Author Topic: 1/2a name that plane contest (Read 6201 times)

LARRY RICE · « **on:** October 10, 2007, 03:26:45 PM »

We have a designer working on a new model plane, building and testing it. The plane is do out in December and we will give away the first kit to the winner of this contest.

You must name the designer and the plane that the model is designed after (there are no tricks here).
Clues:
The designer designed many airplanes for model magazines. His most famous was in the 1970's, it was a witch flying on a broom stick.
The plane is seldom modeled and I do not believe that anyone is kitting a control line model of this plane. It has twin engines and is fairly well known.
The FIRST person to get the answers right wins. Answers will be posted, if no-one wins October 30.

Our kit will be a profile and will be for two .049's.
Larry

Chancey Chorney · « **Reply #1 on:** October 10, 2007, 04:24:31 PM »

Jack Sheeks Bewitched Stunter, Flying Models magazine, July 1972. hope this is it.

Robert McHam · « **Reply #2 on:** October 10, 2007, 05:13:14 PM »

The Bewitched was a great article and had twin booms but not twin engines. The name came from Jack's attempt to have a great paint job and everything he did turned out wrong for no apparent reason so he called it Bewitched.

Larry, I'm thinking...

Robert

Chancey Chorney · « **Reply #3 on:** October 10, 2007, 05:24:52 PM »

Sorry for the above guess. I mis-read and it said his most famous was the witch and was not what you were looking for. So how bout one last try. Jack Sheek's AT 9 Jeep Twin Engine Stunter, Flying Models magazine, August 1976

Chancey Chorney

LARRY RICE · « **Reply #4 on:** October 10, 2007, 06:27:08 PM »

Sorry, not right.
I guess that I did not make the questions clear enough.
Two separate questions:
1-The Designer designed a plane that was a WITCH FLYING ON A BROOM STICK (1/2a) and it appeared in a hobby magazine. WHO IS HE?

2- He is now designing a plane for Black Hawk Models that is a twin engined plane, WHAT IS IT?

There are hidden clues here like the Witch on a Broom was a 1/2a model.....You could guess that because this is a 1/2a section.

Chancey Chorney · « **Reply #5 on:** October 10, 2007, 09:14:34 PM »

Dick Sarpolus, Lockheed P-38 Lightening?

LARRY RICE · « **Reply #6 on:** October 10, 2007, 10:00:38 PM »

No, No sorry
Larry

Ken Deboy · « **Reply #7 on:** October 11, 2007, 10:50:24 AM »

Designer: Frank Scott
Airplane: Cessna Skymaster

?

cheers,
Ken

LARRY RICE · « **Reply #8 on:** October 11, 2007, 03:17:20 PM »

How did you get Frank Scott? That is a correct answer!!!!!!
Here are a few of the planes Frank designed, mostly for American Modeler:
1/2a Santa Clause and Reindeer
1/2a Swinger variable swept wing
.19 (2) C-46 with troop glider
1/2a Mouse racer Sky Baby
1/2a Mouse racer Little White Mouse (won 1st place 1976 NATS Jr and SR combined)
1/2a Cierva Autogiro

Still no right answer on the model he is designing now for Black Hawk Models.
Larry

Robert McHam · « **Reply #9 on:** October 11, 2007, 03:47:11 PM »

I am pretty sure I have the witch and broom article somewhere and as yet have not run across it. I did run across the Mr.Sam (looks like Uncle Sam) model Frank
Scott designed and I felt it might be the same designer as the witch but was not sure. I read thew entire article hoping that there would be a mention of the witches broom plane in it but alas there was none so I could not confirm my hunch. As to the model forth coming I am still guessing...

Could be the Shrike Aero Commander?
That would be sooooo sweeet!!

Robert

Ken Deboy · « **Reply #10 on:** October 11, 2007, 03:51:12 PM »

Larry: Google and EBay helped me find the designer

Robert: Article is in Nov 1972 AAM

cheers,
Ken

LARRY RICE · « **Reply #11 on:** October 11, 2007, 04:26:31 PM »

NO, Robert, it is not and you will kick yourself when I tell you.
Larry

Michael Boucher · « **Reply #12 on:** October 11, 2007, 08:23:40 PM »

Frank Scott, DC-3?

