Russian Stunter #2

Thank's Guy's
For all your feed back. Kim your so right Klemenow stunt plane has a very small tail, yes the wing sure looks very thin,about 40mm this being a worry.Looking further at small plan, wondering if plane had a retracting mono wheel as the prop looks like it would hit the ground recycle bin for this one i think, just didn't want to be flying another nobler like the rest. Now looking at Jim Kostecky Formula S.

>Thank's Guy's
> For all your feed back. Kim your so right Klemenow
>stunt plane has a very small tail, yes the wing sure looks
>very thin,about 40mm this being a worry.Looking further at
>small plan, wondering if plane had a retracting mono wheel as
>the prop looks like it would hit the ground recycle bin for
>this one i think, just didn't want to be flying another nobler
>like the rest. Now looking at Jim Kostecky Formula S.

Considering how well some of the Eastern Bloc flyers did in FAI F2B competition, I have to wonder if those wings were really that thin, or if the airfoil on the drawings was deliberately drawn "off" to keep others from replicating.

With the power plants of the day, I would think that windup in windy conditions would have been substantial. But, not being fully read in on their setups, who knows?

I wish they had the video recording capability back then that we have today. It would be interesting to see how those Soviet era designs really flew (save from the few on this forum who actually competed with/against them).

V/r

Bob

>Thank's Guy's
> For all your feed back. Kim your so right Klemenow
>stunt plane has a very small tail, yes the wing sure looks
>very thin,about 40mm this being a worry.Looking further at
>small plan, wondering if plane had a retracting mono wheel as
>the prop looks like it would hit the ground recycle bin for
>this one i think, just didn't want to be flying another nobler
>like the rest. Now looking at Jim Kostecky Formula S.

Hi Steve,

The Formula S is a great plane. The late Jim Kostecky made some corrections to the FM plans and the corrected plans are available from Bob Hunt w/ Jim's signature to verify. One of the main things is that the landing gear was drawn too short on the original magazine plans.

Big Bear <><
Character: It's what you do when no one else is watching.

>Thank's Guy's
> For all your feed back. Kim your so right Klemenow
>stunt plane has a very small tail, yes the wing sure looks
>very thin,about 40mm this being a worry.Looking further at
>small plan, wondering if plane had a retracting mono wheel as
>the prop looks like it would hit the ground recycle bin for
>this one i think, just didn't want to be flying another nobler
>like the rest. Now looking at Jim Kostecky Formula S.

Steve,
You started an excellent discussion with your Russkie stunter question. Do you have access to the PAMPA Classic Era Construction Drawings book by Tom Morris--either the paper version or the online version for members at the PAMPA website? As a resource for jet-style classic era designs and classic era designs in general, it is eye candy on parade!

Kim
I sure do have The Pampa Classic Era book the paper version, as you say its eye candie.
I dropped out of Pampa about two years ago, purely because of cost.
Sixty six years old, now in semi-retirement.
Russian stunt planes, what a ride this has been and I still don't know what to build.

I read an artical about the Spacehound in 1964 and they said that Sirotkin flew it fast with a 10x4 prop.
Also, the plane was very light at 35oz. Probably why it flew so well with the thinner wing.

>I read an artical about the Spacehound in 1964 and they said
>that Sirotkin flew it fast with a 10x4 prop.
>Also, the plane was very light at 35oz. Probably why it flew
>so well with the thinner wing.

Or was it "flying slowly with a fast revving MVVS on a 10 x 4 prop"

HH

HI Herb,

Now you're gonna make dig out a folder of articles (most are from Peter) about Soviet bloc stunt planes to check on it! LOL!!

I "sorta remember" when reading over and over those articles that the MVVS, being the racing engine to begin with, still liked to turn higher rpm even when redone to "stunt mode". The prop on the plans works out to ~10-4. His 1962 "Spacehound (no canopy!) was described as having a McCOY .35RH! LOL!!

All the comments I have heard from USA members who saw the MVVS engines run was that they really sounded "sick". AS in not running well. Of course the whole World was a different place then.

And a "cross" shaped bellcrank is always drawn in. One push rod to the flaps, one on the "other" side to the elevators. And of different lengths, providing more elevator than flap.

My Spacehound approached 50 oz. ( I should have been way more careful! LOL!!) so a ST .46 was used to pull it through and depend on less of the wing. That's a reason I have thought of restoring the model and giving it gastric bypass surgery.

Big Bear <><
Character: It's what you do when no one else is watching.

>My Spacehound approached 50 oz. ( I should have been way more
>careful! LOL!!) so a ST .46 was used to pull it through and
>depend on less of the wing. That's a reason I have thought of
>restoring the model and giving it gastric bypass surgery.
>
>Big Bear <><


Hey Bill,

Howzabout liposuction?!

Hi Kim,

That would basically be the process! LOL!! An couple X-acto gouge blades, a Dremel and suck all the "fat" out with the shop vac! LOL!!

Big Bear <><
Character: It's what you do when no one else is watching.

