Stuntwagon (oz1711)

About this Plan

DeBolt Stuntwagon. Control line stunt model for .60 power.

Quote: "If you are a modern C/Liner who has never seen a 'Stuntwagon' perform you are probably in for a big surprise. If today's C/L aerobatics would be compared to R/C Sport aerobatics, the Stuntwagon style would best be compared with the spectacular R/C Pattern performance. Both types of models perform in the same speed range.

The Stuntwagon had no lack of either power or wing lift. Coupled with the clean design was the big .60 engine pulling an abnormally large wing, using a fat, full-symmetrical airfoil. The short tail coupling produced the closest thing you could get to a flying wing without actually having one. To accentuate the cleanliness even further, a drop off gear was used to get rid of that drag and weight. The resulting performance was not only fast, the Wagon would turn on a dime and give you a nickel change!

To watch a Stuntwagon flight was an exhilarating experience, difficult to describe in this day and age. From the takeoff with its dropped gear, which occurred almost instantaneously, you knew that it was no normal model. First of all, it was on the end of long 70 ft lines, really moving around the circle, and it was obviously a man's airplane; to be sure, you held on with BOTH HANDS in level flight! Thinking back, the loads must have been terrific on that wing at the 100 mph-plus speeds and the end-for-end turning radius. In any case, it sounded that way, as the vibration added a roar from the wing covering vibration to the bark of that big .60 as turns were entered. A good Stuntwagon pilot garnered points easily; it was hard to see any glitches at those speeds!

Some sober thoughts about the performance would probably have today's judges quickly exiting their chairs rather than trusting the safety of it all. An example of the design's stability would be remembering when a really strong wind slacked the lines while in an overhead eight; instead of blowing to the ground it simply free-flighted across the circle, gave the lines a good jerk on the other side, and continued its flight! Seriously, the Stuntwagon performance was not only spectacular, it was competitive in all levels of competition.

In the hands of many modelers the Wagons were flown with a wide variety of engines, from ignition Cykes and Spitfires to the glow Hornets and McCoys. It probably was at its best with the Atwoods, the 'smoke stack' version being most popular. In the later stages a lightweight version was developed and flown with the classic Fox .35 - this probably came closest to duplicating the C/L aerobatics we see today.

The structural design does not seem out of place, even today. The wing is interesting, considering the way it came about. The initial model used a thinner airfoil and less robust structure. Before it was built there was no indication of what the flying speed and turning ability would be. After a few flights, the need for something else became obvious, the wing simply exploded in a tight turn! The correction was a much thicker airfoil to knock about 10 mph off the speed and to add depth to allow the use of a truss-style spar.

The fuselage was simplicity exemplified; a hardwood engine crutch, screwed together, with 1/4-inch sheet sides glued to it and running practically straight back to the tail post. The fairing was shaped balsa blocks, top and bottom. Ruggedness was added with a stone-age version of glass cloth and resin. The fuselage covering was gauze bandage, with its pores filled by rubbing Ambroid cement into them."

Update 27/05/2021: Added ribs file, thanks to

Quote: "Hi Steve, Please find attached a wing rib template drawing that I created a few years ago now for the Dmeco Stuntwagon (oz1711). The kit plans only show the root rib. Hopefully it will be useful to someone looking to build this model. Best regards, David"

Supplementary file notes

Planfile includes article.
Ribs.

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