LARRY RICE · « **Reply #13 on:** October 11, 2007, 10:22:46 PM »

Sorry, No.
Larry

Robert McHam · « **Reply #14 on:** October 11, 2007, 10:44:17 PM »

The Grumman Skyrocket XF5F/Black Hawk I think would be extremely cool and lend itself well to a profile plane that would balance easily with two engines in a profile configuration.Would this be the one?

Robert

LARRY RICE · « **Reply #15 on:** October 12, 2007, 07:36:28 AM »

....AND......WE HAVE....A......WINNER

You must have figured out the clue! The only twin engine plane used in the Blackhawk Comics, that Black Hawk Models is NAMED after, was the Grumman Skyrocket XF5F!!!!!!
Yes, folks Frank Scott is test flying the Black Hawk Models Skyrocket right now. We have asked him for a December release and we expect to have it ready before Christmas. Robert you will receive the first kit off of the line, signed by Captain Blackhawk.
Thank you all for participating
Larry

minnesotamodeler · « **Reply #16 on:** October 12, 2007, 08:27:03 AM »

Very cool, but I gotta say, that is one ugly airplane...

--Ray

LARRY RICE · « **Reply #17 on:** October 12, 2007, 09:26:38 AM »

Ray,
Can you imagine what flying that plane must have been like? Examine the color picture an minute. The fuselage is very small comparred with the pilot and those are two of the largest engines ever made. Also look at the prop clearance. I bet the pilot sweat bullets from the time he stepped in.
Larry

Tom Perry · « **Reply #18 on:** October 12, 2007, 12:25:02 PM »

Quote from: LARRY RICE on October 12, 2007, 07:36:28 AM

....AND......WE HAVE....A......WINNER

You must have figured out the clue! The only twin engine plane used in the Blackhawk Comics, that Black Hawk Models is NAMED after, was the Grumman Skyrocket XF5F!!!!!!
Yes, folks Frank Scott is test flying the Black Hawk Models Skyrocket right now. We have asked him for a December release and we expect to have it ready before Christmas. Robert you will receive the first kit off of the line, signed by Captain Blackhawk.
Thank you all for participating
Larry

Here is a pic from the comix.

Robert McHam · « **Reply #19 on:** October 12, 2007, 04:29:26 PM »

Woo hoo!!! I never win anything! I do try but always come in late or whatever. I am a great example of Murphy's law when it comes to contests, drawings or the like. Maybe a turnaround for me?

I had to do some deep thinking about what to guess and when I thought about the twin type planes the Grumman came to mind as one that had the engines in front instead of the nose of the fuse and when I went to find some pictures I ran across the Fiddlers Green page which showed the Black Hawk Squadron colors and I felt this just might be the one which is why I included pics with my guess.

Thanks, Robert

frank carlisle · « **Reply #20 on:** October 13, 2007, 06:23:52 AM »

PROFILE or BUILT UP?

LARRY RICE · « **Reply #21 on:** October 13, 2007, 09:29:38 AM »

It is profile with about a 24" span, ment for two tank mounted engines.
Larry

Robert McHam · « **Reply #22 on:** October 13, 2007, 10:38:08 AM »

Ray, you call it ugly. I call it rather unique and therefore outstanding.
Either way, at any flying field I think most would give it a longer look that the more usual Flite Streak or Baby Ringmaster. Especially since it is a twin engine model, everyone will want to see it fly!

Robert

Bill Little · « **Reply #23 on:** October 13, 2007, 11:30:07 AM »

HI Larry,

Great quiz, and it will a very unique looking model! I hope it does well for y'all.

Robert McHam · « **Reply #24 on:** October 13, 2007, 04:14:19 PM »

It seems I do not have the witch on a broom article in the Nov 1972 AAM issue. I am very familiar with it but I have looked and looked and I just don't seem to have that issue.

I think that was the first fantasy design I ever saw that went out of the normal airplane genre. The next would have been Snoopy's doghouse. Or maybe the other way around. Does anyone have a scan of this article?

