Author Topic: Shoestring Stunters (Read 16334 times)

Bill Morell · « **on:** January 26, 2008, 08:03:22 PM »

Here are a couple of Shoestring Stunters that I have been building. Not exactly the most difficult build but I am using these to practice "finishing" on. I changed the tail feathers to built up as I don't like the 1/8" sheet type that the Goldberg kits came with. These are not from the kit but from parts that I duplicated. Covering is polyspan and nitrate dope. Body is covered with silkspan. I have alot to learn on dope finishes! The number of times I sanded through the covering and had to patch was unreal. These will probably weigh more then they should but it is a learning experience. I have used Mono kote for years and I am getting away from it.

Bill Morell · « **Reply #1 on:** January 26, 2008, 08:05:28 PM »

A couple more shots. Power on the one that has the primer is a Johnson SS 35 and the 2nd one will have a OS 35 FP. The red spots on the wing is "leftover" from the monokote era. Hard stuff to get off.

Bill Ervin · « **Reply #2 on:** January 26, 2008, 08:30:09 PM »

Nice touch with the built-up rudder. I'm in the process of putting together a couple of simpler models like your shoestrings. Bringing out the full-body 700 sq. in. stunter every weekend to fly with my buddies off the ball diamond is a PIA. My buddies with their Flite Streaks and BiSlobs are having all the fun!

Randy Powell · « **Reply #3 on:** January 26, 2008, 10:49:23 PM »

This was mine. I miss it.

Mark Scarborough · « **Reply #4 on:** January 26, 2008, 10:49:53 PM »

My first big plane was a Goldberg shoestring, bought the kit at Donaldsons department store in Omak, oh man what memories, red head Mcoy 35, top flight nylon props. The goal was to see how fast it would go, believe it or not, I never did burn out that Mcoy,, not sure where it ended up though? I need to build me a replica of that bad boy. anybody got a set of plans?
Good to see you "practicing" finising on simpler models, your headed down the right path anyway. have fun and keep it up

Joe Messinger · « **Reply #5 on:** January 27, 2008, 01:18:10 AM »

Randy,

How did your Shoestring Fly? I think they're a good looking plane but never see much mention of them (either profiles or built up fuselage) as competition planes anymore.

I see RSM offers a kit and have thought about trying one sometime.

Joe

Bill Mohrbacher · « **Reply #6 on:** January 27, 2008, 08:05:09 AM »

I loved my Shoestring; I built it when they first came out and flew the heck out of it, Fox 35 Stunt of course. Silkspan, clear, pink, and black. I built a little warp into the wing and put on the aluminum trim tab. I was so embarrassed by that trim tab. In my group it was as bad as having a wrinkle in your covering. I guess I shouldn't have been, I see lots of them today.

Bill Morell · « **Reply #7 on:** January 27, 2008, 09:10:31 AM »

I think the one that Randy is showing is Bill Simons design? Might be the same one that RSM offers in a kit. Certainly isn't a profile like the 2 I'm doing.

Steve Helmick · « **Reply #8 on:** January 27, 2008, 03:42:09 PM »

Randy's was the Simon's design, published in FM, while the RSM kit is a Whitely design. The RSM kit is for .45-.60's. Randy had an SSW .35FP in his, and had problems...tank, cooling, engine, whatever. I never got to see it, and feel cheated.

I hope he'll make another one. Both are Classic Legit, in case you want to ask the question.

Steve

John Crocker · « **Reply #9 on:** January 27, 2008, 07:08:25 PM »

My first and still favorite plane was a Goldberg 1/2A Shoestring with a solid wing. Built when I was 8 years old with a Cox Sure start out of one of the plastic "F-15's". Crappy engine, but still the longest lasting plane I ever had.

Needle was bad to vibrate open and get a bad set. Remember losing power one time, not enough to keep it in the air, but not enough to stop the plane. My Pops was running around after it in the circle and it was all I could do to not fall down laughing. Bout the time he caught up with it the needle leaned back out and it took off again.

