Warrior "flapped" stunter

Cribbs74 wrote:If it were me I would leave Dad's alone. Or fly it once and park it.

Finishing the other would be fun and it's a good enough plane to learn to fly a .35 on.

Ron

Yes.. Dad's Warrior is more sacred to me Ron. It's too heavy too fly, as it is now. I am wondering if the other Warrior would be better to "finish" and fly... than say... an original Sterling S1-395 Ringmaster that I have? The Ring's wing is framed-up and needs to be mounted in the fuse and have controls installed. Not much more work than getting the Warrior flyable. I know that the Ringmaster gets Kudos for stunt training... but never heard any mention of the Warrior's performance. Was it a decent flying airplane? I don't want to build/fly a "Nobler" that I have, before getting some time in on a similar "flapped" airplane... and the Warrior does have flaps.

Roddie

Well, I have not flown the warrior. So I can't really help there.

Let me say this... The S-1 Ringmaster though antiquated is still cleaning up in OTS and profile with the right pilot at the handle. Not only is it a good trainer it's good all the way around. It's probably the most popular CL stunt plane on the planet. It looks good and it flies good.

Flaps! A flapped stunter and a non flapped stunter are not all that different. It's not like it will fly different enough that it becomes unmanageable.

Flaps make things cleaner looking that's about it.

This is what I have experienced.

Ron

Thanks Ron, you're right... I need to get out there and fly... (I think you told me that awhile back in a PM!!!)

Roddie

Well yes, you need to fly. I think you should bang something out and just say to yourself "Roddie, I am going to fly this and then crash it! And it's going to be fun!"

Then rebuild it and do it again. Take a look over in the flying discussions. I crashed and crashed and crashed. Then flew a bit and then crashed. I am still learning and plan on crashing some more.

I also think the .35 will be much easier to handle. Sure it will pull more, but it will be a heck of a lot slower.

Lastly, you already know how to fly   

I'm really good at rebuilding...because, I've had a lot of practice.

I'd wipe down your Dad's plane and hang it back up....maybe borrow the engine.

If you're starting out you have to figure anything you build to fly is disposable, cause you're gonna crash it, probably more then once, so start with something simple.

p.s. just read that its a combat engine, hmm....don't know unless you can add a headgasket or two, and run a small pitch prop, I'd defer that to Ken.

Definitely hard to stunt with a Combat engine. My Thunder Tiger is Speed Limit Combat material flying stunt, and I slowed it by reducing the compression x 3 plus a muffler. And a flat prop like Mark said. It could probably stand a smaller venturi too. I never did that, but I might get a restrictive air filter for it. You'll be cutting out in loops if you don't.
Damn look at me, I talk like an expert. I'm not. Better wait for Ken to chip in. Fredvon knows stuff too, but he may be more 1/2A combat knowledgeable that 25/35, I'm not sure.
Rusty

I had honed in on that too, but didn't know what an old Veco combat engine would behave like so I dismissed it. I bet Ken does know though.

Some advice I fished for recently (and I am in the process of mostly following):

If you want to do modern stunt, and need to learn, then whip up a few Skyray kits (buy 1, make a couple more) or Flite Streak kits. Put OS25LA on them, plastic uniflow tank (I'd have to look up the prop again). Other than a weight box in the wing tip make them box stock (engines too) until you can do the pattern.

Adjustable lead outs are time consuming complexity on a plane that will eat earth. (I built 1 with adjustable lead outs, and the lead outs took as much time as building the rest of the wing.)

The duplicate/triplicate planes means when one breaks you can fly another and rebuild later. Both planes are easy builds, I just built 2 flite streaks, but haven't painted and covered since the weather is against me.

The ARF versions are considered as not as good as the kit versions, but passable.

Phil

Truth be told Roddie, most of the planes from that era flew very poorly including the Warrior. To make matters worse, when you flapped these models the flying ability was lessened even more. I've made mention of this before with these close coupled planes. What happens is this, when you pull the plane into a maneuver and the flaps are operated the wing stalls even quicker due to you removing a certain amount of wing area. Of the models I've flown from that series, The Brave, Papoose, Warrior all flew equally the same which didn't have me overwhelmed so to speak. The thin airfoil and narrow wingspan was typical of the models of that era. The plane could fly a fair OTS pattern ( Flaps omitted due to flying better and a point deduction) . Building these models light is the ticket to success and not obtainable with kit wood. The huge 1" rib blocks on each side of the fuse weighs about as much as all the ribs in the kit alone. The one plane that set itself aside from the others in that series is the Chief both Polywog and conventional style wing.

