PDQ Flying clown

Ken,

If you could scrounge those up that will be great. I could always do the LE/TE in solid strips.

Ron

"I walked into a LHS today and it was vintage CL heaven!" - Ron

At an undisclosed location of course.

I found the PDQ plans on RCG so if anybody needs them let me know.

Ron

SuperDave wrote:"I walked into a LHS today and it was vintage CL heaven!" - Ron

At an undisclosed location of course.

Lol, no it's in OKC called "Mikes Model"

He wouldn't sell me anything........ Lot's of rare unused Cox engines languishing away in the case.

Ron:

Would appear to be a private collection to draw customers into the shop. It's nice to know such things exist. In a way the owner is doing the hobby a service in that regard.

It's pretty hard to get excited about modeling by just looking at on-line or in catalogs. As a kid I was a regular at my LHS and spent MANY hours there "hanging out" in eager anticipation of learning and seeing new things.

It was there that I heard my first "Super Cyclone .60" run!

Somebody has to drag this one out of the archives. Is anyone intimately familiar with any of the Flying Clown variants? I don't have a desire to do Clown races, but really want to know if this is a good model for sport/stunt flying.

I'm also intrigued by engine choices...I've seen old posts between here, SH , and RCG with anything from .09-.15 sizes. The larger end seems awfully big for a sub-27" model, especially after flying 24" models with .049-.061 ci engines.

My itch is because this looks like a fun plane, easy and quick to knock together...if it is capable of OTS flying. Even OTS is above my abilities right now, but a good, safe goal.

Ron/Ken...I'm all ears. Anybody else, feel free. Come on, guys. Do a show and tell, or brag on yours.

Thanks, y'all!

Lovin' the Wankel, I used to pass them up for $34.95

The problem with the Flying Clown is wing loading. Any modern engine you offer it will make it fly like a turd.  So in my opinion, no it doesn't make a good stunter. I have the Brodak version which is unlike the PDQ version although they say it is, I'm not impressed with it's maneuverability. My PDQ version is the one I race and as far as maneuverability, it wasn't designed with that in mind. One factor with .15 size planes is their speed. They fly faster than .35 size planes making things more difficult to process due to their speed. They can also be twitchy making initial transition and recovery more difficult. This in turn makes it harder to sharpen your flying ability and skills.




       It takes no longer to build a .35 size profile  plane than a .15 size plane. This is also my experienced opinion so don't take it in a negative way. I  think that you should forego OTS flying and learn the PAMPA pattern prior to flying OTS. For starters, OTS planes are essentially handicapped. The majority of them fly terrible and they all need to fly fast to maneuver due to their thin airfoils of the period. The event was designed with this and fun  in mind as it makes it more challenging to get these turds through the maneuvers. If you have witnessed OTS , you will see that the majority of them fly certain planes, the Humongous, Jamison Special, Yates Dragon etc. That's because these designs had decent wing area and airfoils which will effortlessly perform the required maneuvers.

Thanks Ken,

But it is just so cute! Is there any helping one by building a thicker wing? Could that slow it down and afford it better handling? At this size, the plane really is quite disposable (the big "why" for my attraction to it).

You talked me out of the effort. I'll carry on with the UKEY teaching me new tricks. I doubt I could ever handle PAMPA style stunt. I'm too old, and broken. Right hand dominant with a bad back, and bum right shoulder. I'll be quite satisfied with loops, inverted, wing-overs...H-8 (round, square, or even bordering on Infinite) would be reaching a plateau I may never get past.

Since I don't fly in competition, or in AMA sanctioned events, I can get away with being quite satisfied by the OTS pattern even on a newer, more capable airframe. It is more than I got with plastic Cox planes. Bwahahaha!

Geez Jim....imagine how you're gonna feel when you get OLD!

So yes, the Flying Clown is the anomaly because it fits in the middle range. You really have to play with the power/weight ratio. I really think(although I haven’t tried it that a Cox .09 would work well on the nose. I do have a Brodak kit that I haven’t built . It will stunt, seen it. It’s just it is better as a speed plane.

If you like the looks and want an OTS stunter then the Super Clown is the way to go. It flies identical to the Ringmaster with roughly the same moments and wing area. The flaps are optional and I have flown it flapped and it’s not a real help. Build it without flaps. Saves weight and builds easier.

Fox .35 power on a Super Clown works well. Try and find an original plan or kit to copy. It will build nose heavy so that’s why a Fox .35 works best. If you go Brodak you won’t like the fuse shape. The wing isn’t quite the same either.

Stick with original plans. The Baby Clown, using the Brodak wing is a real 1/2A performer. With flaps will do the entire PAMPA pattern. I use a Cox .049 Medallion on mine with a TD top end.

Ron

Cribbs74 wrote:So yes, the Flying Clown is the anomaly because it fits in the middle range. You really have to play with the power/weight ratio. I really think(although I haven’t tried it that a Cox .09 would work well on the nose. I do have a Brodak kit that I haven’t built . It will stunt, seen it. It’s just it is better as a speed plane.

If you like the looks and want an OTS stunter then the Super Clown is the way to go. It flies identical to the Ringmaster with roughly the same moments and wing area. The flaps are optional and I have flown it flapped and it’s not a real help. Build it without flaps. Saves weight and builds easier.

