Brodak ARF Cardinal

As some of you may have seen at KOI, the Brodak profile Cardinal ARF is a reality and will soon be here.
We had a small incident with the prototype - call it a firm landing.
The photos below show the original plane, then the minor damage and finally my repair job. Note that the engine WAS NOT damaged.
The point here is that it now flys better than before - We flew it this weekend and I can honestly state that it is the best flying profile (and one of the best flying planes) I've ever flown.
We had 10 to 20 mph winds while I was flying. With the Brodak .40 it's a bit light in the wind but still a very capable flyer.
Bob Z

So when are they coming???

I do not have the delivery schedule but you can contact Brodak directly and they will have the info for you.
OK?
Bob Z

LAST EDITED ON Jun-01-04 AT 04:35 PM (CDT)
 
well,,,,, i thought i was the king of understatement......"minor damage".........????.....looks like a total to me...i am impressed

dave courtney

"The point here is that it now flys better than before"
What did you do to make it even better???
What was the weakness "BEFORE" the "landing"??

Great repair job!!

Many thanks for your many contributions to this great sport!

Hmmm. I have wrecked and repaired three Cardinals. Each appeared to fly much better after the repairs. In one case it gained a few ounces and seemed much more stable. Perhaps it wasn't as balanced as I thought, or the added weight helped it from bouncing in the turbulence. As to the others, it may have just been phsycology working on my feeble brain and I just didn't worry about the "new" plane as much and just flew the darn thing. Had more fun and did the pattern so even I could tell what was what, except for the horizontal sq. 8's.

Ty....are you suggesting that we all build them and then jump up and down on them?

See Ya

Not all of us, but you have my blessings as to you jumping up and down on all of yours! In fact, I'd be pleased and proud to be of any assistance in that arena of fun and mayhem.

Hi, Wes - Regarding your question about before/after. Actually, I did nothing in the way of intentional changes. I just did my best to resurect it to flyable condition. The weight is about the same and the control settings are identical - maybe the improvement is psychological, as Ty suggests!
In any case, it is really an outstanding plane and I truly believe that it and the other ARF/ARCs will be a tremendous help to our sport.
AND, thank you for the compliment.
Bob Z

At the Brodak fly-in, we entered the ARF Cardinal in the expert and advanced ARF classes. It was flown in expert by Gary Tultz, John Sauders and myself. Phil Spillman and Gil Reedy flew it in advanced. NONE of the above had ever flown it before except me (two flights).
Results: Expert - Gary 1st, John 2nd, me 3rd.
Advanced - Phil 2nd, Gil 4th.
I'm posting this to make a point - this was the ONLY Brodak ARF entered against many Noblers. The plane is so capable and easy to fly that it performed exceptionally for pilots who had never flown it before. The only trim adjustment made was to the handle.
Think about it.
Bob Z.

That is quite an endorsement! It makes me salivate.
I spoke with someone at Brodak last week about the release of the ARF Cardinal and was told that it had been delayed. Do you have any idea when it might actually become available? Thanks for the information.

**snip**
I'm posting this to make a point - this was the ONLY Brodak ARF entered against many Noblers.
**end snip**

Is the point that this is the ONLY, ONLY Brodak ARF?

I'm with Peter, I can't wait!

ARF! ARF!

Hi, Clay - the Cardinal pictured is one of two prototypes. I had to do some re-engineering on it and the Oriental to prepare them for production. There are also two Baby Clowns and two Orientals.
I made the Oriental and Cardinal available to anyone at Brodaks who wanted to test fly them.
I'm sorry but I haven't any information on delivery schedules - that must be obtained from Brodak Mfg.
Bob Z.

Over the weekend, I put the Cardinal on one of our two circles and announced "There it is guys - anyone who wants to, fly it!"
It was in the air the entire day and every comment was positive. A few pilots suggested minor trim changes - more tail weight or a different handle setting but that's it.
It was extremely windy/gusty and at no time was there any problem with line tension.
The plane seems to perform better every time we fly it.
Bob Z

Bob,

As long as you insist on flakking for Brodak and the "coming-soon" ARFs and ARCs, there seems to have been only one question put to you which was not answered: Is the covering MonoKote or something merely similar to MonoKote? A previous mention of being MonoKote-like is not regarded as being definitive.

If you are unable to answer the question, can you tell us if it is a low- or high-heat material?

