Logo
Builders' Plan Gallery  |  Hip Pocket Web Site  |  Contact Forum Admin  |  Contact Global Moderator
December 05, 2019, 05:17:01 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 2 3 [4] 5   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Keil Kraft Stinson Flying Station Wagon  (Read 3631 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Yak 52
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 67
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,484


Free Flight Vagrant



Ignore
« Reply #75 on: March 15, 2019, 08:07:07 AM »

Gorgeous!!!  Cool
Logged
TheLurker
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 25
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 765




Ignore
« Reply #76 on: March 15, 2019, 09:38:34 AM »

Now that's worth a couple of pints at the very least.
Logged
Jack Plane
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 36
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1,525




Ignore
« Reply #77 on: March 15, 2019, 10:28:40 AM »

Very good indeed Andy!

FWIW my Auster Arrow weighed 22.5g (20.0 before rubber) and flew for 30 secs on a 16" (2xlength) loop of 1/8" on about 60% of max turns.
Logged
MKelly
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 86
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 884




Ignore
« Reply #78 on: March 15, 2019, 11:27:17 AM »

Very nice!  I like the effect achieved with the wing slot graphics.

Mike
Logged
OZPAF
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 180
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 5,223



Ignore
« Reply #79 on: March 15, 2019, 07:40:36 PM »

You've earned your pint(s) ABL. I agree with Mike the ink details and slot graphics really set it off.
Will there be a return challenge to Lurker industries now?

John
Logged
abl
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 16
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 375


Topic starter
Andy Blackburn



Ignore
« Reply #80 on: March 19, 2019, 04:47:00 AM »

You've earned your pint(s) ABL. I agree with Mike the ink details and slot graphics really set it off.
Will there be a return challenge to Lurker industries now?
John

I'm thinking carefully about a return challenge - it obviously needs to be something that Lurker Industries staff will find fairly tricky...

Flew the Stinson indoors on Saturday, needed an additional couple of grams of noseweight but the glide was extremely good. Added some left rudder to change the slight right turn on the glide to a slight left turn, but this (perhaps not surprisingly, in view of the size of the fin and rudder) seemed to screw up the power trim, in spite of a lot of side-thrust - very marked and obvious tight left bank about half a second after (hand) launch as the prop-wash established itself over the fin and the left yaw kicked in.

Planning to try it outdoors tomorrow morning (weather permitting) with some weight on the left wingtip to induce a left turn on the glide, if that doesn't work I'll try flying right. Maybe this particular model is going to be one of those that doesn't like flying left...

Logged
Jack Plane
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 36
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1,525




Ignore
« Reply #81 on: March 19, 2019, 04:51:06 AM »


I'm thinking carefully about a return challenge - it obviously needs to be something that Lurker Industries staff will find fairly tricky...


How about just putting 80% turns on his Peanut...?  Wink


Quote

Maybe this particular model is going to be one of those that doesn't like flying left...


Yeah, yeah...Blame the model...   Grin
Logged
abl
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 16
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 375


Topic starter
Andy Blackburn



Ignore
« Reply #82 on: March 19, 2019, 05:18:44 AM »


I'm thinking carefully about a return challenge - it obviously needs to be something that Lurker Industries staff will find fairly tricky...


How about just putting 80% turns on his Peanut...?  Wink

Nah - too easy. I'm sure he could steel himself to do it, the challenge has to be something difficult - otherwise, it wouldn't be a challenge...  Smiley

I was thinking more along the lines of encouraging rebellion, sort of the opposite of what I've just done. Something that requires as many rules as possible to be bent...


Quote

Maybe this particular model is going to be one of those that doesn't like flying left...


Yeah, yeah...Blame the model...   Grin

I can't find an emoji that blows a proper raspberry, so you're going to have to make do with this:

 Tongue

Andy
Logged
TheLurker
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 25
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 765




Ignore
« Reply #83 on: March 19, 2019, 04:43:41 PM »

I wondered why my ears were burning.

