I do not think that somebody would try to classify me into the „sport flyers“ category. My flight circle is clearly competition minded. However sometimes I still feel the desire to leave beaten paths and try some out of the rut adventures. A simple profile airplane, a biplane, a twin - I’ve tried a lot of shapes which are not normally seen in aerobatic circles.
  Usually I stay away from layouts which right from the beginning seem to guarantee failure or a waist of time. But I’m convinced that there are quite a few solutions which just need a little more attention to serve as useful tools for the serious PA pilot - provided, of course, that you don’t claim the world champion’s crown.
  One of those apparent unrealistic goals is the small size aerobatic airplane. Since the invention of Loops and Eights and Squares the dimensions of our models have constantly grown, obviously limited by the maximum allowed line length only. This may make some sense for top pilots. For the average pilot there’s no need to follow this steady growth; actually there are opposing views already mentioned these days. Well designed airplanes can keep pace with their bigger brothers throughout. However, my goal was : how small can you get. Mind you - in competition !
  I know that wonderful little planes have been crafted by experienced people. I remember the cute “Pinto” by Dick Mathis and Keith Trostle’s “Tercel” ( alas I’ve never seen the plan ). These midgets with 049 power may provide a lot of fun. But I still think that “real stunt” isn’t possible below 2,5 ccm ( .015 ) capacity. And exactly this was set as my goal.      
I’ve tried to find out more about the peculiarities of small control line airplanes. There was no help found in clever books. Even most experts - the usual suspect ones - didn’t have ideas. There was mention about the relative size of gust ( vortex ), or the low weight ( reduced line pull; sounds reasonable ). In the end I’ve washed away all doubts and started drawing.
Right from the outset this little airplane was meant to hold it’s own fairly well in F2B competition. It wasn’t aimed at beginners. So construction is exactly the same as for high performance stunters. There’s no holding back of sophisticated and time consuming construction features. Some years ago I’ve decided to never again build an airplane without detachable parts ( because of the advantage of trim possibilities ). On this airplane only the wing is detachable, but the adjustable elevator horn is outside of the fuselage. As you can see in the photo, I use a double flap horn ( with separate horns for bellcrank as well as elevator pushrod ). So I have full choice of independent trim for flaps and elevator. Wheel pants greatly enhance the looks of a pretty stunter. Since I very often fly from a grass fields, these pants have to be removable. If the grass is higher than comfortable, they can be taken off and bigger wheels can be installed. Those “half open” spats ease removal very much and at the same time look quite pretty.
I’ve tried to reduce fuselage cross sections as much as possible ( even the fuel feed line had to go “outboard” !). So the usual ply doublers were replaced by carbon cloth. This is run along the airfoil outline until aft of the wing cutout. Round shapes are beautiful, but sometimes come out too heavy. In order to not have too “boxy” an appearance, the fuselage top is built up with a trapeze cross section. After careful sanding and adding an appropriate paint scheme, there’s not much of a bulky appearance left. The airfoil appears a little thick. However I wanted to omit the front sheeting. Since the “sag” between the ribs slightly reduces real airfoil thickness, the section is not as thick as it may seem.
Very small airplanes do not lend themselves to highly complicated paint designs. So a simple scheme was chosen. In order to save weight, most parts have a “raw paper finish”, and the rest is simply done with a brush. If the paint areas on the fuselage are carefully laid out, you can even completely hide the somewhat edged construction.
There was a time in Europe after the last war when “stunt models” were usually powered with 2,5 ccm engines ( many famous oldtimer airplanes derive from that era ). By modern standards these designs are rather rudimentary, to say the least, and the engines weren’t much better either. So the 015 size airplanes have a rather bad image now. However - modern engines are a far cry from those antiques. Even the so called “sport engines” have adequate power to satisfy the requirements of what I’d like to call a 015 size aerobatic airplane. I’m using an old OS 15 FP, but any similar brand will do. Just watch the weight of the engine. Prop is a slightly shortened 8 x 5.
I’ve said that this airplane was thought to serve as a ( almost ) full value aerobatics rig in F2B contests. Well, it did just that. It was flown in an International contest in Switzerland. After two satisfying flights I used this airplane for the third round. As a result I lost one place, and the guy placing ahead of me was very thankful for making this gift to him ( never mind, Clemente ).

To summarize: apart from the practical size this airplane is not the right choice for beginners, for lazy builders, for world top pilots, nor for trophy hunters. It’s an attempt to have fun, take it easy, yet no need to make a fool out of yourself, and finally make your opposition wonder why they need big stunters to overcome the challenge.

PS. After this airplane was built I found out that in countries with English tongue the name “Gigolo” has a somewhat notorious meaning. In German speaking countries the Gigolo ( in colloquial speech ) is the elegant gentleman who invites ladies for the first dance when other couples hesitate to take to the dancing floor ( usually an ex army officer of WW 1, who never had learned any profession, so didn’t get an appropriate job ). The image of the word is still doubtful, but as a “first dancer” I think it fits “Gigolo” quite well.