Dixie (oz16376)

About this Plan

Dixie. Radio control sport aerobatic biplane model. Wingspan 152 cm, for OS FS-120 Surpass engine.

Direct submission to Outerzone.

Quote: "Hi Mary, This time I'm sending plans for an old model of mine in pdf format. I did not send before cause I only had the dwg file with wing plan, the other plan for fuse was lost in transit. Some days ago, while I was searching for a plan that a friend asked for, I've found the original plans on paper. So, here are pdf plans for Dixie, this is the name of the model, along with the article then published on Italian modeling magazine Eco Model.
Ciao, Beppe"

Quote (google-translated): "Dixie aerobatic biplane, by Giuseppe Ghisleri.

I'm an avid reader of foreign model airplane magazines - English, American, French, Spanish, German, etc - anything that talks about model airplanes is worthy of at least a glance. The Italian model airplane community grumbles that there's never anything worth reading in our magazines, and that may be true, but have the many people who could contribute ever offered? Why not try? Believe me, it's not difficult and can be rewarding, but let's get back to foreign countries.

For years, American magazines have occasionally published a page of advertising with a photo that regularly stirs my old 'Stunter' heart. I think I should clarify the meaning of the aforementioned word. For American model airplane enthusiasts, 'Stunter' is acrobatic flight in a tethered circle: in a broader sense, the word can be translated as 'acrobatic stuntman."

You all know they're Stuntmen, those guys in movies who fall from skyscrapers or beat each other up blindly without, of course, getting hurt.

This is the definition that was applied to the first models capable of daring and spectacular flights. Those who read me regularly, poor them, already know that this is the type of flight I prefer.

So, I was talking about photography: imagine a vast, perfectly mown lawn with low plants in the background, a splendid blue sky, interrupted here and there by white clouds. In the foreground, two poles suspend, no more than three meters in the air, a thread of wool slightly bent by a breeze that you can just guess, warm, light, and fragrant. Next to the distant pole, a young man in a T-shirt intent on piloting his model, which is in knife-edge flight exactly halfway between the wire and the ground.

Can you imagine the scene? Don't you feel a thrill? No...? Well, then turn the page and go to the 'toy cars' section and don't worry, nobody's perfect, not even this magazine (the toy cars section, precisely!). (This is the opinion of a model airplane enthusiast).

If history interests you, I'll tell you that the model in question is called the Aeromaster (oz1971) and has been produced for over 30 years, which says a lot about its flight characteristics.

Every now and then I get the urge to build models from kits, but then I think: who makes the Eco Model parts?

Besides, no company imports the Aeromaster kit into Italy, and if you buy it directly, you run the risk of being prosecuted for infringing the dealer.

Add to all this the need for a model larger than the original ones, to be able to use a 4-stroke OS 120 Surpass, and you'll understand why I'm here telling you a few stories.

Why a biplane? It seems that biplanes are better suited to the type of aerobatics consisting mainly of whips, knife-edge flights, and the like. The lower inertia due to the fact that the mass is more concentrated around the center of gravity, which helps them do this. Anyone who has experienced flying these models knows how sensitive they are to rudder and how easily they stay on the fuselage in knife-edge flight.

On the other hand, to keep the wings at 90° to the ground, it's well known that it's necessary to keep the ailerons counter to the rudder to effectively counteract the roll induced by rudder movement. This is particularly important in biplanes, as the lower wing usually has a fairly generous amount of dihedral. With all the movement and coordination required to perform decent aerobatics, it's best to try to minimize the necessary corrections. A biplane with swept wings and absolutely no dihedral on either the upper or lower wing is certainly a step in the right direction, as I confirmed with the Dixie.

In an American magazine, I saw a photo of an Ultimate biplane with even a negative dihedral upper wing, in an attempt to create a model with absolutely neutral behavior. The author also said that, with today's computerized radios, it's possible to mix rudder and ailerons until the desired result is achieved.

But, I say, not everyone has this type of radio, and if we take away even the small satisfaction we get every time we do something not particularly easy well, what's left: perhaps turn on the radio, start the engine, and then sit back and see how good the expensive equipment we bought is at flying models on its own?

This is the second biplane I've built in my long modeling career, but I remember well the effort I put in last time to build and correctly position the cabane. My focus during the design was therefore primarily on making this important construction step as easy and simple as possible.

I think I've achieved my goal, although I can certainly do better. The cabane was built without the use of any tools, except for a pair of pliers. Not even a vice was used, as the material can be bent fairly easily even by hand. As shown in the drawing, he used 3 mm diameter bicycle spokes, taking advantage of the threaded ends to make the small corrections that bending errors inevitably make necessary.

Furthermore, the cabane is constructed of two symmetrical parts that are inserted - note, they don't even need gluing - only after the fuselage has been completely finished and painted, or wrapped in heat-shrink, if you prefer. The assembly may leave some doubts about its strength and reliability, but I can assure you that it has been thoroughly tested without showing any signs of failure.

What advantages does this solution offer? The most obvious is that the cabane can be removed from the fuselage without having to detach anything from it, so no damage is caused; simply unsolder two soldered joints in areas away from the wood...."

Supplementary file notes

Article.

Corrections?

Did we get something wrong with these details about this plan (especially the datafile)? That happens sometimes. You can help us fix it.
Add a correction