Rudder Bug

[kemsing]

Any one out there who has built the full sized Rudder Bug? The Walter Good design from 1949? I am planning on building this one, got the plans, but would like to hear from a modeller who remembers some of the constructional details.
Thanks! Sean (UK)

[skyvolt12]

I have built the Electric version "54" in span by Nick Ziroli Sr. The construction article is in the Jan.2004 issue.
www.modelairplanenews.com (http://www.modelairplanenews.com)
I hope this will help! Skyvolt12

[socal swimmer]

kemsing your link is broken (missing an "a")

that said i dont know what that is

[skyvolt12]

Socal swimmer, Thanks for the headsup on the address, have corrected.
skyvolt12

[Glo4U]

I have the article by Walter Good. E-Mail me and I can send it to you. I am building the kit but I shrunk it to 66% of the original to fit in my van better. I will build it electric and use an E-Flite 480 in it.
Gloria

[skyvolt12]

Hi Gloria, I thank you for the offer, however I have already built one scaled down to a 54 inch span, and designed by Nick Zeroli using a geared 05 Astro on seven cells. It flew right off the drawing board.
Kenny

[madmickey]

Hi
I too have the plans for this plane. Although I am not normally into Vintage type aircraft it was the first RC aeroplane my father built. So it is a kind of sins of the father type exercise.

I am thinking of going brushless and lipo with the beastie does anyone have any feel for what size of motor and battery back I would need?


Mike

[skyvolt12]

Hi Mad mickey,
Like i have said the rudderbug is a great slow flying ship. Easy build, the one I did. I dont know what the plans you have show.:)
skyvolt

[kemsing]

Skyvolt12,
Very interested in how you decided to attach the wings! Can't make sense of the plan method of internal rubber bands. Can you please explain?
Thanks!
Sean.

[skyvolt12]

Hi kemsing
I have never seen the dwgs. for the full size Rudderbug so I am not familiar with the wing mounting. I have the plans for the reduced size version drawn by Nick Ziroli SR which mounts the conventional way.
Kenny:)

[kemsing]

Skyvolt12
I have the original plans, at the front they show two dowels projecting from the wing LE plus two small vertical pegs inside the front of the cabin. There are holes in the fuselage sheeting just under the wing dowels. It appears you would need a band about 3" long when stretched and it would be a pig to thread through the fuselage, stretch and hook round the wing dowels. Given that Dr Walter Good was a clever guy I must be missing something!!
Sean.

[skyvolt12]

Sean,
It sure sounds like a pig to try and hookup, on the modifyed plan it shows TWO dowels projecting from the front of the cabin up at a slight angle. At the rear you have a single dowel at the rear of the cabin area. I will try to take a picture of mine with the wing off, then you should be able to see what I mean. I hope that helps. Kenny:)

[Spencer J]

I have plans of some varient that I ordered from Model Airplane news (One with the spitfire in the cover and the filler catalog pages in the middle...) I doubt I will ever build it though :(...

[kemsing]

Skyvolt12,
Thanks for the pictures....perfectly clear! I think this is an area where I will modify the original plans! Either your way, or two dowels across the fuselage at the LE and TE position.
Sean. aka kemsing

[madmickey]

Hi
The version I have the plans for is the original Walt Good version 74inch wing span.

Mike

[skyvolt12]

Madmickey Hi, Maybe you can clarify the wing holdown for "Kimsing" he has the Walt Goods original plan. skyvolt

[madmickey]

Hi
On my plans he wing is held down by two wire loops fore and aft of the wing seat on the fuselage cenre line. It seems a common method of attaching the wing back on thos early guidd free flight days.

Okay now i have done my bit can anyone make any suggestions reagarding motor, esc and battery for this plane?
Mike

[john38]

Sean,

My Rudderbug ( purchased at a club auction ) was ,I think, built to the original 74" span plan. ( which I dont have a clean readable copy of )

The builder of mine obviously did not like the wire loop retainers for the wing rubber bands and modified to dowels as shown in photos (2)

To get enough meat to hold the front dowels he ended up with the dowel well down the fuselage, which is effective but not pretty.