Was solid red for 5 years before I ever painted the canopy white and a white sunburst on the wings. Must have rebuilt it 10 times after snapping the engine mount off trying to learn outside loops. (still suck at them)

Man I loved that plane, wish I could find a 1/2A plan for one with a built wing. With a .061 AP wasp it would scream!

Clint Ormosen · « **Reply #10 on:** January 27, 2008, 08:09:46 PM »

Quote from: Ty Marcucci on January 27, 2008, 06:08:56 PM

A great model. The Goldberg kit was a PITA to assemble, especially the wing tips.

Ty, I'm going to disagree with you on this one. I thought the CG Shoestring was pretty easy to assemble. I've done three now with no wing jig or anything and they all came out straight. One of the few triple taper wings that I could say that about.
Like you, I've never done a Cosmic Wind and only one Buster.

Andrew Hathaway · « **Reply #11 on:** January 27, 2008, 08:17:22 PM »

Quote from: John Crocker on January 27, 2008, 07:08:25 PM

Man I loved that plane, wish I could find a 1/2A plan for one with a built wing. With a .061 AP wasp it would scream!

Take a look at the Lil Jumpin Bean. Can the plastic canopy and add the Shoestring style canopy and it's a dead ringer for the larger CG Shoestring.

Randy Powell · « **Reply #12 on:** January 27, 2008, 08:23:15 PM »

Steve,

My Shoestring had demons. It's the only logical answer. Long story, that, but it met it's demise at one of the few late season contests in the winds at Portland. It's very possible you'll see it again. When the engine was actually running, it flew very, very well.

john e. holliday · « **Reply #13 on:** January 28, 2008, 08:50:23 AM »

When those Profile Goldberg Stunters came out I saved until I had each one of them. The boy(my son) won his first racing trophy with the Buster. Then we went to the Shoestrings when Wichita had their String event for racing. I have had two Busters, two Cosmic Winds and lost count of how many Shoestrings I have built. Did six of them one year and two years ago I even scratch built on. Now I am getting the Brodak versions on the shelf. DOC Holliday

Clint Ormosen · « **Reply #14 on:** January 28, 2008, 06:15:00 PM »

Quote from: Ty Marcucci on January 28, 2008, 02:42:04 PM

Hi Clint. Many of them were not di-cut very well and the wing tips did not line up. I never used a jig on them either. Another point that required care, was in joining the LE. Get that wrong and nothing helped.

The Brodak version is much easier to build than the Goldberg version.

It's been too long to remember how good the die cutting was. Maybe it was horrible and I was just too stupid to notice.

Chris McMillin · « **Reply #15 on:** January 28, 2008, 08:44:36 PM »

Quote from: crash2much on January 26, 2008, 08:05:28 PM

A couple more shots. Power on the one that has the primer is a Johnson SS 35 and the 2nd one will have a OS 35 FP. The red spots on the wing is "leftover" from the monokote era. Hard stuff to get off.

Looks like they are coming along very well, Bill.
Keep at it.
Chris...

Bill Little · « **Reply #16 on:** January 29, 2008, 07:42:55 AM »

HI Bill,

Great looking *return* to a painted finish, so far.

My *first big plane* was a Goldberg Shoestring, also! I *LOVED* the built in "jig tabs" on the ribs!!!!!!!!! Mine had a McCoy .19 Red Head, and would easily fly all the pattern I was capable of.

Next up was a Cosmic Wind, which was *MY* favorite. Fox .35 Stunt.

Maybe it didn't fly as good, but I just liked the looks so much. After MANY years I picked up a Buster. It's been waiting on a paint job for about 2 years.... hahahahah.

I have seen the Brodak kits for the Buster AND the Shoestring, but not the Cosmic Wind. Thanks to John Tate, I have the Shoestring kit but have not started on it.

The *WILDEST* one of the bunch was my buddy's Dad's Shoestring. He went with the clipped wing version shown on the plans. An OS 35III was up front with no venturi restrictor, 9X8 prop and Missle Mist fuel. I launched for him one day at the ball field. I had to belly out since he had flipped it over inverted upon take off! LOL!! He never flew Stunt in meets but he could do anything he wanted to do including touch and goes during *bounce* wing overs!

