Brodack Linghting Jr. ??

Medallion .09 would be a good ticket. My OS Max .15FP-S weighs 5 ounces without the muffler or prop and 200 sq. inch wing area is smallish for the engine. Had at one time 1.5 ounces in the tail to balance, adding to the barbell effect. Peter Chinn had the Tee Dee .09 at 2.75 ounces, which is right there.

I took advantage of the sale and placed an order for $54 plus shipping, a Brodak Oriental profile kit, 55" wingspan and 555 sq. inch wing area. Ideal power for the plane would be my Testors McCoy .40 Series 21 Black Head. Might have to shorten the nose a little for balance.

I too ordered a profile Oriental. Then, at checkout I saw that shipping would be would be almost $12, so I went ahead and threw a Jr. Lightning Streak on the order to lower the airplane-to-shipping price ratio. Gotta get the max value for my money, don'cha know.

The Fiscal Mark

I thought about that, another kit but I have a number of unstarted ones, want to limit my inventory, plus am on a budget. Even with the $12 "mark up" because of shipping, still $66 for this size kit including complete hardware except wheels and covering is a steal.

I was looking a long time at the Sig kits of similar size (Twister and Banshee), but they just did not emotionally appeal to me. When I saw someone post on Stunt Hangar the die cut kits were being slashed, I jumped on it. The Oriental will look pretty dressed up as a warbird. This will be in .40 sized RC aircraft but it is CL, woo hoo!

Cribbs74 wrote:Are you happy with it? Or are you ok with the Ringmaster? I am sure they will make it right if not.

While I don't own a Lightning Streak, I have been told by many that they have much better flight characteristics than the Ringmaster.

Based on looks alone the Ringmaster wins hands down in my opinion.

Having built a Jr. Ring, I will say they build way nose heavy. I really think an .09-.15 Medallion would be an ideal powerplant due to the power and low weight.

Ron

The Medallion .15 would be great. i have one in my Sig buster GY racer and it pulls it around well. Just be ready for the noise lol.
(Bandit)

A Lightning Streak looks like the offspring of a Skyray and a Flite Streak. I think it's pretty sporty, Watt has a nice red one, but I don't know what the power plant is.

Got my Oriental kit in today. After looking it over, especially after Sterling and Berkeley kits, wood is outstanding, cutting is very clean, all good hardware. Nose is lengthened to balance with a Fox .35 (6.4 oz w/o silencer), I see where shortening it a little will help with the heavier McCoy .40 Series 21 (9.6 oz w/o silencer). I gather most likely balance of this earlier design was done unmuffled, which was typical in the 1960's and most of 1970's. It also has adjustable wing lead out and a tip weight box, plus nylon shimming wedges for the engine to tweak in flight performance. Drawings show how to mount tank so height can be tweak also. This was intended to be a serious performing stunt plane.
I am very impressed!

GallopingGhostler wrote:Got my Oriental kit in today. After looking it over, especially after Sterling and Berkeley kits, wood is outstanding, cutting is very clean, all good hardware. Nose is lengthened to balance with a Fox .35, I see where shortening it a little will help with the heavier McCoy .40 Series 21. It also has adjustable wing lead out and a tip weight box, plus nylon shimming wedges for the engine to tweak in flight performance. Drawings show how to mount tank so height can be tweak also. This was intended to be a serious performing stunt plane.
I am very impressed!

I've never seen a profile up close, but have posted in a thread at Stunthangar this week where a guy is asking about necessary mods to help it be stronger and last longer. I added a dumb post of brilliant advice after forgetting it wasn't a full fuse model
http://stunthanger.com/smf/building-techniques/brodak-profile-oriental-revisions/msg434484/?topicseen#new

Same wing as the full fuse(plus 5 sq" if the specs are right). If I ever get another Oriental it'll be a profile. I would suggest making a laminated fuse on any profile, it can only be better with that mod. And a 1/4" or 1/2" inboard tripler. After seeing my Twister, I really like the 1/2" outboard tripler too. The wing can handle the added weight with no problem at all. I would use a 4.5 ounce tank rather than the recommended 4. In fact mine has a 5 ounce tank. You are right, it is a full fledged stunter.
Rusty