However this enabled him to keep the opening doors ( both sides ) which gives great access to cabin for fuel tank and radio gear.

because of the opening doors, the solid top wing platform is effectively a bridge between the bulkhead and the former behind the wing, and clearly has to be well designed and built with good wood ( balsa and hardwood ) to give req'd strength to support weight times G forces if you fly model aerobatically. Walter Good was obviously aware of this when he put the wire loops well down the front supports , because this almost puts the wing forces aligned with the run of the wood which would give the greater strength compared to dowels inserted just below and in front of the wing which would give a direct pull up on the wood and which may not possibly be strong enough. Note from the photo , the dowel is postioned very low to get strength and not inserted under the top cabin stringer as I doubt if there would be sufficient strength at this point.

If I were building the rudderbug and retaining the opening doors, I would stick with Walt's design - it is well thought out.

The model is 74" span and weighs 72 ozs compared to design 74ozs , so it is not particularly light. As I did not know what size engine the original had, I stuck an OS LA40 in it and it is overpowered, but cruises just great on a quiet idle as it was meant to do.

Given the model weight and type, the more experience electric builders can advise you better than I can, but on my experience to date, not less than 50 watts/ lb with a low Kv - not greater than a 1000- outrunner. I am impressed by my latest motor - scorpion s-3014-18, which delivers almost 4 lbs of thrust and would be more than adequate for the Rudderbug and priced fairly reasonably with matching ESC -specs on scorpion website

If I can be if any further help re construction and I can peek below covering, just ask or email me

40175

40176

John

[skyvolt12]

Kimsing go to thread #18 and see first hand how the wing mounting was done by John38.
This was Johns modification.
Skyvolt

[kemsing]

John38, Thanks for a really informative reply and the photos which make your attachment quite clear. I have the British Aeromodeller plans for the 72" span version. They have been redrawn from the original US ones and there are a few omissions. The wing attachement system is a case in point, dowels are shown but the rubber bands are not. The dowels extend horizontally ( 3/4" ) out of the wing LE and vertically ( 1/2" ) out of the TE (my UK plans). I guess they have two functions (1) very short bands to hold the two halves of the wing together, (2) longer bands to hold the wing to the fuselage. Your mention of wire loops is a complete surprise to me! Can you please explain where they go and what size/dia. they are?
I have been considering re-engineering the entire system to the modern system of transverse dowels at the top of the fuselage.....I take your point that their attachment will need to be beefed up, probably with 1/8" ply. I may/could move the entire wing back about 3/4" so the wing LE is vertically above the front fuselage dowel. I'm quite relaxed about this as the balance point just moves back with the wing. Also not worried about any slight increase in weight as modern radio gear is far lighter and I plan to use a ASP 52 four stroke to power the thing!
Thanks to you and Skyvolt12 for your help! Where do you live? !'m in the UK, just SE of London.
Sean aka kemsing.

[skyvolt12]

Hi Sean,
Glad you saw the response from John 38, Now I believe I understand the mounting of the wing, in some respect it seams like a unusual way of doing that.
I live in the U.S. about 20 miles east of Washington, D.C., a place called Bowie, Md. I hope everything works out okey, let me know how it goes. Kenny aka skyvolt:)

[john38]

Sean and Kenny,
your assumptions re r'bands use is correct. I was reluctant to rubberband from the front dowels down to the fuselage dowels as I thought it would put too much strain on the dowel mounting into the wing hence I just use them to keep 2 wings together and went for conventional front to back rubberbanding.

As I bought the model ready made at an auction here in the UK, I was not clear on whether the model was the Aeromodeller (UK) version or the genuine walt good model. You mentioned 72" span whereas the Walt version and mine are 74".

The front windscreen is built onto 3 off 1/4 sq (?) short longerons which stretch from bulkhead up to front of solid wing deck. The wire hooks were tied to the corner two approx 1/3 down from wing and rubberbands would stretch over wing down to the hooks. If the APS plan shows alternative method - I would go with that on assumption that that plan would be an onward development of the original, altho I cannot think why they dropped 2" on span, unless it was to accommodate 36" balsa lengths.
Back in the 50's I actually sent for the APS plan for an AM25 diesel engine, but when I got it, the plan showed engines from 3.5 to 5ccs I think, so I sent it back.
I now realise that those sizes probably related to older US engines and that my AM25 would probably be OK.