>HI Herb,
>
>Now you're gonna make dig out a folder of articles (most are
>from Peter) about Soviet bloc stunt planes to check on it!
>LOL!!
>
>I "sorta remember" when reading over and over those
>articles that the MVVS, being the racing engine to begin with,
>still liked to turn higher rpm even when redone to "stunt
>mode". The prop on the plans works out to ~10-4. His
>1962 "Spacehound (no canopy!) was described as having a
>McCOY .35RH! LOL!!
>
>All the comments I have heard from USA members who saw the
>MVVS engines run was that they really sounded
>"sick". AS in not running well. Of course the
>whole World was a different place then.
>
>And a "cross" shaped bellcrank is always drawn in.
>One push rod to the flaps, one on the "other" side
>to the elevators. And of different lengths, providing more
>elevator than flap.
>
>My Spacehound approached 50 oz. ( I should have been way more
>careful! LOL!!) so a ST .46 was used to pull it through and
>depend on less of the wing. That's a reason I have thought of
>restoring the model and giving it gastric bypass surgery.
>
>Big Bear <><
>Character: It's what you do when no
>one else is watching.
>


Al this stuff cluttering up our heads Bill!! Somewhere in the shed I have the mag where it said about flying slowly with the fast revving MVVS.

In 1976, Josef Gabris and his mate (I think it was Cani) sold me some props. Josef was still using the MVVS 5.6 in the Supermaster so the props were to suit that size engine. I had 250 dia x 110 pitch an 250 dia x 140 pitch. As I was using the ST 46 they were too small but were something I brought home to clutter the shed up a bit more. I hope to build a Supermaster in 2011 so the props will come in handy all these years on. Front and side profile in pics for reference. Not sure if the Russians had same/similar props to the Czecs for the same engine.

HH

[photo not recovered: 38605.jpg]


[photo not recovered: 38606.jpg]

Attachment #1, (jpg file)
Attachment #2, (jpg file)

HI Herb,

A quick look on the 12" ruler (with MM on the other side! LOL!!) gives 250MM as roughly 9 13/16".

Big Bear <><
Character: It's what you do when no one else is watching.

>>HI Herb,
>>

>>All the comments I have heard from USA members who saw
>the
>>MVVS engines run was that they really sounded
>>"sick". AS in not running well. Of course the
>>whole World was a different place then.
>>
>>Big Bear <><

>Al this stuff cluttering up our heads Bill!! Somewhere in
>the shed I have the mag where it said about flying slowly with
>the fast revving MVVS.
>
>In 1976, Josef Gabris and his mate (I think it was Cani) sold
>me some props. Josef was still using the MVVS 5.6 in the
>Supermaster so the props were to suit that size engine. I
>had 250 dia x 110 pitch an 250 dia x 140 pitch. As I was
>using the ST 46 they were too small but were something I
>brought home to clutter the shed up a bit more. I hope to
>build a Supermaster in 2011 so the props will come in handy
>all these years on. Front and side profile in pics for
>reference. Not sure if the Russians had same/similar props
>to the Czecs for the same engine.
>
>HH

From what I remember (I rode my bicycle from Amsterdam to Utrecht and back every day) from the 1976 WCh,
Gabris' MVVS wasn't revving all that high but had a good 4/2/4 break instead.

Look what I found (I think it was made by Salvatore Barile): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LyUL8X1cEo&feature=related

>>>HI Herb,
>>>
>
>>>All the comments I have heard from USA members who
>saw
>>the
>>>MVVS engines run was that they really sounded
>>>"sick". AS in not running well. Of course
>the
>>>whole World was a different place then.
>>>
>>>Big Bear <><
>
>>Al this stuff cluttering up our heads Bill!! Somewhere
>in
>>the shed I have the mag where it said about flying slowly
>with
>>the fast revving MVVS.
>>
>>In 1976, Josef Gabris and his mate (I think it was Cani)
>sold
>>me some props. Josef was still using the MVVS 5.6 in the
>>Supermaster so the props were to suit that size engine.
>I
>>had 250 dia x 110 pitch an 250 dia x 140 pitch. As I was
>>using the ST 46 they were too small but were something I
>>brought home to clutter the shed up a bit more. I hope
>to
>>build a Supermaster in 2011 so the props will come in
>handy
>>all these years on. Front and side profile in pics for
>>reference. Not sure if the Russians had same/similar
>props
>>to the Czecs for the same engine.
>>
>>HH
>
>From what I remember (I rode my bicycle from Amsterdam to
>Utrecht and back every day) from the 1976 WCh,
>Gabris' MVVS wasn't revving all that high but had a good 4/2/4
>break instead.
>
>Look what I found (I think it was made by Salvatore Barile):
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LyUL8X1cEo&feature=related
>


Now that was a few years back!! He was most likely using the 140 (5.5")pitch one Bruno. The later 5.6 engines may have been timed different to those of the early 60s which Sirotkin was using. The 110 pitch would need to be singing at a higher note.

HH

Just found this

http://discovery-aeromodels.com/en/yuriy-yatsenko-classic-model.html

Dwayne

>> Now looking at Jim Kostecky Formula S.

I'm starting to like the way my Formula S flys, had the benefit of a full day of trim flights with Allen Brickhaus coaching.

James