Torky speed contest

Jim, I would be very interested in giving this a go. I'm still currently trying to get mine finished. This was the picture I posted about a month ago and really nothing much has changed aside from several coats of dope. It has the Kirn Kraft bellcrank as well.

The plan calls for a left-hand TeeDee. I noticed the same thing on the lovely little bipe, the Torquette. What kind of modifications (if any) are necessary to use a "normal" TeeDee or Medallion? Increased tip weight maybe?

Fly backwards!

Tip weight is eliminated via left hand rotation.

Phil

KariFS wrote:The plan calls for a left-hand TeeDee. I noticed the same thing on the lovely little bipe, the Torquette. What kind of modifications (if any) are necessary to use a "normal" TeeDee or Medallion? Increased tip weight maybe?

Yep, just tip weight. Or as Phil suggested fly clockwise. Maybe it could be a Torky/Tourqette contest?

Jim

getback wrote:Jim , is this the plan to use ?? How long to build ? If you Get at least 6 others I would be interested / Eric

I would say leave the time open ended, just kind of an ongoing thing. Again no official contest with timers and prizes just post your video for bragging rights. As you get faster times post another video.

Jim

Interest

I saved the photo of the plan and just looked at it. Roughly scaling the wing.. it looks to be 16" span and about 50 sq. in.? The tank layout is pretty small.. looks to be maybe 5cc's?

Ken, did you cut and shape the whole wing.. or use one of Sig's airfoil panels?

Yes, as a build is interesting. My time is pressed and I don't want another can't fly it 2 years running going on...

So maybe, but likely not this year.

Phil

Roddie, look at the print closely. The detail shows the wing flat in the fuse area. The airfoil is sanded in just beyond that flat. I used 1/4" and this allowed me to cut the wing crutch using a 1/4" slot cutter in my router. Ken

Ken Cook wrote:            Roddie, look at the print closely. The detail shows the wing flat in the fuse area. The airfoil is sanded in just beyond that flat. I used 1/4" and this allowed me to cut the wing crutch using a 1/4" slot cutter in my router. Ken

Thanks Ken. I have pretty much everything needed to build this little screamer. Are the recommended .050" aluminum engine-plates necessary.. and is that what you used for the LG plate? The angled joint where the 1/2" maple engine-bearers meet the 1/2 balsa fuse looks tough to fit.

Easy fit. Full thickness, same as the bearer. Cut the bearer first, leave it long by 1/4 inch or so, cut the fuse to match use a two sided sanding block to fit if necessary. The actual angle is less important than the fit.

Phil

KariFS wrote:The plan calls for a left-hand TeeDee. I noticed the same thing on the lovely little bipe, the Torquette. What kind of modifications (if any) are necessary to use a "normal" TeeDee or Medallion? Increased tip weight maybe?

How do you know if you have a right handed or left handed TD?

Marleysky wrote:
How do you know if you have a right handed or left handed TD?  

Easiest way is to pull the venturi off so you can see the crankshaft.  Have a prop on it and turn the prop counterclockwise (right handed prop).  You should see the rectangular slot in the crank rotate below the venturi hole before the piston gets to Top Dead Center.  If the piston reaches the top of the compression stroke first, then it's a left handed crank.

The Sunwise Mark

Roddie, your observant to the angled joint. Your also correct in that it is difficult. For me I used a bandsaw in a miter gauge so this was easy. For those without, practice up on your Xacto saw and sanding skills. What I didn't like is that if you push it tight, it will squeeze down on the wing cutout. I made the fuse wider and once fit I planed everything down to the engine crutch. When the aluminum plate topic surfaced in the other post, I should've made mention of this. While the plate on the Torquette will stiffen the already stiff front end, it really is a spacer. The plates assist the bottom of the case from touching the inside of the relieved area and prevents it from breaking out the back. Ken

Marleysky wrote:

KariFS wrote:The plan calls for a left-hand TeeDee. I noticed the same thing on the lovely little bipe, the Torquette. What kind of modifications (if any) are necessary to use a "normal" TeeDee or Medallion? Increased tip weight maybe?

How do you know if you have a right handed or left handed TD?  

