Logo
Builders' Plan Gallery  |  Hip Pocket Web Site  |  Contact Forum Admin (Account/Technical Issues)  |  Contact Global Moderator
April 16, 2021, 09:39:35 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: Stan B. Vee 17 Catapult Glider ~ Build  (Read 841 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
stupid
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 7
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 143


Topic starter


Ignore
« on: January 23, 2021, 09:28:18 AM »

Stan B. Vee 17 Catapult Glider Build  

Stan published the  VEE 17 September 2020 . It is his newest in a series of gliders starting in August 2000. The VEE 15 , VEE 17.

The changes Stan made over 20 years were increasing the tail moment arm from 8 inches to 9 inches , reducing the cord of the stabilizer from 2- 3/4 inches to 2 1/2 inches, and leaving out the washout skew it the wing tip. His new method is to sand in the washout on the bottom of the wing. And of course the new fuselage design with a longer nose increased to 4 inches from 2 3/4 "and a  different grip set up.

I'm not going to  follows Stan's VEE 17 design exactly. I want to incorporate the vortex wing tip that was tried on a Hand Launched Glider by Howard Evensen called "The Sixty" published in American Modeler magazine August 1967. I don't recall where I obtained this plan I've had it since 2000. I wasn't able to find it online so I'll post it here.
  "The Sixty" glider's wing is very similar to Stan's  VEE 17 in that it is a straight taper to the wing tips and the dihedral is 35°.  "The Sixty" glider wing sweeps back one inch at each tip whereas Stan's trailing edge sweeps forward 1/4 inch each tip to facilitate sanding in the washout.

 Stan doesn't specify the wing thickness at the root tip in his newest design. The 2000 VEE 17 wing thickness at the root is  0.235 thick."The Sixty" glider's wing measures 3/16 of an inch at the wing tip, which seems a little excessive considering you want to keep your wing tips light.

So I'm wondering why Stan is increased his nose length to 4 inches. Is it because he's using a standard fuselage that he produces to incorporate the hook and the silly putty DT?

In the "The Sixty" glider article Howard states in the fifth paragraph  "The two things which set this glider off from most others are the short nose ( ala A/2 tow-line glider ) and the vortex wing tips. The short nose concentrates the weight close to the wing and, in effect, is a stabilizing factor. The vortex tips are definitely worth the extra work."

Not knowing anything about A/2 tow line glider's, is the shorter nose moment a stabilizing factor? And why is Stan trending towards the opposite direction?

Okay, so I've been up most the night.
                                                                             Bob
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Stan B. Vee 17 Catapult Glider ~ Build
Stan B. Vee 17 Catapult Glider ~ Build
Stan B. Vee 17 Catapult Glider ~ Build
Stan B. Vee 17 Catapult Glider ~ Build
Stan B. Vee 17 Catapult Glider ~ Build
Logged

"If it looks stupid, and it works..... It's not so stupid."
dosco
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 10
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1,101



Ignore
« Reply #1 on: January 23, 2021, 11:41:09 AM »

Bob:
The "Sixty" design can be found on Oz. I immediately recognized the pic in your post, nonetheless thank you for sharing.

With regards to the nose moment, the longer the nose is the more it will contribute to less stability due to:

    > Aerodynamic forces ahead of the CG (which tend to destabilize the aircraft (as opposed to forces behind the CG which tend to contribute to stability))

    > Inertial forces (moment of inertia ... longer nose = larger moment of inertia = reduced stability (more time needed
       to restore the aircraft to a stable attitude, more force needed to push the nose back to a stable attitude))

Short answer is shorter nose will provide more stability in rough (e.g. outdoor) air. Longer nose will give less. Not surprisingly there is a trade here, though. Using a shorter nose can/will require enough noseweight that the entire model will be heavier (total overall mass) than a version with a longer nose.

One can observe this in comparing model gliders ... take a look at an indoor design (very long nose), which would not fly well in rough outdoor air.

The math is complicated, and not worth diving into. And frankly I can't remember it anyways.

As far as why Stan is going that way ...? I don't know. Could well be the reason you posited. I know you're an experimentalist, maybe you can try different versions (of nose length) and observe the change in performance. With that said, if you're going to fly in outdoor contests, isn't picking good air more important?