Gee......... I think I miss those days over 40 years ago................ ya think?

?

Let's see it in paint! I mixed my Chartreuse using the ratio on the plans.

Mark Scarborough · « **Reply #17 on:** January 29, 2008, 09:14:54 AM »

Oh but this is bringing back memories, mine was black, silkspanned with talc sealer just like dad showed me. I dont even want to think what it weighed. I clipped the tips and made 1/2 " tip plates. had yellow and red racing stripes, Icalled it the "black zap" lettered by 13 year old hands on the wing. it was pretty cool by my standards then. My neighbor Alvie Metcalf had a Buster, it was all about who could go faster (not at the same time) oh what a blast,, lol,

Garf · « **Reply #18 on:** January 29, 2008, 11:53:30 AM »

The Shoestring/Fox 35 was always my favorite airplane from the early days. It would always quit in wingovers. That finally caught up with it.

Bill Morell · « **Reply #19 on:** January 29, 2008, 02:39:45 PM »

Quote from: Chris McMillin on January 28, 2008, 08:44:36 PM

Looks like they are coming along very well, Bill.
Keep at it.
Chris...

Thanks Chris. It is really a different world doing a dope finish. I have always had a true appreciation of the paint jobs seen on alot of the stuntplanes in SN. It has been greatly enhanced since I can now see how much work is put into one.

Kim Mortimore · « **Reply #20 on:** January 29, 2008, 03:05:49 PM »

Steve Helmick,
Are you sure the RSM Whitely Shoestring is Classis legal? RMS lists it as Modern. A friend asked me earlier this morning hoping to build one for Classic, so I want to be sure I am steering him right. (Not sure why I can't insert your quote--maybe there is a limit to how many message back you can go?)

Does anyone know if the Bill Simons Shoestring is being kitted anywhere? Looking at Randy Powell's photo, this is an exceptionally beautiful design, IMHO.

Thanks,
Kim Mortimore

Randy Powell · « **Reply #21 on:** January 29, 2008, 05:03:02 PM »

Kim,

So much so, I'm thinking strongly about building another one. This time with a more reliable power plant. I really liked the way it flew.

Kim Mortimore · « **Reply #22 on:** January 29, 2008, 05:19:45 PM »

Randy,
This is the first I've heard of an SSW engine performing poorly. I have 2 used SSWs I haven't flown yet, FP.35 and Tower .40, so you got my attention. I have flown an SSW FP.35 on a Brodak Lavochkin(sp?) profile. We found that with a Rev-Up 12 x 5 it was enormously powerful and ran well, but any less diameter and it wouldn't run at well at all.

Can I ask about your experience with the SSW FP.35?

Thanks,
Kim

Bob Whitely · « **Reply #23 on:** January 29, 2008, 09:40:35 PM »

The Bill Simons' Shoestring is classic legal. It was and is a good flying plane and would do well in any classic contest. Use an AT36 and around 45oz all up and you are good to go.

The RSM Shoestring is a late model design based on Hunts' Caprice as he allowed me to use a lot of his design parameters. Mine flew very well and can be made to use .40 to .60 size engines.

Both are fine planes, one for classic and one for after classic. Best, Bob

Randy Powell · « **Reply #24 on:** January 29, 2008, 11:22:13 PM »

Kim,

I don't think it had anything to do with Len's engine. Or at least not directly. I've known a lot of guys that use them and they are great power plants. It's one of the reasons I got so frustrated with the thing. Here I'm watching other guys getting great runs with what was supposedly the same engine.

