logo
Thread Tools
Old 08-14-2019, 10:39 PM
Model_Builder is offline
Find More Posts by Model_Builder
Registered User
Model_Builder's Avatar
Joined May 2008
64 Posts
Pitts/Wolf Samson

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiplash48 View Post

Thanks for all the insite on the full-scale Samson and other great biplanes used in aerobatics over the years.
It all starts at the 1:1 with it's intended purpose and how it evolved to become our muse. Thank you for the perspective. The honest encouragement of your post has me now building (planning) a basswood plug for a nosebowl mold. A friend is a wood turner. Aluminum flashing will complete the cowl shroud. Luckily I have the correct pants in glass. The shallow blisters may end up vinyl graphics. The intended 3W150B2CS with 32X10 Menz 2 blade CF will have it's day after all.

Steve flew the Samson for 9 years after it's 1985 completion and stated it was his favorite airshow performer of all. It was Steve's with the colors of Ben Huntley's that inspired me many years ago. I will proceed with that one in 1/3. Thank you. A fellow in Australia built an excellent large RC example of Wolf's version many years ago. Photo is Wolf's 1985 Samson after Bobby acquired it. Thanks again Whiplash48
Model_Builder is offline Find More Posts by Model_Builder
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old 08-15-2019, 09:05 AM
Model_Builder is offline
Find More Posts by Model_Builder
Registered User
Model_Builder's Avatar
Joined May 2008
64 Posts
Curtis Pitts wing patent.

Described is Curtis Pitts Patent on the S1S Wings that give the aircraft the the same flight characteristics inverted as in upright flight.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US3695557

Pitts Airfoils

Pitts Model 12 NACA 63a015 (upper) NACA 0012 (lower)
Pitts Model 14 NACA 23012 NACA 23012
Pitts S-1C NACA M-6 NACA M-6
Pitts S-1D NACA M-6 NACA M-6
Pitts S-1E Symmetrical Symmetrical
Pitts S-1S NACA 63a015 (upper) NACA 0012 (lower)
Pitts S-1T Symmetrical Symmetrical
Pitts S-1-11 NACA 63a015 (upper) NACA 0012 (lower)
Pitts S-2A NACA 63a015 (upper) NACA 0012 (lower)
Pitts S-2B NACA 63a015 (upper) NACA 0012 (lower)
Pitts S-2C NACA 63a015 (upper) NACA 0012 (lower)
Pitts S-2E Symmetrical Symmetrical
Pitts S-2S NACA 63a015 (upper) NACA 0012 (lower)
Pitts Samson NACA- 23012 (upper) NACA- 23012 (lower)

Pitts S-1E, S-1T and S-2E... are also the same
NACA 63a015 upper, NACA 0012 Lower
Model_Builder is offline Find More Posts by Model_Builder
Last edited by Model_Builder; 08-16-2019 at 09:24 AM. Reason: clarity
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-15-2019, 10:36 AM
Whiplash48 is offline
Find More Posts by Whiplash48
Registered User
Whiplash48's Avatar
Maryland
Joined Apr 2009
114 Posts
Can't wait to see the finished airplane sometime. When we were looking for a biplane subject to do for the '84 TOC, I had no idea there was a Pitts Samson. A good friend and fellow pilot suggested the Stearman as an obvious choice. The two have a lot in common.
Attached is my attempt at a set of plans for the Samson in your picture;

I started these back in 2014 as a possible IMAC/TOC biplane build.

I have a DA-170, I may just have to start cutting some plywood for this project...
Whiplash48 is offline Find More Posts by Whiplash48
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-15-2019, 03:08 PM
Model_Builder is offline
Find More Posts by Model_Builder
Registered User
Model_Builder's Avatar
Joined May 2008
64 Posts
Big Bipes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiplash48 View Post
Can't wait to see the finished airplane sometime.
I can't wait to have a half built airplane. It has been a long time coming. I'll post a progress photo. The Stearman is a personal favorite. I built the 64" Sterling Kit when it was current. It was a Giant Scale then. And I was just a kid.
Model_Builder is offline Find More Posts by Model_Builder
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-15-2019, 08:56 PM
Model_Builder is offline
Find More Posts by Model_Builder
Registered User
Model_Builder's Avatar
Joined May 2008
64 Posts
Pitts S2-C 3 views

These came from a binder at Christen Industries. They are not available on the net. I assume they are accurate. In comparison to 3-view of a Pitt's S2C owned by Brett Hunter, a single seater, it appears all are correct. A series of 3 views from Aviat of the S2A, S2B and S2S many years ago looked nice but were not accurate for the purposes of scaling a model from. Likely to protect their proprietary products. Model Building has taken a karmic hit in last 2 decades. I hope these are of value to someone. A Ryobi S2C ARF had the only 3 view available around 2003. I charmed these out of the girl that answered the phone at Christen in 2006.

