Mini Super from plans

[Guest]

Hi Jeff,

Here are some photos from inside the cabin. They explain the doublers at the rear of the cabin,

The battery tray configuration (it was neater when I built it for 2S but had to take the dremel out to make room for the 3S pack and take it from horizontal to angled to clear the wing dowel. There is wood dust everywhere inside now.

Also I added diagonal bracing on the top and bottom fuselage when restoring the fuselage.

The other photos show the hole added to F2 through the KK nose wheel wire rectangle. The ESC location and my now un-necessary balance lead (the 2S pack is lighter than the 3S now being used).

This was like yours only using wood from the scrap box.

I was waiting 3 weeks for a Balsa order due to increased demand.... I'm currently just into the 3rd week of building a RCM Wayfarer from the outerzone plan. Photos are in my album RCM Wayfarer that I've put up this afternoon.

Nige

[Jeffrey Cottrell 2]

Hi Nigel
Thanks for all the help, much appreciated.

Did notice the pictures you posted first and these ones are quite different. Is that due to the surgery to accommodate the 3s battery?

Still mulling over ideas for mine.

Think I've settled on the motor. I have one of these lying around from another project currently on the back burner.
Some time ago I bought a tricycle undercarriage set from BG.Only needed the main legs, which proved to be made of re-cycled noodles. but gives me a spare nose leg.
This looks a little shorter than ideal, which may restrict prop choice, but feeding the figures into eCalc for this motor on an 8 x 4 prop on 4s gives just under 2lb of thrust.
Should be plenty.
Oddly enough I was looking for an 8 x 4 GWS bendy prop, and I came across a shop selling 10 props for £6 or so. I have plenty of spares.
Also have a unused 4s 1800 pack so I am designing the battery fitment with that in mind.
Must be on the right track, when everything falls into place.

More later

Jeff

[Richard Clark 2]

Posted by kc on 20/07/2020 16:55:58:

Jeff, glad to see that you can build lighter than the average modeller.

David Boddington explained the the Mini Super was a reduced version of Ernie Websters Super Sixty hence the credit. The article in AMI goes on to say Keil Kraft accepted Boddos reduced plan and paid him 15 shillings but redesigned it with wider fuselage and tricycle u/c. Boddo said the AMI plan ( Outerzone one at the moment) is the original form taken from the original tracings but the elevator extension is shown.

The article states the wingspan as 45 inches, but the plan states 48 inch while the free pull out plan from AMI Nov96 actually measures 46.875 inches with 3.125inch fuselage. Did the printed Outerzone plan measure the same? ( span includes centre section of course so each wing half is 21.875 inch )

"and developed by....."

The usual Boddington BS.

The 'reduced' Ernie Webster (by then KK's lead designer) one was already kitted by KK long before Boddington came on the scene and the fuselage widening is totally unnecessary. It also lacked the equally unnecessary 'upper' vertical grain  3/16 sheet fill in as the longitudinal grain 3/16 lower section (not  a 'fill in' but part of the fuselage shape)   was quite sufficient and it did have elevators but they were glued on and set flat.

Incidentally neither Oz plan is the original Mini Super plan, which of course lacks the Boddington accreditation as he had no involvement..

Edited By Richard Clark 2 on 24/07/2020 08:20:09

[Guest]

Richard,

The photos of the Mini Super in red and black and white in this thread are of a bone fide Keil Kraft Mini Super built from a Keil Kraft kit I know because I built it. I might even have the kit plan somewhere.

Whether Mr.Boddington developed the Mini Super and KK kitted it doesn't really concern me, and Probably not the others but it is interesting.

He did a great deal promoting a really great and rewarding hobby. He even made some income out of his hobby so should be applauded. I think all the designs of his that I have built worked and I derived pleasure building and flying them.

The provenance of the story highlighted by KC does by fit and the separate information I have passed to Jeff reference to my example is factual and measured directly from the Keil Kraft aircraft in the spirit of helpfulness. It means that Jeff can if he so wished widen the fuselage to the KK width and add tricycle u/cart which he has said he wanted and... have a split elevator. Because that is what the KK one had.

Please resist deriding Mr Boddington here as that is just your opinion so keep it to yourself. I grew up reading about making and enjoying his designs.

There are plenty of examples of aeroplane plans that in my opinion are sub optimal but I keep that to myself and choose not to build/buy or fly them.

N

[Guest]

Jeff,

Yes you are correct. The tray was altered because I lacked some foresight (I do have a masters degree in hindsight however) when I constructed the tray for the conversion. I'd put a top on it then bonded the wing retaining dowel to it.

So when it became blatently obvious of my error in using a 2S pack and therefore not enough umph then I had to do something as the tray/box could only take the thickness of 2S. Everyday is a learning experience eh! Note to self prepare for something bigger just in case in future.

