News:



  • March 28, 2024, 11:40:03 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Cox Pitts Question for Larry Renger  (Read 2387 times)

Offline Bruce Shipp

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 240
Cox Pitts Question for Larry Renger
« on: October 31, 2020, 10:17:23 PM »
Hi Larry,

It looks like the first Cox Pitts was the red and white Lil Stinker that started about 1958.  I’ve seen other variants, including the Art Scholls Pitts, green Pitts, Red Baron Pitts, and ending with the 50th anniversary Gold Pitts.

Are there any differences in the construction of the various models or are they structurally the same?  If there are differences, is ther a preferred version? 

Thanks,

Bruce

Offline Larry Renger

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 3995
Re: Cox Pitts Question for Larry Renger
« Reply #1 on: November 01, 2020, 06:03:20 AM »
I can’t say for sure, but there probably were no significant structural changes, only cosmetic. It is really expensive to modify hard steel tooling! 
Think S.M.A.L.L. y'all and, it's all good, CL, FF and RC!

DesignMan
 BTW, Dracula Sucks!  A closed mouth gathers no feet!

Offline Bruce Shipp

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 240
Re: Cox Pitts Question for Larry Renger
« Reply #2 on: November 03, 2020, 06:14:07 PM »
Thanks, Larry.  Sounds like parts from different versions will fit together if I tried to piece one together. 

Offline Paul Smith

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 5793
Re: Cox Pitts Question for Larry Renger
« Reply #3 on: November 20, 2020, 07:57:30 PM »
There were significant changes to the fuselage, engine mount, and landing gear when they went from the inverted to the vertical engine mount. 

More than you might think if you didn't compare them side by side.
Paul Smith

Offline Larry Renger

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 3995
Re: Cox Pitts Question for Larry Renger
« Reply #4 on: November 21, 2020, 08:53:58 AM »
See, I don’t know everything! Thanks.  H^^
Think S.M.A.L.L. y'all and, it's all good, CL, FF and RC!

DesignMan
 BTW, Dracula Sucks!  A closed mouth gathers no feet!

Offline wwwarbird

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 7961
  • Welcome to the Stunt Hanger.
Re: Cox Pitts Question for Larry Renger
« Reply #5 on: November 26, 2020, 10:25:02 PM »

 I've often wondered if the Cox Pitts actually flies.  ;)
Narrowly averting disaster since 1964! 

Wayne Willey
Albert Lea, MN U.S.A. IC C/L Aircraft Modeler, Ex AMA member

Offline john e. holliday

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 22752
Re: Cox Pitts Question for Larry Renger
« Reply #6 on: November 26, 2020, 10:31:54 PM »
I watched a young man fly his at our RC fun fly during lunch break many years ago.   He made it look easy with take off, level laps and landing. It was on 20 foot dacron lines also.  D>K
John E. "DOC" Holliday
10421 West 56th Terrace
Shawnee, KANSAS  66203
AMA 23530  Have fun as I have and I am still breaking a record.

Offline Bruce Shipp

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 240
Re: Cox Pitts Question for Larry Renger
« Reply #7 on: January 07, 2021, 06:26:09 AM »
I finally had a Cox Pitts in my hands for the first time yesterday. It was the Red Baron version with the upright engine.  I knew it was small but not Peanut scale small.  I was quite smitten! 

Larry, how involved were you with the design and production of the Pitts?

Offline Larry Renger

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 3995
Re: Cox Pitts Question for Larry Renger
« Reply #8 on: January 07, 2021, 11:57:02 AM »
Way before my time at Cox.

Excellent flyer, it will do loops with ease.
Think S.M.A.L.L. y'all and, it's all good, CL, FF and RC!

DesignMan
 BTW, Dracula Sucks!  A closed mouth gathers no feet!

Offline De Hill

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1197
Re: Cox Pitts Question for Larry Renger
« Reply #9 on: January 07, 2021, 02:39:25 PM »
I have one hanging on the wall. It is missing one wheel and the canopy. I haven't been able to find these parts.

This is the upright engine and red and white striped wing version. (Betty Skelton?)
De Hill

Online Dan McEntee

  • 23 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6824
Re: Cox Pitts Question for Larry Renger
« Reply #10 on: January 07, 2021, 05:12:45 PM »
I have one hanging on the wall. It is missing one wheel and the canopy. I haven't been able to find these parts.

This is the upright engine and red and white striped wing version. (Betty Skelton?)