Got the full size ME 109 today as well, nice kit all laser cut. thinking about putting a saito .30 four stroker on it. it's pretty stout for a four stroke.
(Bandit)

RknRusty wrote:

GallopingGhostler wrote:Got my Oriental kit in today. After looking it over, especially after Sterling and Berkeley kits, wood is outstanding, cutting is very clean, all good hardware. Nose is lengthened to balance with a Fox .35, I see where shortening it a little will help with the heavier McCoy .40 Series 21. It also has adjustable wing lead out and a tip weight box, plus nylon shimming wedges for the engine to tweak in flight performance. Drawings show how to mount tank so height can be tweak also. This was intended to be a serious performing stunt plane.
I am very impressed!

I've never seen a profile up close, but have posted in a thread at Stunthangar this week where a guy is asking about necessary mods to help it be stronger and last longer. I added a dumb post of brilliant advice after forgetting it wasn't a full fuse model
Stunt Hangar Forums: Re Brodak profile Oriental revisions

Everyone makes mistakes. Few decisions are fatal.  

akjgardner wrote:Rusty, Brodaks got the profile Oriental kit on sale for under 60 bucks.

Shortly after I bought mine, they were out of stock but I checked just now, they are in stock.
I wouldn't waste any time, they might be out again shortly.

RknRusty wrote:Same wing as the full fuse(plus 5 sq" if the specs are right). If I ever get another Oriental it'll be a profile. I would suggest making a laminated fuse on any profile, it can only be better with that mod. And a 1/4" or 1/2" inboard tripler. After seeing my Twister, I really like the 1/2" outboard tripler too. The wing can handle the added weight with no problem at all. I would use a 4.5 ounce tank rather than the recommended 4. In fact mine has a 5 ounce tank. You are right, it is a full fledged stunter. Rusty

Those are all good ideas, Rusty. There was another plane of the 1950's remade in 1960's that was done the same way with 1/2 inch doublers, 52 inch (1321 mm) wingspan Excalibur by Dick Mathis from Flying Models May 1967:

Outerzone: Excalibur by Dick Mathis

The Mustant comers to mind for me, very similar to the Excalibur. Al Rabe had 3 versions of the Mustant. Adding triplers are not something new. I would have to add though a full bodied plane is typically going to yield better engine runs for a few reasons. One being vibration and another is due to the tank being more inline with the engine. I've seen many profiles being much heavier than full bodied planes as well. Ken

A few comments:

The last Ringmaster Jr. I built was pre-Brodak. It had a sheeted LE and apparently was intended for some racing event because the instructions called for a Fox .25 Schnuerle. I powered it with an Enya .09.

The Lightning Streak Junior was designed for Brodak by George Aldrich. It is an "improved" Flite Streak Junior in that it has a better wing construction using cap strips and a split LE, and a more effective stab and elevator.

Later John Brodak acquired rights to the Flite Streak series. Construction was changed to the way GMA had designed it. Apparently Top Flite had changed some things for ease of production (such as the LE).

Apologies if any of this is incorrect, but this is how I remember it.  

George

I would like to add some input having built several Junior Flite Streaks and 2 Lightning Streaks. The wing outline is almost identical. They're both terrific flying planes. I have my personal preferences though. The Brodak wing in my opinion takes longer to build, isn't as strong, and harder to repair. The capstrips do little to nothing on this wing in my opinion. This leading edge makes it harder to keep straight and more time consuming to apply capstrips onto it. It flies nice but I prefer the solid machined leading edges Top Flite offered. Unfortunately, were not going to be seeing those any longer in kits due to cost and the newer built up leading edges are what you will see. When the solid leading edges broke on the Junior Flite Streak, it cracked directly on one of the dado joints. You glued it back and if required, you sliced the rib with a hacksaw blade where it made contact at the rear of the leading edge and glued a piece of 1/16" scab of ply across the break. If this newly designed wing takes a ground strike, throw it out because you will spend more time repairing it then building a new plane. Obviously if it's a simple repair, it's a viable fix.

