logo
Thread Tools
Old 07-28-2019, 09:53 PM
The Hodge is offline
Find More Posts by The Hodge
Registered User
The Hodge's Avatar
Victoria, Austrailia
Joined Mar 2008
1,152 Posts
Good Stuff, Dont have an Electronic version of the plans by any chance? SO hard to find 100cc ish Ultimates

I think i would struggle with foam as have no ideas what to do with it, Hence the Build up option is good for me, Plus i have access to a laser cutter

Flight Wise what would the difference between an Ultimate and a Challenger II?, Which would be more docile, Land slower etc?
The Hodge is offline Find More Posts by The Hodge
Last edited by The Hodge; 07-28-2019 at 10:01 PM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old 07-28-2019, 10:59 PM
Model_Builder is offline
Find More Posts by Model_Builder
Registered User
Model_Builder's Avatar
Joined May 2008
62 Posts
Electronic copy

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Hodge View Post
Good Stuff, Dont have an Electronic version of the plans by any chance? SO hard to find 100cc ish Ultimates

I think i would struggle with foam as have no ideas what to do with it, Hence the Build up option is good for me, Plus i have access to a laser cutter

Flight Wise what would the difference between an Ultimate and a Challenger II?, Which would be more docile, Land slower etc?
I remember when I had these copied, the copier was out by maybe 1-2% and made the fuse an inch or so longer than it should be. So the wing will be longer than it should as well. Many people do not consider the "X" axis when getting plans reproduced. "Y" is always good. X can be all over given age make and tolerances of the copier and the ability of that machine to be calibrated by a copier serviceman and to what accuracy. So the wing will be fine chord wise. The small percentage the wing saddle is out must be addressed first of all. It can all be worked out if you have the patience.

These free plans sites never have models like this among the selection. I think we all hold these plans close to our chests.

I have run test sheets on copiers before. Mark out a meter or yard in cm or inches and have it run. Compare the copy to your scale. Then one will know if that is the machine to make your copies. I have bought a lot of kits and patterned every last part. Maybe traced the plans rather than copy them but have not posted them anywhere where someone can then download them and ebay them. I would share them with any number of people wanting to build them but no one who would profit by them. I cant be alone in this practice.
Model_Builder is offline Find More Posts by Model_Builder
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 07-29-2019, 12:10 AM
The Hodge is offline
Find More Posts by The Hodge
Registered User
The Hodge's Avatar
Victoria, Austrailia
Joined Mar 2008
1,152 Posts
Your raise a Valid point with the copier, The Copies will only be as Accurate as the Copier is.

It would be great to have these older plans available, Like Godfrey, Cardens etc ones and alike so the Builders can keep the spirit of them Alive and so where not left in an ARF world

I agree no one should profit from these plans that are not theirs or dont have rights to distribute.
I have seen many plans from outer zone etc on eBay, Even some WH Plans ones too. Im surprised they haven been taken down.

I think its great to share between fellow modelers,As thats what its all about, its a shame a few ruin it for all.

MB - -can you help with this Question?
Flight Wise what would the difference between an Ultimate and a Challenger II?, Which would be more docile, Land slower etc?
The Hodge is offline Find More Posts by The Hodge
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 07-29-2019, 08:32 AM
bruno is offline
Find More Posts by bruno
Registered User
bruno's Avatar
Opwijk Belgium
Joined Jan 2006
336 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Model_Builder View Post
I thought those were the ones I have.
These are the updated ones using Lite Ply for fuselage .
The original Ultimate that Chip used was foam and balsa sticks fuselage with a foam rib wing .
bruno is offline Find More Posts by bruno
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 07-30-2019, 05:20 PM
Whiplash48 is offline
Find More Posts by Whiplash48
Registered User
Whiplash48's Avatar
Maryland
Joined Apr 2009
109 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Model_Builder View Post
Is it 29% as the span was clipped? Otherwise would it be 33%??
That has perplexed me lately. If I measured the chord I may be able to figure that out. I don't know where the 10% rule lies in this case.
Mr. Hanson (RMH) outlined some good background on the Bucker Superman some years ago in some RCUniverse post; link below

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/gian...%22-print.html

Here is what he said about the Superman he did for Rojecki in '88;

