Lookin' for advice on Sig Twister

You can use up to medium weight balsa. You can also choose to laminate two pieces of 1/4 inch to make the fuse, as this may cost less depending on your wood source.

If you consult the plans on outerzone note that if you extend the top fuselage line that the stab is NOT in the same line.

http://outerzone.co.uk/plan_details.asp?ID=2652

You can also choose to extend the fuselage and stretch it.
http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php/topic,36388.msg379699.html#msg379699


Phil

I built my Twister as a "Fancherized" one, and it is great! The mods are simple enough to do, and probably make it fly better. I began mine as a Fancher version from the outset, so, I can't compare it to a stock model.
It does fly very smooth, and I felt a Fox .35 might be just a little less power for it-the way I build. I installed an Evolution .36, as the final powerplant. It had a K&B. 40 on it at first. That thing ran away! If you can keep it lightweight, I think a good running Fox .35 would be great- I use them in many of my other airplanes. There is a picture of mine, floating around in here, somewhere. It has purple lightning bolts on the wing. maybe you can find it in a search.
Good luck with yours, it's a good one!

Gus,
What prop did you use on the 40FP?
Chris...

Chris on the ABN version FP I used a APC 10.x 4.5. When I use the iron piston version I use the Thunder Tiger 11.5 x 4.5 wider paddled blade or I used a 11x4  Pro Zinger. I was having difficulty getting the pattern done with 4.5 oz's on my ABC version and the Thunder Tiger assisted that in terms it reduced the rpm's down a bit more. I didn't want to change my venturi due to me liking the power available to me and I wasn't having run away problems typically associated with this engine. I essentially use a 5 oz tank with this engine nowadays and monitor how much fuel is required.

Hi Ken,

I just noticed the other day on a couple old FP .40 piston and sleeve sets, one had what looked like a machines piston (when looking at bottom of piston) and the other looked like one of the pressed together metal? Is that the iron and the machined looking one aluminum?

Is there any advantage from one to another?

thanks!

The FP 40 came as both a lapped iron set and an ABN set for the piston and cylinder.  Use a strong magnet on the set to tell immediately which is which.  (I use a name-tag magnet)  I don't know the visual differences, but I suspect you are right on which is which.

The ABN set in good condition is generally easier to start, requires lower oil, and potentially can make more power.  ABN engines can be run more lean than lapped iron engines.  

The lapped iron set requires a higher oil load in the fuel than the ABN set, there is no coating to fail, although a lean run can hurt the engine more than a lean run on the ABN set.

Phil

Well, it looks like availability of the TF ARF streak is going to be nil for now Tower says that the streak is now not expected to arrive till late June or early July so I'm going to go on and order a kit from Brodak probably a ringmaster for the Fox. Some of the guys at the field are trying to point me towards the ARF nobler That might be a possibility for later *Shrugs*
What do you all think about the nobler BTW? (Bandit)

I have a question. Why an ARF?

The Nobler, while not my favorite is an excellent plane flying wise. It literally blew the doors off of everything in the late 50's and is still competitive today.

The ARF version while basically the same as the original design has issues much like the Flite Streak. Weak nose. Poor bell crank mounting, weak hinges and poor tank placement. Covering could use some attention too.

I asked the question as builing a plane is far superior in every way.

Ron

The Twister is reasonably priced, but it just doesn't turn my fancy. I may end up scratch building a similar sized Supermarine Spitfire profile that I have MA plans for, or purchase something from Brodak or one of the other kit manufacturers.

But you are right, Ron, a kit built plane is easier to repair and more sturdy to take the knocks versus an ARF. Plus, I can get the covering to remain bubble free and wrinkleless. Quality is higher in a personal build.

Gonna put that Fox .35 Stunt you gave me into my Sterling S-46 profile Hellcat.
That's the right ticket for that plane, a classic engine for a classic plane.

Cribbs74 wrote:I have a question. Why an ARF?