Brett Hunter's is attached for reference.
Model_Builder is offline Find More Posts by Model_Builder
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-16-2019, 04:16 PM
Model_Builder is offline
Find More Posts by Model_Builder
Registered User
Model_Builder's Avatar
Joined May 2008
64 Posts
I do not know to be honest.

[QUOTE/ 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?[/QUOTE]

Hi HODGE, I can't honestly answer that one. I have not flown the Challenger but I am going to guess it would land slower than the Ultimate all else being equal.
Model_Builder is offline Find More Posts by Model_Builder
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-17-2019, 05:34 AM
airega1 is offline
Find More Posts by airega1
Blue Skies
United States, VA, Virginia Beach
Joined Jun 2006
107 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Model_Builder View Post
[QUOTE/ 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?
Hi HODGE, I can't honestly answer that one. I have not flown the Challenger but I am going to guess it would land slower than the Ultimate all else being equal.[/QUOTE]



I have my Ulti from 2005 and I fly it every year and I haven't yet been able to overshoot a landing, but always needing to drag it in under power, but then again I don't have an ordinary Ulti, meanwhile my Christen eagle or Pitts is generally cruised by the pilot boxes on landings
airega1 is offline Find More Posts by airega1
Last edited by airega1; 08-17-2019 at 05:43 AM. Reason: correct
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-22-2019, 08:19 PM
Model_Builder is offline
Find More Posts by Model_Builder
Registered User
Model_Builder's Avatar
Joined May 2008
64 Posts
Sport Aviation Article October 2015

A great article for Pitts enthusiasts. It was to large to Post. Whiplash48 remedied that. Thank you. All issues were sold out immediately. This prints off nicely for those who collect.
Model_Builder is offline Find More Posts by Model_Builder
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-27-2019, 05:02 PM
The Hodge is offline
Find More Posts by The Hodge
Registered User
The Hodge's Avatar
Victoria, Austrailia
Joined Mar 2008
1,175 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Model_Builder View Post
[QUOTE/ 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?
Hi HODGE, I can't honestly answer that one. I have not flown the Challenger but I am going to guess it would land slower than the Ultimate all else being equal.[/QUOTE]

Quote:
Originally Posted by airega1 View Post
Hi HODGE, I can't honestly answer that one. I have not flown the Challenger but I am going to guess it would land slower than the Ultimate all else being equal.


I have my Ulti from 2005 and I fly it every year and I haven't yet been able to overshoot a landing, but always needing to drag it in under power, but then again I don't have an ordinary Ulti, meanwhile my Christen eagle or Pitts is generally cruised by the pilot boxes on landings[/QUOTE]

Thanks you both for the Information Ill stick to the challenger then
The Hodge is offline Find More Posts by The Hodge
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-27-2019, 05:20 PM
eheliflyer is offline
Find More Posts by eheliflyer
TEAM FUTABA
eheliflyer's Avatar
Mansfield Oh
Joined May 2006
1,450 Posts
2019 Reboot!

Sr. TOC Reboot.
eheliflyer is offline Find More Posts by eheliflyer
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-27-2019, 05:22 PM
wyo69cowboy is offline
Find More Posts by wyo69cowboy
Gettin better 1 [email protected] a time!
wyo69cowboy's Avatar
Cody WY
Joined Apr 2009
1,486 Posts
Can one of you explain the differences/reasoning behind horizontal stab location on these? I note the Pitts S2 in the above post has the H stab basically on the thrust line, while the Pitts Samson has it higher, as do most current full scale monoplanes we all see in RC--Extra, Edge, MXS, etc.


The 3D-optimized arfs we all have access to now have morphed into nearly the same plane, with thrust line, wing, and H stab basically in the same plane, unlike most of their fullscale counterparts...
wyo69cowboy is offline Find More Posts by wyo69cowboy
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-27-2019, 05:26 PM
acerc is online now
Find More Posts by acerc
Registered User
acerc's Avatar
United States, FL, Center Hill
Joined Jul 2014
2,009 Posts
Hodge, I have three Pitts, an S1T at 96", a Challenger at 86", and a S1C at 61". I also have two Ultimates, one at 94" and one at 82". The Ultimate has much more authority in flight as it was designed for better aerobatics. As for landing, it all depends on the weight as to the speed needed on approach. The S1C, Challenger, and both Ultimates were designed and built light. I think they are comparable in landing but I would give a nod to the Ultimates. By the Ultimate's design they just seem to float a little more. As for the first one the S1T, it turned out to be a tank weight wise but was built for show more than aerobatics. My favorite for flying is by far the Aeroworks Ultimate, did it light and it flies like a dream and will float in for a feather soft touch down.
acerc is online now Find More Posts by acerc
Last edited by acerc; 08-27-2019 at 07:30 PM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 09-06-2019, 02:03 PM
Whiplash48 is offline
Find More Posts by Whiplash48
Registered User
Whiplash48's Avatar
Maryland
Joined Apr 2009
114 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyo69cowboy View Post
Can one of you explain the differences/reasoning behind horizontal stab location on these? I note the Pitts S2 in the above post has the H stab basically on the thrust line, while the Pitts Samson has it higher, as do most current full scale monoplanes we all see in RC--Extra, Edge, MXS, etc.


