keil kraft super 60 with ben buckle wings ?

[Steve Thomas 3]

Hi everyone, I have an old keil kraft supper 60 with 3 channel, but want to fly it

With ailerons making it 4 channel. My question is will it fly with the "Ben Buckle 4 channel wings?

Thanks for any advise

Steve

[Dai Fledermaus]

Steve,

Have a look at the Super 60 plan in the link to Outerzone It is the KK Super 60, but has been updated with an aileron wing. Much nicer looking aileron conversion than the BB design in my opinion.

Edited By Colin Ashman on 27/11/2014 08:58:11

[gangster]

Hi Steve. I can see no reason why it should not be suitable but it's a long time since I have seen a KK super 60.

I assume you are aware that the Ben Buckle wing is available as a kit to upgrade the three channel to four. If you were thinking of buying that kit I Am sure a call to Colin Buckle will confirm suitability

The BB wing is flat bottomed the chord is 11 inches so I can see no reason at all that it would not be suitable if that will fit on your fuselage

I would suggest that you use two servos. For the aileron.

Let me know if there are any other measurements you need. The four channel Super 60 is a dream to fly a friend is delighted with the high wing one built from the BB kit and mine is the low wing model built from the BB plan lovely model exactly the same wing for both 

 

regards. Gordon

 

Edited By gangster on 27/11/2014 11:11:08

[Mike Etheridge 1]

Steve,

Don't forget to add strengthening to the aileron wings to avoid them folding up due excessive stress as reported by others.

I last flew my Super 60 with my 51 year old Junior 60 wings which have not got any additional strengthening but are nylon covered. I have it in mind to build some aileron wings eventually and if so I will add spruce spars and additional ply wing joiners. Even then I can't imagine the Super 60 doing rolls but perhaps it will?

[PatMc]

Mike, IMO to prevent them folding it's not the wings that need to be strengthened, it's the wing retention method that needs to be changed

[Piers Bowlan]

I believe on another thread it was recommended to reduce the dihedral a tad with the Super 60 aileron wing . I forget what units the 'tad' was measured in!

Edited By Piers Bowlan on 27/11/2014 17:30:38

[Mike Etheridge 1]

Pat,

Perhaps both the wing and wing retention method need changing?. Certainly all the stress of retaining the wing seems to be taken up by the 1/4 inch square cockpit structure which I must admit may not be substantial enough?I have had some experience of planes with wings that have folded up which include a KK Pirate and Mercury Matador. Both were cured with wing strengthening. Did you read the article in the BMFA news written by Roger Stanton about his KK Outlaw and it's folding wings? 

Piers

As for wing dihedral with ailerons fitted to the wing suggestions vary from zero up to an inch or two. I think it largely depends on the performance requirement, but lets face it the plane was never designed as a stunter but without ailerons it would be little use in an 'A-test.

Edited By Mike Etheridge 1 on 27/11/2014 19:39:23

[gangster]

, but lets face it the plane was never designed as a stunter but without ailerons it would be little use in an 'A-test.

Edited By Mike Etheridge 1 on 27/11/2014 19:39:23

This surprised me a little, surely the A test is designed to be flown with a trainer and does not require a stunter. As such something like a 3 channel Super 60 or a Junior 60 would be fine. I think however I would like the examiner accept a little height variation. A still day would be nice too.

When I passed my own "A" many years ago it was blowing a howling gale with rain I did use a gangster 63 for it and yes no way would a trainer have managed that.

[Piers Bowlan]

Actually Mike, my reference to reducing the dihedral a tad with an aileron wing was not to enhance the aerobatic 'performance' as clearly it isn't that kind of beast. Rather, the Super 60 has a lot of dihedral by virtue of the fact that it was designed as a three channel model, therefore fitting ailerons to a model that is very directionally stable will tend to produce some adverse handling. Any adverse yaw will be exacerbated by the excessive dihedral and whilst using differential aileron will tend to mitigate this, reducing the dihedral in the first place is a better solution, I suggest.

Not too sure about 'little use in an 'A' test without ailerons', correct me if I am wrong but the BMFA handbook doesn't specify that ailerons are required, just that reasonable height keeping is maintained - and SAFE. So as long as the flying conditions are OK for this kind of model I can't see why a Super 60 can't be used.

[David Davis]

The original question was "Will it fly with the Ben Buckle 4 Channel wings?" and the answer to that is "Yes!"

I believe that you can buy just the wing kit from Ben Buckle Kits in order to convert your three-channel model to four channels, but I can't see it on the firm's website. An email or phone call would clarify the situation.

The Ben Buckle aileron wing features reduced dihedral and strip ailerons and you don't need to change the wing retention method provided you fly the model as it was intended to be flown.

[Engine Doctor]

Just an observation on fitting a aileron wing to a rudder elevator model .I have a Model-Tech trainer that I teach with and do "Have-A-Go " sessions with at local shows . The kit ,when I was given it was a three channel design with lots of dihedral . I converted it to 4 channel by reducing the diheral to 1/2 inch under the tips and opted for inset ailerons. I chose inset ailerons as that is what the instruction sheet showed on the pic for "alternative wing" instructions . It flies OK with these but I feel would benefit from strip ailerons . If I were doing the conversion again I would definitely fit strip ailerons as its not a scale model and the fly-ability would be better,unless of course, you want to use/practice with a rudder mix .

[stu knowles]

One the other hand............ I had one with strip ailerons but probably too much dihedral and the ailerons were useless. Even all up and no down and it struggled to roll, - equal movements it struggled to turn!

