Page Boy, School Boy and Dick's Dream to name a few.

John

40 inch (1016 mm) 1957 Blippy, 46 inch (1168 mm) 1967 Short Seamew, 39 inch Top Flite Schoolmaster.

If one wants to go larger, there is the 54 inch (1372 mm) 1952 Berkeley Bootstraps, 56 inch (1422 mm) Berkeley Brigadier (shows electric conversion), 63 inch (1600 mm) Berkeley Cessna Bird Dog, 56 inch (1422 mm) original Falcon 56, 50 inch (1270 mm) 1953 Lou Andrews Guillow Trixter Beam.

These are available on http://www.outerzone.co.uk/

However, since the larger ones weigh heavier and tend to rekit themselves easily upon encountering the terrafirma, I think the optimal size is up to 46 inches (1170 mm) and .15 motor. Going up a size gives it better wind penetration and flexibility of the larger than Half-A RC engines.

Another fun single channel if you are into the nostalgia type arf`s was the COXr/c cub trainer. But I reccomend swapping out the datedr/c for more modern lighter r/c gear for an improved flight characteristic.
I`m going 2 ch with mine simply because I hav bad luck living in these mountains there isn`t a lot of area to fly single stick and bad luck ensues for me otherwise I`d enjoy singlestickers

Understand that Jaspur_x. If you don't have sufficient room, then it makes sense to go at least two channel with elevator / elevon control.

I have another reason for converting a 50+ inch span Sterling Piper J3 Cub from rudder only with throttle to 3 channels. It is such a delicate structure and where I fly has no tall grass, that a mistake on deadstick would result in a crash. The field here is almost always breezy, so I'd hate to destroy a perfectly good airplane.

The largest RO I will go is .09 - .10; these are still reasonably small enough to take chances.

Here's another: Mac's Robot, from the early '50s. When we were in our early teens in the early '70s, a very senior modeler gave us kids one of these with an ancient Fox .19 in the nose. He'd built this thing in 1954 and flew it for many years before hanging it up. His workmanship was fantastic and the airplane's silk-and-dope covering still looked good after many years. We flew the daylights out of this thing with rudder-only control. The old Fox had just enough power to haul it aloft, so it was more a matter of "supervising" its flight and using the rudder to keep it close to home. For a bunch of 13-year-olds, this was paradise. OK--enough reminiscing. The plans are on Outerzone.

Originally Posted by Moeregaard

Here's another: Mac's Robot, from the early '50s. When we were in our early teens in the early '70s, a very senior modeler gave us kids one of these with an ancient Fox .19 in the nose. He'd built this thing in 1954 and flew it for many years before hanging it up. His workmanship was fantastic and the airplane's silk-and-dope covering still looked good after many years. We flew the daylights out of this thing with rudder-only control. The old Fox had just enough power to haul it aloft, so it was more a matter of "supervising" its flight and using the rudder to keep it close to home. For a bunch of 13-year-olds, this was paradise. OK--enough reminiscing. The plans are on Outerzone.

http://www.outerzone.co.uk/plan_details.asp?ID=1249

In the latest Model Aviation, there is a byline on a Super Privateer, a 1950's amphibian by Don McGovern. I believe all 118" of it and it was flown by single channel! There's no lack of good single channel models.

One more: Trenton Terror. This 1938 free-flight design is so stable. How stable is it? I rarely touch the elevator on mine and just use the rudder to bring it home. I've hand-launched it with the transmitter sitting on the ground, and have also done the same thing when landing. It flies better than I do....

I put many hours in on a Goldberg 1/2A Skylane, one sweet flying airplane.

[QUOTE=GallopingGhostlr;24171754]Understand that Jaspur_x. If you don't have sufficient room, then it makes sense to go at least two channel with elevator / elevon control.

I have another reason for converting a 50+ inch span Sterling Piper J3 Cub from rudder only with throttle to 3 channels. It is such a delicate structure and where I fly has no tall grass, that a mistake on deadstick would result in a crash. The field here is almost always breezy, so I'd hate to destroy a perfectly good airplane.

This post really got me thinking of my cubs, I actually have 3, one in near mint condition lol
If I ever make it to SMALL maybe I`ll have to tote 1 along in stock form just to see if it gets any second glances lol

Originally Posted by Fravits

I put many hours in on a Goldberg 1/2A Skylane, one sweet flying airplane.

It is, but a reed valve .049 is kind of underpowered. If I were to build one from scratch even if to retain as rudder only, I'd power it with at least a TT GP-07 or a .09, .10 engine with throttle control. I was a nice kit, rather detailed building, but still produced an impressive looking plane.

How about some of the Dave Boddington plans?

Apprentice, Bee Baby, Aermacchi Lockheed Santa Maria, Micro Super, Mini Tyro, Push Moth, Quest, Sub Mini - all available on Outerzone - to mention but a few. Also Snipe by H. Purser - one of my favourites.

With the use of the emulator and modern batteries all of these should fly well on Cox Babe Bee power.

Mark.

Black Hawk Models has just released a new single channel model glider NOVA. This model was originally produced by Ecktronics and later by House of Balsa as the Nomad. Black Hawk Models kit is all laser cut with full size plans and hardware. The introductory price is $55.00 - it will go up to $60.00 in about a month. Special - If you order this month and mention this site you will get FREE shipping in the U. S. A. or discounted shipping outside the U. S. A.

Wing span 48"
area 240 sq. in.
weighr 9.5 oz.
power .020 to.049

Erm..one could just build a 2channel RE model
and simply Not use the elevator ? (I'd leave it functional though.. just in case )
Isn't it enough that there's no throttle control ?
One can even easily emulate the old bang/bang escapments by simply banging the stick to it's limits for control inputs. None of that effete proportional stuff.
Long gone are the days when a month's wages for a basic single channel escapment type RC setup, limited many/most to rudder only... if.. RC was even budget possible.

Originally Posted by Bare

Erm..one could just build a 2channel RE model
and simply Not use the elevator ? (I'd leave it functional though.. just in case )
Isn't it enough that there's no throttle control ?
One can even easily emulate the old bang/bang escapments by simply banging the stick to it's limits for control inputs. None of that effete proportional stuff.
Long gone are the days when a month's wages for a basic single channel escapment type RC setup, limited many/most to rudder only... if.. RC was even budget possible.

Single channel appeals to a lot of us who never got the free-flight bug out of our systems. I like to let the model do the flying and occasionally "disturb" it with the rudder to keep it out of the neighbors' yards and bring it home.