As an aside, the resemblance of this (and many others) to the Zweibox is quite interesting. Of course, one could argue the opposite case, the Zweibox looks like the others ... I'm not sure about the chronological order of that design versus the Sweepette and others.

-Dave
Logged
stupid
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 7
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 143


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #2 on: January 24, 2021, 07:59:22 PM »

https://www.amaglider.com/?p=view&a=stans-stuff_aug-2020

https://outerzone.co.uk/plan_details.asp?ID=7007

Dave: Thanks for the input.

The reason I was considering this glider was to fly in windy weather. So I think I'll keep the nose moment on the shorter side. It surely has enough dihedral at 35° total. And the shorter tail moment arm. And to get enough altitude I should try to keep the weight at 18 to 20 g. Would help in air penetration also.

Picking thermals in windy weather is more of a challenge, you have to be quick to launch at any indication. And the gliders are downrange faster than you can get binoculars on them. It's still a lot of fun and better than going home early On a windy day.

I did some drawings today & a mockup of the wing that I have settled on. Trying to get everything out of 1/2 sheet of 4 x  1/4 inch thick balsa wood.

 The wing chord is 5 inches at the root 2 1/2 inches at the tips. I lessened the sweep back of the wing by 1/2 inch each side  from the SIXTY glider design. I like it better it doesn't look over exaggerated.

I'll do a glue up tonight and tomorrow I'll band saw the back Airfoil taper & start shaping the wing. That is if it's warm enough in my garage, today high temperature only reached  the low 40°.
                                 Bob
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: Stan B. Vee 17 Catapult Glider ~ Build
Re: Stan B. Vee 17 Catapult Glider ~ Build
Logged

"If it looks stupid, and it works..... It's not so stupid."
stupid
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 7
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 143


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #3 on: January 25, 2021, 01:42:11 AM »

  Selecting & Cutting balsa wood tonight, In reweighing the balsa wood sheet I found that it lost weight since the time I bought it, not by much, from 5.64 pounds per cubic foot to 5.55 pounds per cubic foot. 8/10 of a gr.  Must be the 18% humidity inside my work room over the last 15 years.

  If I have time for white glue to set up overnight, I will use SIG-BOND aliphatic resin. I like it better than the others because it soaks in to the wood.      SIG knows balsa wood.

I reshaped the stabilizer to get that automatic taper to the tips from my pre-tapered stabilizer wood.

   Then I did a glider mockup just to see if it looks about right. I remember that Bill Blanchard's POLLY was what they call a squared glider, 18 by 18. Tail moment arm was 7 1/2 inches long, I think I should shorten the tail moment arm by 1/2 inch making it 7 1/2 inches.

  2 3/4 inch nose, 5 inch wing chord, 7 1/2 inch tail moment arm, 2 3/4 stabilizer cord.
 
   Total 18  inches long. On a 17 1/2 inch wingspan glider.
                       BOB
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: Stan B. Vee 17 Catapult Glider ~ Build
Re: Stan B. Vee 17 Catapult Glider ~ Build
Re: Stan B. Vee 17 Catapult Glider ~ Build
Re: Stan B. Vee 17 Catapult Glider ~ Build
Re: Stan B. Vee 17 Catapult Glider ~ Build
Logged

"If it looks stupid, and it works..... It's not so stupid."
stupid
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 7
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 143


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #4 on: January 26, 2021, 02:55:56 AM »

Made the stabilizer template this morning & used it on this beautiful 5.3 lb/ft³ balsa wood wedge that I cut from  a block last week.
      Had a nice 1/4 inch thick balsa sheet straight grain for fuselage, 7.2 lb/ft³ and sliced the fuselage off the sheet using Master Airscrew balsa stripper. With a little modification you can make this tool perform magic. Start by making a full face end cap from 1/32nd inch thick Hobby plywood and find some #11 scalpel blades. They are  thinner and sharper.

In the photo of the Master Airscrew, you'll see that I dressed the fence with 600 grit sandpaper on some glass to flatten it. Just a little bit does wonders.