Without going into a long, drawn out description, I'll just say it was a combination of things. Use of carbon fiber motor mounts (and accompanying vibration) and the fact that it turned out the cylinder was rotated off the pin. Didn't pick that up until about a year after the Shoe met it's demise. I got the engine back for the combat flier I gave it to (he couldn't get it to work either) and decided to go ahead and replace the head that had gotten gravel burn in my original crash and just take it apart and see if I could figure out what went wrong. Just to satisfy my own morbid curiosity. When I pulled the head, I found that the cylinder was rotated about 5 degrees off the pin in the case. Don't know how long it had been that way or if the combat guy did something to if. But that would certain explain the erratic runs I got with the thing. I replaced the cylinder and piston and the head (just to make sure). I haven't run it again, but I assume it would probably work fine now.

Chris McMillin · « **Reply #25 on:** January 29, 2008, 11:36:27 PM »

Quote from: crash2much on January 29, 2008, 02:39:45 PM

Thanks Chris. It is really a different world doing a dope finish. I have always had a true appreciation of the paint jobs seen on alot of the stuntplanes in SN. It has been greatly enhanced since I can now see how much work is put into one.

Hi Bill,
It takes a while but it is worth it.

I guess you are gennin' up to finish the Flying Fool, huh? Think of all of that paint and those cool decals, yeah.

I built a Cosmic Wind with a Fox 35 once. I sold it (and other stuff) to move out of St. Louis. Gas money for about 500 miles, then! It was painted with Monocote wings as i built it to be a FoxBerg Racer. I never even flew it.

The built up tail feathers on your Shoestring are really cool.

Here's a pic of the real thing, 1949.

Chris...

Bob Disharoon · « **Reply #26 on:** January 30, 2008, 06:27:14 AM »

1949?..Isn't that a 1955
Ford Country Squire wagon in the background?

Chris McMillin · « **Reply #27 on:** January 30, 2008, 10:13:20 AM »

Well,

Bob is right, Ty is wrong, and right.

Shoestring was named by Rod Kriemendahl's wife as he was a family man working at Lockheed and had a young growing family. Much of the material in construction were from surplus Lockheed stock.

The picture was taken in 1955 (August was one guys researched guess, the car could have been a '56 too someone said) at a race in Elmira, N.Y.

Shoestring was painted 1949 Cadillac Chartreuse, (which is color code 21 for the convertible only) and Chinese Red according to Bryan Kriemendahl (designer/builder's son) and Ray Cote (owner from 1965 to 1980 when he donated it to the San Diego Air and Space Museum).

When Ray bought the airplane in 1965 for the '66 season he reports it was still chartreuse. He was hoping for a Gulf sponsorship and painted it like their Ford GT's of the time. Note that the picture of Ray Cote and his son and long time crew chief with the airplane in Gulf colors was taken by Tony Naccarato when he was a professional A&P mechanic and expert racing plane wrench. I love the full size/modeller cross-over in aviation!

In this copy of an old slide, the yellow's on the Pack "Lil' Rebel", Tom Cassutt's 111 and the wings and trim on "Rivets" are Cub Yellow and "Bonzo" is Lemon Yellow. In a better copy of the original slide I have buried somewhere, the color on Shoestring is definitely carrying a lot of green and paint stores and art houses seem to have a straight chartreuse which is way greener than this color (like a green apple), and then a yellow chartreuse which is more like Shoestring in the color slides I have.

The Planes of Fame just restored a Shoestring and painted it a color which looks Lime Green, but is Sherwin Williams Chartreuse. Too bad, I'm sure that there was a yellow chartreuse available.

Bill Byles and I are heading up to his favorite paint shop and having them mix the Cadillac color when I paint my Cal Smith Shoestring, and I will add a bit of neutral white to lighten it up for scale.

So, the car is anyone's guess because I am not so good with fifties cars. The airplane is not clear dope over primer (where do these stories start?) but the best paint money could buy and the color of the year it was originally built. It can be seen in the close up that the airplane was not a hack job but a well turned out machine, finish as well as construction.

What is neat is the fact that dope being lacquer like, is easy to remove and repair. When the airplane was sold by Kreimendahl in 1951 or so, the lettering on the tail was removed (Neo Air) with rubbing compound and the new lettering applied with dope and a brush, typically. I remember my Dad shaking up a baby food jar of Randolph red dope and laying down the masking tape to repaint the trim on the old Staggerwing with his 3/4" sable brush. It was all of the stuff off the model bench!