Since December has suddenly become a long way off, and the cat mis now out of the bag, are there any pictures of the Grumman XF-5F prototype ship?

Robert

minnesotamodeler · « **Reply #25 on:** October 13, 2007, 08:24:19 PM »

Quote from: Robert McHam on October 13, 2007, 10:38:08 AM

Ray, you call it ugly. I call it rather unique and therefore outstanding.
Either way, at any flying field I think most would give it a longer look that the more usual Flite Streak or Baby Ringmaster. Especially since it is a twin engine model, everyone will want to see it fly!

Robert

Well, in my defense, I did say it was Very Cool. But still ugly. Most airplanes inherently have a certain grace about them...that one just looks all awkward and "wrong". But it is Very Cool because it will make a most interesting model...you're right, it'll draw attention. "Wow, just look at that butt-ugly airplane!"

--Ray

frank carlisle · « **Reply #26 on:** October 13, 2007, 08:35:00 PM »

YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT RAY----THAT PLANE IS BUTT UGLY.........

minnesotamodeler · « **Reply #27 on:** October 13, 2007, 08:37:39 PM »

...but Very Cool.

frank carlisle · « **Reply #28 on:** October 13, 2007, 08:43:29 PM »

just ugly..................

LARRY RICE · « **Reply #29 on:** October 13, 2007, 10:56:09 PM »

I have received some hard photos of the plane but nothing I can get on this site yet. There is a long list of ugly planes the Stuka tops the list and that Curtiss tailless job or the first vertical take off plane but beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. I find the Polish P-11 beautiful but Walt Musciano thinks that it is stone ugly. Frank likes his Bi-Slob.........I hate it's looks.

Do I appear worried?
Larry

Bill Adair · « **Reply #30 on:** October 13, 2007, 11:43:06 PM »

Larry,

It's unique, and I like it!

If the Skyrocket doesn't appeal to potential customers, hey it's a profile (more room between the props), so it's a natural for kit bashing into something they do like!

How many twin tail, radial engine designs were there?

Bill

Robert McHam · « **Reply #31 on:** October 14, 2007, 12:15:25 AM »

First, I think I need to say that I am not opposed to the use of the word ugly when used to describe this plane nor any other.
I simply prefer not to use the term myself.
In addition to ugly one could also easily use awkward and ungainly. The plane looks as though while being made that the fuselage would not open its mouth while being fed its wing and that was as far as it got! With nowhere else to stick an engine it was decided that it would have to have two, one on each side of the nose. Since the wing didn't make it all the way back to where it should, it was decided that it needed to be shortened to try and balance it. This not being enough to achieve balance it was then decided to make the engines bigger. The side effect from this is that it would be much more powerful. This would not be a problem as such an ugly, ungainly and awkward plane would need to have some other trait to help make it in the world!

Seems plain to say that even being so powerful was not enough Except for the Black Hawk Squadron for they certainly did not choose it for it being ugly, They chose it because it looked extraordinarily powerful. Those big honkin' radials leading to victory!

I bet it would not be hard to turn this plane around and make a pusher! Could it be that when this plane was designed it was meant to be a pusher and some one simply forgot the nosewheel?

Heh! Heh! Yep call it ugly if you will, Larry is right, there are some others out there as well, some did not make it off the drawing board.
Many were made by Blom und Voss! Now that is one outfit who knew how to make an ugly plane!

I don't know what was with Grumman and their design department, but they did not march to the same tune as other airplane mfg.s and that is for sure. The Skyrocket (it's name is probably its finest feature), I feel, takes the cake for Grumman!

Robert

Bill Little · « **Reply #32 on:** October 15, 2007, 10:12:21 AM »

I Like the "uniqueness" of the Skyrocket! But, knowing it was developed as a military aircraft, I cannot conceive the parameters the Govt. set out that would bring Grumman to design the plane the way they did!

Robert McHam · « **Reply #33 on:** October 15, 2007, 03:28:27 PM »

Without doing a little more research on the plane I can only say for now that it was a carrier based plane for the Navy. That is why you mostly see it in Navy colors. The military being what it is, tends to find other uses as well.
As for armament capabilities I do not know. I think it was meant to be a fast fighter though as most of us know single engine planes were more manuverable than twins. Mainly because the twins were so much heavier.