Also to answer the first question about 3/16" fuselage infil the KK one is 1/16" vertical grain between uprights and longrons. The floor is 1/16" ply from F2 to the upright behind the wing (wing dowel upright). Mine has 3/16" hard balsa lower shaped members but it is extended in the KK version same as the ply floor. No ply doubler where the U/cart is.

I hope this information proves useful to you. I expect you are probably beyond that stage now.

Nigel

[Richard Clark 2]

Posted by Nigel Sharp on 24/07/2020 13:26:16:

Richard,

The photos of the Mini Super in red and black and white in this thread are of a bone fide Keil Kraft Mini Super built from a Keil Kraft kit I know because I built it. I might even have the kit plan somewhere.

Whether Mr.Boddington developed the Mini Super and KK kitted it doesn't really concern me, and Probably not the others but it is interesting.

He did a great deal promoting a really great and rewarding hobby. He even made some income out of his hobby so should be applauded. I think all the designs of his that I have built worked and I derived pleasure building and flying them.

The provenance of the story highlighted by KC does by fit and the separate information I have passed to Jeff reference to my example is factual and measured directly from the Keil Kraft aircraft in the spirit of helpfulness. It means that Jeff can if he so wished widen the fuselage to the KK width and add tricycle u/cart which he has said he wanted and... have a split elevator. Because that is what the KK one had.

Please resist deriding Mr Boddington here as that is just your opinion so keep it to yourself. I grew up reading about making and enjoying his designs.

There are plenty of examples of aeroplane plans that in my opinion are sub optimal but I keep that to myself and choose not to build/buy or fly them.

N

Nigel,

Boddington puzzles me. He 'Rose without trace'. Just like Liz Hurley, 'famous' only for wearing a dress .

All of a sudden he was everywhere, and while his designs were 'adequate' they were all somewhat uninspired.

Just how did he do it?

You also mention "sub optimal" and your keeping it to yourself. Why should we, who often end up paying for it all by purchasing magazines, plans, wood, his original DB kits (now rather different) etc. do that?

(As for your Mini Super I think you've done an excellent job.)

[Jeffrey Cottrell 2]

Hi Guys

Could we all stop bashing David Boddington, and get back to the issue in hand.

Thanks

Jeff

[Richard Clark 2]

Posted by Jeffrey Cottrell 2 on 24/07/2020 14:42:22:

Hi Guys

Could we all stop bashing David Boddington, and get back to the issue in hand.

Thanks

Jeff

Fair comment. So:

An 1800 battery is too small. Even a 2200 is marginal.

Your stated thrust is possibly too low. Hold the plane vertically at full throttle and it should just about balance the weight of the plane or at least be fairly close to that..

The1/16th ply is not a doubler, it's where the undercarriage fits. Balsa will be useless. If you use veneer use at least three 'qrain crossed over' layers, preferably four.

If you 'reverse' the motor as previously suggested you don't need to cut the end of the shaft off. Just drill an oversized hole in the bulkhead for it to poke through. Glue a partly drilled out balsa lock behind it so it can't poke a hole in the battery, A bit of sponge is not enough.

(I have no knowledge how experenced or 'competent' you are so some of the above may be obvious to you.)

[kc]

Nigel, your last photo seems to show that the Lipo will go right behind the motor, but how does the nosewheel leg fit now?

[Jeffrey Cottrell 2]

Hi Richard

Thanks for your input, but I feel we have our wires crossed on some points.

First of all, your statement that 1800 is too small, and that 2200 is marginal is too absolute.
Did I forget to mention that the 1800 pack is 4s? eCalc suggests the thrust with my motor and probable prop is just under 2 lbs.
kc, earlier in the thread said use 2200's for a 4 1/2 pound model.
Nigel's comes out at 2 1/2 lb, and I hope mine will be lighter still.
Having said that, max thrust will only be needed for take off, the rest of the flight will be pottering.
Proof of the pudding will be in its flight performance. If it turns out not to be adequate I will be the first to report back here with his tail between his legs.

Second, the plan calls them doublers. Chris (flying pastor) pointed out that the doublers referred to in the plan were for the dowels for banded on u/c.
Since I intend to use a tricycle u/c with torsion bar rear legs, I will certainly be using local re-inforcement, but it won't be 1/16", more like 1/4" Looking at an earlier build log (2012) from Nev, he used 1/32" doublers on the inside of the nose, but omitted the 3/16" infill.
This infill you describe as 'unnecessary'.
Given I'm going electric, the main weight (the battery) will be middle to forwards of the cabin.
To that end I think the infills will be useful, so I have fitted them.
Finally, you state that cutting off the motor shaft extension is not necessary. Quite so, but if the whole point is to get the battery as far forward as possible, that's another inch to be gained right there.