Chris...

P.S. In the B&W close-up the players are designer Rod Kriemendahl, chief builder Carl Ast, and pilot John Paul Jones also owner of the engine!

Garf · « **Reply #28 on:** January 30, 2008, 11:59:16 AM »

Not very big, was it?

Bill Morell · « **Reply #29 on:** January 30, 2008, 01:34:50 PM »

Cool pictures Chris! Pretty neat how you can start a thread on a model plane and then get pictures of the real deal. Always neat to read the history of the palne you are working on. I had always wondered how they came up with the name Shoestring.

Shultzie · « **Reply #30 on:** January 30, 2008, 01:51:26 PM »

Quote from: Bob Whitely on January 29, 2008, 09:40:35 PM

The Bill Simons' Shoestring is classic legal. It was and is a good flying plane and would do well in any classic contest. Use an AT36 and around 45oz all up and you are good to go.

The RSM Shoestring is a late model design based on Hunts' Caprice as he allowed me to use a lot of his design parameters. Mine flew very well and can be made to use .40 to .60 size engines.

Both are fine planes, one for classic and one for after classic. Best, Bob

Ahh...yes, If you look closely...I swear you can see my slobberin' drool marks on Bobby's wing panel...when I was leaning over that beautiful model of his at the nats with my old Minolta SR-2 camera.

Bob Disharoon · « **Reply #31 on:** January 30, 2008, 06:12:52 PM »

Quote from: Garf on January 30, 2008, 11:59:16 AM

Not very big, was it?

Right you are, Garf. That baby is about in GeeBee size territory....too bad nobody has perfected the time machine....wouldn't we all like like to hop in for a little trip!!
Bob

Joe Messinger · « **Reply #32 on:** January 30, 2008, 08:44:53 PM »

Unless my eyes deceive me, that Ford Country Squire is at least a 1957 model. Fins on the back indicate that. '55 & '56 Fords didn't have fins. It's hard to make out (people in foreground blocking full view of the front end) but it looks like four headlights up front. That would make it a 1958.

I know, who cares. Has nothing to do with the thread about Shoestrings.

Joe

Garf · « **Reply #33 on:** January 30, 2008, 10:20:10 PM »

I cloned a kit but ended up with a warp. I should have included the rib tabs.

Randy Powell · « **Reply #34 on:** January 31, 2008, 01:07:10 AM »

Pretty clearly, it's a 57

Bob Hunt · « **Reply #35 on:** January 31, 2008, 07:28:32 AM »

Sorry to be late in jumping into this thread, as I know a fair amount about the Bill Simons Shoestring. Heck, Bill gave it to me near the end of its useful life and I used it for practice for quite a while. I've been contacted just this week on the subject of the Bill Simons Shoestring and I crafted a fairly long answer. Instead of rewriting all that out here, I'm going to go get it from my "Sent Items" bin and jut paste it in here. The gist of the message sent to me was a question about if there were two different wings used on the Bill Simons Shoestring; one in the original model and a different one depicted on the FM plan. The following is what I wrote in answer:

"Yes, the story is true about Bill Simons' Shoestring. I was Bill's flying and building buddy for many years and I remember well the day he received the Skylark wing from Foam Flite. That was in 1968! He decided to build the Shoestring around that wing and he had it finished and flying in time for the 1969 Nats. We went to that Nats together and stayed with Red Reinhardt, who lived just a few miles from the Willow Grove Air Station where the Nats was held.

"Several years after he actually built the model he had an invitation from the, then Editor, of Flying Models, Don McGovern to publish it. He never did have any plans for the model; he just laid out the moment arms on the wood and built as he went (As did most of us in those days...). When asked to publish it, he in turn asked Paul Simon (No, not the musician...

) to draw it up for him. Paul was a sport flier in our area, but he was a good draftsman. Bill gave the model to Paul so he could measure it and draw it up. Don't really know how Paul blew the airfoils by so much while drawing that ship, but he did! They weren't even close! The interesting thing is that many modelers built the Shoestring from the magazine plans and had great success with the resulting models.

