Vintage Sterling Mambo - $181.47 US

Some people just have too much money!

Or too few brains!

Nostalgia is hard to put a price on.

I had one of those kits in 1969. What a massive collection of parts.

Ed Cregger

How do all of these brainless people get so much money?

Ed Cregger

"Ed Cregger" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@enews2.newsguy.com:

A good Figure-9 would reduce it to a massive collection of parts. :)

When I build it, I will modify the original layout by increasing downthrust and change the lifting tail to more prevailing layout for R/O aerobatic capability. Stab is Clark-Y, I'd go symmetrical or slab. Also, I'd go with a standard leading edge instead of the 3/4"x1/4" slant LE.

Others have shared with me that the original had a tendency if allowed to pick up speed (as in a spiral dive), it would not pull out of it, doing the "lawn dart" thing. In R/O aerobatics, you want it to zoom up after neutralizing or giving opposite rudder, so it can loop, wingover, S-turn, etc. Lifting tail negates the zoom tendency.

Otherwise, it would make a fine R/O aerobatic plane. An option may be to use 1/4" blue foam insulation board for the fuselage and tail feathers. That might be a possibility worth exploring. Or light ply sides instead of balsa, with lightening holes. I've got the vintage OS Max .15 R/C (baffle not Schneurle) to haul it.

I just realized that we were talking about two different, though related, models.

The one that I had was the Mighty Mambo and was intended to be flown with "multi" R/C equipment.

After building mostly profile models of Sterling Ringmasters, Top Flite Flite Streaks and Goldberg Shoestring/Busters, you would not have believed my expression when I gazed upon the contents of the Mighty Mambo box. I was incensed/fumed/enraged. Who in their right mind would take the time to build this beast? I wanted to fly NOW.

In disgust, I put the lid back on the box and tossed it into the corner of the basement. I then jumped into my then new and trusty steed, a 1969 AMX

390, 4-speed and blazed my way to a hobbyshop, where I promptly bought a Goldberg Senior Falcon kit and a new OS Max .58 R/C engine. The Sr. Falcon was rated for a .45 engine, but I didn't want to take the chance that it would be underpowered. This is a fine example of 23 year old logic. As it turned out, the OS .58 was perfect for the Sr. Falcon.

One test flight later, I concluded that the stock Sr. Falcon handled something akin to a B-36 with a full bomb load. I was an ex control line combat jock. This docile , sluggish behavior would never do.

I took the Sr. Falcon home and down into the basement workshop. A few minutes later I had lopped off two panels from each wing and had cut off the old ailerons. The new ailerons were twice as large. There! That should perk things up.

When I took it back to the field, no one would test fly it for me (I hadn't soloed on multi yet). I went to the field on several occasions with no one volunteering to do the deed, so I finally did it myself. No crash, no problems, it handled beautifully.

I used to look at that "old school" (reeds) Mighty Mambo box and smile to myself for not going forward with its construction. I figured I had saved myself a couple of years of frustration and dissatisfaction by jumping right into a model with a semi-symmetrical airfoiled wing and ailerons responsive enough to satisfy a fighter jock.

Now, these days, I kind of wish I had that old kit back. It might be fun to build something like that now, as I approach fifty-nine (next Thursday week).

Ed Cregger

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 02:11:14 -0400, "Ed Cregger" wrote in :

Happy birthday, Ed!

I was given a Mighty Mambo by a friend--along with a McCoy .35, I think, on the nose.

I re-covered it with silk or silkspan and did my best to paint it. Unfortunately, I didn't know diddley about primer coats and undercoats when using dope. It was, I admit, not very pretty.

The owner came back a few years later and reclaimed his plane and engine. I'd never flown them--just hung them up in my room. As soon as I handed him the plane, he began stripping the covering off the wing because he was planning to monokote it. I've never forgiven him. He could at least have thanked me for storing his model and then ripped up my covering job in private. :o(

Marty

Thanks for the happy birthday wishes, Marty. Much appreciated.

How do you like the nerve of some people! Stripping the covering off right in front of you! Sheesh!

I used to kid folks about that kit. I used to claim that you actually had to build the ribs, there were so many pieces. I forget if you did or not, but I'm pretty sure that some of the old kits made you install doublers on some of the ribs.

One Sterling model that I always wanted to build and fly was the Royal Coachman. It just looked neat in their advertising, and I'm partial to .15 powered models anyway.

The Sr. Falcon kit that replaced the Mighty Mambo used wing construction techniques that I was familiar with, from my control line days. That was a good flying model, before and after I reduced the wing size and increased the size of the ailerons.

Now the basement/garage is filling up again with ARFs. I have to make a concious effort to buy some real kits too.

Ed Cregger

I was given an Imperial Ringmaster back around 79 or so. God, what a mess. Crappy plywood and half an acre worth of balsa trees in that little box.