Just my thoughts

Jeff

[Guest]

KC

To answer your question on the lipo location it is indeed just behind and right up against F2.

The battery is diagonal touching the top of F2 (the tray is actually now resting on the nose leg wire) and the lower corner of the battery is just about touching the cabin floor.

The KK nose gear is a simple affair in that is not steered and therefore quite compact. It is a sprung leg with a simple "L" bend for the wheel and bent into a rectangle above the spiral spring which was sewn onto the bulkhead.

Nigel

[Fun Flyer]

A question for all you Mini Super experts.  There are two versions of the plan on OZ.  Is one preferred over the other or does it matter?

 

 

 

FF

Edited December 4, 2021 by Fun Flyer

[Stuart Z]

Interested to hear more on this plane, I built the Boddington version, a little smaller than the full size Super 60.  Built as an ic version with a 15 up front.  Yet to be flown but looking forward to it.  It was a tad narrow to get the tank in but it looks great when partnered by my Super 60! Matching colour scheme and decals.

S

[David Davis]

13 hours ago, Fun Flyer said:

A question for all you Mini Super experts.  There are two versions of the plan on OZ.  Is one preferred over the other or does it matter?

 

 

 

FF

 

The story as I heard it is as follows;

 

David Boodington designed the Mini Super with a conventinal undercarriage as per the Super 60. When producing the kit, Keil Kraft converted the design to incorporate a tricycle undercarriage.

 

I don't know why they did this.

[kc]

Fun Flyer

Tricycle u/c was a 'fashion' at one time.    Possibly to prevent too many broken props in the days of poor radio.

Read the article by Boddington in the Outerzone supplement to his plan where he also mentions larger elevator.  That plan was much later.   Note that its actually 48 inch span not 45 and the reprint of the article omitted the last 2 pages of mainly photos but which also had the comment  " it makes for easier flying to have 3 functions .... but why not take up the challenge of a rudder only control model"    So obviously Boddo was advising newcomers to have 3 channel while the experienced could go back to rudder only to improve their skills by having less controls.   The choice is yours.   Again note some people have added ailerons and therefore reduced the dihedral.  Maybe better to stick to 3 channel and build or modify to an aileron wing later if required.

[Fun Flyer]

Thanks guys.  At the moment the Mini Super is just an idea in the back of my head, but from experience I can recognise that as a dangerous sign!
It might be something nice for the warm Spring days, if we all survive that long...
I would opt for electric power and the versions on here with ailerons and flaps look very interesting.
 

[Robin Colbourne]

The infill around the front is most likely there to prevent fingers going through the tissue covering whilst holding the model to start the engine (A high compression diesel would need to be held firmly).  If the Mini Super is being built for electric power, you won't need to grip it quite so hard, so 1/16" balsa sheet flush with the outer face of the stringers and verticals should be sufficient.

[John Minchell]

I just looked at my original plans for the Mini Super that I built in the early to mid 70's from an original KK kit and they have "copyright E Keil & Co Limited, Wickford Essex" on them together with a signature (on both sheets) of what looks like EJ Webster. 

So whether Boddo had anything to do with it originally and worked for KK or not, I will leave up to others to argue.

[Nightflyer]

12 hours ago, John Minchell said:

I just looked at my original plans for the Mini Super that I built in the early to mid 70's from an original KK kit and they have "copyright E Keil & Co Limited, Wickford Essex" on them together with a signature (on both sheets) of what looks like EJ Webster. 

So whether Boddo had anything to do with it originally and worked for KK or not, I will leave up to others to argue.

John, the designer was EJ Webster of Keil Kraft fame originally. Boddo revisited the plan design in the 90s and iirc he tweaked it and rescaled it also.

[kc]

The truth of the original design of the Mini Super is surely contained in Boddington's article in Aviation Modeller Int Nov 1996 page 74 and 75 headed

  " Mini Super   a 45ins wingspan version of the classic KK Super Sixty... .... adapted from the original Ernie Webster design by David Boddington "

( kc's note.   it's actually not 45 inch but measures 46.875 inch span on the AMI plan)

 

Boddo stated that the Mini Super was his 1960's 75 percent scaled down version of the Super Sixty ( By Webster / KK ) made to fit in a sloped forward rear window Ford Anglia.

David Boddington wrote  :-

" .....I sent details and drawings to Keil Kraft suggesting they might wish to kit the design..  They decided to go ahead with the project, I received a payment of 15 shillings (75p ) my first ever commercial reward for aeromodelling and KK proceeded to 'modernise' the design by making it tricycle undercarriage and widening the fuselage.   As presented here the Mini Super is in it's original form taken from the original tracings "

 

 

 

We could of course continue to argue whether a Mick Reeves or Brian Taylor Spitfire plan is their own design or really  by RJ Mitchell  but of course it would be pointless!     

Edited December 9, 2021 by kc