What about replacement film for the inevitable crashes? You know, as in matching film.

Hi, Dan - bear with me and I'll dig up the covering info for you. I have minimal experience with heat shrink covering but I'll see what I can find.
I should mention that the wing of the second (Cardinal) prototype was damaged in shipment. John and I did the repair with red Monocote and it was undetectable. We used a Top Flite iron and blasted it with the heat gun and the original covering was not damaged or discolored.
Watch for some info soon. OK?

Bob Z

I have learned from Peabody that the covering is Ultracoat.....of course one should take him for what he is......

'Zilla

A few quick questions. First, I know in the first post your mentioned the Brodak .40 as the engine. Is that still the powerplant being used, or have you tried other engines?

Second, what prop(s) have you tried with it? Fuel? Tank size?

Last, what length lines have you been using for the flights?

Steve....
I have watched (and participated in) the growth of the Cardinal Profile from Windy's prototype to the ARF/ARC's coming soon.
I have come to believe that they want more power than a conventional (i.e. Broday) .40.....

Mine (the one from the STUNT NEWS piece) seems to fly well with a Randy Smith modified Magnum .40, but I have to believe that an LA .46 is the hot set-up. Or an OS .40 4 stroke or the new Siato .40.

The Cardinal is a permutation of the Patternmaster wing, robust and thick...lots of drag.

The LA seems happy dragging them around.

See Ya

Hi, Steve - thanks for the query.
To date, I have had 4 different engines on the Cardinal, in this order:
1) Brodak .40
2) LA .46.
3) ENYA .45 plain bearing, lapped piston.
4) Zagnum ball bearing .40.
The Brodak .40 was used with 60 foot lines, the others with 63 foot.
All used the same tank - a Brodak 4 1/2 ounce with uniflow.
All used suction.
All used Powermaster GMA, 10% nitro, 22%, 50/50 oil
All used a 11-6 Top Flite wide blade wood prop.
Bob Z

I forgot to add: The next batch of engines will be 4-stroke.
An ENYA .46, a SAITO .45 and an OS .40 Surpass. I may pick up another SAITO .40 and give it a shot, although it may be a bit small.
Bob Z

Of the engines tested, so far, which has been the most reliable, and, if different, which has been the most user friendly ON THIS DESIGN?

I'm most interested in the Brodak .40 and the .46LA.

LAST EDITED ON Jul-08-04 AT 05:13 PM (CDT)
 
I suspect that Bob will corroborate this, but between the LA-46 and the Brodak 40 I think the LA would be a better choice, given the size, wing area and wing thickness of this model.

I got to put in flight number two on the prototype down at KOI in January and found that the Brodak 40 would indeed fly the plane, albeit on shorter lines (I think Bob had 58 or 59' eyelet/eyelet lines that day). The Brodak has to be run a bit hard to keep the Cardinal aloft, while the LA should loaf in a nice 4-2-4 run.

The LA-46 is a lot of value for the money. About all you might need to do is replace the remote needle valve with a real one, and run some RTV silicone behind the plastic backplate to prevent leaks. You will have loads more power than a brodak 40.

Plane/engine matches, I would consider a Brodak 40 ideal for a Brodak warbird profile like the P-51, and the LA for the larger profile jobs including the Lagg and the P-40.

In terms of user friendliness, I would give the nod to the LA-46. Its ABC construction means it can run on everything from Fox Superfuel to Powermaster 10/22 and Sig 5% 20% fuel. I know because I've got 100+ flights on my LA-46 using all of those fuels at one point or another. The AAC construction in the Brodak is going to need 20-22% oil content fuel, and AAC motors like nitro. Some of my flying buddies using the Brodak 40s have to go to 10 or 15% nitro on the hot days. The LA seems less picky on plugs, too, for what its worth.

They are both good engines. The LA is just better for the bigger planes.

Thank for the input. I already have a .46LA and know the characteristics of it. I was mainly wondering if anohter new engine (Brodak .40) would be a good choice for the Cardinal. Since the .46 would work out better, I think I'll just use mine on it when they finally come in.

Again, thanks.

I have a few classic ST .46's, an LA .46 and a Saito 45 (currently in a Fancher "Doctor" profile, but was too much motor for the flexi wing, powered it very nicely though..), all slated for testing in my Cardinal when it finally comes in.