[That plane was built from a stock Bucker, by Jim Moser (dec.)-of Aerosport in Florida a few years back - Jim sent me all the pics of how he did it -and I made the scale models used in TOC -inc fuselages for Patrick's
The TOC models were exact scale including sizes of tail group and surface outlines
The allowable deviations were the wings -clipped 9% and the ailerons increased in chord.
The 9% clip -resulted in a model wihin the scale wingspan to all mods rule of 10% -which threw the scale judge for a loss at the time .
Now , most of the scale(?) IMAC biggies use a large fuselage and small wings - we did it by simply clipping the tips -- a very old technique on full scale areobats and racers.
The Bucker is a far better bipe for aerobatics than the Ultimate ever was but it is also more difficult to do correctly .]
Whiplash48 is offline Find More Posts by Whiplash48
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 07-30-2019, 05:45 PM
Whiplash48 is offline
Find More Posts by Whiplash48
Registered User
Whiplash48's Avatar
Maryland
Joined Apr 2009
109 Posts
When Steve and I did the '84 Stearman and '88 Ultimate we just started with a 100% scale outline and then modified the dimensions that made the model fly better; 10% +1/8" shorter span, 10% - 1/8" longer tail moment, 10% -1/8" lower horizontal stab as measured relative to the 100% known vertical location, 10% +1/8" thinner fuselage. You see the pattern, anyone measuring and scaling would easily see that these dimensions were a bit within whatever the 100% scale was.

Of course you have to remember that each pilot submitted a set of 3-view drawings to the contest director , Phil Kraft in both '84 and '88 and he approved those. The only 3 view available for the Ultimate in '87-88 was the one in the promotional package that Model_Builder posted previously. That is the same drawing we used to design/build our Ultimate in '88. Attached is a scan of the Actual , Original drawing from a delivered 10-200 full scale kit.

[I first posted this back in post #65, looks like it was reposted from that image by Model_Builder. I had written on it on the right margin since it was a copy of the one that came with the 100% kit a friend had bought]
Whiplash48 is offline Find More Posts by Whiplash48
Last edited by Whiplash48; 07-30-2019 at 07:29 PM. Reason: Updated information on attachment
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 07-31-2019, 12:28 PM
Model_Builder is offline
Find More Posts by Model_Builder
Registered User
Model_Builder's Avatar
Joined May 2008
62 Posts
That's yours all right. I appreciate the larger file 647kb. The one I posted was only 67kb. I wouldn't shrink such a file. Might it have been posted years ago? Until now I haven't added to my Ultimate material for a long time.
Model_Builder is offline Find More Posts by Model_Builder
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 07-31-2019, 03:21 PM
Whiplash48 is offline
Find More Posts by Whiplash48
Registered User
Whiplash48's Avatar
Maryland
Joined Apr 2009
109 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Model_Builder View Post
That's yours all right. I appreciate the larger file 647kb. The one I posted was only 67kb. I wouldn't shrink such a file. Might it have been posted years ago? Until now I haven't added to my Ultimate material for a long time.
No worries, thank you for posting the images of the plans you have. Those will be very helpful in recreating a set. Some of the historical detail you provided is also much appreciated!!

In my mind I have always remembered our '88 Ultimate having a much bigger span than it actually did. It was very long at 96" from the tip of a custom molded scale 7" long by 5" diameter glass spinner I made for it. We had the motor mounted way too soft and Ultimately (pun intended) it threw a spinner in flight almost costing us airplane No, 2 about a week before the contest.

Airplane No. 1 had been lost a week before do to RFI with a flyaway. We didn't realize until after the TOC that the problem was the electronic ignition grounding wire was getting fatigued and cracking causing intermittent ignition noise.

In the Fall of '88, we finished building our Ultimates about 6 weeks before the TOC started. In the last two weeks before competition flying started we were putting about 10-12 full flights a day, everyday on the airframes.
Whiplash48 is offline Find More Posts by Whiplash48
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-05-2019, 10:57 AM
Model_Builder is offline
Find More Posts by Model_Builder
Registered User
Model_Builder's Avatar
Joined May 2008
62 Posts
You are most welcome. It is a privilege to now to gain information on these TOC aircraft in your own words. It remains as fascinating as always.
Model_Builder is offline Find More Posts by Model_Builder
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-05-2019, 04:20 PM
The Hodge is offline
Find More Posts by The Hodge
Registered User
The Hodge's Avatar
Victoria, Austrailia
Joined Mar 2008
1,152 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiplash48 View Post
No worries, thank you for posting the images of the plans you have. Those will be very helpful in recreating a set. Some of the historical detail you provided is also much appreciated!!

In my mind I have always remembered our '88 Ultimate having a much bigger span than it actually did. It was very long at 96" from the tip of a custom molded scale 7" long by 5" diameter glass spinner I made for it. We had the motor mounted way too soft and Ultimately (pun intended) it threw a spinner in flight almost costing us airplane No, 2 about a week before the contest.

Airplane No. 1 had been lost a week before do to RFI with a flyaway. We didn't realize until after the TOC that the problem was the electronic ignition grounding wire was getting fatigued and cracking causing intermittent ignition noise.

