RSM Ruffy

There isn't much on the product reveiw search for this kit. Anyone have one or flown one? If so what engine set up did you use?

I flew one back in the early 60s, with a Fox 35. Today, I would go with more power; say, a Brodak 40, an OS 35-S, a SSW OS 35/40 FP, etc. An old Redhead McCoy 40 would work, too.

Currell

Ditto Currell!

Although mine was not heavy (39 oz. as I remember) it also had a Fox .35 and it was not quite enough power.

The biggest change that I see from the 50's and 60's is that we had to design and build planes around a few engines which were all some what comparable in power. Today just build what you want... there is always an engine that will have enough HP for the job!

If anybody reviewed it the thread may have gone to bit heaven??? I noticed my review of the RSM Skylark has disappeared, not sure if it was deleted or got caught in one of the crashes.

I had three Ruffy's over the years. The first was built from plans in the late 50's and used a 57 Nobler wing. This one used a K&B green head 35 with a muffler and was a great flying plane.The next one was kit built and I will include a picture of it. It was built around 1963 and flew ok as it was very heavy and the Fox 35 powered .The third was built in 1973 also plans built and flew very well with a Fox 35. The first picture shows the Ruffy with my oldest daughter and she is 44 now. The second picture with the Jet in front of it may be the old 1959 Ruffy as this picture dates from 1961.I still have the Jet and it is good flyer even with over three inches if sweep back in the wing.I think the Ruffy is a great plane if kept under 40 oz.
Ed

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

Wasn't this a Sterling kit at one time?

Yes it is a Sterling kit. The kit #S-15 and is 50" W.S. If you would like the original kit, I have a spare kit available. Please e-mail me if you need or want the kit

I've got an RSM kit that is in the line for build when I get time. The wood in my kit is very light and Eric Rule tells me that this is typical of his current kits. The Ruffy is not a large airplane, being about the size of the Green Box Nobler. Built from the RSM kit, this airplane could be built very light compared to one from a Sterling kit, and a Fox 35 (particularly one of Larry Foster's)should be plenty of power.

I heard an interesting story about the unusual name for the airplane. Palmer already had the Smoothie, and Macfarland not being as smooth, designed the "Roughy". Not sure if it is true, but I thought it made a good story.

Steve
The older I get, the better I used to fly!

True story about the naming of the Ruffy, Steve. I grew up (as much as I ever intend to) in Lexington, and flew with Lew and Al.

In fact, in the original Shark45 the "radio box" behind the pilot was labeled "Humbler"; to contrast with GSMs "Nobler"!

Oops! Meant GMA's "Nobler" . . .

I built one of the RSM kit and it flies good. I have an old fp40 on mine and it will do whole pattern running four stroke if you keep the plane light

Ted Fancher built a Ruffy for VSC a number of years ago and did quite well with it. I was really surprised at how well it flew and presented the pattern.
Of course Ted would look good flying a wheel barrow, but in this case I think the airplane helped.
I don't know if Teds was built from the RSM kit (probably not) but it's likely that he had something to do with Eric's decision to kit it.

Randy C

>Ted Fancher built a Ruffy for VSC a number of years ago and
>did quite well with it. I was really surprised at how well it
>flew and presented the pattern.
>Of course Ted would look good flying a wheel barrow, but in
>this case I think the airplane helped.
>I don't know if Teds was built from the RSM kit (probably not)
>but it's likely that he had something to do with Eric's
>decision to kit it.
>
>Randy C

Hi Randy,

Thanks for the kind words. My Ruffy was built from the RSM kit and it went together very easily. It's the only laser cut kit I've ever built and they really spoil you.

I built mine because I flew a Ruffy at my first Nats in 1959 as Junior. I got a kick out of Ed's pics of the one without a cowl because that's exactly how mine looked. I didn't really have the tools to work with hard woods or metal etc. and couldn't figure out how to mount the stubby little cowl. I built it but never had it on the airplane.

The modern engines are a better match for the Ruffy. It has an aerodynamic idiosyncrasy that results in a lot more drag than many era airplanes. It has a pretty low aspect ratio. This means that it produces more induced drag for a given amount of lift. As a result it has more of a tendency to slow in maneuvers.

Mine was very light but the same Rustler Metamorph .40 that flew my late, lamented, "smushed" Nobler beautifully on a four pitch tornado needed about 5-1/4 inches of pitch to deal with the Ruffy at VSC. At home (San Francisco area), at sea level the four pitch will work but it still prefers the higher pitch.

A wonderful kit, a slick looking airplane and a decent flyer. Compared directly to the Nobler, however, I'd take the latter.

Ted

Ted,
I`m not sure you can be trusted with a Nobler.Seems you and your lovely wife likes to drive over them. It really puts a dampner on the airfoil doing that. I hear flat airfoils don`t generate much lift.