 Since you have reinforced the blade clear down to the cutting deck, it won't wobble. Instead of using the Master Airscrew stripper on a tabletop, slide your material over the edge of your worktable and dropping the guide down past your balsa wood.
 Using thumb pressure while holding the guide next to the balsa sheet score halfway through the sheet, flip the sheet end for end and make another pass. MAGIC.
         I know half of you already know this. The explanation is for the other half.

     Glue up of the Pampas Grass stem. This one is 1/4 inch diameter. When they get to be this size they are very stiff.
   The fuselage total weight is 5 g.
                                                    Bob
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: Stan B. Vee 17 Catapult Glider ~ Build
Re: Stan B. Vee 17 Catapult Glider ~ Build
Re: Stan B. Vee 17 Catapult Glider ~ Build
Re: Stan B. Vee 17 Catapult Glider ~ Build
Re: Stan B. Vee 17 Catapult Glider ~ Build
Logged

"If it looks stupid, and it works..... It's not so stupid."
stupid
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 7
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 143


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #5 on: January 26, 2021, 11:48:45 AM »

      The bandsaw makes quick work out of tapering glider wings. The wing was cut at a 3 1/2° setting on the bandsaw table and would have given me a 3/16 of an inch thick high point at 25%. Later I decided for a 30% high point so the wing thickness is 11/64 of an inch at the high point.

       The full 5 inch cord started to bother me so I shortened it to 4 1/2 inch cord sweeping back the wing.

   The trailing edge was shaped according to Stan B. latest method of sanding in washout on the bottom of the wing  it only ended up being 1/64 of an inch . Not much  washout, not that it matters much.

    I make these airfoil leading edge sanding blocks out of medium density fiber board. I find that using these sanding blocks or at least templates, keeps the left and right half of the wings consistent in airfoil shape. It makes a big difference on the high-speed launch. 
   The wing was made from 5.5 lb/ft³ balsa wood and the tapered blank weight 12.9 g. After shaping the airfoil it weighed in at 10.9 g. Shaping the leading edge of the airfoil removes 15% of the weight of the wing .

    I coated the leading edges in cyanoacrylate adhesive & now I'm ready for the sanding sealer on all the parts. And  it's snowing and won't get above 27°. Seems to me this happened on the Jet Cat build.

Fuselage 5 g plus wing 10.9 g plus stabilizer & fin 1.6 g  Total weight in parts so far  without finish 17.5 g .
Wing area 61 in.²       stabilizer 13.5 in.²
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: Stan B. Vee 17 Catapult Glider ~ Build
Re: Stan B. Vee 17 Catapult Glider ~ Build
Re: Stan B. Vee 17 Catapult Glider ~ Build
Re: Stan B. Vee 17 Catapult Glider ~ Build
Re: Stan B. Vee 17 Catapult Glider ~ Build
Re: Stan B. Vee 17 Catapult Glider ~ Build
Logged

"If it looks stupid, and it works..... It's not so stupid."
dosco
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 10
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1,101



Ignore
« Reply #6 on: January 26, 2021, 12:28:03 PM »

Bob:
Where do you get the polycarbonate sheet you use for templates?

Regards-
Dave
Logged
stupid
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 7
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 143


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #7 on: January 26, 2021, 02:45:10 PM »

https://www.regal-plastics.com/polycarbonate-standard-sheet/

Dave:     when I first started building gliders in early 2000, I was looking for templates for glider wings, stabilizers & fins. And back then I used the Yellow Pages to find plastic suppliers .
 Regal Plastics was only 9 miles from where I live, so I went there and explained that I was wanting a inexpensive plastic to make templates, something easy to cut and breakout. They suggested the polycarbonate material and the  thinnest they had at the time was under  0.030 thick. They wanted to sell me a 4 x 8' piece, and explained to them that I didn't need quite that much and if they had any scrap so I could try it first. They didn't and sold me half a sheet that they had.  I liked it a lot and ran out and now I've bought another sheet so I go through quite a bit of it. Actually I've given a lot to club members so they can try it out.

Anyway probably more than you needed to know. It's used for various purposes the one I know of is skylights.

