Originally Posted by Istvan Noszvai

Hi SCrubs!

Here is an other one

http://www.vth.de/shop/warenkorb/art...ash=c9360ec8fb

Istvan

Another sharp looking design. Too many ideas too little time.

scrubs

Originally Posted by argat1

Indeed! Thank you so much for this plans from your native land!

One question,

The nickmane Nietoperz of the beautiful SDZ-6X sail plane means Bat, Right?

All the best!

Ar.

yes "nietoperz" means bat

The Quickie was first published in the Aeromodeller of March 1952. It was designed as an A2 model by Ray Monks and achieved some outstanding results in competitions, even performing well internationally. The unusual thing about this sailplane, however, is that it is delightfully simple to build. That easy in fact that the plans were presented as a number of scale yourself drawings. I have done all the hard work and scaled them and present then in the plan format we are all familiar with.

Presented in the April 1952 Aeromodeller was the Madcap, a functional plane from the pen of Vic Smeed. It is rugged free flight sports plane for 1cc motors. It would be a good successor for the Tomboy but somehow doesn't seem to have made the grade. The cabin fuselage has some pretty lines, if a bit deep - you could certainly hide some radio gear in there without any problems. It was also presented with a profile pylon fuselage if that rocks your boat but not for me personally.

As with all my drawings please enjoy them and if you build from them measure at least twice before applying the knife.

Al

Al, just nit-picking...
The Madcap was April 52, not 53.
Vic told me that it was the result of Frank Callon's opinion that the Tomboy, with a 1cc engine, was too "lively" for beginners, and that a slightly bigger and more robust model was required. Hence the Madcap, the most stable model I've ever handled personally. To get it to turn with RC, you don't have to be in a hurry! Superb!
It may be heresy nowadays, but I prefer a Madcap to a Tomboy...

Originally Posted by brokenenglish

Al, just nit-picking...
The Madcap was April 52, not 53.
Vic told me that it was the result of Frank Callon's opinion that the Tomboy, with a 1cc engine, was too "lively" for beginners, and that a slightly bigger and more robust model was required. Hence the Madcap, the most stable model I've ever handled personally. To get it to turn with RC, you don't have to be in a hurry! Superb!
It may be heresy nowadays, but I prefer a Madcap to a Tomboy...

Broken, you are right of course, it must be my big fingers, or is that a small keyboard. Whichever the end result is the same. I have edited my original to reflect the correct date.

It is also good to have some background information on the plane. I couldn't agree more with Frank's opinion and nowadays it is considered adequate to power a Tomboy with the Mills .75. I'm glad I'm not the only one to prefer the Madcap.

Now how is this for a question. Has anybody ever seen or built the profile version?

Al

Originally Posted by hogal

Now how is this for a question. Has anybody ever seen or built the profile version?

Al

Obviously one was built for the original article, but I've never seen one. Mind you, I haven't lived in the UK since the sixties... Perhaps Jim or George may have some memory...

I've never cared much for the Madcap deep fuselage ... and the profile fuselage is downright ugly.

But ... the moments are not too bad .. good wing area ... decent airfoil. With a legal 1.5cc diesel it could be a 'sleeper' for Vintage Power

To me, the Madcap looks at least twice as cool as the Tomboy. Seems like the deep fuselage is a visual reference to hot rods cars, chopped down and rebuilt to have less windscreen, less glass. If you like to fly wearing shades, the Madcap is the one, most definitely

Hello there
What I have for you today is polish training plane from 1935 called PWS-26 designed by Augustyn Bobek-Zdaniewski as development version of PWS-16bis. Totally 310 build was extesively used as advanced trainer. Plans were published in 1975

In addition I have 2 plans from 1956; An-2 (this planes are still visible and flyworthy) and PZL WICHER.

Enjoy!

Originally Posted by brokenenglish

Al, just nit-picking...
The Madcap was April 52, not 53.
Vic told me that it was the result of Frank Callon's opinion that the Tomboy, with a 1cc engine, was too "lively" for beginners, and that a slightly bigger and more robust model was required. Hence the Madcap, the most stable model I've ever handled personally. To get it to turn with RC, you don't have to be in a hurry! Superb!
It may be heresy nowadays, but I prefer a Madcap to a Tomboy...

I made a Madcap way back in 1995. I installed a Cox TeeDee .09 engine and an old Canon radio which was at that time, the smallest radio available. It had only rudder control in order to keep the free flight spirit. Yes, it is extremely stable and a beautiful glider. The rudder was enormous so it could properly respond. Unfortunately, I have no photos. I flew it until the castor oil deeply penetrated the wood. Perhaps I will build another one. I still prefer IC than electrics!!

I don't think that the Tomboy can be compared with the Madcap. I think both models have a well established position and they are different in most respects. I have also built several Tomboys. I have one now but it is yet to be flown with a Cox BabeBee .049 and a 20 dollar Chinese radio with one 2 dollar servo for rudder.

Originally Posted by Edubarca

I made a Madcap way back in 1995. I installed a Cox TeeDee .09 engine and an old Canon radio which was at that time, the smallest radio available. It had only rudder control in order to keep the free flight spirit. Yes, it is extremely stable and a beautiful glider. The rudder was enormous so it could properly respond. Unfortunately, I have no photos. I flew it until the castor oil deeply penetrated the wood. Perhaps I will build another one. I still prefer IC than electrics!!

I don't think that the Tomboy can be compared with the Madcap. I think both models have a well established position and they are different in most respects. I have also built several Tomboys. I have one now but it is yet to be flown with a Cox BabeBee .049 and a 20 dollar Chinese radio with one 2 dollar servo for rudder.

Fully agree that Madcap is good model.
The one I built for my Grandson DC Spitfire powered did a lot of freeflight flying, but the last year or so I put a single channel RC into it with 1/2 the underfin as the rudder and it works well keeping it close by on small fields.
It's a truly beautiful flier with a large tank that gives a 5+ run.

Did the same to the very old Tomboy with the original Mills.75, and it's okay, but not as good as Madcap.

You are lucky that in your country, Australia, you have unlimited free flight sites!! Well I think that's the way it is, I've never been there which is most unfortunate. Here in Colombia, at least in Bogotá's surroundings lots and lots of trees and lots and lots of wind!! that is why I put a tiny servo in my free flights. Pity!! Your Tomboy, really beaten!!! Best wishes!

Originally Posted by Applehoney

I've never cared much for the Madcap deep fuselage ... and the profile fuselage is downright ugly.

But ... the moments are not too bad .. good wing area ... decent airfoil. With a legal 1.5cc diesel it could be a 'sleeper' for Vintage Power

Never had a Madcap myself, but I have seen plenty fly and they all seem to go very well, and I would agree that they handle extra power better than the Tomboy. I Have never seen a profile fuselage one "in the flesh" and I have to agree with Jim that, for a Smeed design, it is far from pretty! If the speculative "Britplan" build off comes to pass next year maybe someone will oblige with a Madcap, or even two, one full fuselage one profile.

I have a Madcap complete. Built it for electric but got into a muddle with the installation and left it unfinished. Have just dug it out of its hiding hole and, having gained a bit more experience, will get it finished. Only requires the gubbins re-installed and its ready to go. I think I tried to use too large a battery and possibly motor too. I built the model then bought the electrikery. Not the right way to do things as I failed to plan everything first! These posts have galvanized me to action.
I'll post some pictures soon. Will I then be able/allowed to submit it for the next build-off?? Only joking .

Can you be more specific?

Sorry, Yes, I mean the a frame twin pusher.