On the basis of my OS LA40 overpowering it, I think your 4 stroke 52 will also overpower it, but it will sound absolutely great on idle as it floats past your very eyes http://www.wattflyer.com/forums/images/icons/icon7.gif on nice days - like the ones we are currently enjoying.

If your plan shows a wire tail skid to stop the tailplane grounding - you will find this very interesting to take off as there is little ground clearance on the trike U/C - I think mines rocks about 1/2" between frontwheel and tailskid - but the wing angle is clearly OK as it lifts off ok on up elevator.

The landings are almost 4 pointers and in nice weather great for touch and goes.

I am including an aerial shot taken on wednesday

I mentioned that I have a poor copy of the original design, A4 size. If your interested, I could email it to you. It is just under 1Mb size and is I think from a photo of the original plan. To an experienced modeller, it can be used to scale up and build from

I live on eastern edge of New Forest outside Southampton and fly at what's left of an old wartime airfield at Beaulieu with concrete/tarmac runway - would prefer short grass - much kinder to models on arrivals!!

Kenny,
visited Washington Dc a few years back and enjoyed the Smithsonian. Would love to get back and visit new Museum which I understand now houses far more that they could show at the Smith...
Our trip then took in a visit to Kill Devil Hill where for the US , Aviation all began.
Your model looks nice - how do you get your hands in the top for radio etc ?? I think my 12 thumbs would have a problem, which is why I tend to build big - do a search on Vic Smeed's Mamselle at RCuniverse forum to see what I mean

best wishes

John
40234

[Spencer J]

I am just wondering, is there a manufacture that sells ARF versions?

Who owns the copyright?

[kemsing]

Spencer,
The Rudder Bug is a big old-timer plane from 1949, I'm sure its too specialised ever to have an ARF version. As its 58 years old I guess any copyright has expired!! However the plans are available and being large, its an easy build. Just have to get the wing attachment sorted out!!
Sean aka kemsing

[kemsing]

Spencer,
Not ARF but the kits are similar to Rudder Bug, especially the Radio Queen:

http://www.benbucklevintage.com

Sean.

[mred]

I built one YEARS ago and if I remember right it takes a .19 to .29 engine. It flies nice and slow and was a ball for me to fly then, but I lost it to a bad rubberband in the escapement. I flew it single channel rudder only as I couldn't afford anything else then. Fun to build and fun to fly. I'm thinking about ordering plans and building another. Enjoy.
Ed

[billmod12]

OK, I have finished my restoration on my Scaled down Rudder Bug and need help with motor selection and speed control. The rebuild is here http://www.wattflyer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41013 It is 55 inch span 550 sq in 55oz including 2200mah lipo where tank used to be but NO motor. I need 170 grams in the nose to balance. Need opinions from your experience. Plane is complete except for motor and speed control. Thanks Bill

[mred]

I think anything around 450 watts should fly it OK. As for the ESC, hobby city has a good price on motors and ESCs along with everything else you need, like batteries. I buy most of my motors and other stuff there. A lot of the equipment that is sold in the states is remarked stuff from Hobby City. I'm gettin gready to start a build on an Esquire about the same size as yours and I am putting a 420 watt motor in it. Unless you want a 3D trainner, 450 watts is more then enough to fly it and keep the battery drain low enough to fly for quite awhile. You could probably fly that thing on 200 watts. The only reason I said 450 was because of the weight you said you needed in the nose. You can always throttle back and fly around at half throttle, but you can't throttle up from a motor that is to small. Good luck with your new bird, it's looking good.

Ed

[billmod12]

Ed, thats kinda my opinion also If I got to carry weight it might as well be motor and battery. Thats the problem I am having with all this old stuff I am converting. I lighten them up as much as possible and they are still tail heavy. I have no intentions of flying it outside of it's 50ish design parameters but I do want it to get off the ground pretty quick. Most everything I have converted so far has been 37oz and under so this is my first 3 lb electric experience. I have not bought any of the china stuff yet cause I have not seen a lot of reviews on it so I am looking to get educated. I have been flying a 40" Lil Esquire converted to E.

