Author Topic: Cox PT 19 History? (Read 34156 times)

Mark Misegadis · « **Reply #50 on:** July 18, 2009, 07:33:36 AM »

Hello Everyone,

Flew my PT 5th version this past week and am getting ready to head to the park in a little bit to do the same again today. I have increased the line length to a little more than 30' and have silver soldered new axles to the landing gear and installed slightly larger foam tires on nylon wheels. I am hoping that these absorb a little of the shock while I work out my landing skills. This past week I found that they make no difference in the grass and I still get a "yard sale" situation on landing. Our currently selected flying area has a "pole vaulting pad covered in outdoor carpeting that we take off and land from situated in the middle of grass. This was a nice discovery!

The motor on these more recent versions is equiped with a reverse prop and rotates clockwise. (if facing the prop...towards the inside of the flying circle) All the previous PTs had a normal prop that rotated towards the outside of the circle. I will be testing both directions today to see if it makes a difference as I immediatly changed it to the old style and have only flown it that way.

In the kitchen sink I have a 1st version 1965 plane (yellow/blue..sorry Mike)soaking in warm soapy water to work off the varnish and old rubber bands. This works quite well if your patient. I push the stuff around with toothpicks in the hard to reach or stubborn areas and chase the rest with a toothbrush. The motor is already soaking in WD-40 and I should have it all cleaned up soon. This one will be a shelf queen and will look nicely next to the blue yellow version I have from 1963. Both have their boxes.

I am also currently working on a 1962 (yellow/blue) that will be a flyer. Probably the lowest flight time of the lot. This one however had a badly damaged box. I swapped its wings and elevator to the 1965 as they were in better condition and had no bleached spots. These planes are lighter than the later versions and I think there will be a big difference in how it flys. I will keep practicing on the late model plane before I fly this one.

Mark

Recap on the details of the PT versions as I know them so far.
1st version - 1960-1965
Motor –Baby Bee with Thimble Drome etched into the aluminum tank.
Firewall – Tank mounted motor and opposite the color of the fuselage. Tab on the back to indicate the angle of the motor. Beginner-Advanced.
Fuselage – Open at the front to allow motor to tip out during crash. No reinforced areas and very thin and light.
Note: The earliest version of Fuse in 1960-61 has far less panel line detail present. The initial lines are there but that is it.
Pilots - assembled from 2 pieces. Left and Right halves with mounting tabs on the shoulders. They were not painted and were injected in the color opposite the fuselage.
Windshields – separate units attached to the top of the fuselage with two tabs to locate. Plastic welded.
Color: The yellow was a more Canary Yellow and the blue has a grayness.

5th version – Early 80’s
Motor – Motor with a plastic back plate.
Firewall – Deeper firewall continues to make up the difference in length from the Baby Bee. Black in color.
Tank: Molded in clear/white plastic much like a film canister and now round in shape with an offset single nipple drain. No longer triangular in shape and motor can starve during nose up situations.
Fuselage – Completely different fuselage. Rivit detail and lines have changed although it looks traditional. Windshields are only a very vertical frame and Pilots shoulders are formed into the back of the cockpit. Big Dudley Do-right heads that are heat welded in place from below. The heads nearly always break off. Overall a thicker and more durable fuselage.
Color: Same Darker Blue and the yellow is Schoolbus or Safety yellow.
Personal note: Controls – Had to modify up down controls by changing the length of the pushrod and trimming the bellcrank (clearance) to get the same movement as in earlier PT-19s. Had “no” down initially.

Steve Scott · « **Reply #51 on:** July 18, 2009, 08:19:05 AM »

Quote from: Mark Misegadis on July 06, 2009, 12:13:55 PM

Hello Everyone,

I got the bug for PT-19 trainers during Christmas in 1970. My Father and Uncle received a PT-19 each as a gift from my grandparents that year.

Pretty much parallels my early experience except we had just PCS'd to Clark AB in the Philippines in 1964 and my parents gave me that version of the PT-19 with full Babe Bee engine but funky reversed color scheme of yellow fuselage/rudder and blue wings/stab. My uncle shipped over a Sterling Ringmaster kit and McCoy .35 redhead.

Learned to takeoff ROG, fly the tank out and land with the PT-19. It was definitely a challenge just keeping it out on the end of the lines in any kind of breeze but my 13 year old reflexes adapted quickly.

I got the Ringmaster built and flew it successfully. Since then, I never had a desire to go back to the plastic ½A RTF toys.