The Nobler, while not my favorite is an excellent plane flying wise. It literally blew the doors off of everything in the late 50's and is still competitive today.

The ARF version while basically the same as the original design has issues much like the Flite Streak. Weak nose. Poor bell crank mounting, weak hinges and poor tank placement. Covering could use some attention too.

I asked the question as builing a plane is far superior in every way.

Ron

I prefer to build myself but current conditions as well as my job kinda limit my ability to build a full kit at present. That's going to change but its going to be around Christmas before I can get my shop put back together enough to build kits. I Had a fire in my shop that was caused by a heater last October and I'm in the process of rebuilding it. So outside of 1/2A's and maybe something the size of a ringmaster I'm kinda hung up lol. Anyway an ARF is easier for me and quicker. I agree about the problems with quality, especially leadouts and construction. If I went with the nobler many things would be changed before declaring it airworthy. (Bandit)

TDbandit wrote:

Cribbs74 wrote:I have a question. Why an ARF?

The Nobler, while not my favorite is an excellent plane flying wise. It literally blew the doors off of everything in the late 50's and is still competitive today.

The ARF version while basically the same as the original design has issues much like the Flite Streak. Weak nose. Poor bell crank mounting, weak hinges and poor tank placement. Covering could use some attention too.

I asked the question as builing a plane is far superior in every way.

Ron

I prefer to build myself but current conditions as well as my job kinda limit my ability to build a full kit at present. That's going to change but its going to be around Christmas before I can get my shop put back together enough to build kits. I Had a fire in my shop that was caused by a heater last October and I'm in the process of rebuilding it. So outside of 1/2A's and maybe something the size of a ringmaster I'm kinda hung up lol. Anyway an ARF is easier for me and quicker. I agree about the problems with quality, especially leadouts and construction. If I went with the nobler many things would be changed before declaring it airworthy. (Bandit)

Sorry,

I didn't mean to pry, it's just I feel you would be happier with a plane to build yourself. It's going to take up room either way.

If you have money to spend and you are a competent flyer the ARF will probably last until you get your working area up to snuff.

If you do buy a Nobler ARF, out of the box you will have some fun for a while.

GallopingGhostler wrote:The Twister is reasonably priced, but it just doesn't turn my fancy. I may end up scratch building a similar sized Supermarine Spitfire profile that I have MA plans for, or purchase something from Brodak or one of the other kit manufacturers.

But you are right, Ron, a kit built plane is easier to repair and more sturdy to take the knocks versus an ARF. Plus, I can get the covering to remain bubble free and wrinkleless. Quality is higher in a personal build.

Gonna put that Fox .35 Stunt you gave me into my Sterling S-46 profile Hellcat.
That's the right ticket for that plane, a classic engine for a classic plane.

George,

I am currently building a Twister, that I modified. I agree the original form is unappealing, the good thing is your imagination can make it better.

A Spit in any form is a worthwhile build. My favorite of all WWII planes. Probably because my father loves them and has a very rare painting of one that I drooled over as a child.

The Fox would be a great choice for the Hellcat.

Here is a picture of my Twister to see what is possible.

Look up "francherizing" a twister.
http://www.circlemasters.com/uploads/9/0/9/8/9098310/circlemasters_newsletteroctober2010.pdf
http://www.aeromaniacs.com/Fancherized/pages/p1_jpg.htm

Of course you can make the profile look like anything you want as long as the moments and areas are retained. Easy stuff, get a line drawing and trace it out on the new wood.

Phil

Bandit,

Here's a couple shots of my Fancherized twister. In addition to stretching the fuselage I widened the the horizontal stab to 22" and used basswood for the leading edge.I used polycrylic as a wood sealer and it came out quite heavy. Power is a LA .46 with an APC 11.5x4. It flies well for its weight but my next one will get a balsa  leading edge and be sealed with dope and talc save weight.