessors. Has an ST 51 in it that came with it. I think the ST 60 was a better setup for my style of flying (I prefer 5.4 - 5.3 lap times and want tension on top.) I need to run the 51 faster than i'd like (5.1 lap times) to keep tension in the hourglass.

All in all, great airplane if you can keep it under 62 ounces and power it appropriately in my opinion.

Jerry Raimo

Nils · Apr 13, 2004 12:57 AM

#6 source
Betcha this one's heavier, it's just under 8 pounds.

/\/\/

phantomflier · Apr 13, 2004 01:21 AM

#7 source
LAST EDITED ON Apr-13-04 AT 01:23 AM (CDT)
 
As has been mentioned earlier good idea to replace all the 1/16 wood for sheeting with light wood. One kit had a single piece of 30 inch sheeting that weighed over 1 ounce. Doing so in mine saved about 6 ounces. Weigh the individual pieces of sheeting, use the heavier ones to cover the outboard wing panel, the difference could be an ounce in final weight which effect how much tip weight you'll need. Use the lightest of the wood to cover the stab.

Since the kits use off the shelf wood there might be a big difference in the stiffness of the sides, one or both may need replacing.

Some people feel the stab & elevator are too small and that the stab needs to be moved back.

Just my 1.5 cents worth.

Carl

Added in edit

Love the seaplane adaptation, what functions do the electrical lines control?

Nils · Apr 14, 2004 09:47 AM

#11 source
>Added in edit
>
>Love the seaplane adaptation, what functions do the
>electrical lines control?

Throttle, via insulated lines.

/\/\/

Mikey · Apr 13, 2004 12:11 PM

#8 source
Magnum Updates:
Right out of the box the Magnum is more than competitive in any stunt circle and some of the changes posted while adding a slight improvement, 90% of the stunt flyers couldn't tell the difference between a stock or improved Magnum. Having said that, there are a few things that can be done to improve it over the basic kit version. At the time the Magnum was designed it was at the forefront of design but like anything else, things change and move forward.

Wing: Not much to change here, the airfoil and the wing area has proven to be more than adequate if the weight of Magnum is held at 62 ounces or less. If you tend to build heavy then increase the thickness at the tip about 1/8".

Fuselage: Adding 1/2" balsa between the engine mounts is a good thing to do to increase the stiffness of the front end. Also adding .5 ounce carbon veil between the balsa fuselage sides and the plywood doublers also helps. On one version of the Magnum I built had a removable tank cover that bolted in place to hold the fuel tank in place and add additional stiffness to the front end. But there was no noticeable difference in stiffness and/or engine vibration.

Landing Gear: Fuse mounted gear is fine if that is what you want but the wing mounted gear is also more than adequate for grass fields. I fly off a grass airport runway and have never had a problem with the gear from normal landings. Now if you have a tendency drop that sucker in from 3 feet then all bets are off LOL.

Controls System: The latest versions of the Magnum kits were supplied with a 4" bellcrank and 1/8" music flap horns that were 1-1/4" tall from the center of the 1/8" wire to the center of the top bushing. The elevator control horn was 3/32" music wire and measured 1" from the bushing to the music wire. This was a big improvement over the 3" bellcrank and the 3/32" control horns. Adjustable ratio elevator horns are a good thing if you build the model under 58 ounces other wise, you will wind up at a 1 to 1 ratio again for maximum turn.

Flaps: The build up flaps work fine if they are covered with tissue and dope, but if you are going to use iron on film then make them from solid sheet or sheet the built up flaps with 1/32" balsa (best method).

Elevators: Just like the flaps, fine when covered with tissue and dope or sheeted with 1/32" balsa. Do not make the elevators from solid sheet!!! This will required additional weight in the nose for proper balance. Increasing the area of the stab & elevator from 20% to 25% is another slight improvement but one that I don't think is all that necessary. If you want to increase the area then the stab must become a built up unit (not made from foam). It has to be really light!!!!

Longer Tail Moment: The trend has been to make the tail moment longer and longer over the years and it has merit. But again, this requires the tail assemblies to be really light so dead weight is not added to balance the model.

Increased Side Area: Never was a problem with any of my models but if you want to increase the side area add a piece of 3/4" wide balsa between the fin and the rudder and switch the bottom fuselage block from 1/4" balsa to 1/2" balsa. I did this and could not tell any difference at all except it had more of a tendency to weather vain in the wind on the upwind side of the circle.

Engines: For the money the best engine that you can get for the Magnum is the St 51. That does not mean that other engines will not work as well or even better, but for $100.00 bucks it is really hard to beat. If you build light at 53 ounces then the St 46 is also a great combination (my personal favorite).

OK, time for my opinion on a few things. When one of the top fliers makes a change or implements a new design feature to his stunter, the rest of the stunt world follows like a herd of thundering turtles (LOL), mainly because that is what they perceive must be best. You have to remember that their models are very highly refined over a number of years and very specific to what they are trying to improve and/or achieve with their designs. In addition, these changes must fit in with their style of flying. Sure most of these changes do work but the rest of the design must be considered when making any change to the basic airframe. A good example of this is flying some of the classic models. With the modern control systems and power plants they can be made to fly superbly and at a very competitive level.