Mark Misegadis · « **Reply #52 on:** July 21, 2009, 10:11:42 AM »

Update:

Flew the "5th Version" again on Saturday. I am trying a new motor in it as my old PT I flew as a kid always ran harder. Both of these motors have an issue with "hiccups" during the run and or sometimes running well till you make the walk to the handle for take off. At one point the engine just stopped during flight.(Going to make sure everything is clean for this particular prob) The PT I ran as a kid had what appears to be the same basic product engine but had a copper reed instead of the plastic one. This product engine(pre Sure Start) has a plastic reed and that gasket/reed retainer dealio. The tank is also a round clear milky plastic that I am not really sure directs the fuel like it should either. Again.. the older PT with plastic tank had a triangular base on it that would have forced a better feed of fuel.

Anyone have any thoughts, suggestions or experiences on any of this. At this point I dont trust the plastic reed to do the job of the metal ones or the tank situ to deliver the fuel consistantly.

Overall had 3 good flights with a short 4th.

Mark

Mike Hodge · « **Reply #53 on:** July 21, 2009, 08:38:25 PM »

Mark: I've had some of the same problems and I think it's the same version of the PT.

One footnote, though: Because I'm just starting out, I'm no expert at tuning the engine and could be running it too lean. I'll find someone who knows what they're doing and report back.

Mark Misegadis · « **Reply #54 on:** July 21, 2009, 10:28:54 PM »

Hey Mike,

I have found an older version of the motor that would be the same as I would have flown as a kid. This would be with the Red firewall. I have also run accross some of the Red firewalls that have the original Copper reed. I am going to try them both to see how all that works. At some point I will probably go ahead and custom build a brass tank as well.

I know some folks have to be asking.. why spent so much time developing something when you can just build a plane out of wood. LOL Well I am doing some of those too.

Mark

Larry Renger · « **Reply #55 on:** July 21, 2009, 11:05:08 PM »

The plastic reeds are pretty worthless after a few runs, they warp with the residual engine heat after running. Get some of the old bronze reeds or the new stainless ones.

There is a tab on the fuselage that sets between a couple of ears on the Polyethelene tank to keep the fuel pickup in the correct position. Check it out.

Warren Leadbeatter · « **Reply #56 on:** July 22, 2009, 02:22:49 AM »

Looking for new Cox Engines or Parts? Apparently, earlier this year (in February 2009) Estes sold their remaining Cox stock to eBay seller XENALOOK - Bernie and Zena someone from Canada. They also have a website that they recently launched http://coxengines.ca This is claimed to be the last of the original Cox stock.

Cheers

Mike Hodge · « **Reply #57 on:** July 22, 2009, 05:29:18 AM »

Larry: My PT fuselage has taken a beating as I learn to fly CL. I'll check the fuel position. If I think it's to the point, where I can't make it work, I'll retire it and go to PT #2:). I pretty much knew I'd have to sacrifice the first plane:)

john e. holliday · « **Reply #58 on:** July 22, 2009, 07:57:27 AM »

Larry, have you tried the Teflon reeds from Davis Diesel? They seem to work for me in Mouse Racing. DOC Holliday

Mark Misegadis · « **Reply #59 on:** July 23, 2009, 09:25:12 AM »

Thanks Larry I will try the stainless. (I have read that all over the web this past week! Larry likes the Stainless Reeds!) I always liked the copper in the past. Going to set up a test motor for this.

Tank.. yes its between the tabs and perhaps this isnt my issue. I will try the reed first.

Mark

Mark Misegadis · « **Reply #60 on:** July 27, 2009, 09:43:14 PM »

Photos of flying the PT-19 this past Sunday. This is version #5 of this model. I lost power on my final flight (Working though power issues) and had a hard landing busting up the Fuse. I have it plastic welded back together and will continue to use it but am looking for a new one.

Tried the Stainless reed and could not get the motor to start without a starter. Seemed to run okay but did have a flutter. Will continue to do testing for consistant power to make this thing a real flyer. At this point its still fun and I am still learning. Lines are around 33' at this time.

Mark

Mark Misegadis · « **Reply #61 on:** July 27, 2009, 10:06:59 PM »

More Flight Photos to share from Sunday. Mark

George · « **Reply #62 on:** July 28, 2009, 05:46:30 PM »

Are the reeds interchangeable between the old wire reed retainer and the later types?

Also, are the reeds the same thickness?

