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

Latest effort...Almost

Stuka Stunt Main Forum · 27 of 27 known posts recovered

Baron · Apr 22, 2004 12:07 AM

#0 source
So far, so good. The question is, will it be ready for Texarkana?

Max1998 · Apr 22, 2004 01:46 AM

#1 source
Looks very nice.Can you give me a little more info on plane and power plant to go in the ship.Looks great.

EricV · Apr 22, 2004 06:00 AM

#2 source
Looks like some Bob G influence on the fuse & tail, and some Randy Smith influence on the wing. Your own creation? Looks good, I like it! Heh, I see I am not the only one who leaves wrapping those silly leadouts until last. Hope she fly's as good as she looks.

EricV

Baron · Apr 22, 2004 08:40 AM

#3 source
Actually, it is a UHP Bear Nobler. Bob's '97 design all the way. Power is RO-Jett .65.

Ion Muniz · Apr 22, 2004 10:39 AM

#4 source
All I can say is that it's a good lookin' piece'a bird! Beautiful!!

Do ya know how much wheight you put on that finish?

I'd like to know...

Ion

EricV · Apr 22, 2004 09:01 PM

#10 source
Whoops! Ok, cool. Sorry about that. The tip-lets fooled me, I haven't seen his latest Noblers up close.

Who started the tip-lets (for lack of my better description) anyways? I've seen them recently on Randy's Katana (I think?)

While we are at it, I've been curious what the theory/effect is supposed to be...maybe reduce tip vortex' I guess?? That sounds all great and techie when I hear people say it, but what does that mean in the real world in the pattern to the guy at the handle? In dead air does it cause less bumpy wake for you to hit in consecutive loops or something???

Once again, looking good! Looking forward to flight reports.
EricV

Dinobob · Apr 22, 2004 11:14 AM

#5 source
Very sweet!!! some more info. please? all the usual stuff.

Bob

Baron · Apr 22, 2004 11:44 AM

#6 source
This was my first attempt at an automotive type finish. Even though the numbers seemed to come in where Godzilla thought as far as weight of the clear coat, I think I gained some excess weight on the primer and base coat. Plane looks like it will come in at just under 60 oz, hopefully. Heavier than I wanted, but serviceable for my skill level. Couldn't seem to get the gun adjusted properly on the clear coat, and I will have to do some buffing. This was one of those projects that seemed never ending! Maybe I'm just getting old, slow, and picky...I've been working on this one on and off since last summer!

This was an Ultra Hobby Products short kit of the Bear Nobler. I think they make only the full kit, now. Laser cutting was perfect. This is definitely a competition level design as far as internal construction for saving weight, etc. Shame I ended up with a slightly heavy finish.

Bill Little · Apr 22, 2004 12:48 PM

#7 source
Craig,
Real nice looking Bear!
I know we always want them lighter, it seems. Under 60 oz. with the RoJett .65 should be a good flier.

Just an Old Advanced flyer.

DMoon · Apr 22, 2004 03:37 PM

#8 source
Craig,

AWESOME!

Where did you come up with the name.

Once you get buffed you will love how the clear holds out the shine and never gives up protection against fuel.

Under 60 should work fine.

I think it looks great!

Baron · Apr 22, 2004 05:15 PM

#9 source
Any tips on buffing this stuff? It really needs it.

godzilla · Apr 23, 2004 09:36 AM

edited#11 source
>Any tips on buffing this stuff? It really needs it.

Sure!

Knock any runs flat with 600 grit wet.
Wet sand whole airplane with 1000 grit.
Buff with 3m rubbing compound.
Buff with 3m Micro Finishing Compound.
A mini buffer is nice to make quick work of the plane. If you have the cash, buy one!
[photo not recovered: 157517_lg.jpg]
http://www.northerntool.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=6970&langId=-1&catalogId=4006970&PHOTOS=on&productId=200051274&categoryId=0

It is even cheaper here.

http://www.toolking.com/chicagopneumatic/view.asp?ID=5545

Also...

