Honker Bipe (oz5801)

About this Plan

Honker Bipe. Radio control sport model. Design uses a Jedelsky style wing.

Quote: "Almost everyone turns on to a biplane. The sight of one sitting on the tarmac brings a wave of nostalgia to even the youngest modeler, because you don't have to remember the good old days to appreciate them. Two wings bring back the 1930's, the golden age of American aviation - the era of grace and rigging, before the war warped the airplane forever into a machine of speed and efficiency and blind rivets and steel.

The very names of those early planes have magic: Eaglet, Great Lakes, Travelaire, Knight Twister, Honker Bipe... er, Honker Bipe? Well, it never hurts to associate your product with the respected names of the industry - after all, Phil Kraft made it by setting his gear on the hood of a Continental, didn't he? Besides, you can create any one of those famous bipes from a standard Honker biplane, using just a touch of imagination and a roll or two of Solarfilm.

The big drawback to building most model biplanes is, of course, those very two wings that look so neat. Not everyone enjoys gluing great mounds of identical ribs in place, especially when you put in the very last one with a sigh, only to realize that you're only half finished - you still have another whole wing to go. The Honker Bipe is designed to streamline this operation. No ribs, no spars, no dihedral braces - just two pieces of sheet balsa laminated at a 6 degree angle and razor-planed to airfoil shape. Too crude, you say - looks like a hand launch glider. But how long since you've seen a well-designed hand launch fly? The fact is, we've thermalled the number two prototype here in Albuquerque, and slope-soared the same plane (dead stick) out at Torrey Pines.

Wing loadings with a three-channel Kraft brick hover around 10 ounces per square foot, and the biggest complaint the experienced pattern flier has of the bipe is that he can't get it down! If you suffer from this same complaint, you can always leave the bottom wing at home. She flies fast on top-wing only, and looks like a WWI observation plane in the air. The increase in relative stab area seems to more than compensate for the rearward center of Gravity you get when you fly parasol. But, two words of warning. First; be sure your receiver is tied down securely, and not to come tumbling out of the hole left by the missing wing! Second, don't stress that lone top wing too far unless you've glassed the center joint, something that isn't necessary if you plan to fly it only as a biplane. I still fly the number two proto parasol-style once in awhile, just to show off, but I never forget that the wing on it was designed and built for an .049 (it was pirated from an ancient, decrepit Honker) and it presently has a very young and virile OS .25 on it!

Which brings us to engines. The number one prototype built by Dick Roberts here in Albuquerque, flew beautifully with a Max .15. This is also the engine Don chose for the RCM prototype: Gentle, realistic performance at sea level can be had with a good. .09 sized mill such as the Enya or Max .10, but these engines become marginal at altitudes above three ot four feet. If you decide, on a .09, however, you needn't worry about the tip stalls and unexpected snap rolls that plague most marginally-powered models the great virtue of the Honker wing is that, properly-built, it is extremely tip stable at low airspeeds. Don't ask me why - just build one and see.

On the other hand, I recognize that there are power-mad individuals among us - people so warped and perverted by the modern obsession for speed that they will not rest until they have the fastest airplane on the field. People who are driven by a relentless mania into building machines that will perform vertically every maneuver that their more sensible comrades are content to do horizontally. People who claim they only keep all that excess power on hand 'for emeregencies' - but just watch them on take-offs.

These people are fools, and ought to be ostracized by rational men every where. I, myself, treated them so until I tried flying one of their planes once. Gad! They're right - it's the only way to fly! So, I never put less than a .25 on my Honker Bipes. After all, the excess engine weight assures a nice forward Center of Gravity. And realistic third-throttle take-offs. And true vertical climbs at sea level. (US Max .25, Top flite 8/4 prop, 35% nitro fuel). Besides, I only use. the extra power in emergencies.

Before we begin construction, a word of reassurance to fliers who have cut their teeth on tricycle-geared aircraft. In spite of what your local field prejudices may say, taildtaggers: need not be tricky to handle on the ground..."

Direct submission to Outerzone.

Supplementary file notes

Article pages, text and pics, thanks to hlsat.

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