It's still snowing here so I started another project utilizing the scrap piece that came off the SIXTY'S wing. I decided on doing Tim Batiuk's BOBCAT just reduced to a 16 inch wingspan it will be 5/32 inch thick at the high point.Although I Won't be using his dihedral set up, I never did like flat center panels. I don't think they're very stable because if one wing starts to drop your center of gravity shifts way too low on one side.
It was published in the E-Digest  November 2018.
                                         Bob
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: Stan B. Vee 17 Catapult Glider ~ Build
Logged

"If it looks stupid, and it works..... It's not so stupid."
stupid
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 7
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 143


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #8 on: March 31, 2021, 03:51:10 AM »

Coming back to this project after a long delay I had to reconsider the Sixty design Hoerner wingtips. After doing a little research on the Internet I've decided to change the so-called Hoerner tips which are actually a drooped winglit to a Blended Winglet that is slightly raked.

The challenge will be how to make them identical on each wingtip.

Wikipedia
The Masak winglets were originally retrofitted to production sailplanes, but within 10 years of their introduction, most high-performance gliders were equipped from the factory with winglets or other wingtip devices.[34] It took over a decade for winglets to first appear on a production airliner, the original application that was the focus of the NASA development. Yet, once the advantages of winglets were proven in competition, adoption was swift with gliders. The point difference between the winner and the runner-up in soaring competition is often less than one percent, so even a small improvement in efficiency is a significant competitive advantage. Many non-competition pilots fitted winglets for handling benefits such as increased roll rate and roll authority and reduced tendency for wing tip stall. The benefits are notable

 Wingtips are normally angled upwards in a polyhedral wing configuration, increasing the local dihedral near the wing tip, with polyhedral wing designs themselves having been popular on free-flight model aircraft designs for decades.

WINGLET DESIGN FOR SAILPLANES     by   Peter Masak
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/Technical/Winglets/Masak.htm
Logged

"If it looks stupid, and it works..... It's not so stupid."
stupid
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 7
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 143


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #9 on: April 05, 2021, 05:14:06 AM »

I was having a hard time understanding  WINGLET DESIGN FOR SAILPLANES     by   Peter Masak     http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/Technical/Winglets/Masak.htm

until I came across this visual illustration of the terms.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317796998_Winglet_design_and_analysis_for_low-altitude_solar-powered_UAV

"Winglet design and analysis for low-altitude solar-powered UAV

"One of the most important factors affecting the aerodynamic performance of the aircraft is lift-induced drag caused by wingtip vortices. This study describes the winglet design and analysis for solar-powered unmanned air vehicle (UAV). The motivation of this study is designing elliptical winglet to explore efficient shapes using multiple winglet parameters such as cant angle, sweep angle, taper ratio, toe angle and twist angle. "

The best designed winglet that has the highest L/D ratio for low-altitude solar-powered UAV.
Thumbnail #1    sweep angle Λ = 30°,    Cant angle 59.4°,     toe-out angle of 3°.   taper ratio λ = 0.2,
Thumbnail #2  (a) Side view, (b) top view, (c) front view and (d) isometric view

Thumbnail #3  Aircraft static directional stability increases with the winglet sweep angle.  - 30°.
Thumbnail #4  (a) toe in (b) toe out  Toe angle is used to achieve an effective lift force in different flight conditions.
Thumbnail #5   Twist angle is utilised to provide a uniform load distribution on the winglet.
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: Stan B. Vee 17 Catapult Glider ~ Build
Re: Stan B. Vee 17 Catapult Glider ~ Build
Re: Stan B. Vee 17 Catapult Glider ~ Build
Re: Stan B. Vee 17 Catapult Glider ~ Build
Re: Stan B. Vee 17 Catapult Glider ~ Build
Logged

"If it looks stupid, and it works..... It's not so stupid."
stupid
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 7
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 143


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #10 on: April 07, 2021, 04:42:45 AM »

I thought long and hard about the best way to proceed making the winglets. It was like playing chess, planning three or four moves ahead, And I'll never be a speed chessplayer.

The challenge was to get both winglets the same.
The wing plan form is crazy with angles, I had to draw it out on the drafting table, tape the wing to it and use a adjustable triangle to get the dihedral and wingtip cuts parallel.  Then sand in  3° of tow out to the wing tips.

I thought the best way to proceed would be to make the inside winglet curvature first. And the winglet parts 1/64" thinker so that I would have enough material to sand it smooth to the wing.