"I'd be pleased to cut cores for either wing design for you, or build a fully sheeted foam wing, as I'm back in that business. Your call on the design and the degree of finish...

"Continuing on a bit, Paul Simon actually drew many sets of plans for models that were published in FM and all of them had bogus airfoils! That list includes Gene Schaffer's Stunt Machine (I know that one for sure because I cut the cores for it), Bill Simons' P-39 Aircobra and Bob Lampione's Sabre Jet and United! Please understand that I'm not writing this to cause Paul any grief; he did his best and thought he'd produced accurate plans all the while. I am a bit puzzled that neither Gene or Bill caught the mistakes, and if they did that they didn't say anything or ask Paul to draw in the proper airfoils...

"Here's the rub in all this: There were several different versions of the Skylark wing as well, so I'm not sure at all which version Bill received from Mike Stott at Foam Flite. Ahhh, just another one of Stunt's great mysteries...

"Glad to hear from you - Bob

"P.S. Ironically after many years I've just heard from Paul Simon and we had a great laugh over this situation. He called last week and we had a wide ranging conversation. He knows now that many of the designs were drawn inaccurately. No big deal. Truthfully, if it were me, I'd build the one that is depicted on the plans! It flies fine... - Bob"

Okay, that should shed a bit of light on the Shoestring saga, now I'd like to make a slight correction to Bob Whiteley's post above concerning the use of the Caprice numbers in the Shoestring that he built. Actually it was the Saturn numbers that Bob used. Just want to keep things straight...

Bob wrote: "The RSM Shoestring is a late model design based on Hunts' Caprice as he allowed me to use a lot of his design parameters. Mine flew very well and can be made to use .40 to .60 size engines."

It would be very difficult to get a full size 40 (large case .40) to fit into the Caprice, and certainly there's no way a .60 would fit. Bob's resulting Shoestring was beautiful and I understand that it flew extremely well. There, I feel better!

Bob Hunt

Bob Whitely · « **Reply #36 on:** January 31, 2008, 10:04:59 AM »

As usual I screwed up again. Bob Hunt is correct as I did use the Saturn influence on drawing up the RSM Shoestring. There are so many Caprices' flying out here I must have them on my mind.

Bob, Wait til you see Callentines' model of your dads Travelair. Unbelievable! See ya in a few, Bob

Shultzie · « **Reply #37 on:** January 31, 2008, 10:46:45 AM »

Quote from: Bob Hunt on January 31, 2008, 07:28:32 AM

"Yes, the story is true about Bill Simons' Shoestring. I was Bill's flying and building buddy for many years and I remember well the day he received the Skylark wing from Foam Flite. That was in 1968! He decided to build the Shoestring around that wing and he had it finished and flying in time for the 1969 Nats. We went to that Nats together and stayed with Red Reinhardt, who lived just a few miles from the Willow Grove Air Station where the Nats was held.

"I'd be pleased to cut cores for either wing design for you, or build a fully sheeted foam wing, as I'm back in that business. Your call on the design and the degree of finish...

HEY GANG!...
WHAT GREAT NEWS...TO HEAR BOB IS BACK IN THE BUSINESS FOR CREATING THOSE BBBBBBBBEEEEEUUUUTIFUL' SHEETED FOAM WINGS FOR ALL US NEAR-DE-WELLS.
The first time that I received a set for my updated 76 Avenger....they were such a piece of creative n' artistical beauty (in truth...I hated to even think about using them for that new stunt model and considered BOX FRAMING them and hanging them on the wall of my studio at Boeing) just as a tribute to perfection in model building art and science.
That set included not only the wing but fully sheeted flaps, stab & elevators!!!
AGAIN..
Thanks for being there for so many of us over all these years and for sharing your talents with so many of us LUCKY ONES!

Bob Hunt · « **Reply #38 on:** January 31, 2008, 11:52:03 AM »

Thanks Don! Your check is in the mail...