Checking the calender...Is it December yet?

Robert

Robert McHam · « **Reply #34 on:** October 15, 2007, 03:29:49 PM »

Without doing a little more research on the plane I can only say for now that it was to be a carrier based plane for the Navy. That is why you mostly see it in Navy colors. The military being what it is, tends to find other uses as well.
As for armament capabilities I do not know. I think it was meant to be a fast fighter though as most of us know single engine planes were more manuverable than twins. Mainly because the twins were so much heavier.

Checking the calender...Is it December yet?

Robert

Robert McHam · « **Reply #35 on:** November 03, 2007, 10:37:03 PM »

So... Is there any update on this kit?

How about flying reports?

Pics?

Is it December yet?

Robert

LARRY RICE · « **Reply #36 on:** November 04, 2007, 12:25:00 AM »

Last week Frank said he was painting it so I expect that it is in the air by now. Once he is satified he will send me a set of parts then I set up the kit. December looks good.
Larry

Bill Little · « **Reply #37 on:** November 05, 2007, 06:46:55 PM »

So, Fabulous Frank Carlisle is doing the build?

?

Should come out very nice, and maybe not too heavy!

(now, if he could just figure out how to use a syringe.......

)

LARRY RICE · « **Reply #38 on:** November 05, 2007, 08:49:25 PM »

Frank Scott, the designer, is doing the build not Frank Carlisle.
Sorry
Larry

dennis lipsett · « **Reply #39 on:** November 05, 2007, 10:04:20 PM »

Hi Larry,
The F5F is a really good flying plane. I flew an 80 inch version. Hobby Hanger still sells a 60 inch version. That said I have to question the 24 inch W/S. The 1/2A Sterling P-38 was 24 inches with 2 baby bees and was a brick. It really was only capable of limited maneuvering and could have benefited from more wing area. Hal Debolts A-2 had a 26 inch wing and more wing area and still wasn't really good. Of course twin Atwood cadets or wasps wern't world beaters.
Dennis

LARRY RICE · « **Reply #40 on:** November 05, 2007, 11:46:26 PM »

Dennis,
I can not answer your question as the test flying is in progress now in Ohio. I can tell you that the planes that you have mentioned are not in the same class as our Skyrocket that we are making is. I will also say that while this thread is on a site called STUNThanger our interrest is in sport flying and not stunt or competion type models. I have told the designer that I would be happy with loops and inverted flight and that figure eights and squares were of no concern to me.
For more performance I offer the "War Bird" series and the Dick sarpolus series of models that combine light weight and high performance. Well I do not want this to sound like and ad but one of the things that makes us a different company than Brodak, RSM, Richardskits, and so on is that we are not interrested in making competition models.....we make FUN MODELS.
Larry

LARRY RICE · « **Reply #41 on:** December 08, 2007, 08:41:23 PM »

The "Skyrocket" is here. Frank Scott did a WONDERFUL job. I have been gathering info for in the kit and will do the FULL size plans soon. This will be our signature kit...top drawer all the way. Price looks like between $30.00 and $35.00 due to the two cowlings. Wing span 25" area about 120 sq inches, engines two of any .049 and look out it is a SKYROCKET. FLY ON 42' LINES ONLY. All of the parts interlock for better alignment. Sorry no pictures for now but when we are ready you will be the first to know.
Larry

john e. holliday · « **Reply #42 on:** December 09, 2007, 09:49:53 AM »

Larry, I like your idea and statement that the new plane is just for fun that will be capable of loops and such. Seems we have lost the idea that modeling is fun. I just now thought about how many people would show up just to fly and show off their new creations. Seems if I got in three flights back then I was lucky. MERRY CHRISTMAS, DOC Holliday

Robert McHam · « **Reply #43 on:** December 09, 2007, 11:11:34 AM »

I agree on the fun part as well. As adults we seem to try to be competitive in all things.
For instance when a group is asked how good is a Wen Mac or an OK Cub it seems that the first thing they do is tell its not nearly as good as a (insert other band name here) and go on to tell you that it might run but it will never do all you ask it to do.
For many of us when we got our first engine it too was not one we chose but we still had an engine and wanted to get it into the air on some kind of plane! At that point The question was not if we had the best engine or how to get rid of the one we had so that we could upgrade to something better, we just wanted to know what else we needed to get airborne.
I need to make a plane.
I need a control handle and lines.
What I need are some of those connector thingies to attach to the plane.
Oops! I almost forgot engine mounting screws!