Is it me, or did Craig kick some serious booty ON HIS FIRST TRY!!!! My guess is that once buffed, this airplane will be far superior to anything he ever did in dope.

THIS WAS HIS FIRST TRY FOLKS!!!!!

Baron · Apr 23, 2004 01:44 PM

#12 source
Thanks for the kudos, man. I appreciate it. I found the primer and base coats a LOT easier than dope. It's the clear that I found challenging. I don't think I ever got my gun adjusted quite right.

Randy Powell · Apr 23, 2004 02:11 PM

#13 source
>>I don't think I ever got my gun adjusted quite right.<<

Boy, it's that the truth. Took me 3 planes using the catalyzed clearcoat before I really got the hang of it.

Thanks to Godzilla for turning me on the Matrix clearcoat. Sure was easier to deal with.

godzilla · Apr 23, 2004 02:46 PM

#14 source
>>>I don't think I ever got my gun adjusted quite right.<<
>
>Boy, it's that the truth. Took me 3 planes using the
>catalyzed clearcoat before I really got the hang of it.

Alright, here is a quick primmer for adjusting the gravity feed gun.

1. Make sure the screw on the bottom of the handle of the gun is wide open. (This is the air flow if you do not use the pressure regulator). We will use the air regulator on the gun for adjustment.
2. Adjust fan wide open.
3. Set tank pressure to 60 PSI (this is just a good buffer number).
4. Depress the trigger on the gun, look at the regulator. The pressure should be 9-10 psi with the trigger depressed. It will be double that or so with the trigger not depressed.
5. Load some clear.
6. Hold gun 12-16 inches from the surface of a cardboard box.
7. Close material feed screw all the way. While depressing the trigger open until paint starts to come out. Open a little more to get a decent semi wet flow.
8. Close thje fan knob until the fan JUST STARTS TO SHRINK from wide open. Find the spot where it starts to shrink, leave it there.
9. Adjust the material feed until the shoot is semi wet.
10. Paint the plane at a distance of at least a foot away. You should be moving the gun pretty fast. If this makes you uncomfortable. Thin the clear al ittle more and close the material flow.

Anytime you drop the air pressure from this setting or close the fan you will have to close the material flow. Less air less material.

>Thanks to Godzilla for turning me on the Matrix clearcoat.
>Sure was easier to deal with.

I would say the Matrix clear is easily my favorite. It is also cheap. I used the "Texas slow" hardener to do Mike Scott's latest. It flowed like CRAZY. No need to wet the coat out.

Randy Powell · Apr 23, 2004 05:03 PM

#17 source
Brad,

Oh great. Where were you 3 planes ago.

Good gun adjustment description. For those of us that have shot many, many gallons of lacquer over time, it takes awhile to get the hang of the differences when using urethane materials. While your description is ideal for urethane, you'd get a dripping mess with most lacquers, depending on the reduction and additives. It's one of the reasons why I had such a problem shooting catalyzed clearcoat at first. I just couldn't believe that you needed to open the material flow that much with that little air pressure. You'd think I could do a little empirical deduction and figure it out.

I learn. It's slow sometimes, but I am educable.

DMoon · Apr 23, 2004 11:32 PM

#20 source
Brads notes on gun adjustment are right on the money. Follow them and you should get really close right on the first try. I like to keep my line pressure way up in the 80-90 psi range. Simply because Bill Wilson told me to. He said it really keeps it flowing smooth.

That is a nice set of tips on how to do it.

I think I will print it out.

godzilla · Apr 23, 2004 02:48 PM

#15 source
>>>I don't think I ever got my gun adjusted quite right.<<
>
>Boy, it's that the truth. Took me 3 planes using the
>catalyzed clearcoat before I really got the hang of it.

That is still a good number.

