Flying the Thomas Morse S4C

[elkhart]

I picked up a used laser cut S4C kit, looks like someone started the kit then realized they were in over their head. The tail pieces were started, I'll have to rebuild them. Other than that the kit seems to be in good shape. I was planning to build it for display, but I keep thinking how awesome it would look in the air! Has anyone flown one? What was your experience? Any building tips?

I've never built a bipe, so I'm also wondering if I'm in over my head! Should I start with something simpler, like a Tom Tit or Born Loser? I've scratch built, so I feel they are within my level of skill.

Thanks for your help!

[WIDDOG]

Hi Elkhart.

I'm a Free Flight model builder. In my humble opinion i would start out with either the Guillow's 600 Series or 900 series kits.

Also i recommend Don Ross's book Rubber Powered Model Airplanes.

[Bill Gaylord]

The nose is a bit longer than the Camel, which should help. I've flown the SE5a and Camel, but only as electric r/c models. My concern with the Scout would be keeping the tail light enough, so as to not have to add excessive nose weight to balance. It should fly, but the times would be short, as the weight increases.

[elkhart]

Widdog, thanks for the reply. I've built kits in the 500 and 900 series, along with some veron, frog, and comet scratch builds. I have both of Don Ross' books and second your recommendation for any builder! I've never attempted a biped and am wondering if I should first attempt a semi scale biplane with a pylon rather than the scale Thomas Morse. While I have a bit of building experience, I've yet to take the plunge and fly them. My seven year old gets them for display in his room, or I look at it and think, "You know, I can do this better before I fly it..." and get into a perpetual mode of tinkering. A subtle form of procrastination, it's hard to turn the little creations loose to those unforgiving winds!

Bill, fortunately I have to rebuild the tail pieces, I'll do them with a lighter balsa. I'm guessing all that plastic up front will also counter the tail weight.

[Bill Gaylord]

The plastic will help a bit. When I built the Sopwith however, it was initially tail heavy and not flyable. It ended up flying well, with the CG at 10mm from the LE of the bottom wing, and was completely unflyable at 15mm. It got a larger motor, which solved the balance problem, as well as it being a bit low on power initially. All of the gear, including lead in the cowl, was mounted forward contributing to nose weight, mostly ahead of or balanced over the CG. I would scallop formers and keels, replacing any wood that is much heavier than contest grade with lighter, hand cut wood. That gram here and gram there will make a lot of difference.

[WIDDOG]

Hi Elkhart very interesting post. I really like it when Static Modelers fly their models!

I'm a huge fan of the 900 Series kits. I did build a Tri Plane. I later converted this model to Electric Free Flight. The model flew out of sight. I'm still learning rubber power.

https://youtu.be/wKPva6agHSc

[scigs30]

I have built and flown all three with success on rubber power and a ton of nose weight. I'm not flying them for competition so 10 to 15 sec is good enough. I built all three without lightening them and they flew fine. I highly recommend trimming and flying over tall grassy area.

[elkhart]

Beautiful airplanes, outstanding workmanship! Thanks for posting

[Bill Gaylord]

I have built and flown all three with success on rubber power and a ton of nose weight. I'm not flying them for competition so 10 to 15 sec is good enough. I built all three without lightening them and they flew fine. I highly recommend trimming and flying over tall grassy area.

Beautiful models. That's exactly what I was getting at also, with all the ballast that the r/c gear provided on my Camel, and still had some lead! I can imagine it would require a ton of nose weight, on a rubber powered model.

[davidchoate]

I have noticed from research that the CG seems to fall at the LE of the bottom wing a lot. The formula was not too complicated for figuring it out. The more controversy seemed to lie on to balance Biplanes upside down on the top wing, or from right side up. I made a few Guillows Biplanes Co2 powered as a kid and found the heavy planes still get long enough fly times to have fun. Probably the extra wing area of two wings is a factor.