Construction notes.

LAST EDITED ON Jul-26-04 AT 10:27 PM (CDT)
 
There have been a few people who say that my posting building techniques is a waste of time. I have been doing this a long time and in the 60tys I can remember a guy that inspired me. (Bill Noyes)

Also at this time I would like to thank Dan for sending me Tom Wardens props.

Tips on the most part were kept a secrete. Those two guys really help me get started.

There are a few who would like to see how a stunt ship is put together. If you think that they do not then you take my email. I do not say that there is no other way to do things I just have mine. I will try different ways of doing things and see what works the best.
All constructive criticism will be taken to heart and tried.

I personally, for the life of me cannot imagine why anyone would say that posting your building techniques is a waste of time. Pics of all types are GREATLY APPPRECIATED ON THIS FORUM. Al Rabe posted a major series of construction pics and techniques and routinely continues to do so. I think construction shots are some of the most interesting pics period. I sincerely hope you will ignore this person\people and post that stuff man.

I thank you very much for the support.

I picked up more than one new idea from your last post and the responses. It's really interesting stuff and I hope that you'll keep it up. I'm trying to be a student of CLPA and no new material is ever useless or irrelevant. Thanks for the effort involved!

Yes, I agree the photos are very interesting and bring out some good comments. On a previous post I was interested to see Randy Smith's comments on the balsa doubler/carbon mat method he uses on his designs. I have built two ships this way and it was nice to hear from him as to why he likes that system of construction.
My next project will be a mid-sized Smith design (Shrike) so I have been paying close attention to this whole discussion. I will be powering it with a VF40, which I don't think is any lighter than a PA. It would be ideal if I could build it at 50oz but I will be happy if I can bring it in at 54-55oz.
Regards,

LAST EDITED ON Jul-27-04 AT 00:09 AM (CDT)
 
10 years ago I had a plane with a VF46 in the nose. You will find that the power to weight is less than desirable. I will be building a plane for a Aero lite 40. I watched them fly at the worlds and I was inpressed.

I'm thinking with that engine I could have the best of both worlds.

>My next project will be a mid-sized Smith design (Shrike) so
>I have been paying close attention to this whole discussion.
>I will be powering it with a VF40, which I don't think is
>any lighter than a PA. It would be ideal if I could build it
>at 50oz but I will be happy if I can bring it in at 54-55oz.

Paul Walker said the OS 40 VF was the best pipe motor.
I am not agreeing or disagreeing but I have used them and they are easy to set up and run.

I can tell you this, I know of a few of these airplanes (Mid-Size SVs) and they are around 57ozs and they fly like a champ.

I am finishing a Satana (the shrike's brother) now, it will have a PA40 because I feel it is a better motor after running both for a good bit, I feel the PA has more of a stunt run and it has more power (IMHO). I used the 40VF for some time and it does work, look up some suggestions from Paul Walker or Brett Buck on how to get it working.

Let me know how your shrike goes.
Aaron - [email protected]

I hope you noticed I said power to weight. It is a heavy engine. I have made my engines run ok but they were to heavy.

>I hope you noticed I said power to weight. It is a heavy
>engine. I have made my engines run ok but they were to
>heavy.

Too heavy, huh? Guess I'll have to give back all those trophies!

Gosh,

I guess Ted Fancher will have to have his name erased off of the Walker Cup for using a too heavy engine in 1995. I think that Mr. Tom Farmer? (at least I think that's who I sold it to) has posession of that particular engine nowadays.

Jim Pollock, a past too heavy engine possessor.

New things come along.

I've enjoyed reading your construction post.

The most important thing is you are posting. You are trying old & new techniques. If you can build lighter, people want to read about it. If your extra light planes can last at least a full season of practice, contest etc then you really have something.

I agree, people do want to see how piped stunt ships are put together.

Keep posting.

LAST EDITED ON Jul-27-04 AT 05:25 AM (CDT)
 
I didn't say that your posting these pictures was a waste of time or that your building techniques were a waste either. What I was referring to was giving you advice was a waste of time because when people do most of the time you answer in a smart ##### way. I have never said that your building wasn't good. I have said it was good. Still do think its good. Its better than mine. Wish I could build a plane in a month and half. But what I said was taken out of context. You have now gone back and edited your remarks and made it look like I was slamming you. Wasn't the point. But I still think that you should throw the Camel cigs away!

Bill

Sparky

There is plenty of good in your building tips. Thats why this forum works well. I say continue, your just helping your fellow pilots/builders enjoy the whole of the hobby...Just my thought.

SoHawaii
Ua Mau Ke Ea O Ka 'Aina I Ka Pono
("The Life/Sovereinty of the Land is Perpetuated in Righteousness")

I made a comment about heavy engines. I said power to weight.

Hi Spark,
I always enjoy seeing good workmanship. I don't have any arguements with any pics I have seen you post. There are many here who have not seen a high level stunt ship in the building stages, and many who have. To the ones that haven't, it is an educational experience. So far, about the only "out of the ordinary" practice I have picked up from your pics is the removal of the *triangular* piece of wood on the doublers. Something I had not considered.
Keep on with the pics!
As to the power/weight ratio, you are correct as to my observations.
The VFs are heavier, a little different run characteristics, about the same power as the PAs, but even though they are heavier they can make a very good stunt set up, as you already know. I have not used a Ro Jett, so I can't speak to those, but I estimate that they are in the same weight *range* as a regular PA of similar size.
The PA 40 ultra lite, on the other hand, is a horse of a different color. They are as strong as a regular PA 40 but significantly lighter.
For about the last 12 years I have been "sitting at the feet" of two of the noted light weight *fanatics*, Mr Werwage and Mr Hunt. There is so much that can be done to reduce weight in a way that the strength is not compromised that it would take volumnes to cover them all. I think the one biggest concept that most over look is the judicial use of sandpaper in all phases of construction. More weight that most realize can be pared from a ship if the builder does as much sanding as The Man does.
Can't wait to see the finished product, and hear the flight reports!
Keep on keepin' on.
Bill <><

>I made a comment about heavy engines. I said power to
>weight.

Shouldn't it be Weight to Wing loading?

Bigger planes take a heaver engine....AND what is heavy? An 40 VF in a 65 oz Impact is a GREAT SET UP! As is a Fox .35 to a 40oz Nobler.
This issue of weight of an engine is (IMHO)way off. We build planes to match the engine or Power set up.
As for your construction pieces KEEP it up. There what this fourm is about.

Scott(what we have here.....)Riese