George

Mike Hodge · « **Reply #63 on:** July 28, 2009, 09:00:42 PM »

Enjoyed the photos.

Mark Misegadis · « **Reply #64 on:** July 28, 2009, 10:57:48 PM »

Mike, Your turn next for some photos!

George, The reeds should be interchangeable. I have not put the calipers on them yet. Mark

Larry Renger · « **Reply #65 on:** July 29, 2009, 10:03:33 AM »

I have tried the Teflon reeds, and the ones I had were slightly curved and wouldn't seal. Perhaps they would flatten out with use, but I wasn't that interested in them.

So far as I know, all reeds should work with all engines. (except the old Space Bug/Thermal Hopper design)

George · « **Reply #66 on:** July 29, 2009, 06:55:39 PM »

Quote from: Larry Renger on July 29, 2009, 10:03:33 AM

So far as I know, all reeds should work with all engines. (except the old Space Bug/Thermal Hopper design)

Right. Here's a Space Bug pic:

George

Robert McHam · « **Reply #67 on:** July 29, 2009, 07:16:46 PM »

Cool! Space bug not high on my priority list but someday hope to have one.

Robert

Mark Misegadis · « **Reply #68 on:** July 30, 2009, 02:58:52 PM »

Here is a Quote that I pulled from another forum.

Regarding the repair of cracked up plastic CL planes, my recollection is that a cracked or broken plastic part usually had to be replaced. The thin moldings gave little surface area for good joints. Besides, what kind of glue was suitable before Krazy Glue? I think that some people patched them up with extra wide plastic packing tape.

Around 1971, I saw a Cox PT-19 stall and crash on blacktop from a height of about 25 to 30 feet. It practically shattered upon impact, with the stabilator broken in two and the wing and fuselage getting pretty banged up, too. Worse, the guy who cracked it up had borrowed it from a younger kid. The older kid claimed that a "little glue will fix it," but I suspect that it ended up in the landfill.

All I can say is dont send them to the Landfill. They can be fixed. I am sure this story is familiar to many of us though.

Mark

Mark Misegadis · « **Reply #69 on:** July 30, 2009, 10:57:33 PM »

Here are two more photos from last Sundays flights. Mark

Mike Hodge · « **Reply #70 on:** July 31, 2009, 09:23:49 AM »

Not to hijack, but the red and white PT arrived this week. One noticeable difference from the other PTs. The wheels roll much better. If you look on youtube (Eric Hurst), there's a video of a red and white PT taking off from grass. I always wondered why my modern blue and yellow versions wouldn't do that and the red and white would.

Now I know. The silver hub on the red and white rolls much better. Attached (I hope) is a pic. Wonder why Cox changed the wheels? Money?

Mike

Larry Renger · « **Reply #71 on:** August 01, 2009, 10:27:00 AM »

As far as repair is concerned, I use plastic cement and fiberglass cloth. Tack glue the parts with the plastic cement, then lay a strip of 'glass over the break and rub more cement through it until it is well bonded. Do the 'glass on both sides of the plastic. It should be stronger than new when done right.

Mark Misegadis · « **Reply #72 on:** August 03, 2009, 10:45:22 AM »

Mike,
Have you talked to the guy with the 1967 Vid on YouTube and asked him how he made this work?

All the grass I have been on wont work for a take off. (Landing either unless you want a yard sale) Some of it was even after it was cut to around 2-3"s. I would think it would need to be on a Golf green before this would work as it would get into the Prop. The other option would be that it would need to be very thin. My plane just sits down in the grass. I have added larger diameter foam wheels and this doesnt help either.

So.. I take off on the asphalt and then back up and fly over the grass and then walk back when its close and land again. (Place that I posted the pics of) The other place has a paved section in the grass and we take off and land on that. Its narrow and a little bit of work but we have been able to make it work.

Although the easiest place to do any of this is just in a paved lot. That is if you dont crash! LOL

Thats where I flew as a kid. Found some smooth asphalt and that was it.

I love the grass though. We have been trying to come up with some portable roll out runway dealio but havent been able to make it work.

Cardboard and masonite curl with the moisture. We have talked about Plastic or carpet or whatever that we would roll out and stake down. (Plastic in the sun will kill the grass and we would wear our our welcome) Most of this has just been talk as we arent sure that would work and it all gets very large or difficult to transport. Anything we come up with so far is just too big or heavy or wont be smooth enough etc. We have 2 good places to fly for the moment until someone runs us off.

