Logo
Builders' Plan Gallery  |  Hip Pocket Web Site  |  Contact Forum Admin  |  Contact Global Moderator
October 21, 2017, 08:59:01 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with email, password and session length
 
Home Help Search Login Register
Pages: [1]   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Lethal??  (Read 695 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
DavidJP
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 21
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,059


Topic starter


Ignore
« on: January 25, 2017, 11:27:21 AM »

I recently came across a plan for the "Super G Shark" which features "directional control - by wires and apparently patterned by Victor Stanzel & Co (American)  Its is very small and powered by an Ohlsson 60.  The "control" method seems very doubtful - has anyone any experience of this model?  I think it a bit hazardous to fly!


Logged
DavidJP
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 21
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,059


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #1 on: January 25, 2017, 11:35:48 AM »

Not sure if this works....

https://aerofred.com/details.php?image_id=91302&mode=search
Logged
tailwheeltommy
Copper Member
**

Kudos: 0
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 4



Ignore
« Reply #2 on: January 27, 2017, 10:12:52 AM »

The question may be about the G-Line"Control -It" made by Victor Stanzel & Co., Schulenburg, Texas.  It is a control device for control line models.  Likely it was a
control unit that competed with the Jim Walker patent for the "bellcrank".  It was marketed for use with a pilot hand held thumb screw controller.  It resembled the Stanzel monoline grip but with a thumb screw  It did require 2 lines and therefore is not just tethered as I thought.  This, if I may say, contraption had a "patent pending" on its box label.
The kit was 30 inch  span.  Noteworthy the kit box has a patent number on the label.
Logged
DavidJP
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 21
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,059


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #3 on: January 27, 2017, 10:27:04 AM »

if you look at the plan at the bottom is the device - one handles and two lines attached and as i said it was Stanzel.  it is powered by a "60" and I would have thought difficult to control. 
Logged
LOUCRANE
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 5
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 39



Ignore
« Reply #4 on: August 08, 2017, 09:24:49 PM »

Bump! Not quite prehistoric, but just noticed the topic in the list...

The Ohlsson .60 was not a powerhouse! A bit much for the Shark, yes, but nobody back then wanted to lose line pull, thus control. The days of extreme rudder offset, heavy models flown pretty fast, on engines "less than reliable or easy to use."

Several modern engines, down to sport 25-ish glows can give comparable horsepower - yes, at very different RPM on very different prop loads, but nevertheless..

The Stanzel system shown puts the total line pull on the control disk pivot; so does the patented Walker-type U-Control system...

A wilder approach back then, even harder to operate in flight, must have been the one which fed the flying lines direct to an over-and-under connection to the elevator control horn! FULL pull on the elev control horn and hinging, friction through the guide tubes.

Lions and tigers and bears, Oh My!
Logged

/LOU
ghostler
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 6
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 179




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: August 10, 2017, 10:30:44 PM »

Thanks to Leroy Cox taking Jim Walker's challenge to court on alleging Cox violated his patent, proved Jim's filing to be prior art. The standard bellcrank system is what is mostly used today.

Model engines have come a long way from the old days of ignition engines. Leroy Cox's engines were revolutionary at the time. Power of his late 1950's .020 Pee Wee had the power of some of the earlier common .049 glow's. Walt Musciano earlier CL designs of the 1940's and early 1950's show the earlier larger ignition engines matched by their power to his airframes.

Alas, glow is fading away, giving way to electric motors and lightweight battery systems. As with all things, we are seeing some new developments that make do with the newer technology, providing good performance. I suppose it was bound to happen, as glow engine prices are softening on Ebay. Glow fuel is not being carried in the quantities one used to see at hobby shops and outlets.
Logged

George Hostler
Clovis, NM, US
Pages: [1]   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!