If I were building another aileron wing for a S60, I would put in only enough dihedral to stop it looking floppy, quite large inset ailerons and equally large flaps with 90 degree movement.... which would do much more to open up the flight envelope and make it a fun model to fly

1p worth supplied

stu k

[gangster]

AS David said a couple of posts ago Yes wing to convert a three channel to a four is availabe from Colin Buckle It is also available from Sussex Models

http://sussex-model-centre.co.uk/shopexd.asp?id=102

This page clearly shows the difference in dihedral between the three function and the 4

The aileron wing features strip ailerons and the dihedral is shown on the plan as half an inch under each wing tip

Oh and it flies a dream in both the high and low wing format.

Ought to really they have had about half a century to get it right.

[Foxfan]

I am building a Super 60 at the moment with advice from my chum who has been designing and building for 60 years. He also didn't like the idea of bands to hold the wing on so said to improve the wing jointing with ply and also beef up the cabin top with spruce. I also have followed his advice and fitted captive nuts at the rear of the cabin (through a plywood plate, with an ally angle forward and two dowels to slide in with nylon M5 bolts at the rear.

He recently built yet another (I also have his 2 previous models) in 2 weeks and it flies like a dream, getting older club members all dewey eyed.

I have finished one of his others as a low wing out of devilment, long before I even knew of the BB low wing kit!

Great to hear it'll also fly well.

Cheers,

MrTin

[Stuart Z]

Hi

I've promised myself to build another Super 60 from the original KK plans. Not sure when but retirement is looming so could be one of my leisure pursuits when more time is on hand.

I remember mine was 3ch and used an OS 40FP ( which I still have ) it was quite relaxing after a day flying a Joker or Calypso at high rate of knots.

[David perry 1]

I built several S60s and consider the best model ever designed. As for the centre section, I always beefed mine up with wood and PVA soaked bandage and they all aero'd aggressively and well (and they also flew gently too!).

As for elastic bands, the answer in my opinion is "yes", they are fine method for holding wings on whatever you do with it. Nice and tight is the answer, and maybe 8 bands or so. Dont stinge on them.

David

[Andy Green]

Take a look at my Super 60 build, aileron wing, lowered dihedral & wing bolts.

Andy

[Martin Day]

I am currently building a Ben Buckle Super 60 kit which I have had for some years and only just started. I am concerned that the 3 channel version uses a dihedral angle by setting 2 inches under each tip. This doesnt seem to be very much dihedral, especially when compared to the Junior 60. Is this 2 inches really sufficient for a novice who likes aeroplanes that are stable and require very minimal control inputs or should I increase it somewhat.

[David Davis 2]

Mine flies well enough with the recommended standard 3 channel dihedral.

[Don Fry]

It’s fine as is Martin, a very gentle and forgiving machine. 
 

I am always a bit dubious about redesigns of old designs, to improve performance. Ends up with a redesign to stiffen it elsewhere, electronics to hide faults……..

[Tom Gaskin 1]

Long, long ago when Peter Russell wrote a column for RCM&E he advocated 16 swg wire struts (bottom of fuz to mid-span) were the way to go to prevent the 'SS wing-clap' when flying exuberantly. No other mods were necessary. One of my ex-bosses had one with floats and a Merco 61 that could perform all aerobatics (he was the highest placed Brit in F3A ever, so I suppose the pilot had something to do with it's performance)

 

I did this to a Senior Telemaster and that wing was unbreakable!

 

Tom

Edited May 22, 2023 by Tom Gaskin 1
Added info

[Engine Doctor]

Doesnt really matter re the construction on the plan provided the size, outline and section is the same type then your in business. I recently completed a Ben Buckle Elf Bipe that came to me with no top wing or plan but a set of ribs and wing end section parts. The construction on the Outerzone is tottally diferent but has same outline and section. I didnt want to waste these parts so got startedmaking it all fit . Pinned down spars to suit the ribs and made it to fit the outline using the parts i had also converted it to  aileton as i went along as the BB parts i had were for three channel model.  I went along with suggested dihedral and throws setting as on the OZ plan. I doubled the ply diheral braces from a single brace to a double brace , one on both sides of main spar and also added one to rear lower spar . Test flight due when back from a trip in a couple of weeks.

Back in  the day when younger and money was an issue we regularly married an old set of wings with an old fuz . Most were great flyers and had lots of cheap fun. 

Just remeber to strengthen the dihedral brace and if you feel like it the spars as welll as the original KK  S 60 like the Falcon were prone to folding wings. It adds hardly any weight and wont change flying characteristics atall. Now large loops and inverted flying is not a worry as wings can take it. Yes a Super sixty flying inverted does turn heads

[PatMc]

Neither the Super 60 or later version of Junior 60 need the wing or dihedral braces beefing up, they are as well designed as many other similar size & type of models, nor do the wings need struts.

The wing folding problem is due to the overlong distance between the front wing dowel and the wing LE. This length of the wing bands allow the wing LE to rise too easily during some little tighter than normal manoeuvres which causes sudden high stress on the wing. A fairly simple mod to the fuselage to allow either the dowel to be raised to a more conventional position or a front peg with rear screws wing fixing method are complete cures to the problem.

My Junior 60 was built circa 1985 from a Flair kit but modified to peg & screw wing fixing. The wings have not been strengthened from the original design but rolls, loops & inverted flight present no problem even when the model has been fitted with floats. Here's a link to the blog of it's refurb & conversion to electric power about 10 years ago.

 

[Martin Day]

Many thanks to David Davis and Don Fry for answering my question.

[David Davis]

A pleasure Martin.

 

The Junior 60 with its very pronounced dihedral was originally designed as a free flight model which required a lot of inherent stability. Other three channel vintage models fly well with much less dihedral. My Big Guff and Super 60 have considerably less than my old Junior 60 as does my mate's Radio Queen.