Howard Rush · Apr 23, 2004 11:07 PM

#18 source
Three planes to get the hang of it? I'll be 120 years old.

Randy Powell · Apr 24, 2004 12:01 AM

#22 source
>>Three planes to get the hang of it? I'll be 120 years old.<<

Sheesh Howard, you could build once in awhile.

DMoon · Apr 23, 2004 11:28 PM

#19 source
Brad,

I really hate to argue with you on this but I would strongly advise against cutting clear with anything less than 1000 grit paper and really it should be 1200 or higher. Everytime I have used 600 or even 800 on the auto clear it cuts the shine out. It will buff back up and look awesome but then two hours later it is dull again. I have been told by many different paint guys never to cut it with more than 1200. The clear is simply to hard and getting the scratches back out is almost impossible especially on a model where you cant grind on it very hard, i.e. open bays.

Now if you plan to reshoot then by all means cut it with 400-600 paper get it smooth and reshoot.

Just going by what I have learned the hard way time and time again.

Here is another cool thing. If you buff only with 1000 and higher you buff and rebuff over and over and you wont really ever go throught the clear. Now of course you have to watch it on any corners or hard edges. I have actually had really good results buffing and rebuffing. I take it all the way up through the final finesse-it and then start again with the 1200. I dont know why but it works better that way, for me anyway.

Not trying to start an argument but I just wanted to interject some of my experience with buffing and cutting out the shine.

Randy Powell · Apr 24, 2004 12:05 AM

#23 source
Doug,

I think you're right on. I've experience that. On the first plane I did with catalyzed clearcoat, I cut if first with 600 wet then went to 1500 then 2000 then buffed it up with Aurora 4000. Then waxed it up. Looked pretty good till I took it out in the sun. I rubbed on that plane a lot, but it was never as shinny as I thought it should be.

I think using the 600 put too deep a scratches in it that I could never really get out.

Randy

DMoon · Apr 24, 2004 12:48 AM

#24 source
Randy,

That is exactly what happened to me! It cuts the shine out! I even took my plane to the paint store. The guy was most impressed with the plane but wasnt to much on the clear coat I did. Then he told me all about cutting the shine and gave me a few pointers, like shoot it again. He really thought the stunt plane was cool.

Randy Powell · Apr 24, 2004 11:01 AM

#26 source
Doug,

Yep. It was hard to explain to my paint guy that just shooting it again and again until it's right really isn't an option.

godzilla · Apr 24, 2004 09:36 AM

#25 source
>Brad,
>
>I really hate to argue with you on this but I would strongly
>advise against cutting clear with anything less than 1000
>grit paper and really it should be 1200 or higher.
>Everytime I have used 600 or even 800 on the auto clear it
>cuts the shine out. It will buff back up and look awesome
>but then two hours later it is dull again. I have been told
>by many different paint guys never to cut it with more than
>1200. The clear is simply to hard and getting the scratches
>back out is almost impossible especially on a model where
>you cant grind on it very hard, i.e. open bays.

Well, we will see if there is a difference. I have a good test in place right now. I reshot the stab and elevator of Mr. Hyde. I actually sanded it flat with 400, then 1000, and started rubbing with compound.

It will be good test.

Mr. Hyde was sanded with 1000 grit over the whole plane. I think it is pretty shiny...

I think the key is much more rubbing with the course 3m rubbing compound. It removes very deep scratches.

Also, I only said to sand out the runs with the 600 (I use 400). I found that a certain amount of grit is necessary to fix runs.

godzilla · Apr 23, 2004 02:50 PM

edited#16 source
>Real nice looking Bear!
>I know we always want them lighter, it seems. Under 60 oz.
>with the RoJett .65 should be a good flier.

Mike Scott won Advanced at THE NATS with a 60 oz Bear.

I think you will survive...

PS: I need some pictures for the web site!

Baron · Apr 23, 2004 11:38 PM

#21 source
When it's completely together, I'll get you some pics.