[williame3590]

Started painting the 84" Buccaneer today, powered with an Enya 40 open rocker four stroke and covered in vintage Supercoverite.
I'll post some more photos when the paint is finished.

Bill

[CdnFlyer]

Looking good Bill. Will want to see the pix when painted up.

[Trumpetman]

I know this is a five year old thread but what did you think of the Buccaneer? I just won a laser cut short kit and plans for a Super Buccaneer and am thinking of building something completely different than my normal type of plane!

[josh imrie]

i like that last picture. i don't think anymore planes could fit in the background.awesome.

[michaely]

Gordon,

I picked up a 84" span P&W kit of a Buccaneer at a recent swap so I've been some research on this series and pre-WW old timers.

In terms of what to expect in flight performance, the undercambered airfoil will give a slow, stately, floating flight, requiring more trimming between powered and unpowered flight and poorer penetration in other than light winds than a Clark Y.... some people, I gather, actually string the covering on the wing underside so it only touches the LE and TE to emulate a Clark Y. I'll be sticking with the undercamber.

I've read the slightly larger (90") Super Buccaneer is the best looking of the series; I've never seen the plans for it but have seen photos of finished planes presented as Super Buccaneers ... I gather the fuselage stick construction is "filled in" from the firewall to the wing TE.
The plans that came with the kit I have are a copy of the original 1936/37 model and show only stick construction aft of the firewall... I intend to add a bit of fuselage fill-in/reforcement as shown in Williame's model but will definitely go with a semi-transparent covering to show off the stick construction.

And I like the curves of the stabilizer platform on Buccaneer "C" and the smaller/protected elevator as a mod to my build, whenever I get to it:

[OLD PRAIRIE RED NECK]

Originally Posted by Trumpetman

I know this is a five year old thread but what did you think of the Buccaneer? I just won a laser cut short kit and plans for a Super Buccaneer and am thinking of building something completely different than my normal type of plane!

Completely different is an understatement! Prepare yourself for a bird that you sit and watch rather than fly. Power it up to altitude, cut the throttle to idle(or better yet shut it off)then float around in the thermals is the very best way to enjoy them. Or - put it up, trim it for a gentle circle and go for coffee!

Originally Posted by michaely

In terms of what to expect in flight performance, the undercambered airfoil will give a slow, stately, floating flight, requiring more trimming between powered and unpowered flight and poorer penetration in other than light winds than a Clark Y.... some people, I gather, actually string the covering on the wing underside so it only touches the LE and TE to emulate a Clark Y. I'll be sticking with the under camber.:

One of my Old Timer kits came with both under cambered and flat bottom wing options, I built the under cambered one naturally so that it would fly period correct. The only reason to change it in my opinion would be to try and make it fly different than it was designed. In that case you would have to redesign nearly every other part of the plane as well.
And yes I did buy one once that someone had done all that to and in the end he gave up and sold it to me. The lesson in that is you just cannot make a John Deere run with the Ferraris and Porsches in the same race - you started with the wrong design!

Originally Posted by michaely

I've read the slightly larger (90") Super Buccaneer is the best looking of the series; I've never seen the plans for it but have seen photos of finished planes presented as Super Buccaneers ... I gather the fuselage stick construction is "filled in" from the firewall to the wing TE.
The plans that came with the kit I have are a copy of the original 1936/37 model and show only stick construction aft of the firewall... I intend to add a bit of fuselage fill-in/reforcement as shown in Williame's model but will definitely go with a semi-transparent covering to show off the stick construction.

I agree 100%! Regardless of how weak these planes look they do not need to be "beefed up" by sheeting in the structure. These planes fly at 10 mph and land like a feather - sheeting them in will only result in two things:
#1 spoil the looks and
#2 due to the long tail and short nose moment you will end up adding huge amounts of lead to the fire wall to get it to balance spoiling the slow flight characteristics of the design.
If anyone is contemplating building one of these lovely old ladies as a sport flier capable of aerobatics, listen up... YOU HAVE THE WRONG ONE!

[Trumpetman]

Excellent information! I thought that it would be a very relaxing change of pace to emulate the old free flight days. Last week on EBay, I was bidding on a brand new in box Brown Jr. (D model) but I dropped out at $400 Canadian. It eventually sold for just over $600 Can! Would have been cool to run the actual engine shown on the plans . I'll probably go with a .50 equivalent electric power system (unless somebody out there has a good running Brown Jr )

[OLD PRAIRIE RED NECK]

Electric is well suited to these planes Gordon, the ability to turn them off and back on in the air is a big plus, I have two of them set up electric. That said the third one has an older 4 stroke on it and the ability to swing a big prop at low RPM works well also.

[eric]

My first RC model was a Super Buccaneer, powered by an Astro Flight 25 running on 2 x 3s lipos. It was the perfect trainer, super slow, gentle and easy to see. I sold it on eventually to make room for more models, but I will always have a soft spot for these wonderful old birds.

[OLD PRAIRIE RED NECK]

Listen to what Eric said guys, he sold this plane after it being his first trainer! How many first trainers survive to be sold? Not many I can tell you! Speaks to the quality of design and how easy they are to fly. Not?