Later we grew more concerned about getting the "good" stuff in modeling. but those flights were lots of fun and John, you are so right about showing off the new project. At that point it is more important to say "Look what I got" than "see how good I can fly it"

Doing a decent job of building and finishing a plane is just as important as anything else unless you are a rank beginner. I always try to stress that looks are last place to learning how to fly.

I sometimes ramble too much, Robert

LARRY RICE · « **Reply #44 on:** December 28, 2007, 07:39:40 AM »

Robert,
Let me know when you receive the Skyrocket and what you think of it....Please

Larry

Robert McHam · « **Reply #45 on:** December 30, 2007, 11:42:53 AM »

So far not here yet but I am sure that the quality will be just fine.
So far I only have one of your kits. It is the Golden Hawk and as I have stated in the past, the quality of the kit is far better than the old Scientific offerings. The wood quality was the biggest surprise. While not contest balsa (which would not be a great choice for this type of plane) it is straight and indeed much lighter. To me this means less effort to sand and to scoop.

I will keep my eyes peeled and let you know.

Robert

Robert McHam · « **Reply #46 on:** December 31, 2007, 08:16:08 PM »

It is here! Thanks! Happy new year!

The kit is everything I expected when I opened it.

Larry, I hope you sell a ton of these things.

The more I look at it the more I want to make one change to it. I know it is just me but I do so want to make the nacelles in full instead of profile. Not that I think it is a problem with the kit mind you, just that I can just see the whole nacelle in my mind. I just may have to build a second one and do just that.

Thanks again Larry, Robert

LARRY RICE · « **Reply #47 on:** December 31, 2007, 08:41:10 PM »

Online

Posts: 356

Re: 1/2a name that plane contest
« Reply #46 on: December 31, 2007, 08:16:08 PM » Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is here! Thanks! Happy new year!

The kit is everything I expected when I opened it.

Larry, I hope you sell a ton of these things.

The more I look at it the more I want to make one change to it. I know it is just me but I do so want to make the nacelles in full instead of profile. Not that I think it is a problem with the kit mind you, just that I can just see the whole nacelle in my mind. I just may have to build a second one and do just that.

Thanks again Larry, Robert

I am glad that you like it. Were the plans clear enough? Did you enjoy the Blackhawk comic booklet? How do you feel about interlocking parts? I know that I am asking you a lot but you have the first and while I enjoyed making the kit I would love some more input.
As to the thicker nacelles, why not the fuselage too. The trouble is that as you add more weight you trade off performance. The most I might consider, if I were building it, would be 1/2" Nacelles and Fuselage....but I would not expect much in performance.
Larry

Robert McHam · « **Reply #48 on:** December 31, 2007, 09:48:28 PM »

I like interlock!

As for the Nacelles, Its this thing I've got called "sometimes can't leave well enough alone"! The model is fine as is so far. As for the above affliction the nacelles are all that I want to modify. Therefore the affliction speaks for itself. I should as well want to make a more full fuse as you suggest, you know, to "round" things out so to speak.
As for how I would do it is to build them as is then add some one pound foam to each side then sand to contour then cover in used dryer sheets and apply a thin coat of epoxy. Or I could really complicate things by molding the things... These models do not deserve all this... We should K.I.S.S. them (keep it simple stupid). As I have already stated the model is just fine as is.

If I really want to do so much more I should design a non profile version instead of mucking up someone elses fine work!

I'll be OK...Will there be an intervention in my near future???

For the moment I need to focus on more pressing matters that outweigh modeling for now.

