CL to RC... looking for plans

I've seen R/C Ringmasters, well pictures anyway. Sounds great!

I've been thinking of doing other CL aircraft too, like the Carl Goldberg Li'l Satin. I do have those plans.

Any other cool looking ones that would make a neat RC that you all know of?

(old guy voice) "back in the day there were a lot of ukiee profile conversions, magazine articals, kits etc.

I think just about anything would work, remember you can cut powerplant in half 'cause your not dragging 60' of lines.

I still think a a small plastic RTF would make a really cool conversion...a cheesy Wen-Mac Corsair, etc.

The Nobler has been converted and kitted for RC.

Travis,

Gary Weaver over at Stuka Stunt is selling these plans for $14 shipped.

I picked up a copy, he has others as well.

Ron

Travis, read through this thread... there's some good info.

Roger

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/questions-answers-154/8247616-control-line-conversion-rc.html

ive had some good sucess in the past with C/l conversions ...usaly a smaller engine is used but aslo i find C/L planes use a shorter moment arm (ie distance between wing Trail Edge <------------> leading edge of tailplane) wich helps in makeing them more elevator sensertive (in my experience that is)...aslo lenthening this moment lenth oftern increases lateral stabiliaty...in my opion that is ( awaits the bombardement from above for said comments)...Gazza

ekitten2 wrote:ive had some good sucess in the past with C/l conversions ...usaly a smaller engine is used   but aslo i find C/L planes  use a shorter  moment arm  (ie distance between wing Trail Edge <------------> leading edge of tailplane) wich helps in makeing them more elevator sensertive  (in my experience that is)...aslo lenthening this moment lenth oftern increases  lateral stabiliaty...in my opion that is   ( awaits the bombardement  from above  for said comments)...Gazza

Makes sense.  

Smaller engines are used in RC because more space is also used.  Airplanes are not required to have 1:1 thrust to weight or better by the flying style (loop, wingover, vertical 8 )A smaller engine also tames the airplane for level flight more than a working throttle will.  

Lengthening the tail plane moment, vertical and horizontal, will improve stability.  Might have to lengthen the nose a little to accommodate the longer tail lever and balancing.  If you keep the changes conservative then visually the differences would be very small, and undetectable unless the two versions were side by side.

Phil

If it is a profile, take some care with the engine bearers to get the crankshaft onto the centerline. Most CL profile birds end up with the crankshaft offset toward the outside wing, as that is what happens when the engine mounting lugs sit on the outer edge of the fuse.

Look for places to save weight. CL planes are usually pretty beefy so they can survive hard landings, inverted landings. RC planes are usually not built so strong, but are lighter...thus they land slower and don't need to be as strong. Part of this is that in an ideal world you choose when and where you land an RC plane, while a control liner comes down when the tank is empty, and some parts of the circle won't be as nice as we'd like. Also 4-2-4 engine runs with iron piston engines tend to produce copious vibration that would shake a typical RC plane to failure in short order.

WingingIt74 wrote:I've been thinking of doing other CL aircraft too, like the Carl Goldberg Li'l Satin. I do have those plans.

Trust me when I say that the Lil' Satan is better suited for C/L. My Uncle enlarged one to .25 size and converted it to R/C. It was a handful! Almost a nightmare really! It had a nasty habit of surprise tip stalls at high speeds and even worse at slower speeds making landings a fight! He even tried adding a little washout in the tips but there was no difference.

Shawn

Many of the sterling scale models listed on hip pocket aeronautics were designed for ff, uc, or rc. Take a look at some of those for ideas.