Flattop Stormer (oz4829)

About this Plan

Flattop Stormer. Radio control aerobatic model. Here is Doug Spreng's Flattop Stormer from American Modeler magazine issue 05-62.

Quote: "Two-time USA Multi R/C Champ Spreng and Flattop Stormer - plans from Hobby Helpers.

Having stumbled upon a happy combination of wing, stab and fuselage called Stormer (oz5794) I decided, after the Dallas Nats, to see if the basic planform could be improved upon.

Actually, this did not start out as a well planned research project. Let's face it, I prang frequently, and I hate to build two airplanes exactly alike. So, after demolishing 'Stormer I' while attempting a landing, I was faced with the prospect of building a new ship. So Stormer II was born.

This was the first of the 'Flat Top' Stormers. The flat top was a result of my being too lazy to carve that long turtle deck aft of the wing. It was very nicely rationalized by my saying: Look Ma, I'm saving weight and improving the appearance. Only other difference was in the wing - I ran the hinge line through the tip. This eliminated a 'gaposis' problem. Stormer II flew great and it was almost a pound lighter than its predecessor. After a short, brilliant career it went the way of many good ships (straight down) due to a mixup in frequencies.

It was about this point when I encountered the nasty rumor that Stormer was ugly. Trouble was - it was true! I had an airplane only a mother could love! Says I to myself, 'This job would look real cool with a tapered wing and stab.' So back to the drawing board; after a short hibernation in the workshop Stormer III, was hatched. The results were beyond my fondest expectations - it was really a thing of beauty. It had a racy look, a feeling of speed. And that was its trouble - it flew too darn fast. In fact, all you had to do was breathe on a button and it practically leaped out of its freshly doped silk jacket.

I might sum it up by saying it flew just like another 'leading brand' of multi stunt ship. But the die was cast; here it was, a month before Nats time and I was stuck with a ship that hopped through the pattern like a homesick Kangaroo! But, alas, two weeks before the big meet - prangsville! It was a total wreck. So, nothing to do but piece

together what was left of the previous ships, and I had but a week to do it in.

This is how 'Stormer IV' came into being. It consisted of the repaired fuse-lage of Stormer II and a wing a la Don Mathes. This wing was longer (64 inches sans tips), but I had wanted to see how a little added area would work anyhow. Otherwise, it was perfect - it had Dale Nutter style upswept tips, and a 15% section. So by the following Saturday I was ready to paint and on Sunday came the test flight. From the start it was a real thumb pleaser, the smoothest Stormer yet. It had the groovy characteristic of the first one and, due to its longer wing, it was light on its feet and slower than its ancestors.

After one more full weekend of practice I was Philly-bound. And so it is that one year later I can offer these two improvements:

1) Easier construction.
2) Easier flying.

Now maybe you think the darned thing is still ugly. Okay, we won't fight! A 'pretty' airplane is in the works, whether it will perform equally well will remain an unanswered question for at least another year because I am not about to goof again with the Internats so near at hand.

So she is a little easier to build and, after all, isn't ease of construction of paramount importance when one 'bends' as many as I do? No, I'm not insulting you experts. The novice deserves some consideration, doesn't he? Today's novice will be tomorrow's expert if he isn't scared off by a balsawood jigsaw puzzle. Today's novice will also benefit greatly if his new toy doesn't snap roll into the deck the first time he tries to stretch the glide a little. Today's novice will also be just a little better off if his pride and "multi" joy doesn't make cute little "sonic booms" in straight and level flight.

All this brings us right to the point. What is needed is "an airplane for the masses." This means an airplane easy to build, that flies slow enough to train on, yet will turn in a contest-caliber per-formance when required. As a means to this end I have utilized in Stormer:

1) A large, thick wing
2) A large, thick stab
3) Ample nose moment
4) And last but certainly not least, the wing rests on TOP of the fuselage.

These features were elaborated upon in the first Stormer article last year (April 1961 American Modeler).

Please notice that you are now offered two sizes of wing and two shapes of stabilizer. There is a long wing (64 in sans tip) for those of you who are still freshman in the art, and a short (60 in without tips) one for you seniors that like a little zip in yer ship.

I flew the long wing at the Nats. It rolls a little slower and the airspeed is a bit less than the short wing. This boils down to giving you more time to think during a maneuver. If anybody can con-vince me that this is a disadvantage, I'll accept a position writing ad copy for Top Flite!

The tapered stab is for you 'looks' buffs with well equipped workshops. The optional wing and stab is called out by separate center lines and a phantom out-line on the plans.

Performance-wise there is no difference between the two stabs. Absolutely not! do not show the tapered wing - this is supposed to be a stunt ship, not a pylon racer. (Although if any of you 'Top Ten' from Chicago request the tapered wing I might make an exception.) For explicit building instructions, I again refer you the April '61 AM. I'm getting writers cramps - and the changes are self explanatory anyhoo!"

Direct submission to Outerzone.

Supplementary file notes

Article pages, text and pics, thanks to JeffMac.

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