I bought mine unused, and the seller had bought it new. He didn't say anything about an aftermarket crank, and I haven't checked it. I'm just guessing that about 97% of the TeeDees around have a right-hand crank

Ken Cook wrote:           Roddie, your observant to the angled joint. Your also correct in that it is difficult. For me I used a bandsaw in a miter gauge so this was easy. For those without, practice up on your Xacto saw and sanding skills. What I didn't like is that if you push it tight, it will squeeze down on the wing cutout. I made the fuse wider and once fit I planed everything down to the engine crutch. When the aluminum plate topic surfaced in the other post, I should've made mention of this. While the plate on the Torquette will stiffen the already stiff front end, it really is a spacer. The plates assist the bottom of the case from touching the inside of the relieved area and prevents it from breaking out the back. Ken

Thank You Ken. I figured that you may have used a band-saw to make those cuts. Yes.. the Torquette's aluminum plate design is definitely over-kill. The whole Torky "front-end" has got me scratching my head though. I'll have to study the plan and the photo of your model more. I have a piece of 1/2" x 2" x 24" maple that I can rip down.. but apparently there's two widths (3/8" and 1/2") required? This is where I'm confused.

I also have a piece of 1/2" x 2" x 24" poplar.. which is slightly lighter in weight. Could poplar be substituted in place of the maple.. or is it too soft?

While poplar would probably work, it's not as dense as the maple. Bolt crushing would certainly take place not mention that some pieces of poplar are very cellular and can absorb oil rapidly. The stock I used was 3/8" x 1/2". This is typical motor mount stock. The balsa fuse is 1/2" as well.Ken

Ken Cook wrote:             While poplar would probably work, it's not as dense as the maple. Bolt crushing would certainly take place not mention that some pieces of poplar are very cellular and can absorb oil rapidly. The stock I used was 3/8" x 1/2". This is typical motor mount stock. The balsa fuse is 1/2" as well.Ken

Thanks again Ken. I'll have to remember that about the poplar. I do have a piece of 1/2" balsa.. but may opt to laminate two pieces of 1/4" if I decide to start building.. which I really should. A very good friend recently gifted me 6 different 1/2A cl. front rotary-valve engines.. including a Tee Dee .049 and .051! My very first Tee Dees!

If hard maple (not soft maple) is hard to get (Brodak stocks it) cutting up flooring that is maple or white oak or shipping pallets for white oak will provide good pieces.

Just be careful if you decide to tear into a pallet, the nails...the splinters...ugh.

Phil

getback wrote: Interest

I'm going to build one by October and post video here, I hope I'm not the only one.

Jim

HI Guys,

What a neat idea and an excellent tribute to the designer, Dale Kirn! I would enter EXCEPT my attempt at a TORKY morphed wildly out of control when I decided to upgrade the engine to a Shuriken.

The STOCK Torky kit was of course designed (very well) for a L/H rotation engine. Using such an engine/prop allowed for virtually no wingtip weight
and the takeoff was so smooth and stable that the pilot could actually have his/her wrist in the speed pylon without having the model roll in on them on takeoff.
This feature alone gave the model a quicker proto speed than any other normal protospeed model. HOWEVER...

The question was asked as to what should one do IF he doesn't have a L/H engine & prop & wants to go with the normal rotation engine.

The hardest / easiest option is to fly the model the other way around. i.e. Clockwise. Then you have all the good characteristics but need to be able to fly the other way from normal. I've done it, but it takes a bit of practice...because it is a strange way to fly.

The other option is to try it with the normal rotation. I would certainly suggest using 1/3 oz tip weight (if not more for a start). You can gradually reduce the tip weight after initial flights until such time as the takeoff becomes dicey/slack on the lines and wants to roll in on you. This loose line condition can be helped by also sweeping the leadout position aft of what is shown on the plan. It's best to have several holes in your leadout guide so that you can gradually sweep the leadouts forward until the model wants to roll in on you again, then go back one hole.

What is working against you with a normal rotation engine is that top rudder. Placing that top rudder on the bottom will do a world of good on takeoff.
This is why all the top AMA proto models have sub rudders. That was found out after a lot of crashes/roll-in's on takeoff!  But with a sub rudder, then the model wouldn't look like a TORKY anymore would it??

So there you go. As in life, often compromises have to be made. In any event guys, HAVE FUN!!

p.s. My modified Torky, weighs less (5.25 oz) & goes faster (97+ mph) than the original plan, but I've learned a few things since that plan was published.

I finished up or I should say rebuilt my oil soaked Torky. I haven't flown it yet. I noticed my plexi canopy has gone missing. Painted with Systems 3 water borne poly

The most challenging part was binding and soldering the gear

Not Cox powered but could be as the Norvel shares the same mounting . I plan on one of my TD's as I have built a very neat little coffin tank for it. Seeing some of your Shuriken's Paul makes me want to use some of mine.

Hi Ken,

Nice TORKY model you have there!  Do you happen to have a weight for it ready to fly less fuel? I notice what appears to be a bladder tube under your wing.

I thought of doing that, but took the lazy mans route with a slightly lighter installation involving no bladder tube, just a clip front & back to hold the neck
and end of my tubing bladder. Might even be less drag. Seems to have worked OK so far...

Cheers, Paul