Breaking rules!?  Oh heavens no.  No gentleman would even consider such a thing.  Not for a moment.  You'll be asking me to jump queues and take the last custard cream from the plate in preference to the digestive biscuit next.  Shocking.  Quite, quite shocking. 

Eighty per cent turns!?  Are you quite mad sir?  Model aeroplanes were never meant to be propelled by motors of such vast might and puissance; why the passage through the aether at the velocities achievable with such power would rip the very wings from them.  Let us hear no more of this reckless and utterly irresponsible quest for such ill advised things.

Back on topic.  The Stinson when seen in the flesh is a work of art and the builder fully deserves his beer.
Logged
Squirrelnet
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 36
Online Online

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 677




Ignore
« Reply #84 on: March 19, 2019, 05:07:49 PM »

Looks cracking Andy, the graphics are superb. Hope you get the turn sorted... turbulator ?

Chris
Logged
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 123
Online Online

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 5,016




Ignore
« Reply #85 on: March 19, 2019, 05:31:29 PM »

Agree- that's a beautiful job! I've considered this model before for KS, but never thought it could look as pretty and characterful as that.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2019, 05:49:45 PM by Pete Fardell » Logged
flydean1
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 20
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 985



Ignore
« Reply #86 on: March 19, 2019, 09:28:25 PM »

I've discovered high wing models go quite well to the right.  The advantage is the prop factor will keep the nose up in the turn, and the natural tendency of free wheeling props is to turn right in the glide.  Do watch that huge fin and rudder.  You have already discovered its' effectiveness.  Indoors a right turn under power will not open out as the rubber runs down.  Easier to stay off walls.
Logged
abl
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 16
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 375


Topic starter
Andy Blackburn



Ignore
« Reply #87 on: March 20, 2019, 04:22:38 AM »

Gentlemen, you're too kind!  Smiley

I've discovered high wing models go quite well to the right.  The advantage is the prop factor will keep the nose up in the turn, and the natural tendency of free wheeling props is to turn right in the glide.  Do watch that huge fin and rudder.  You have already discovered its' effectiveness.  Indoors a right turn under power will not open out as the rubber runs down.  Easier to stay off walls.

A right-hand turn indoors is attractive because it will also (usually) have the advantage that take-offs are a bit straighter and will therefore get more points, but I've usually found that getting a model to turn right works on a specific number of turns; deviate from that and the initial turn either opens out or tightens, which is not what you want - but maybe it's my trimming technique. However, if it doesn't fly left this morning (I'm trying it left because I've seen other Stinsons that go left), I'll try it right.

...
Breaking rules!?  Oh heavens no.  No gentleman would even consider such a thing.  Not for a moment.  You'll be asking me to jump queues and take the last custard cream from the plate in preference to the digestive biscuit next.  Shocking.  Quite, quite shocking.  
...

That just means that you're going to the wrong sort of gathering; digestive biscuits mixed in with custard creams and other proper biscuits? Oh dear...

And I note with interest that we're suddenly talking about "breaking" rather than "bending" rules...  Smiley

Andy
Logged
abl
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 16
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 375


Topic starter
Andy Blackburn



Ignore
« Reply #88 on: March 28, 2019, 03:00:42 PM »

...
Will there be a return challenge to Lurker industries now?

John

Challenge has been set and accepted; no doubt the Lurker Industries PR machine will swing into action in due course, and I hope it'll be entertaining for all concerned.

In other matters, we had a bit of outdoor trimming today, some progress was made and there was a bit of a prang (minor damage, easily fixed) but I'm beginning to think that 4 strands of 0.075" turning a 5.75" prop (cut down from 6") is possibly a bit too much for this particular 29 gram airframe as the torque wants to dig the left wing in, even with 4+ degrees of right thrust - I don't really want it to be overpowered, all it's got to do (indoors) is take-off as slowly as possible, do a couple of circles during which it climbs to about head height and then descends to a graceful landing.