Bob, the prototype showed a clamp mount, which would be ideal for testing various engines. Did this feature make it into final production?
Eric Viglione

Hi, Eric - yes, the Cardinal will have clamp mounts.
To date, the best flights with minimum tinkering were with the LA .46.
Hopefully it will fly with the 4S engine this weekend - I really like the SAITO .45.
I'll report on Monday.
Bob Z

>I suspect that Bob will corroborate this, but between the
>LA-46 and the Brodak 40 I think the LA would be a better
>choice, given the size, wing area and wing thickness of this
>model.

Wasn't Windy's prototype flown with the K&B #4050 (as sold by Brodak) ABC 40? Some folks have commented the K&B 40 was a might down on power but a SN article did have some tips to perk one up.

>The LA-46 is a lot of value for the money. About all you
>might need to do is replace the remote needle valve with a
>real one, and run some RTV silicone behind the plastic
>backplate to prevent leaks. You will have loads more power
>than a brodak 40.

Or an aluminum backplate from a Tower 40? (parts still stocked by Tower).

>Plane/engine matches, I would consider a Brodak 40 ideal for
>a Brodak warbird profile like the P-51, and the LA for the
>larger profile jobs including the Lagg and the P-40.
>
>In terms of user friendliness, I would give the nod to the
>LA-46. Its ABC construction means it can run on everything
>from Fox Superfuel to Powermaster 10/22 and Sig 5% 20% fuel.
> I know because I've got 100+ flights on my LA-46 using all
>of those fuels at one point or another. The AAC
>construction in the Brodak is going to need 20-22% oil
>content fuel, and AAC motors like nitro. Some of my flying
>buddies using the Brodak 40s have to go to 10 or 15% nitro
>on the hot days. The LA seems less picky on plugs, too, for
>what its worth.

You sure the LA 40 is ABC? I thought it was ABN. Nickle is not as hard as chrome but you get a quicker breakin. A good nickle job should last nearly as long as a chrome cylinder.

>They are both good engines. The LA is just better for the
>bigger planes.

>Wasn't Windy's prototype flown with the K&B #4050 (as sold
>by Brodak) ABC 40? Some folks have commented the K&B 40 was
>a might down on power but a SN article did have some tips to
>perk one up.

At some point Windy's prototype had the K&B on it. I'm not sure how well it flew, but since Brodak was selling the K&B 40 back then the motor had to be on there at least for awhile. I had a Brodak Cardinal with a K&B 40 on it right when ther setup first came out. I found the K&B to be a very user-friendly engine, not with massive amounts of power, but certainly more than a reworked FP 40, for example. I'm contemplating using that K&B on my Cardinal ARF when it turns up.
>>The LA-46 is a lot of value for the money. About all you
>>might need to do is replace the remote needle valve with a
>>real one, and run some RTV silicone behind the plastic
>>backplate to prevent leaks. You will have loads more power
>>than a brodak 40.
>
>Or an aluminum backplate from a Tower 40? (parts still
>stocked by Tower).

Exactly-thats actually what I did, but the RTV will work for someone who does not have any extra backplates.

>>Plane/engine matches, I would consider a Brodak 40 ideal for
>>a Brodak warbird profile like the P-51, and the LA for the
>>larger profile jobs including the Lagg and the P-40.
>>
>
>You sure the LA 40 is ABC? I thought it was ABN. Nickle is
>not as hard as chrome but you get a quicker breakin. A good
>nickle job should last nearly as long as a chrome cylinder.
>
>>They are both good engines. The LA is just better for the
>>bigger planes.

Well, of course the OS jobs are ABN. But this runs about the same as true ABC. The big difference seems to be when you go to AAC.

I saw both the profile Cardinal and the Oriental ARF's in John Brodak's room while at the world championships. They are as good as
Bob Zambelli says. The keyed wing and fuselage in particular impressed me on the Oriental.

I think a lot of Beginners and Intermediate flyers will benefit from using these ARf's.

I called Brodak yesterday and was told my shipment of ARF Cardinals is in the US, but is being held until the end of August by customs.
Joe
J & J Sales

LAST EDITED ON Jul-23-04 AT 07:40 PM (CDT)
 
Hi Bob,
I would be interested to know what dimensions of the linkage hookup you used. How far are the 2 holes from the pivot for the flaps and for the elevator etc.....thanks.
Not the number of holes but the actual dimension so I can transfer it to another plane.