Bob

Bob Hunt · « **Reply #39 on:** January 31, 2008, 12:13:13 PM »

Just to follow up a bit more on what Bob Whiteley just posted, I must come clean about the origins of the Saturn. Although the aesthetics were mine, the actual aerodynamic "numbers" came from Bill Werwage. I liked the way Mike Dietrich's Cobra 7 looked and how it flew and I developed my own similar ship with those styling cues in mind, along with Billy's airfoils and moment arm package. Just wanted to give credit where it is due!

I am very anxious to see John's new Travel Air, and I'm hoping he will let me pose together with him iand the model for photo of it that I can frame and hang on the wall in rememberance of my dad. I vividly remember the first, second and third Travel Air models that dad produced. The first on, that was published in the December 1952 issue of Model Airplane News was lost when the Fox .35 died during a wingover at a flying demonstration in Union, New Jersey around 1956 or so. Dad built a second one and it fell victim to a freak accident in 1959. He was drilling an empty propane bottle that he planned to make into an accumulator. Only thing is, the bottle still had a trace of propane in it! The drill broke through the bottle's wall and a spark shot up like a rocket and hit the Travel Air, which was suspended by wires near the celing of the shop. It went up like the Hindenburg! Oh the humanity...

Dad built a third one around 1992 and actually flew it in competition at VSC. He was voted as the Keeper of the Flame that year as well, and it is one of my favorite memories. Unfortunatley, by the time dad built the last one both his building and flying skills had begun to deminish. I'll always remember the first two models. They were absolutely gorgeous. I remember watching Red Reinhardt fly dad's first Travel Air. Red flew it amazingly well and really showed what the ship was capable of. Memories, memories, memories...

Later - Bob Hunt

John Miller · « **Reply #40 on:** January 31, 2008, 12:17:48 PM »

Bob, I got to see that Travelaire, in the bones, at the SW Regionals last weekend. Truely a work of art. I wanted to take pictures, but my batteries were dead. I hope someone will post pics of it, before it's covered. Your dad would be very happy to see this one.

Steve Helmick · « **Reply #41 on:** January 31, 2008, 10:03:13 PM »

Quote from: Randy Powell on January 27, 2008, 08:23:15 PM

Steve,

My Shoestring had demons. It's the only logical answer. Long story, that, but it met it's demise at one of the few late season contests in the winds at Portland. It's very possible you'll see it again. When the engine was actually running, it flew very, very well.

Randy...I was under the impression that it was (expletive) deleted...kaput, history. If that's not the case, then fer goodness sake, put that puppy back together!

Steve

Chris McMillin · « **Reply #42 on:** January 31, 2008, 10:15:11 PM »

Quote from: Ty Marcucci on January 31, 2008, 08:53:00 PM

Well, there you go, I guess I should know better than to believe some old codger at the San Diego Air Museum.

A HA ! That's where you heard it! I wondered...

BUT that is a 1957 Ford.

Couldn't prove it by me, but if you say so.

The old codger told me it was zinc chromate, thus the chartreuse color. Seemed logical as I have done more than my share of using zinc chromate in the Navy on steel and aluminum. I stand corrected.. Never even heard of a Cadillac that color. Yuk. Thanks for the update Chris. I have a book about those old race planes and knew it was built on a "shoestring" thus the name. I didn't know his wife named it.

All fun and games. I found a neat site devoted to the victims of the crash of a transport out of Groom Lake back in '55 and one of the victims was Rod Kriemendahl. His son made a pretty good story of the Shoestring providing a lot of good info.

Chris...

Greg L Bahrman · « **Reply #43 on:** January 31, 2008, 10:17:54 PM »

Quote from: Steve Helmick on January 31, 2008, 10:03:13 PM

Randy...I was under the impression that it was (expletive) deleted...kaput, history. If that's not the case, then fer goodness sake, put that puppy back together! Steve

Yeah, and if you need a place to store it like the Cobra. You can store it at my house in So Ca. almost as dry as Arizona. Hee Hee

Randy Powell · « **Reply #44 on:** January 31, 2008, 11:05:52 PM »

Steve,

No, it went into the trash can at Delta Park after salvaging the control system. I'm seriously considering building another because it flew pretty well. It was the engine that I got back from a combat flier I gave it to. I doubt I would use it again.