Mark

Richard Grogan · « **Reply #73 on:** August 03, 2009, 11:00:22 AM »

Growing up flying our PT19 s in our backyards, we used a 1/2" 4x8 sheet of plywood with the end propped up on a 2x4 board. Kinda like a carrier deck.Works pretty good. I dont ever remember landing on it though!

I read somewhere on here about using rubber mats working well, and they roll up for easy transport...

Mike Hodge · « **Reply #74 on:** August 03, 2009, 07:26:55 PM »

Mark: My hope is that my 4x15 piece of carpet works for takeoffs. If I get good, I'll try to land it on the grass. Right now, just starting out, I'm happy to be airborne and go home with the plane in one piece.

Just bought the carpet. I'll flip it over and see what happens. Hopefully, it's big enough to work. ...Richard's idea sounds good, too.

Mike

Frank Sheridan · « **Reply #75 on:** August 03, 2009, 07:43:51 PM »

We used sheets of paneling from the lumber yard. The really thin stuff used in mobile homes. We would get the damaged sheets for next to nothing. We would overlap two sheets by a couple of inches and that was just enough to get a PT-19 in the air. When I look at one of those planes now, I find it hard to believe some of the things we would do to get them airborne. I've seen them thrown overhand like a javelin, and flung like a boomerang. We were kids. It was fun, just like it is nowadays.

Mark Misegadis · « **Reply #76 on:** August 04, 2009, 07:16:38 AM »

Sounds like some good ideas here.

The plywood paneling would do better than the masonite as it wont pic up the moisture in the grass and curl as quick. The Carpet should be good. With our altitude 15' wouldnt be enough but at near sea level you have alot more air and may have some good results.

As far as landing in grass... It doesnt really happen unless you bring the plane in hot and then flip the nose up at the last second. I have been able to manage this once....Everything else was a yard sale. Comments from my flying partner like.. "Wow.. did you see how high the motor went?!?!!!"

So.. I stopped trying to land on the grass for now if I can help it.

Mark

don Burke · « **Reply #77 on:** August 04, 2009, 10:18:39 AM »

I've used a plastic "carpet runner". I put grommets in the four corners and stake it to the ground. Works well to let the plane get up to speed. Aterward just rolls up and stows easily.

Mark Misegadis · « **Reply #78 on:** August 04, 2009, 11:54:41 AM »

Hi Don,

I had thought about this. How long was the plastic carpet runner that you used? I am assuming that it was 3 or 4' wide.
Heavy to pack around?

The other thing material that we have dicussed here is a Banner. Grommet holes..thin and light.

Mark

Mike Hodge · « **Reply #79 on:** August 04, 2009, 09:02:39 PM »

Tried the PT on the carpet. A little too bumpy. Maybe the grass was too high beneath, I'm not sure.

My guess is the little plane doesn't have the HP to take off carpet. Back to the drawing board. I've got a local park scouted out with a place to play roller hockey. Could be a potential spot. We'll see.

john e. holliday · « **Reply #80 on:** August 05, 2009, 08:11:31 AM »

Most elementary schools have a paved play area as well as grass. Talk to the school principal. That is what I did for doing occasional test flying. DOC Holliday

Mike Hodge · « **Reply #81 on:** August 05, 2009, 08:41:32 AM »

John: Good idea, particularly since the kids are still out of school. I'll keep that in mind. It's just a matter of doing some better scouting.

Mike

Mike Hodge · « **Reply #82 on:** August 06, 2009, 07:44:32 AM »

I'm learning that part of the challenge of this sport --- other than the actual flying --- is finding places to fly. Pretty limited where you can actually fly the PT. Tried dirt infields. They work fine and there's plenty of access, but the dirt is tough on an engine.

Andrew Borgogna · « **Reply #83 on:** August 06, 2009, 03:50:20 PM »

Thanks Ty for say that the flying circle and the Monsanto house of the future and the monorail were all that interested you. For me the flying circle was the number one reason for going to Dizzyland. Funny that fast forward a few decades and I get to know Bart and find out he was one of the people that made my day back then. The PT-19 is the plane I tought both my sons to fly on. Greg, my youngest son, still flys well he did until he stuffed my Stuka Stunt. I just got a Hanger-9 PT-19 and hope to get him back to the field. His daughter loves to watch grandpa fly toy airplanes, oh and daddy to!
Andy

Mike Hodge · « **Reply #84 on:** August 09, 2009, 02:29:49 PM »

Got a 1974 plane --- orange pilots --- today. Pretty detailed. Windshield and controls for the pilots. Yellow firewall.