Robert

Robert McHam · « **Reply #49 on:** January 01, 2008, 09:50:29 AM »

Ok, I got to look more closely at things and I still am quite satisfied with the wood stock and materials. The hardware is quite extensive and everything one could possibly need to complete the model is provided aside from the leadout wire.
One thing I have not been able to locate however are the set screws for the wheel retaining collars. The wrench to tighten them is there but no set screws.

There is one minor error in the instructions. I do not want to seem overly critical but I do assume you want as much feedback as possible.
In step six (6) the instructions tell you to glue the elevator to the fuselage.
I know that it should read "glue the stabilizer to the fuselage" or possibly the use of the term 'Stabilizer/elevator assembly'

Also I do like the wheel collars but have you considered the lighter, more simple wheel retainers like Sig sells? Sig part number SIGSH121

Robert

LARRY RICE · « **Reply #50 on:** January 01, 2008, 10:02:32 AM »

Online

Posts: 358

Re: 1/2a name that plane contest
« Reply #49 on: January 01, 2008, 09:50:29 AM » Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, I got to look more closely at things and I still am quite satisfied with the wood stock and materials. The hardware is quite extensive and everything one could possibly need to complete the model is provided aside from the leadout wire.
One thing I have not been able to locate however are the set screws for the wheel retaining collars. The wrench to tighten them is there but no set screws.

There is one minor error in the instructions. I do not want to seem overly critical but I do assume you want as much feedback as possible.
In step six (6) the instructions tell you to glue the elevator to the fuselage.
I know that it should read "glue the stabilizer to the fuselage" or possibly the use of the term 'Stabilizer/elevator assembly'

Also I do like the wheel collars but have you considered the lighter, more simple wheel retainers like Sig sells? Sig part number SIGSH121

Robert

First the set screws, if no one screwed up, they should be in the wheel collars. The leadout wires should be taped to the landing gear card with the push rod. If any of these things are not there I will mail them to you.
The wheel retainers from Sig along with smaller liter wheels go into our less expensive kits and our free flight kits; "Pee Wee Pup" and "Nomad". I feel that the wheel collars are a nicer touch.
I will look into that error and change it on the next printing.
You are right I do want to know if there is anything else that I can do to make this a great kit.
Thank you
Larry

Robert McHam · « **Reply #51 on:** January 02, 2008, 07:35:48 PM »

The set screws are in the collars, Larry. Tiny lil buggers are really hard to see while the collars are in the bag (I didn't want to open the bag just yet) and the leadouts are there also. An oversight on my part and I am very sorry I stated they were not. Please forgive.

Few kit mfg.s offer hardware as complete as this! Especially these days!

I also want to mention the accuracy of the wood parts which are cut out and not die cut. Not a worry if the sheets are crunched, for there are no sheets (for those who have never seen the inside of one of Blackhawk Models' kits)!!! Eache part such as the individual rudders, vertical fins, wingtips. stab, and elevator etc. is machine cut to shape and is exactly like its partner such as with the twin fins and rudders. To be of higher quality they would have to be sanded and covered but then it would cease to be a kit and be an ARF.

Once again, the quality and completeness of this kit could not be better.

Robert

George · « **Reply #52 on:** January 17, 2008, 10:23:13 AM »

Quote from: LARRY RICE on October 13, 2007, 10:56:09 PM

...or the first vertical take off plane but beauty is in the eyes of the beholder... Larry

Got to wondering if the XFV-1 or the XFY-1 came first. Found that BOTH were named "Pogo". An XFY-1 came out as a plastic RTF in the early/mid fifties. Don't know how well it flew.

Here's some info from online:
Two companies, Lockheed and Convair were chosen to provide prototypes. Both airframes used an experimental turboprop engine and both were designed to be tail sitters. On 31 March 1951 a Navy program for development of a propeller-driven vertical takeoff fighter was initiated with issuance of a contract to Convair for the XFY-1. A somewhat similar aircraft, the XFO-1 (later redesignated XFV-1), was ordered from Lockheed three weeks later as an alternate solution to the design problems. The Convair aircraft was unofficially--and probably inevitably--dubbed the Pogostick. Lockheed’s own VTOL never received an official nickname but, oddly enough, both aircraft soon came to be known interchangeably as Pogo, by public and insiders alike.

George