Bill Little · « **Reply #45 on:** February 01, 2008, 09:33:20 AM »

Quote from: Bob Hunt on January 31, 2008, 12:13:13 PM

Just to follow up a bit more on what Bob Whiteley just posted, I must come clean about the origins of the Saturn. Although the aesthetics were mine, the actual aerodynamic "numbers" came from Bill Werwage. I liked the way Mike Dietrich's Cobra 7 looked and how it flew and I developed my own similar ship with those styling cues in mind, along with Billy's airfoils and moment arm package. Just wanted to give credit where it is due!
(SNIP)
Later - Bob Hunt

And, as you well know, Bob, I used the Saturn and turned it into my *Geo-Juno* . So the transformation has come full circle........ kinda!

I always admit that I only *steal* from the very best. What could be better? A Bob Hunt plane converted to a Billy Werwage plane.......

Geoff Goodworth · « **Reply #46 on:** February 01, 2008, 06:17:38 PM »

G'day folks

To go back to the first posts in this very interesting thread, the models shown are nice work. When I drew my plan for the Goldberg Shoestring some years ago, I specified 3/16" tail feathers. This is the plan and parts sheet that was used by John Brodak so the Brodak kit has laser-cut 3/16" tail feathers and I spent some time getting the Foxberg racers to accept that change.

The first model hand-cut and built to my plan required about 3/4 oz of lead in the tail with an FP20 and tongue muffler in the nose. Until I build one tail heavy with the FP for power, I will not bother cutting out the tail feathers.

Now the Simons Shoestring.

When I first started drawing the wing in CAD so I could get ribs laser-cut, I found numerous discrepancies on the plan and between the plan and the build article.

The airfoil issue has been covered but other things were a significant difference between the the root and tip chord on the wing plan view and the sections drawn in the fuselage elevation. Then there is an issue with the wing panel length. The magazine talks about 1" of asymmetry and the plan 2" or vice versa, I can't remember. Either way, there were enough differences that I put the project on hold for a while.

Then I heard the story about the Skylark wing blanks and Bob Hunt confirmed it. Using the sescond pic in Shultzie's post, I have been able to develop a believable wing planform using the dimensions of 46-size Skylark wing from the RSM kit. The model is not being held vertical but I measured the flap hinge to LE from the photo to establish a scale. Then I averaged the measurements for the tips, the flaps, etc to get a believable plan form. The problem now is, can I get it accepted for Classic?

Cheers, Geoff

Mike Lauerman · « **Reply #47 on:** February 01, 2008, 07:44:07 PM »

Hey, Ty.

I've been following this thread from when that '57 Ford was a "tall & boxy '55", thru the misnomer of its being a '56, then even a quad-lit '58! A fifty seven it is, take that from a former Ford specialist with Dearborn Papers, no less.
Would it have been a Chevrolet, they would have called it right...You know where the Fairlane 500 got its Number Moniker? It was from Ford's history of wins in every 500 mile race they won. (Ever see a "Chevy '500'?" No? Hmmm. Guess it's true.

Mike in Atwater (or "Hot Water", when the Chevy guys read this! All in fun!)

Clint Ormosen · « **Reply #48 on:** February 01, 2008, 08:02:52 PM »

I can't stand it. I have to post a pic of mine.
Goldberg kit, but substituted 1/4" sheet for all the tail feathers. Good flyer with a SuperTigre C-35.

Randy Powell · « **Reply #49 on:** February 01, 2008, 09:28:09 PM »

Geoff,

I have to tell you that I just built mine from the Flying Models plan. The biggest discrepancy I found was the difference in the wing cutout from the actual wing. I just used a 1/2" asymmetry and called it good. As you note, it was tough to tell from the plans.