Thread Tools
Jan 29, 2013, 10:10 PM
Summit Model Aeronautics
Steve85's Avatar
Another fine model of a great airplane, Pat. Will Charlie be kitting this one, or is it destined for Dumas or some other manufacturer?

If you were willing to re-size the plans, I'd buy a set at 36" span...

Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Jan 30, 2013, 12:13 AM
Neophyte hacker
portablevcb's Avatar
Hey Pat. If it is 1/6 scale I may have to add one to my little fleet of similar scale planes, SPAD, WACO YMF, and Pietenpol.
Jan 30, 2013, 01:44 AM
Balsa Lover
gupi's Avatar
I'm just beginning my first 1/6 build but this plane sounds and looks like a must have! Very nice subject - I totally like the 1939 aerobatic clip.
Jan 30, 2013, 09:14 AM
Registered User
P. Tritle's Avatar
Thread OP
Steve, I'll be kitting this one myself. Will get it released as soon as she's done and flown.

Charlie, Yep, the full scale had a wing span of 21' 7.75", so with a 44" span, that puts that puts the model in at 1: 5.903 scale -- close enough for me to call it even at 1:6.

Pete, Being a trainer by design, I didn't know that the full scale was THAT earobatic. The model, being designed as a light weight "Park Flyer", should do the typical loop roll and stall turn kind of thing with no problem But since it was designed as a park flyer, I might be tempted to avoid the spastic high-g stuff unsless you do some serious beefing.

Jan 30, 2013, 10:37 AM
Registered User
vonJaerschky's Avatar
Originally Posted by P. Tritle
I might be tempted to avoid the spastic high-g stuff unless you do some serious beefing.

I can fly mine pretty much like in the video. It's the best flying model I've ever owned. I think with a bit of rigging, this model will be plenty strong, but spastic aeros are just wrong and unpleasant to watch.
Jan 30, 2013, 01:24 PM
bwoollia's Avatar
Check out Frank's Jungmeister in action - very scale flying model. Frank's got good thumbs too...

Bucker Jungmeister Scale R/C Model (11 min 17 sec)
Latest blog entry: Crash Compilation
Jan 30, 2013, 03:27 PM
Registered User

Looking Good

A nice lite structure. I might have to pull the trigger on this beauty. A couple of questions regarding the structure:

1) Are the forward stringers in the fuse nose section laser cut?
2) Will this model have functional rigging?

Many thanks for your design
Jan 30, 2013, 07:12 PM
Registered User
P. Tritle's Avatar
Thread OP
1) Are the forward stringers in the fuse nose section laser cut?

The bottom stringers are laser cut, the tops are 3/32 sq. balsa

2) Will this model have functional rigging?

Yes, with the removable plug in wings the joinery won't be enough to go it alone.

Jan 30, 2013, 08:01 PM
Registered User
mistairjoe's Avatar
Pat, here is something that as a designer have been struggling with.The old way of creating structures(butt jointed stick build with some formers) this offers a light structure but one has to be careful with alignment.The newer but heavier box structure, supporting formers and stringers that because of self jigging is more forgiving for a novice builder.I enjoy building either way but tend to design the later.Obviously you prefer the first method and I would just like to know the your reasoning behind it.I would like to build your kit BTW.
Jan 30, 2013, 10:56 PM
Registered User
P. Tritle's Avatar
Thread OP
Sark, I prefer the "stick frame" style of construction mostly because it's significantly lighter then the tab and slot style, though tab & slot is a good bit easier to build for sure. I've flown many "heavier models" and was really never all that impressed with a civilian 2-seater that flew more like a P-51 then a Cub. In this game, it's all about wing loading, and that's why I pursued the "ultra-light" R/C park flyers.

