A friend posed a question to me having built both that I couldn't really answer other than my preference so I'll throw it out for other opinions. Which of the two kits would you choose for sport flying and beginner, possibly intermediate PA? Power will be OS 40FP with Randy Smith rework. Considerations are flying ability and ease of construction ignoring appearance differences.
Brodak Cardinal vs. Pathfinder profile kits
Stuka Stunt Main Forum · 12 of 12 known posts recovered
Scott Riese · Oct 22, 2001 10:45 PM
#1 sourceBOTH.....However, OS-40 rework might be a little low on the power side, It will work!!!! Build them light and you should be OK
Steve Helmick · Oct 22, 2001 11:15 PM
#3 sourceI have both kits, haven't built either, but the Pathfinder has to be the easier to build of the two. The trike gear will also be an asset to maximize takeoff and landing points and eliminate dinged props on takeoffs in windy weather. Having seen Scott and Nils flying the stock FP/Tower .40 with the Mac's muffler (#6650) and Tornado 3 blade 10-4's, that's my choice. Quiet and powerful with good fuel economy, no engine rework bill and cheap props. The LA .40 or .46 would also be good with the Mac's. Both are great designs and excellent kits. Steve
mrwhizkers · Oct 23, 2001 01:10 AM
#4 sourceHaven't built a Cardinal yet, but have built a Pathfinder. If you're into open bays, then go with the Pathfinder. Including the tips, there are 124 open bays just on the wing. Also the Pathfinder is huge. If you can build really light, then it might be OK for a 40. Mine was so heavy that I had to hang a ST 51 on it to get the power I needed, and it was still tail heavy.
Make it easy on yourself and go with the profile Cardinal.
Make it easy on yourself and go with the profile Cardinal.
Problem is he already has the Randy Smith OS 40 FP and wants to use it. I have used the SSW 40FP on both of these with an abundance of power on the Cardinal and I am sure the same on the Pathfinder. Is Randy's rework somewhat different?? I have seen the engine run on other, admittedly smaller profiles and it seems OK with a solid run but maybe not a real powerhouse.
I have a Randy Smith FP.40. It's a great running engine but it doesn't have nearly the power of my buddy's SSW.40. I had my Smith .40 on a profile Oriental & it was a great combination (though not as good as the stock FP.40/Macs muffler 10-4 three blade that's on there now). I also have a profile Cardinal with an ST.G-21 .46 on it. I'd say the SSW.40 is very close to as powerful as my ST.46. Since he has the Smith .40 already I suggest he goes with a profile Oriental. I don't think it will have enough soup for the Cardinal. (Of course I'm notorious for building heavy.) I also think the straight Oriental wing would be easier for a beginner to build than the double taper Cardinal wing. Having said that, I must add that the Cardinal is a much better flying airplane for serious competition, although I don't really think a beginner would notice the difference.
Nils
Nils
LAST EDITED ON Oct-29-01 AT 10:55 PM (CDT)
>I have a Randy Smith FP.40.
>It's a great running engine
>but it doesn't have nearly
>the power of my buddy's
>SSW.40.
I said that in 1992 in the PAMPA newsletter. Everyone tore me a new one. I was blocking the boost port back then, using Big Art's recommendations, and testing engines one against another.
Funny, it's common knowledge now and no one is arguing.
It's just a fact.
The City Smasher
Hey Godzilla - can you confirm if the 46LA and 40FP fit the same mount?
Ray Ferreira, Jr
>Hey Godzilla - can you confirm
>if the 46LA and 40FP
>fit the same mount?
>if the 46LA and 40FP
>fit the same mount?
Exact same. The needle position is also the exact same. The venturis are also the same.
The LA head is square nad a litlle bigger though. The LA does not fit the round cowl opening of the FP, if you have an existing plane you are retrofitting with a cowl.
The City Smasher
Jim,
I have built & test flown a profile cardinal for a customer which included re-working his FP35. It flew very well, and the motor pulled it fine on .015" x 63' lines. It was build with all the kit timber, finished with dope/talc, top flite lustre coat paint and film on the wings. It was a good budget price, not over finished, capable model for a novice.
The CG worked out well with a tongue muffler.
Provided you don't get carried away with finish and keep it to a sensible weight the FP40 should pull it fine on say 10% nitro.
You'll only need a 46 if you build a brick. It should be easy to build & finish one around 45oz or under.
BRI
My former Cardinal profile came in at 43 oz with SSW 40FP, kote and dope, no muffler, but needed 1oz tail weight. The SSW 40 would have pulled it straight up out of sight, maybe to the moon.
Exceptionally good flying profile. Unfortunately, it was lost in a very high wind with extremely heavy tension during downwind maneuvers,due to failure of Brodak spring steel pushrod retaining clip. I normally solder on a washer to retain pushrod-have no idea why I used the little retainer on this model. Obviously they may fail when subjected to extreme stress-poor judgement costs a model. As I understand it, the friend has chosen the Cardinal kit but it was a close call.
Exceptionally good flying profile. Unfortunately, it was lost in a very high wind with extremely heavy tension during downwind maneuvers,due to failure of Brodak spring steel pushrod retaining clip. I normally solder on a washer to retain pushrod-have no idea why I used the little retainer on this model. Obviously they may fail when subjected to extreme stress-poor judgement costs a model. As I understand it, the friend has chosen the Cardinal kit but it was a close call.