Earlier in the week, I got my coveted blue/yellow reverse color plane. I'm assuming it's roughly early '70s. Got a babe bee engine. ... Cleaning up both for restoration.

JMO, I think the earlier planes were better. I've got a few that were made in China after Cox sold to Estes and these planes aren't as nice. Again, JMO.

Interesting sidenote: The traditional '74 plane came with a catalog advertising a Cox superstunter Messerschmit. AD said offer expires in Dec. 31 '74. Anyone heard of this plane?

Mike Hodge · « **Reply #85 on:** August 09, 2009, 03:22:20 PM »

Did a little research: The Cox Super Stunter was developed by our own Larry Renger. Found this out on the Cox historical website. Don't know if this is accurate, but I have no reason not to believe it isn't.

If I see a super stunter around on ebay, I'll grab it. I like the PT's make, but the super stunter looks like a good flyer.

Robert McHam · « **Reply #86 on:** August 09, 2009, 03:51:30 PM »

Quote from: Mike Hodge on August 09, 2009, 03:22:20 PM

Did a little research: The Cox Super Stunter was developed by our own Larry Renger. Found this out on the Cox historical website. Don't know if this is accurate, but I have no reason not to believe it isn't.

If I see a super stunter around on ebay, I'll grab it. I like the PT's make, but the super stunter looks like a good flyer.

Mike, check this thread! http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php?topic=3572.0
Larry does indeed chime in.

Robert

Mark Misegadis · « **Reply #87 on:** August 10, 2009, 07:18:54 AM »

Sad news: PT-19 Crash near Colorado Springs. Mark

http://www.gazette.com/articles/east-59876-small-plane.html

August 08, 2009 10:56 AM
ANDREA BROWN
THE GAZETTE
A World War II veteran and pilot crashed a vintage training plane seconds after take-off near the runway at Meadow Lake Airport Saturday morning.

Witnesses said Burritt Hollister “Hollie” Pond, crashed in a field after taking off in his PT-19A Fairchild wooden aircraft at about 10:40 a.m. from the airport east of Colorado Springs between Falcon and Peyton.

“Witnesses said he couldn’t get enough lift,” El Paso County Sheriff’s Sgt. Ben Dearmont said Saturday at the crash site near the intersection of Judge Orr Road and Highway 24.

Dearmont said the pilot is 87 years old.

Authorities secured the area around the wreckage of bright blue-and-yellow plane across the road from sign that says “Watch for low flying aircraft.”

Pond was flown by helicopter to Penrose Hospital, where a hospital worker said he was in critical condition Saturday night.

“Initial reports are he had a possible broken arm and head injuries,” Dearmont said. “He was alert and speaking to medical personnel, which is a good thing.”

Officials did not release the pilot’s name, but witnesses identified him as Pond, an experienced pilot who frequently flew his plane from the airport.

Pond has a commercial pilot’s license that expires in March of 2011 and is a rated flight instructor.

Air Force records show Pond has two prior aircraft accidents — both in 1945 when he was flying B-25 Mitchell bombers.

Steve Immel, a weekend fuel station worker, was sitting on a split-rail fence near the airport runway with two others listening to the radio transmissions when Pond’s plane took off.

“There was another guy who was coming in for a landing, so he (Pond) was kind of being pushed,” Immel said. “He actually radioed out and said, ‘Do I have time to take off before you land?’ The other guy said, ‘Yeah, I’ll give you time, I’ll just take more downwind,’ ... which would give him time to take off.”

Immel said he knew something was wrong when Pond’s plane “stayed at about 30 feet the entire length of the runway. He never got air speed and he never got altitude, and he didn’t try to put it back down. His right wing tip went down on the ground. As soon as that happened the engine came down and he tipped over. If you look, you’ll see that it’s a straight line off the tip of the runway,” Immel said.
“Before he even went down I called 911.”

According to the Web site landings.com, the plane is a World War II trainer built in 1943 by Fairchild Aircraft. The open-cockpit trainers were used by U.S. forces and America’s allies.

Federal Aviation Administration investigators arrived just before 12:30 p.m. to determine what caused the crash.

Mark Misegadis · « **Reply #88 on:** August 12, 2009, 09:12:00 AM »

Lets lighten this thread up from that bad news above. How about posting pics of you flying your PT or of your PT. Any and All.

Mark