Back in "the day" when I started modeling, Comet kits were what I cut my teeth on, and that's how they were done, so sort of got used to the style and stayed with it. Then when I got into scratch building when I was 11 or 12, I was building Earl Stahl, Don Srull and Mooney designs, also of the stick frame type of construction. Then when I started "designing" models in my early teens, money was really tight, so I bought sticks instead of sheets because they were cheaper. Back then you could buy 100, 1/16 sq, sticks for a dollar, so I did a LOT of framing with that.

There's no doubt that it's the early free flight background that has dictated my design style over the years, and what has evolved is sort of a combination of both -- stick frame fuselages and egg-crate style wings. Sorta the best of both worlds, and what came of it is pretty much a free flight style airframe with e-power and a radio to get me out of chasing it.

Jan 30, 2013, 11:47 PM
It's a fine fiddly business.
Robert R's Avatar

How do you design the central truss box to come right out to the edge of the structure so that the exterior bulkheads are as small as possible? I can design a truss box but how shape it so as to bring right out to the edge of the cross section the way you do in a complexly shaped form ie DC 3 or Boeing 247 eludes me. I am currently spending a lot of time behind a dust mask shaping a foam fixture because I couldn't figure out the truss box shape. I find them a lot more fun to build than the half-shell method but a lot harder to design in a non-square, non-cylindrical airplane.

If I have asked the model design equivalent of, "How do we solve world hunger?" feel free to say it would take too long to answer in this setting.

Last edited by Robert R; Jan 30, 2013 at 11:54 PM.
Jan 31, 2013, 12:00 AM
Registered User
I'm glad you're making the rigging functional, Pat, I have no doubt that, given good strong rigging anchor points, you'll be able to throw the Bucker around just as much as the full-sized example without fear of anything falling apart. Just as in a full scale machine, the strength comes from the triangulation of the rigging, not from the spars. Also, with such a lightweight design, the inertia and loads will be comparitively low, although I'd definitely make sure the tail surfaces weren't even slightly floppy, snap rolls put a lot of load on fins and tailplanes so the rigging there is probably every bit as necessary as on the wings.

I have to say, I do admire the lengths you go to to make such light models, very few scale models fly as convincingly as your designs. One of these days, once I have a workshop again and finish off my other projects, I may very well actually build one of your models! Having never tried a laser cut design I suspect I'd really enjoy it.

Last edited by Pete1978; Jan 31, 2013 at 12:19 AM. Reason: Added comment about fin and tailplane strength.
Jan 31, 2013, 09:50 AM
I eat glue
Pat must be busy out flying the Jungmeister!
Jan 31, 2013, 06:03 PM
Registered User
Yankeeone's Avatar
Hey BG, I hope he may be trying the Stinson first as NO FLIGHT REPORT is on the Stinson thread yet. But the Jungmeister DOES look great. I just wonder if Pat may have thought about a mod to do the Jungmann (see pic) with the in-line motor. Would be neat to do both. May be easier to balance with the longer nose.
Just a thought.......................

TTFN The Yank

PS The cowl might be easier also. But round engines are SSOOOO cool......................
Jan 31, 2013, 06:51 PM
It's a fine fiddly business.
Robert R's Avatar
Perhaps my question on fuselage truss design would be better addressed in your Flying Models column or in your Pats Custom Models tips section. I don't mean to hijack a very interesting build thread.

Quick Reply

Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sold Pica 1/5 bucker jungmeister *nib* pilotorc4 Aircraft - Fuel - Airplanes (FS/W) 5 Jan 15, 2013 08:25 PM
Robbe Bucker Jungmeister Parkflyer - Worth trying?? sam2000pres Foamies (Kits) 9 Sep 25, 2007 02:57 PM
Robbe Bucker Jungmeister? GiantScale Parkflyers 5 Nov 25, 2004 08:30 PM
Robbe Bucker "Jungmeister" simano Scale Kit/Scratch Built 0 Oct 20, 2002 12:32 PM
Bucker Jungmeister or Heinkel He51 ? KOMET 44 Scale Kit/Scratch Built 18 Aug 24, 2002 07:13 PM