Gordy

Would someone please compare the RUFFY and the DOLPHIN.

GUY BLANKINSHIP
AMA 14272

>Would someone please compare the RUFFY and the DOLPHIN.
>
>GUY BLANKINSHIP
>AMA 14272

My personal preference, perhaps surprisingly, is the Dolphin. It had a slightly higher aspect ratio wing, partial span flaps (both of which produce less drag while maneuvering) and a larger tail volume. All together that resulted in a ship which utilized the available power better and was more consistent in response from beginning to the end of the flight.

Back in the seventies the Dolphin was one of the preferred models for WAM Class A stunt. Although it had 500+ square inches it flew beautifully with the Veco 19BB that was the favorite engine of the time (a powerhouse version of the now popular OS .20 with the BB tune-up). I flew one prior to those "Class A" years with a Johnson .35 and it was seriously close to overpowered.

Ted Fancher

Ted, I have been hoarding a Jetco Dolphin for over 30 years. Now that I am getting back into this game, I need to plan for this build. Besides a L&J Fox, what modern motor would be right for the Dolphin?

GUY BLANKINSHIP
AMA 14272

>Ted, I have been hoarding a Jetco Dolphin for over 30 years.
>Now that I am getting back into this game, I need to plan for
>this build. Besides a L&J Fox, what modern motor would be
>right for the Dolphin?
>
>GUY BLANKINSHIP
>AMA 14272

HI Guy,

Sorry, your post somehow slipped by me.

If you're willing to run the high rpm low pitch set-up engines like the OS .20 or .25 running four to 4.5 pitch props and set to run just rich of best power will give you a very nice constant airspeed run with all the HP of a Fox or a bit more. Plan to fly around five seconds a lap and the best way to get there would be to get the engine run solid in the rich two stroke and a prop like a 9 X 4 to 4.5 or 10 X 4 or so for the .25. Now play with line length to get lap times around 4.9 to 5.1 seconds a lap.

This might sound a bit faster than you think you'd like but the unique thing about the high/low set-up vice a 4-2-4 is that the ship won't wind up by breaking into a two cycle in the maneuvers. Speed will be very constant and won't feel any faster in the maneuvers. In fact, because it won't be speeding up as much coming downhill it will often feel like it is slower in maneuvers that a 4-2 set-up running a higher pitch prop.

Hope this helps and sorry again for the delay in responding.

Ted Fancher

>>Ted, I have been hoarding a Jetco Dolphin for over 30
>years.
>>Now that I am getting back into this game, I need to plan
>for
>>this build. Besides a L&J Fox, what modern motor would
>be
>>right for the Dolphin?
>>
>>GUY BLANKINSHIP
>>AMA 14272
>
>HI Guy,
>
>Sorry, your post somehow slipped by me.
>
>If you're willing to run the high rpm low pitch set-up engines
>like the OS .20 or .25 running four to 4.5 pitch props and set
>to run just rich of best power will give you a very nice
>constant airspeed run with all the HP of a Fox or a bit more.
>Plan to fly around five seconds a lap and the best way to get
>there would be to get the engine run solid in the rich two
>stroke and a prop like a 9 X 4 to 4.5 or 10 X 4 or so for the
>.25. Now play with line length to get lap times around 4.9 to
>5.1 seconds a lap.
>
>This might sound a bit faster than you think you'd like but
>the unique thing about the high/low set-up vice a 4-2-4 is
>that the ship won't wind up by breaking into a two cycle in
>the maneuvers. Speed will be very constant and won't feel any
>faster in the maneuvers. In fact, because it won't be
>speeding up as much coming downhill it will often feel like it
>is slower in maneuvers that a 4-2 set-up running a higher
>pitch prop.
>
>Hope this helps and sorry again for the delay in responding.
>
>Ted Fancher

Hi Ted,

Several years ago, Todd Lee had a very beautiful Dolphin that he brought to the late, lamented, East Coast Oldie Goldies held that year in "Sun 'n' Fun" Myrtle Beach, SC. WE had hoped to have a similar (smaller scale) perpetual contest akin to VSC. Alas, it did not come to fruition!

Back to the Dolphin...... it was a great weight, and very smooth running Fox 35. (I believe he made it to VSC with it) I remember him doing about a 38-39 point SQUARE VERTICAL 8 with it! Square Cloverleaf was better........

The Veco 19 I have would easily fly that one! And a FP 20 or 25, I agree, would work very well if the plane is not *TOOO porky*, and the engine is run in a wet 2. Odd, I have liked the plane since the MAN (IIRC) article, yet we have never built one!

BTW: I am still at a loss as to the number of really good pilots who would become VERY good pilots if they had good engine runs. A point we have discussed in the past.....

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