In the Fall of '88, we finished building our Ultimates about 6 weeks before the TOC started. In the last two weeks before competition flying started we were putting about 10-12 full flights a day, everyday on the airframes.
I Love this stuff, Great History, You Guys did some serious flight work
The Hodge is offline Find More Posts by The Hodge
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-07-2019, 06:44 PM
Model_Builder is offline
Find More Posts by Model_Builder
Registered User
Model_Builder's Avatar
Joined May 2008
62 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Hodge View Post
I Love this stuff, Great History, You Guys did some serious flight work
They certainly did. Bill Bennett only invited the best of the Best.

https://moleski.net/rc/toc.htm

Whiplash48 has shared solid gold here. I copy it all into word docx in case solar flares take care of this chat. I have gleaned so much from searching these topics I can no longer find anymore. Again, grateful on many levels for the insider information and a sense of understanding better what others worked so hard to achieve.
Model_Builder is offline Find More Posts by Model_Builder
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-08-2019, 03:22 PM
Model_Builder is offline
Find More Posts by Model_Builder
Registered User
Model_Builder's Avatar
Joined May 2008
62 Posts
28.5 % and 29 % Bucker cowls

Shown are a glass cowl from my own mold for the Pilot 28.5% scale Bucker Jungmann aka 1 to 3.5 scale. And on right are the glass parts from the 29% Hanson Jungmann kit. Exceptionally light and exquisite. The 3 Hanson parts weigh 8.5 oz total. A 4 inch spinner is intended whereas the Pilot kit specifies a 2.75 inch spinner. The Pilot Cowl (kit uses fenders, not shown) is light at 8.7 oz on it's own just squeezes inside the Hanson cowl

A rendering of the Late Great Jim Moser with N1947G.
Model_Builder is offline Find More Posts by Model_Builder
Last edited by Model_Builder; 08-08-2019 at 03:28 PM. Reason: Added
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-08-2019, 08:50 PM
Whiplash48 is offline
Find More Posts by Whiplash48
Registered User
Whiplash48's Avatar
Maryland
Joined Apr 2009
109 Posts
That is some nice looking glass work! Never been my strongest skill but I do OK when I have to.

The '84 Stearman cowling was made by laying up glass in an aluminum camping pot. If you look at some of the pictures you can see how flat the front of the cowl is. I just happened to have a pot that was the right diameter. '84 was a very busy year for us, using the pot was a big time saver. I think the only person I told was Mike McConville. He got a real chuckle out of that!
Whiplash48 is offline Find More Posts by Whiplash48
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-13-2019, 07:13 PM
Model_Builder is offline
Find More Posts by Model_Builder
Registered User
Model_Builder's Avatar
Joined May 2008
62 Posts
Cowl Fab

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiplash48 View Post
That is some nice looking glass work! Never been my strongest skill but I do OK when I have to.
Glasswork is not mine either. I should have qualified my own mold by saying I bought it. Using a pot to make your cowl was a clever choice. It looks great.

The late Claude McCullough of SIG fame used a pot to form the cowl for his iconic Waco WHD and then added blisters.

I must make a cowl 16 inch Dia. 13 inch Deep with 18 blisters or back down a scale and use this one on a 25% Bobby Jounkin (dec.) styled Samson NX985PW. It's close. Bobby's father bought him that slick new cowl to replace the one Steve fabricated from a commercial rooftop refrig. unit and added the blisters using a jig that employed a concave blister mold and a grease gun to force the aluminum to conform to the female blister. I didn't ask if it was common practice in the industry ??
Model_Builder is offline Find More Posts by Model_Builder
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-14-2019, 02:02 PM
Whiplash48 is offline
Find More Posts by Whiplash48
Registered User
Whiplash48's Avatar
Maryland
Joined Apr 2009
109 Posts
I have made a lot of molds for various model projects over the years. No matter how many I do, they are still a lot of work. When one is creating something from nothing we do what we have to in order to get the job done. Between the 1982 to 1988 TOCs the available Giant Scale related airplanes, and all of the hardware and engines that went with them was very limited. We basically had to make just about everything.

The '84 Stearman wheels/tires were made from R/C car parts; Associated RC12E front wheels with oil-lite bushings and a soft tire compound. Very similar to what Dave Brown started to sell commercially a few years later. They were 1/4 the weight of what we could buy at the time. Horsepower was always in short supply for us so even a few ounces made a difference.

Thanks for all the insite on the full-scale Samson and other great biplanes used in aerobatics over the years.
Whiplash48 is offline Find More Posts by Whiplash48
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message


Quick Reply
Message:


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 11 (0 members and 11 guests)
 
Thread Tools