After five decades of model building and flying I have designed quite a number of these toys. Maybe the word “designed” is a little presumptuous; please fill in your preferred term. We all live from what we’ve learned. We use what we find suitable, we delete what we think is nonsense, and sometimes we throw in our own original idea - “right or wrong, MY design!” – the most satisfying part for creative characters. Now I have a collection of rotten papers, pencil drawings, folded sheets, and rolled plans in my library.

The range includes basic beginner models for the first steps ( laps ) in control line; jolly fun models with limited cababilities; simple stunt trainers for the advanced flyer; and airplanes for the serious competitor who makes high demands of his airplane. Some of these designs have been published in a German magazine and in the British Aeromodeller magazine several years ago..
In recent years I’ve often been asked for plans of my own designs. Those plans published in Aeromodeller are no longer available there. Some people have had problems with ordering plans from the German FMT magazine ; you’ll find the link in my link list ( they have a plans book with many of my designs ). Now since Ukie is building the website for me I’ll grab this opportunity to allow access to my plans. There are several ways. I can offer full size copies. If somebody only needs an inspiration a DIN A4 ( 29 x 21 cm ) copy may do. In some cases this can also be sent by email, but of course the quality of the copy is not very exciting. For a few designs the text of the original article is available, sometimes in German, sometimes in English.  
 

Some of these airplanes have been built long long ago. Maybe they do not meet highest standards in modern aerobatic technology. They might need some subtle modifications to turn them into acceptable tools, or can at least serve as an inspiration for own creations. However a few designs can thoroughly pass for state of the art machines.

A table is included which contains the name of the airplane, a small picture to give you an idea of the looks, some details on span and engine size, and a few data on model characteristics. For each design there’s a separate page with more information. A click on the name button will get you to the respective page.

Span 84 cm, for 2,5 to 3,5 ccm engines ( 15 to 19 ) capacity. Profile fuselage, symmetrical section for the very beginning in control line flying. Very simple construction.
 
Span 106 cm, 20 to 25 engines. Profile fuselage. Pleasing lines, wheel pants. Fake "cheek cowls" on inboard side of fuselage enhance looks and stiffen the fuselage.
 
Profile airplane with flaps for practicing the stunt schedule. Span 123 cm, typical 35 size, or for one of the modern 28 to 32 engines. Can be built light, surprisingly good flyer.
 
(may also be read as "double Crasher"). Span 102 cm for good 35 or light 40 engines. Simple profile construction. Can do all round manoeuvres and some of the squares "recognizable".
 
Was designed as a fun airplane with nostalgic looks: stick and tissue and stringer construction, covered with half transparent yellow tissue! Span 102 cm, 40 to 46 engines. Flaps on bottom wing.
 
Span 112 cm, 45 engine. Original had Enya 45. Great WW 1 look with two open cockpits, tin sheet "cowl" and spoke wheels! Can fly the whole pattern - like a drunken elephant.
 
Designed with all out competition in mind. Span 112 cm, 46 engines. Flaps on both wings. Flew better than expected and can truly hold it's own quite well even among the monoplane fraternity.
 
My first own design ( 1964 ) for decent aerobatics. Very simple construction: rectangular wing, box fuselage, sheet tailplane. Span 124 cm, 35 engine ( Fox, what else! ).
 
An attempt to find out how small you can go. Span 106 cm, 15 engine (OS 15 FP), weight 670 gramm. Flies surprisingly well and was flown in competition without making a fool out of me.
 
An airplane trying to avoid the typical question " is this a Nobler?" Typical Nobler size airplane in racer style fashion, span 123 cm, 35 engine with horizontal installation.
 
Inspired by those fantastic American airplanes seen at the WCh in 1970. Span 127 cm, 40 engine, typical jet style as fashionable in those days. Had a detachable "drop tank".
 
Every modeler must have a Mustang, so this is one in the popular 35 - 40 size. Span 134 cm, 40 engine ( original used OS 40 FP ). Fuselage nose should be a little longer.
 
A design inspired by Jack Sheek's "190". Not scale, not even semi scale ( the nose is too long ). Simple but time consuming nose construction. Span 135 cm, 40 - 45 engine.
 
Another racer style airplane with horizontally mounted engine. Span 150 cm, 45 engine. Rear fuselage should be lengthened somewhat. Fuel feed line and needle on the same side ( bottom ).
 
One of my better 46 size airplanes. Span 146 cm, 50 engine used. Dummy cheek cowls, inverted engine, removable fuselage mounted undercarriage ( one for gras, one for asphalt ).
 
Span 152 cm, 50 - 60 engines ( Super Tigre 51 used ). An airplane with conventional shape, combined with "Laser" type fuselage nose. Detachable wing, tailplane, and fin.
 
One of my best airplanes; achieved my best placing in a World Championships. Span 156 cm, 60 engine ( ST 60 ). Unusual circular cowl, patterned after full size Messerschmidt M35 of the 30s.
 
"Stomping at the SAVOY". 60 size airplane, span 156 cm. An attempt to combine straight lines with nostalgic elements. Complicated cheek cowl imitations. Detachable wing, tail, fin.
 
Built for the 94 WCh in China with removable wing, tail, fin for airline travel. Despite being overweight this was one of my best airplanes. Span 154 cm, engine ST 60. Unusual fuselage nose shape.
 
Span 148 cm, 45 - 50 engines ( OS 46 LA used ), weight 1650 gramm. I wanted to go back to the 45 engine size, and to try a more roundish wing outline. Inspired by "Grondal Nobler", very good flyer.
 
Putting model airplanes into categories is a difficult task. Some people feel a Ringmaster is a good airplane. For other flyers a well known design may be considered a dog. I’ve tried to classify designs by their ability ( or lack thereof ) to perform the FAI respectively AMA aerobatic schedule. This viewpoint avoids any bias from personal preference and dislike. If additional information is desired, contact me via email, and I’ll see what I can do for you.