I'm therefore planning to change the power train for 4 strands of 0.065" turning a Peck 4.75" prop which should make it easier to trim, and it should be more controllable indoors. I would welcome informed opinion on this, though!
Logged
DHnut
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 14
Offline Offline

New Zealand New Zealand

Posts: 662



Ignore
« Reply #89 on: March 28, 2019, 04:14:18 PM »

Andy,
        I have a Veron Luscombe Sedan that uses 4 x .085" that works very well in our indoor hall. There is a Gurney flap on the outboard section of the wing and the right sidethrust rudder balance givs an almost constant turn until the last few seconds when it straightens up just off the floor. Max altitude is about 20 feet and duration is in the 25-30 second region. Weight is about 25 gm.
Ricky
Logged
TheLurker
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 25
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 765




Ignore
« Reply #90 on: March 28, 2019, 04:41:11 PM »

Quote from: abl
Challenge has been set and accepted; no doubt the Lurker Industries PR machine will swing into action in due course, and I hope it'll be entertaining for all concerned.
It has, some details to be clarified and given other (mainly domestic) commitments it's likely to be several months before the gauntlet is retrieved from the muddy puddle that Abl has dropped it in.

As for entertainment value?  Well, if you have a taste for schadenfreude then yes. Smiley
Logged
DHnut
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 14
Offline Offline

New Zealand New Zealand

Posts: 662



Ignore
« Reply #91 on: March 28, 2019, 04:47:57 PM »

I forgot to add the prop is an Icara 6" dia grey one. It also flies well outdoors with the same rubber but wound to about 1500 turns verses 1200 indoors.
Ricky
Logged
abl
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 16
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 375


Topic starter
Andy Blackburn



Ignore
« Reply #92 on: March 29, 2019, 07:10:26 PM »

Andy,
        I have a Veron Luscombe Sedan that uses 4 x .085" that works very well in our indoor hall. There is a Gurney flap on the outboard section of the wing and the right sidethrust rudder balance givs an almost constant turn until the last few seconds when it straightens up just off the floor. Max altitude is about 20 feet and duration is in the 25-30 second region. Weight is about 25 gm.
Ricky
Ricky,

Your Luscombe Sedan is a bit bigger than my KK Stinson but a bit lighter so I'd have thought that 4 x 0.075" would be OK - unless it's not actually 0.075", of course! I'll have to check. My current prop is the same as yours (tips trimmed slightly), but I think I might try the smaller one anyway - and a gurney flap. Thanks for the feedback!

Andy

Logged
abl
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 16
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 375


Topic starter
Andy Blackburn



Ignore
« Reply #93 on: April 09, 2019, 06:36:18 AM »

Apologies for re-energising a dying thread, but it occurs to me that prospective builders might find this useful.

I had an outdoor trimming session the other day but the wind wasn't quite as benign as I had hoped, and it popped a wing off (complete with strut in situ); no torn tissue so an easy fix, but it's pushed in the fuselage slightly at the trailing edge in the usual manner, so I've had to add a gusset - see photo. If you're building one, you might be better off strengthening this area before covering.

And, whilst I'm at it - flydean1, you were of course right about moving the rear peg forwards a complete fuselage bay - it's carrying at least two grams of nose ballast, possibly a bit more. Prospective builders might wish to take note.

Andy
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: Keil Kraft Stinson Flying Station Wagon
Logged
Jack Plane
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 36
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1,525




Ignore
« Reply #94 on: April 09, 2019, 07:28:04 AM »


And, whilst I'm at it - flydean1, you were of course right about moving the rear peg forwards a complete fuselage bay - it's carrying at least two grams of nose ballast, possibly a bit more.


Good to hear that  Grin ...but it does beg the question as to why you didn't move it forward?
Logged
billdennis747
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 54
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,720



Ignore
« Reply #95 on: April 09, 2019, 08:02:14 AM »


And, whilst I'm at it - flydean1, you were of course right about moving the rear peg forwards a complete fuselage bay - it's carrying at least two grams of nose ballast, possibly a bit more.