For nostalgia I would quickly assemble and go fly. Personally I would devote my time to a more modern plane as mentioned and I would certainly pursue that Ringmaster with the Fox or Mccoy.

As for running the combat engine, many of the engines from that era were a lot more powerful than your standard Fox .35/Mccoy's. They could be used but you will be flying 10-20 mph faster. This is beneficial like I mentioned above even on a Ringmaster due to same issues with the wing. But, it makes it a lot more difficult to learning certain maneuvers. Other maneuvers can be quite easier. A more pronounced maneuver like a AMA eight or outside square can really get ugly quick with a fast flying plane. Your plane wants to slide in the corners rather than fly clean and straight. Weight would be my first concern . I like to build my planes around my engine and not the other way around. Finding parts for the Veco or the OS is like  finding a needle in a haystack so I would certainly go easy on them and keep the nitro in the 10-15%. A modern Schneurle ported engine of today or even the LA .25 would turn up more than most of the vintage engines from yesteryear with less fuel consumption. Ken

Thanks VERY much everyone. I guess I'll set my sights on finishing the Ringmaster. As I said; I have Foxes (.29 and .35) that I can use. There's been some great coverage on here, to set them up for reliable running. I'll need to pick up some better props and the right fuel and maybe a different needle... but most everything else I have on hand. I like the Skyray "35".. and will watch Rusty's threads for his experience with that model too.

The Veco .35 I may "bench-run"... but that's probably it, because it was my Dad's... and somewhat more rare now, than the Fox engines. I wouldn't want to risk dorking it into the ground while trying to learn the pattern.

I should have some "hands-on" help from the N.E.S.T. guys this Spring too... which I'm really looking forward to. I haven't seen them since the 90's.

Thanks again everyone, I can always count on good advice here.
Roddie

Cribbs74 wrote:Well, I have not flown the warrior. So I can't really help there.

Let me say this... The S-1 Ringmaster though antiquated is still cleaning up in OTS and profile with the right pilot at the handle. Not only is it a good trainer it's good all the way around. It's probably the most popular CL stunt plane on the planet. It looks good and it flies good.

Flaps! A flapped stunter and a non flapped stunter are not all that different. It's not like it will fly different enough that it becomes unmanageable.

Flaps make things cleaner looking that's about it.

This is what I have experienced.

Ron

Yesterday I came across a forum which described a slab wing baby ringmaster a guy built and it stuck me as a bit odd as I always thought flaps were for slow flight and/+r landing. He says it flies great and his plane looks good too. It's been many years but if memory serves, I never found flat slab wing planes all that great, the best thing about them being that they're so fast and easy to build. He has a pushrod from the bellcrank to a control horn on the top of the flap and another rod from the Ch on the flap to one on the bottom of the elevator.
Then today I was browsing this site (http://www.mh-aerotools.de/airfoils/index.htm) and saw a section discussing flapped wings on pylon racers with lots of technical data and graphs. Long story short, the flaps don't give much of an improvement on thicker airfoils but on the thinner airfoils they make a significant improvement in steep climbs and turns while retaining the low drag/high speed advantages of a thin airfoil over a thicker symetrcal one. I can see it making a difference in pulling up out of vertical dives. Our old slabs invariably ended up in pieces on the ground doing that sort of maneuver while my Baby Ringmaster would pull out and go from vertical down to vertical up in less than it's own length. With flaps maybe our slabs would have performed these maneuvers a bit better and we'd. Have used up less balsa and glue.

roddie wrote:Thanks VERY much everyone. I guess I'll set my sights on finishing the Ringmaster. As I said; I have Foxes (.29 and .35) that I can use. There's been some great coverage on here, to set them up for reliable running. I'll need to pick up some better props and the right fuel and maybe a different needle... but most everything else I have on hand. I like the Skyray "35".. and will watch Rusty's threads for his experience with that model too.

Roddie

Roddie,

Something I did not see mentioned...VECO updated some of their designs in ~1953 or 1954. Looking at the shape of the wing tips and tail section yours appears to be the later version. As such, it is not eligible for OTS. If that is the event you intend to fly, the S-1 Ringmaster may be your best bet.

For learning or re-learning the pattern, the Skyray 35 is hard to beat.

Good luck either way.

George

gcb wrote:

roddie wrote:Thanks VERY much everyone. I guess I'll set my sights on finishing the Ringmaster. As I said; I have Foxes (.29 and .35) that I can use. There's been some great coverage on here, to set them up for reliable running. I'll need to pick up some better props and the right fuel and maybe a different needle... but most everything else I have on hand. I like the Skyray "35".. and will watch Rusty's threads for his experience with that model too.