It's easier to abandon the leading edge and substitute a piece of solid leading edge stock by cutting off the fishmouth at the front of the rib and making dado cuts in the solid piece. Capstrips can be a a bit of a fuss to install if one has never done them, I personally don't use CA and thus requires pins, clamps etc. I don't care for the small speed bumps that can be created if not properly installed/fitted or sanded where they meet the leading edge. I find it much easier to go with a 3/32" rib and skip the useless capstrip on a .15 size model.

The doublers are my next subject of controversy. A standard practice is to run them back up onto the high point of the spar. The Lightning Streak doesn't do that and stops considerably shy of it. The Junior doesn't either but it runs further back but also uses a slightly thicker piece of ply. What I strongly did dislike was the fact that the Lightning Streak had a huge knockout of ply on the inboard doubler. The hole is almost essentially as large as the engine bearer to bearer spacing. I don't recall this, but I'm not certain if that particular piece was used for the crank platform. Either way, I threw it out and cut a new one which was solid. Ken

Eric, don't let my comments deter you. The kit will fly just fine out of the box. If your going to be hunting for worms, I wouldn't count on this plane to be a thrasher. It's an excellent flyer and my current one now has a LA .15 on it and it really does well . I like using Spectra lines on these models. After I foul up my 60' lines from using them in speed limit combat, I cut them down for use on .15 size planes. Ken

Ken Cook wrote:The Mustant comers to mind for me, very similar to the Excalibur. Al Rabe had 3 versions of the Mustant. Adding triplers are not something new. I would have to add though a full bodied plane is typically going to yield better engine runs for a few reasons. One being vibration and another is due to the tank being more inline with the engine. I've seen many profiles being much heavier than full bodied planes as well. Ken

Ken, to see what you mean, I found Al's Mustunt at Outerzone: Mustunt by Al Rabe, there is a profile version and a full fuselage version.



As you say, I can see definitely merits to a full fuselage. There is a full fuse version of the Oriental, but in my case the affordability and slightly quicker building of the profile is what attracted me to the purchase. Also this time around, I'm going to try using plastic film to cover the fuselage, in a similar manner than I do my RC aircraft.

George, I have built 4 Orientals to date. This is my favorite plane. The full body an excellent transition from profile to full bodied. You mentioned about shortening the nose. I would suggest that you don't do that if possible. I feel the moments of the plane are what make it a nice flying plane. Even nose heavy, the plane turns a tighter corner than most would suspect. Weight is something that also doesn't seem harm this plane . I can't speak for the profile, but I would like to see them side by side. I have seen a few Oriental profiles in intermediate stunt and I was impressed with what I saw. I have witnessed many profiles do well, but certain measures can be taken to insure that they do even better. Even with the engine your suggesting to use, I can see the plane doing fine with tail weight. If you choose to use the muffler, I would think that would prove problematic if your doing consecutive maneuvers as heat would generate quickly and the Oriental has a lot of squares to drag around. I enjoy profiles and I know you will enjoy building it. Ken

Ken Cook wrote:George, I have built 4 Orientals to date. This is my favorite plane. The full body an excellent transition from profile to full bodied. You mentioned about shortening the nose. I would suggest that you don't do that if possible. I feel the moments of the plane are what make it a nice flying plane. Even nose heavy, the plane turns a tighter corner than most would suspect. Weight is something that also doesn't seem harm this plane . I can't speak for the profile, but I would like to see them side by side. I have seen a few Oriental profiles in intermediate stunt and I was impressed with what I saw. I have witnessed many profiles do well, but certain measures can be taken to insure that they do even better. Even with the engine your suggesting to use, I can see the plane doing fine with tail weight. If you choose to use the muffler, I would think that would prove problematic if your doing consecutive maneuvers as heat would generate quickly and the Oriental has a lot of squares to drag around. I enjoy profiles and I know you will enjoy building it. Ken

Ken, thank you, you bring up an interesting point, I'll keep that in mind. If I do muffle the engine, I will purchase a tongue muffler from Brodak or another to keep the weight down.