Good to hear that  Grin ...but it does beg the question as to why you didn't move it forward?
For a long time I have been sceptical about this - just how effective is this peg-moving business. Has anyone ever tested the result? Of course it's worth doing with those models which show a hook on the sternpost but otherwise I'm not so sure; certainly if the rubber weight proportion is small. Andrew Hewitt, on his big Camel, moved it to the cockpit to good effect but that was a big move, with a motor like Popeye's  forearm. I once tried working it out with the law of moments but my brain began to hurt. I even asked Hepcat but did not get a definitive answer.
I just made up a 9" motor stick with a loop of 1/8" and balanced it at 33%. I moved the 'rear peg' forward a 'bay' and could hardly measure the difference in balance weight.
I suspect the main (only?) advantage may be when changing motor weight, and even then...
I'm now going into hiding
« Last Edit: April 09, 2019, 08:22:47 AM by billdennis747 » Logged
abl
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 16
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 375


Topic starter
Andy Blackburn



Ignore
« Reply #96 on: April 09, 2019, 08:34:00 AM »


And, whilst I'm at it - flydean1, you were of course right about moving the rear peg forwards a complete fuselage bay - it's carrying at least two grams of nose ballast, possibly a bit more.


Good to hear that  Grin ...but it does beg the question as to why you didn't move it forward?

Well, I did (he said, defensively) - by about 3/4" (this was before anyone suggested a bigger change) and I did that on the basis that one of my mates has a Stinson with (he claims) no nose weight; it does have a guillows 5" prop which is quite heavy, though.


...<snip>

For a long time I have been sceptical about this - just how effective is this peg-moving business.

<snip>

I'm now going into hiding

 Smiley

Personally, I think it does make a difference, I've saved quite a bit (ballast equivalent to ~8-10% empty airframe weight) on a couple of peanuts.

Logged
tom arnold
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 30
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 695


Casper Wyoming



Ignore
« Reply #97 on: April 09, 2019, 11:32:16 AM »

Here's a very interesting take on the practice of moving the motor peg forward.....and on a Camel too:
http://www.flyingacesclub.com/PFFT/Camel,Revolutionary.pdf
Logged
Jack Plane
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 36
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1,525




Ignore
« Reply #98 on: April 09, 2019, 05:28:57 PM »

Interesting article, thanks for linking Tom.

So, in essence, Clive's 22" Camel achieved 90 secs outdoors with the rear-peg just aft of the cockpit, a "wobbly peg" (what we call a "bobbin") around it to help prevent bunching, a reverse S-hook to prevent the rubber climbing, and a loop-length that was 4.5 x hook to peg.  His Camel had a flying weight of 34g, clearly due (aside from building very light) to not having to add a ton of lead to the nose!

I'm thinking of (one day) building a Camel for indoor Peanut duration and wonder if this excellent dodge is achievable on a small scale...?
Logged
tom arnold
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 30
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 695


Casper Wyoming



Ignore
« Reply #99 on: April 09, 2019, 06:57:44 PM »

Clive does a good job of showing us Yankees how it is done, however, let me emphasize that he is a superb builder and flyer. I have attempted to imitate him many times and have come up short so approach this forward-peg-with-a-long-motor with humility. The bobbin needs to be able to easily roll forward and back AND slam back and forth on the peg. If you try to capture the bobbin in the middle of the peg, things will jam up. As  far as the 4X motor length, that is influenced by the thickness of the motor and the space in the fuselage for it to move around. Certain combinations don't work but you never know until you try. When you hit that sweet spot, though, it is really satisfying.

(When I say Clive is a superb builder and flyer, I am not just throwing a basket of flowers either. My jaw-dropping moment was when he came in second in WWII mass launch with a TWIN Westland Welkin at Geneseo. This was out of a starting field of about 25-30 flyers and the only guy to beat him was flying a near-indoor ghost ship Barracuda. See a typical flight video on Mike Stuart's site here:  http://www.ffscale.co.uk/page3kk.htm  )
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   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!