[mred]

http://www.bphobbies.com/view.asp?id=V450327

You can have a look here at the Tower Pro motors that BP hobby sells or here;
http://www.hobbycity.com/hobbycity/store/uh_listCategoriesAndProducts.asp?catname=Towerpro+ Outrunners&idCategory=184&ParentCat=59

This is the hobby city tower pros and I have been using one for 2 years now and it is till running like new. No problems of any kind with it and I love the power it puts out and only pulls 20 amps with a 9X6 prop and you can prop it up more and pull closed to 450 watts with them if you want to. With a 9X6 and 4000mah battery, I can fly around 30 min or so and am not using full throttle all the time. I have the 2915-D and the 2915-Y, both of which should fly this plane and get you off the ground with plenty of power to spare. The Y is a Y winding and will turn an 11" prop with no problem and the D is the delta winding and will turn a 9 to 10" prop faster then the Y winging. The -Y is more for bigger props and still keep the amp draw down. Either of these should fly the plane fine depending on the prop size you need. Take care.

Ed

[billmod12]

Well, looks like I am done. Just waiting on motor and speed control. Next post will be flight report. Cheers Bill

[pd1]

Bill, I converted a Minimaster. It called for a 15 to 25 engine.
I used this motor
\http://www.bphobbies.com/view.asp?id=V450327&pid=B1898547
Has more power than a .25 but you can always throttle back.

Paul.

Oh, your plane looks terrific.

[OFMAC1]

Hi
I too have the plans for this plane. Although I am not normally into Vintage type aircraft it was the first RC aeroplane my father built. So it is a kind of sins of the father type exercise.

I am thinking of going brushless and lipo with the beastie does anyone have any feel for what size of motor and battery back I would need?


Mike
Mike can you help me I want to find out where the Cof G is on the 72" version.

Dave.

[mred]

Mike can you help me I want to find out where the Cof G is on the 72" version.

Dave.

Unless you have a lifting stab, the CG for a good start is at 25% to 33% and that will get you in the air without the plane going wild on you. You can adjust the CG a little to your liking after you fly it a little. If it's a lifting stab, the CG goes from 30% to 50% and that should keep you safe also. These are standard CG's for all planes no matter what they are. Doesn't matter what the airfoils are on the wing is, just the stab. I normally start at the forward point and adjust it after I fly it a little. Nose heavy is safer then tail heavy. The plans almost always give you a nose heavy point to start with and then adjust from there.

Ed

[OFMAC1]

Hi
I too have the plans for this plane. Although I am not normally into Vintage type aircraft it was the first RC aeroplane my father built. So it is a kind of sins of the father type exercise.

I am thinking of going brushless and lipo with the beastie does anyone have any feel for what size of motor and battery back I would need?


Mike
I bought a Rudder Bug 72" it is well built & solartex covered so quite heavy it was electric but this was removed however it still had 1/2 a church roof in the nose I wish to know from the plan where the CofG should be it has a lifting tailplane people are quoting 33 to 50%from the leading edge with the set up I intend to use the CofG is at 5 1/2 " backseems too far but it rests on its wheels nicely and should rotate OK.
Some one has been asking how to attach the wings? mine has a two piece wing with massive ply joiners and boxes and 4 6mm nylon bolts thro the top of the cabin into a pair of 5/8" squarecross members 2" back from the LE & 2" forward of the TE:confused:

[billmod12]

Dave, I have done quite a bit of research on Rudder Bugs. The original Was 74" span and the CG was at 37%. The later kitted version by Berkley was a 62" span and a CG close to 25%. I have never known of a kitted version of the Bug at 72 inch. Most of the early ones were scratch built from MAN plans May 1949. Go here on this forum for more info. http://www.wattflyer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41013 If you still have any questions I can pull up the plans and give you the CG in inches. Keep me posted! Cheers! Bill