I'm surprised no one jumped on the original poster about his plans to do all of those modifications to the mambo kit. Kind of defeats the purpose of building the old kit, IMHO. Start from scratch if you are going to do a lot of changes.

I used to think that Sterling kits were the worst, until I stumbled upon PDQ kits from out of Millville, NJ. They made Sterling look primo, but they did yield good flying control line models - Flying Clown, Baby Clown, etc.

Ah, the Imperial Ringmaster. A Ringmaster profile wing with a built up fuselage, IIRC. Ever notice how the airplane tilted away from you when the cylinder head was mounted upright? Ditto the Flite Streak with a fuselage and one combat flying wing that I built with an upright engine. I've liked sidewinders ever since.

Ed Cregger

Still have a Mini Mambo in the garage with a K&B 049, I keep it as a reminder of how good stuff is today. All those Sunday's climbing tree's or driving around the block looking for it.

John Alt wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@newsgroups.bellsouth.net:

Sorry old bean, to commit sacrilege by descrating the VSRC spirit of the kit. I'm scratch building from an old John Pond plan.

Having built a couple Sterling kits, there's always room for improvement. How about this, a mod-durn trike landing gear!

May the flees of a thousand camels infest your reed and pulse proportional equipment!

"Bill" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

I've still got my Mini. I'm changing out the .049 R/C Bee for a Norvel .062 and making it R/E. Great little R/O plane when used with auxiliary throttle.

With the new mini equipment, add an elevator to the stab, voila! No more tree climbing. (But no guarantees against Figure-9's.)

Actually, the wing was very different, especially with wing landing gear blocks and flaps. Very weak structure with horrible quality die crunched mushy balsa. I gave it away halfway through framing the wing when I realized no Fox I had was gonna haul all that lumber around worth a dang. I was about 16 at the time and didn't have the desire to spend a lot more time on it.

I think the only right side up mounted engine I had (other than .049) was my TF combat streak. Now that you mention it, it probably had that tendency, but the inside wing was bigger than the outer so I may have chalked it up to that. I only had one, and it didn't last long. Stuck to the value packed Double Voodoo kits after that with soldered up 3 in 1 oil cans for fuel tanks. Tissue and Ambroids and Dope, oh my!

I think one of those fox bellcranks was in half a dozen planes. Must have been defective ;)

Bah, I say, Bah!

I was fortunate enough to start with a Sanwa 8020 two channel. Got a halfway finished Ace five channel with that lovely prismatic case after that. Got it working but traded it before I left Germany. Didn't get another four or more channel till about 86 or so when I got a Conquest. I flew mostly 049's and gliders, and of course control line, until that point. I had a Sterling Fledgling on two channel with a Fox 35. That was not a Sunday flier. Later changed it to 3 channel with a K&B 20 and taught several people to fly on it.

I built a few Sterling kits. Poor wood selection and parts fit. Ove

designed. Good experience though

-- mode

----------------------------------------------------------------------- mode1's Profile:

this thread:

mode1 wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@rcgroups.com:

True, but if one was willing to do a little wood substitution, would come out okay. This was acceptable consider that the kits were relatively inexpensive back in the late '60s through '70s. One thing though nearing the company's demise, they were substituting luan ply (same stuff cheap wood interior doors are made of) for model aircraft ply, definitely inferior wood.

I paid something like $8.50 for my Mini-Mambo from America's Hobby Center in the late '70s. I saw Mini go for $80 on E- Bay. That's okay for a kit collector but for a builder, just a little too much.

One exception though, I bought a Lou Andrews S-Ray for $75, but it is a kit I've always wanted to get but didn't and rarer than the Mambo. It's a builder, not a collector. Kit was pro'ly around $12 in the '70s.

Now that I think of it, I built the Super Combat Streak (Flite Streak with a fuselage?). Another fellow built the Imperial Ringmaster. Neither flew as well as their profile equivalents - at least to me, probably because of the additional weight, as you indicated.

I was a Voodoo fan myself. I loved that model and built so many of them that I can't remember how many. I even built some when I first got out of the Air Force.

I also built a Top Flite Nobler while in the Air Force. Instead of buying the venerable Fox .35 Stunt, like I should have, I was working part time at the base hobby shop and fell in love with an Enya .29 TV engine. They cost about the same as I recall ($14 plus change). That started my love affair with Enya engines. However, the Enya turned out to be a terrible choice for the Nobler. It made it grossly nose heavy. I should have bought the Fox .35 Stunt.

I have been trying to remember the name of the upright engine combat ship for decades. It was really popular back then. I think it was a Midwest kit - a Quickie Combat?

Ed Cregger

I knew a fellow that used to compete in Novice and then Advanced pattern while flying the Sterling Fledgling powered by an OS.40 or .45 FSR engine. That thing would smoke. He used to win regularly, with a flat bottomed airfoil equipped trainer. Neat.

Ed Cregger