Fox .35 power on a Super Clown works well. Try and find an original plan or kit to copy. It will build nose heavy so that’s why a Fox .35 works best. If you go Brodak you won’t like the fuse shape. The wing isn’t quite the same either.

Stick with original plans. The Baby Clown, using the Brodak wing is a real 1/2A performer. With flaps will do the entire PAMPA pattern. I use a Cox .049 Medallion on mine with a TD top end.

Ron

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zS_ZUVO_8M4&t=66s

OhBee wrote:Geez Jim....imagine how you're gonna feel when you get OLD!    

Thanks, Steve! Believe me, that has crossed my mind more than once lately.

Ron, Ken, Fred too,
I appreciate your notes. The weather is cracking towards spring, so I need to get off my duff and make up the lines for the UKEY. I left the weekend very loosely packed, so maybe I get to go fly a few rounds with the big guy.

Jim don't let my opinions deter you from building anything. They're all fun planes and some people have never experienced them. I did when I was younger and the glitter wore off fairly quick. This doesn't mean that they were not fun or neat. The hobby reminds me of motorcycling, I had the most fun with the small bikes. Unfortunately, they just kept getting bigger and bigger and more expensive and then it was not so fun anymore.

If you can fly inverted without crashing, you can fly the pattern. That's all you need to know and I could tell you exactly how to do it here. There's absolutely no tricks needed.

Ken, Gents,

I'm not deterred, just planning/budgeting my time (not so) wisely!
Small bike:

Big bike overhauled in my living room back in '94:

Big bike a few months later:

Still have it, but needs a clutch:

And then there is a Shadow, a Triumph TR6, and an N-scale railroad from my childhood.

Last, but not least...my family responsibilities.

I do really appreciate your guidance. I would have been bummed-out to knock one together, and it flew like my Scientific P-40...the best Figure-9 flier I've had in the last two years!

Something about those Stupid 90's Jim.

My first one was white, bought new in 1963. Rode it everywhere but mostly back and forth to work.

Second one was black, profiled here years ago. A rats nest but now restored. Bought with the CA-160 which I gave to my son. Yet to be restored.

I remember, Bob. I meant to post mine in your thread back then.
Then there is the TR6 (for the MG guy):

I have too much spare sheet metal to just junk the car (doors, fenders, boot/bonnet, hood-frame...4 TRs stripped over years). It needs a.rigjt-side inner fender well, and a bunch of paint, nuts, and bolts turned, etc.
Stupid 90's? How about stupid son!

Forrest Gump says - Stupid is as stupid does.

Don't feel alone, my son wrapped up his Triumph Spitfire on prom night and seriously corrupted my '74 Corvette.

But, how the rolls have reversed in 60 years. Now, he is the voice of reason and I'm the one screwing up things. Payback!

944_Jim wrote:I remember, Bob. I meant to post mine in your thread back then.
Then there is the TR6 (for the MG guy):

I have too much spare sheet metal to just junk the car (doors, fenders, boot/bonnet, hood-frame...4 TRs stripped over years). It needs a.rigjt-side inner fender well, and a bunch of paint, nuts, and bolts turned, etc.
Stupid 90's? How about stupid son!

Agggh! What happened? Hope your son is ok, by the looks of things it was an easy roll. Poor car. MG or Triumph. Most British car guys won’t frown on either. Hope you get it fixed. Have I commented on this picture before? A lot goes on in my life and my memory has been crap from the get go.

Bob,

My neighbor has a 1965 CB160 languishing in his shed. It’s for sale, but I haven’t taken him up on it because I don’t need it. I would rather have an S90 like you!

Son and female friend are fine...mild injuries, no broken bones.

Ron, I may have posted this right after it happened. Especially since Bob is an MG guy.

Wow! That CB160 has everything the S-90 is missing, specifically the extra cylinder! I've had my S-90 since 1983.

I could go for that CB 160! I had a couple CL160's back in the day... and S -90's,....and about 80 others. But then I was a Honda service tech for 42 yrs. So...... only one I kept...bought new in '73...

Bob,
That is beautiful! I hope you still take it out on sunny days. I see the oil tank cover on it, so it is a dry-sump engine. I've always wanted to know how the transmission gets oiled. Is it a separate case/fluid, like Triumphs and Harleys?

I bought my S-90 from a high school student. One of my friend's owned it, and the sold it. I wouldn't buy it first...the ask was too high. But the buyer rode it some only to discover the 18 year old bike couldn't charge the battery. So buyer #1 sold it at a loss. Buyer #2 must have thought he could fix it...but he rode it some. Until the battery was shot. So I became buyer #3 for peanuts.

In the end, all it took was a rectifier,.and of course a new battery. I found the failure-point by stripping the whole harness out of the bike, removing the engine, and benchtesting the whole thing hooked up to a train transformer on my bedroom floor. Finding the replacement was an afternoon of scrounging at a local independent shop digging in milk crates full of used electrical parts. This was the summer I learned of JIS threads. It was also the summer I saw the new CB1100F. I thought it was a .monster after riding my S-90 all over Boston. I never dreamed of getting one.