I pre-sanded the rear sweep angle of 30° before propping up the wing with some thin plastic and then gluing the rough shaped winglet to the wingtip.
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: Stan B. Vee 17 Catapult Glider ~ Build
Re: Stan B. Vee 17 Catapult Glider ~ Build
Re: Stan B. Vee 17 Catapult Glider ~ Build
Re: Stan B. Vee 17 Catapult Glider ~ Build
Re: Stan B. Vee 17 Catapult Glider ~ Build
Re: Stan B. Vee 17 Catapult Glider ~ Build
Logged

"If it looks stupid, and it works..... It's not so stupid."
stupid
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 7
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 143


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #11 on: April 07, 2021, 05:12:27 AM »

Shaping the airfoil into the winglet.

After shaping the leading edge of the winglet, I set up the jig so that I could shape the outside flat of the winglet.

The metal bar is spray glued to the glass so that I can slide the wing back and forth over the edge of the glass while sanding, using the bottom edge of the glass as a guide to keep the sanding block parallel with the edge & checking the trailing edge for consistent thickness.

After a rough shaping. I took the wing off the jig and smooth out the ridges with the sanding block.
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: Stan B. Vee 17 Catapult Glider ~ Build
Re: Stan B. Vee 17 Catapult Glider ~ Build
Re: Stan B. Vee 17 Catapult Glider ~ Build
Re: Stan B. Vee 17 Catapult Glider ~ Build
Re: Stan B. Vee 17 Catapult Glider ~ Build
Re: Stan B. Vee 17 Catapult Glider ~ Build
Logged

"If it looks stupid, and it works..... It's not so stupid."
stupid
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 7
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 143


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #12 on: April 07, 2021, 05:50:13 AM »

The glue up on the jig, total 34° dihedral.

The actual making of the winglets was surprisingly easy after I spent days thinking about how to go about doing it in a logical order that would end up being successful.

I'm extremely pleased the way it turned out, I'm thinking that I should tissue cover the winglets for strength, they were made with 4.6 lb/ft³ balsa.

The winglets weigh 0.4 grams together.   The wing is 11.2 g.

The wingspan is 18 1/4 inches, projected 17 1/4 inches.   The cord at the root is 4 1/2 inches and at the wing tips 2 1/2 inches.

The winglet is 2 3/4 "long by 3/4"wide by 1/2"high.     The inside radius is 9/16"
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: Stan B. Vee 17 Catapult Glider ~ Build
Re: Stan B. Vee 17 Catapult Glider ~ Build
Re: Stan B. Vee 17 Catapult Glider ~ Build
Re: Stan B. Vee 17 Catapult Glider ~ Build
Re: Stan B. Vee 17 Catapult Glider ~ Build
Re: Stan B. Vee 17 Catapult Glider ~ Build
Logged

"If it looks stupid, and it works..... It's not so stupid."
iflyhlg
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 3
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 92



Ignore
« Reply #13 on: April 07, 2021, 10:30:05 AM »

They look great. I would tissue them for extra strength and to prevent splitting. Back when I was using nitrate dope for a finish on my stabs I would add tissue strips to prevent them for splitting and it also helped hold in any adjustments that were made. You might be starting a new trend if they work well.
Logged
Olbill
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 71
Online Online

United States United States

Posts: 2,607



Ignore
« Reply #14 on: April 07, 2021, 12:40:43 PM »

Beautiful work!
Logged
strat-o
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 8
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 443



Ignore
« Reply #15 on: April 08, 2021, 06:24:08 PM »

Hi Dave, looks really nice.  One thing to be cautious of is the toe out that you have applied to the wingtips because it might be destabilizing.  I remember reading in the scale catapult jet thread on this forum that when folks tried modelling designs having tip tanks that were represented using flat-plat vertical surfaces, they were having trouble with launches.  Of course your design probably has way more tail volume and probably has the ability to overpower the destabilizing effect but something to maybe keep in mind.

Marlin
Logged
stupid
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 7
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 143


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #16 on: April 09, 2021, 01:45:37 AM »

Before covering the winglets with tissue I coated the winglet edges with Cyanoacrylate adhesive.
 