Roddie

Roddie,

Something I did not see mentioned...VECO updated some of their designs in ~1953 or 1954. Looking at the shape of the wing tips and tail section yours appears to be the later version. As such, it is not eligible for OTS. If that is the event you intend to fly, the S-1 Ringmaster may be your best bet.

For learning or re-learning the pattern, the Skyray 35 is hard to beat.

Good luck either way.  

George

Thanks George.. I'm really just a learning to fly maneuvers. It's going to take me quite a while before I learn the beginners pattern. I have the S-1 Ringmaster to finish building. It will be my 1st "big plane". I also have a Nobler kit. It's just a matter of finishing some planes that have already been started.. and going out and flying them.

I hope to be getting together with the N.E.S.T. guys this Spring. They fly on Sundays fairly local to me. I really could use some coaching.

Veco kitted three with Native-American (Indian) names:

"Cheif", "Warrior" and "Brave" in progressevively smaller wingspans and power recommendations.

I built an flew a "Chief" until is was no longer airworthy and during that time I became a more competent C/L pilot.  It was never crashed but simply became castor-soaked.  I eventually dissassembled it for the parts and a well-worn McCoy .35 purchased when they first were introduced in the late '50's at $4.95 a copy.    

The "Chief" was an excellent flyer in every regard.  Though the same could be said of the smaller planes in the series.

SD

Still have the McCoy Dave?

Cribbs74 wrote:Still have the McCoy Dave?

No Ron, traded if off for several "Coxies".  The McCoy was getting kinda tired.

SD

I have two Warriors.. both built.. one was never covered. As I stated earlier: My Dad's model (the finished one) is too heavy from my Brother's "beautification" measures..   .. and it's also too precious to chance losing to a crash. My Uncle built the other one, 30 or 40 years ago. It's amazing that it's still straight and undamaged.

I too have a McCoy Red-Head .35 and Fox .29 and .35 stunts, all in excellent condition.

I started building a Sterling S2 Mustang many years ago... but the wing got a bad warp in it.. and I never finished it. I still have the wing and all the other parts.

The other 3 boxes in the photo have left-over balsa and plywood scrap in them.

Roddie, the wing of the Mustang I believe is the same or similar wing in the YAK. It really shouldn't be that difficult to fix the warp. If it's a twist, break loose the glue joints on the center spar (The rib ripper) and twist and reglue. If the trailing edge is warped, you may just be able to steam it back. I certainly would give it a go as all the engines you mentioned above would suit that plane perfectly. Ken

Ken Cook wrote:          Roddie, the wing of the Mustang I believe is the same or similar wing in the YAK. It really shouldn't be that difficult to fix the warp. If it's a twist, break loose the glue joints on the center spar (The rib ripper) and twist and reglue. If the trailing edge is warped, you may just be able to steam it back. I certainly would give it a go as all the engines you mentioned above would suit that plane perfectly. Ken

Thanks Ken, The S2 Mustang was my "1st ever" kit back in the late 80's... and I butchered the wing because of a lack of experience. I have the kit-box/plan with balance of parts around here somewhere.. My Grandfather gave it to me after he'd lost interest in the hobby.

Here's the kit.. the wing is in the shed. I'll have to pull it out and take a look at it. I'm wondering if I'd need to couple the flaps similar to the way that Rusty did on his Yak?

That looks very similar to the Yak.

What type of glue did you use on the wing? It could be taken apart and straightened.

Cribbs74 wrote:That looks very similar to the Yak.

What type of glue did you use on the wing? It could be taken apart and straightened.

I'm almost certain it was Ambroid Ron.

I believe the Sterling Yak-9 and the Mustang, referred to as the F-51 in the side bar on my Yak plans, was meant to be a match for the Yak. Both have 323 square inch wings. I think so they could be evenly matched in slow combat. Except for the shape of the bottom air scoop and wingtips, they look identical. My fuselage was extremely heavy, made from two pieces of wood with the top and bottom glued together. I laminated a lighter fuse from two sheets of 1/4" balsa.

My wing was slightly twisted after I built it and I straightened it with dry heat from a hair dryer. It stayed straight after holding it counter twisted in front of the hot air and continuing to hold it until it cooled. My LE joint was epoxied, so that could be why it was so easy to do with dry heat. It ended up being the straightest wing I've ever built.
Rusty

roddie wrote:

Cribbs74 wrote:That looks very similar to the Yak.

What type of glue did you use on the wing? It could be taken apart and straightened.

I'm almost certain it was Ambroid Ron.

Well, in that case. How long ago did you do it? Ambroid continues to shrink and evaporate over time. You may find that it will give way under slight pressure.

My S-1 was done with Ambroid and it practically crumbled when I started messing with it.