The 3D-optimized arfs we all have access to now have morphed into nearly the same plane, with thrust line, wing, and H stab basically in the same plane, unlike most of their fullscale counterparts...
Horizontal stab location has much to do with Yaw-Roll coupling. The thinking is, having the HS as low or as high (T-tail) as possible produces the least amount of Roll with Rudder deflections. The image attached compares the 3 most competitive biplanes in the 1984 TOC. The Prettner Skybolt was disqualified for various reasons. The reference point for this comparison is a horizontal line (presumed thrust line without up pr down thrust). The Stearman had about 1 deg of UP thrust during the competition.

The vertical HS offset is measured from the 33% root chord line. Which is where I have generalized the pitch moments act. The actual 0 moment point is most dependant on the airfoil used. Some of my own experiments with the NACA 0010 and 0012 sections shows the 33% location to be very close with an elevator to HS area ratio of about 40 / 60 with the 40% being the elevator area.

We see for the Falcon the HS is ~1,5 in. below the thrust line, Stearman was only ~0.6 in. and the estimated Prettner Super Skybolt is the lowest at ~ 2.1in.

I know from discussions at the time that the Stearman had much worse Yaw/Roll coupling issues than the Falcon did. Steve Rojecki, ('84 Winner) did a beautiful combination horizontal flat turn into a knife edge loop during his 3 minute free program. Simple, but amazing none the less.
Whiplash48 is offline Find More Posts by Whiplash48
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 09-06-2019, 05:01 PM
The Hodge is offline
Find More Posts by The Hodge
Registered User
The Hodge's Avatar
Victoria, Austrailia
Joined Mar 2008
1,175 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by acerc View Post
Hodge, I have three Pitts, an S1T at 96", a Challenger at 86", and a S1C at 61". I also have two Ultimates, one at 94" and one at 82". The Ultimate has much more authority in flight as it was designed for better aerobatics. As for landing, it all depends on the weight as to the speed needed on approach. The S1C, Challenger, and both Ultimates were designed and built light. I think they are comparable in landing but I would give a nod to the Ultimates. By the Ultimate's design they just seem to float a little more. As for the first one the S1T, it turned out to be a tank weight wise but was built for show more than aerobatics. My favorite for flying is by far the Aeroworks Ultimate, did it light and it flies like a dream and will float in for a feather soft touch down.
Your Fleet looks great, Thank you for your input.
The Hodge is offline Find More Posts by The Hodge
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 09-16-2019, 10:06 PM
Model_Builder is offline
Find More Posts by Model_Builder
Registered User
Model_Builder's Avatar
Joined May 2008
64 Posts
Right on

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiplash48 View Post
Horizontal stab location has much to do with Yaw-Roll coupling. The thinking is, having the HS as low or as high (T-tail) as possible produces the least amount of Roll with Rudder deflections. The image attached compares the 3 most competitive biplanes in the 1984 TOC. The Prettner Skybolt was disqualified for various reasons. The reference point for this comparison is a horizontal line (presumed thrust line without up pr down thrust). The Stearman had about 1 deg of UP thrust during the competition.

The vertical HS offset is measured from the 33% root chord line. Which is where I have generalized the pitch moments act. The actual 0 moment point is most dependant on the airfoil used. Some of my own experiments with the NACA 0010 and 0012 sections shows the 33% location to be very close with an elevator to HS area ratio of about 40 / 60 with the 40% being the elevator area.

We see for the Falcon the HS is ~1,5 in. below the thrust line, Stearman was only ~0.6 in. and the estimated Prettner Super Skybolt is the lowest at ~ 2.1in.

I know from discussions at the time that the Stearman had much worse Yaw/Roll coupling issues than the Falcon did. Steve Rojecki, ('84 Winner) did a beautiful combination horizontal flat turn into a knife edge loop during his 3 minute free program. Simple, but amazing none the less.
Hi Whipash,

I'm relieved to see you post this vital information. It is all true. Hal Debolt and his contemporaries (the pioneers) went for no coupling, or as little as possible in their search for aerodynamic predictability and stability.

There is no argument I can see in refuting your assertions. Some model owners may find themselves in position to do little about the set up they have. Anyone designing will take it under advisement.

Anyone who has read and understood the premise will be rolling it over in thought. This insight deserves a reply and due credence.

Thanks for bringing it up, or should I say putting it in perspective.
-Bill
Model_Builder is offline Find More Posts by Model_Builder
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message


Quick Reply
Message:


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 5 (0 members and 5 guests)
 
Thread Tools