I use the lightest tissue I had in my scrap tissue folder, and ripped some to get a straight feathered edge instead of cutting, so it wouldn't be an obvious edge. Dampen  it and dried on paper towel, brush some nitrate on the top side of the winglets, smooth out the tissue into the nitrate with my finger and let it dry before doing the bottom sides.
Now I remember why it rarely use nitrate dope, had to turn on the window exhaust fan and leave the room because of the stink.

After removing the excess tissue, I reweighed the wing to find a 0.2 gram weight gain. It would be like if I would've used  6 lb/ft³ balsa instead of the 4.6 lb/ft³ but after flexing the tips between my thumb and fingers it seems to be very much stiffer than what 6 (lb/ft³ balsa would've been. The winglets being in a vulnerable location. is a situation where tissue covered balsa is of a real benefit.

Wing  11.8 g     fuselage 9.8 g     stab and fin 1.4 g       without nose weight or color    so far   23 g
Nose 3 inches   tail moment arm 9 inches             Stabilizer 6 5/8" by 2 3/4"   fin 2 " high

My objective was making a windy weather glider that would be more stable in turbulent air, well we've had a lot of windy weather but I still need some calm air to find the center of gravity and do some trimming.           Waiting!


Bruce:
As far as starting a trend, we will have to wait and see. After others see how easy it is to make winglets they might get motivated to do some experimenting themselves.
The biggest hurdle for me was figuring out a way to make the winglets. If anyone else tries winglets it would be interesting to see how they go about making them.


Don De. is getting together and old time HLG build for this summer, all one model design, The "Monster HLG" 30" wingspan 6"cord.
Looking at large glider plans I came across your "Climax HLG"  article in the 1987 NFFS Symposium 10 best models of the year . I enjoyed rereading it and had to laugh when you said "I built the model the night before the contest (is there any other way?)" Remembering back when I was building a lot of gliders and I would finally have to stop when I saw the sun rising .

Then I noticed you drew up the plans for Stan Buddenbohm's  "Big Ugly Mutha" Glider,  when it was published  NFFS May 2004. Which has a shallow angle winglet with a lot of tow out, 20°.
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: Stan B. Vee 17 Catapult Glider ~ Build
Re: Stan B. Vee 17 Catapult Glider ~ Build
Re: Stan B. Vee 17 Catapult Glider ~ Build
Re: Stan B. Vee 17 Catapult Glider ~ Build
Re: Stan B. Vee 17 Catapult Glider ~ Build
Logged

"If it looks stupid, and it works..... It's not so stupid."
iflyhlg
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 3
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 92



Ignore
« Reply #17 on: April 09, 2021, 11:18:59 AM »

I still have one of the models. Stan built two of them and he gave me one to fly down at lost hills during a contest, which I think was the world championship. I refurbed the silly putty timer with some new putty and proceeded to have a blast flying it. I ended up losing it when it got into a huge boomer and disappeared out of site. I was disappointed to lose it but Stan said he couldn't throw the other model so I could have it, I still have that model and that is what I used to make the drawings from. Now that I am older I try to finish the models a little earlier before the contest so I can trim them out.   
Logged
stupid
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 7
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 143


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #18 on: April 09, 2021, 01:18:54 PM »

 I thought it would be considerate to post the plans of the models being discussed.

Bruce's  CLIMBMAX  HLG  24 inch wingspan  35 g

Stan's   Big Ugly Mutha HLG  32 inch wingspan at 82 g..... Bruce you must have one hell of a arm.....
Do you think there were any more than 2 ever made?      I know I couldn't throw it..
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: Stan B. Vee 17 Catapult Glider ~ Build
Re: Stan B. Vee 17 Catapult Glider ~ Build
Logged

"If it looks stupid, and it works..... It's not so stupid."
strat-o
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 8
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 443



Ignore
« Reply #19 on: April 10, 2021, 11:11:16 AM »

Quote
Bruce you must have one hell of a arm.....

Yeah, I recall Bruce's Climbmax launches were in the 50 M.P.H. range.  Impressive.  Although this was more than twenty years ago and the Climbmax is many grams lighter.

Marlin
Logged
iflyhlg
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 3
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 92



Ignore
« Reply #20 on: April 12, 2021, 12:15:30 PM »

As far as I know Stan only made those two models, I do not know if any other modelers built any from the drawings.  Bruce
Logged
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!