The secret to excelling in this sport has never changed, it requires a well built model that is properly aligned, built at a reasonable weight, a consistent running engine, constantly trimmed, hours of coaching, and practice and more practice. It doesn't matter who you are even if you have all the latest and trick gadgets on your world beater airplane, if you don't practice you don't win. So spend the time burning fuel and learning how to fly your model in all weather conditions.

Mike Pratt

EddyR · Apr 13, 2004 03:26 PM

#9 source
I built two. The first one was a kit powered by a ST/46 and then changed to a FSR/40. The kit had 3/32 sides not 1/8 inch body sides. The second one built from the plans. I used 1/8 inch body sides and a built up wing powered it with a ST/56 and this was the best one of the two.With your TT/46 the plane would need to be very light to give top performance. My 46 plane flew the pattern but it was not a great combination.A ST51 would be great up to 62 ounces
Ed

Ray · Apr 15, 2004 07:51 AM

#13 source
Sig's wood seems adequate, but replacing the wing sheets with "good" wood does save weight and gives a more consistent surface. But building technique and practices are the greater factors in saving or gaining weight. On my first Magnum - I used Core-Bond...and more was better! Took two hands to handle that Whopper! Went to school on that one....now a light coat of 3M 77 is my choice. Point I would make is....take every reasonable opportunity to save weight: It can only work to your advantage.

Don't know if I goofed - but the stab on my Magnum #1 failed at the center point where the two halves are joined. It didn't break off...but just flexed a lot. Ask Godzilla....he'll remember the Whopper! Think he called it Shamu! I now reinforce any 2-piece stab (and, of course, wings) with glass cloth. Any thoughts here, Mike?

Ray

Ray Ferreira, Jr

MikeC · Apr 13, 2004 05:23 PM

#10 source
I love the Sig Magnum! This airplane will fly the pattern as well as any stunter manufactured today. I have never had any problems out of the wing mounted landing gear. If anything it's to the contrary, I believe the wing mounted gear is more forgiving the the body mounted system. The Magnum's wing gear if installed correctly, per the instruction book will out last the airframe.

Now engine choice, don't put that 46 in the nose of your magnum unless you intend to run what some of the guys call a wet two stroke run. If you are planning on a 4-2-4 break you had better pick another engine size or purchase some 58 foot lines.

My Magnum's have been powered by either a T&L ST51 or T&L ST60. These two engines are two of the best offered for this airplane. I always few on 65 foot .018 lines, 12/5 to 13/5 prop, 5/22 GMA fuel, 5.7 second tap times.
When you are flying in the wind there isn't a substitute for POWER.

Changes reccomended for your Magnum.

(1) Use thinned epoxy to attach you wing skins to the foam cores.
This will add one ounce of weight to the airframe and make for a
lighter wing.

(2) Hollow ALL blocks on this airplane, Wing tips, Top turtle deck,
Bottom Belly pan, Front deck.

(3) If you don't do anything else, build your engine crutch like
your life depended on it. drill lighting holes in your spruce
motor mounts. Add balsa pieces inside the motor crutch to
strenghten the crutch. Went you assemble the crutch, make sure
it's built on a FLAT surface and made darn sure it's square. If
it's not square, then your fuse will not be square.

(4) Now for the bad news,I have never built a Magnum kit that has
weighted less the 65 ounces, ready to fly. My best offering was
at 63 ounces with a ST60 in the nose.

Build it , fly it, enjoy it, she will give you yeras of fun if the time is taken and the weight is watched.

MikeC

Village Idiot · Apr 14, 2004 05:12 PM

#12 source
>Now engine choice, don't put that 46 in the nose of your
>magnum unless you intend to run what some of the guys call a
>wet two stroke run.

I never have, nor never will, see what ANYONE favors in the 4-2-4 run. I will be running the 'wet' 2 stroke run where it goes full lean in manuevers...simply put...POWER...not a gurgly 4 cyle run in level flight...that does nothing for me.

I had a 54" W/S flapped stunter I designed/built and re-kitted a while back that weighed ~65 oz. (way too heavy IMO) and this engine/prop set-up pulled it around with total authority. I'm thinking I can get the Magnum in the high 50's or low 60's...in ounces....so it should do just fine with the TT engine.

Personally, I'm NOT worried about a specific lap time or speed. I'm doing this to have fun...or did you miss the part about a 'sport' stunt plane?

Eugene S. Chernosky
AMA 639635

There is a fine line between hobby and mental illness. Some are way over the line.

Bill Little · Apr 15, 2004 09:34 AM

#14 source
Hi V.I.
I got the point about it being a sport plane, therefore I didn't get too hairy with my suggestions.
I would build the engine mounts in a "crutch" style just for dependability/better airframe life, use a 4" bellcrank w/ modern ratio horns if the kit doesn't already have them, put that TT46 in it, run it in a "wet 2", and have fun!
One other that you might consider: fuse mounted aluminum gear, which are just simpler and quicker to build.
Good luck, it should do all you want from it and more!
Bill <><

Just an Old Advanced flyer.

Village Idiot · Apr 15, 2004 09:17 PM

#15 source
LAST EDITED ON Apr-15-04 AT 09:18 PM (CDT)
 
"crutch" style engine mount...uh...I guess I'm kinda stupid here...what is that? Email me a picture/drawing, etc. so I know WTH you are talking about...please!

[email protected]

Eugene S. Chernosky
AMA 639635

There is a fine line between hobby and mental illness. Some are way over the line.