   Hi De;
   If it has red and white striped wings, that is the Art Scholl Pitts and it's pretty rare.  Does it have Penzoil decals on the side of the fuselage? You should try to find a wheel and a canopy for it. My Scholl Pitts has white wheels, and a tinted canopy. There is an eBay seller offering repro canopies at 20 bucks, which may sound pricey but at least they are available, and some one that is good with the soft ware and a 3D printer could make you a wheel. Another vendor has replica paper decals also.
    The Betty Skelton Pitts, 'Lil Stinker, came in tow versions. One with white wings and red fuselage, and white fuselage and red wings. Repro decals are available for those also.
   Type at you later,
   Dan McEntee
  Type at you later
AMA 28784
EAA  1038824
AMA 480405 (American Motorcyclist Association)

Offline De Hill

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1197
Re: Cox Pitts Question for Larry Renger
« Reply #11 on: January 07, 2021, 07:47:29 PM »
Mine  has an upright engine with a white fuselage with red trim and red and white striped wings. It has been crashed put presents pretty well. It has the decals but they are fuel damaged on the inboard side of the fuselage.
De Hill

Online Dan McEntee

  • 23 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6824
Re: Cox Pitts Question for Larry Renger
« Reply #12 on: January 07, 2021, 09:29:19 PM »
  Yeah, that's probably what it is. Google Art Scholl Pitts Special and some images should come up of both the model and the actual airplane. There was mention of it on the main forum a while back when some EAA Sport Aviation magazine featured a Pitts Special someone had built and finished like the Cox model, Cox decals and all! It's worth fixing up even as a hanger queen!! That is what mine is. I have another one that I plan to fly. 
   Type at you later,
    Dan McEntee
AMA 28784
EAA  1038824
AMA 480405 (American Motorcyclist Association)

Offline Bruce Shipp

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 240
Re: Cox Pitts Question for Larry Renger
« Reply #13 on: January 08, 2021, 01:40:45 AM »
Thanks, Larry.  Looking at the Cox Pitts this week left me with several questions about the design philosophy behind the plane. I was curious about several characteristics of the planes.  Maybe you know the background or not...

Why was it built around the .020 and not the .049? It would seem with the flying qualities of the larger PT-19 and the .049 powered mustangs would have led to a larger Pitts. 

What is the background on the bellcrank design?  It appears the rear line attach point is close to the aft end of the bell crank, but the forward arm of the bellcrank appears to be longer than necessary.  The arm that exits the fuse hooks back to the rear of the airplane 1/4 to 3/8 of an inch.  I found that interesting.  Where there design issues that drove an asymmetric bellcrank?

I still hope to find a way to 3D print one of these and fly the crap out of it.

Thnks

Offline Larry Renger

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 3995
Re: Cox Pitts Question for Larry Renger
« Reply #14 on: January 08, 2021, 08:27:24 AM »
Without taking my Pitts apart, I can’t see the asymmetry you are talking about. And I sure am not going to tear apart a virgin Scholl Pitts!

As I said above, it was designed way before my time at Cox, so I have no idea what made the decisions necessary.
Think S.M.A.L.L. y'all and, it's all good, CL, FF and RC!

DesignMan
 BTW, Dracula Sucks!  A closed mouth gathers no feet!

Offline Bruce Shipp

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 240
Re: Cox Pitts Question for Larry Renger
« Reply #15 on: January 08, 2021, 10:10:58 AM »
Thanks, Larry.  It was just something that made me go hmmm...

Offline Larry Renger

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 3995
Re: Cox Pitts Question for Larry Renger
« Reply #16 on: February 24, 2021, 09:30:11 PM »
Sorry, I guess I didn’t quite understand the question.

The hook on the back of the bellcrank was a way to have a stooge. You tried a length of line to a brick. A loop on one the end of the line went over the hook. When you kicked in down control, the side of the fuselage pushed the loop off and away you went.
Think S.M.A.L.L. y'all and, it's all good, CL, FF and RC!

DesignMan
 BTW, Dracula Sucks!  A closed mouth gathers no feet!

Offline Ara Dedekian

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 488
  • Ara Dedekian
Re: Cox Pitts Question for Larry Renger
« Reply #17 on: February 25, 2021, 08:51:45 AM »
I've often wondered if the Cox Pitts actually flies.  ;)

        I flew my Lil' Stinker 'round-the-pole' (a lally column) in my parents basement and in the back yard on really short lines. It flew both ways.

        Ara

Offline Paul Smith

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 5793
Re: Cox Pitts Question for Larry Renger
« Reply #18 on: February 27, 2021, 11:07:49 AM »
Thanks, Larry.  Looking at the Cox Pitts this week left me with several questions about the design philosophy behind the plane. I was curious about several characteristics of the planes.  Maybe you know the background or not...

Why was it built around the .020 and not the .049? It would seem with the flying qualities of the larger PT-19 and the .049 powered mustangs would have led to a larger Pitts. 

What is the background on the bellcrank design?  It appears the rear line attach point is close to the aft end of the bell crank, but the forward arm of the bellcrank appears to be longer than necessary.  The arm that exits the fuse hooks back to the rear of the airplane 1/4 to 3/8 of an inch.  I found that interesting.  Where there design issues that drove an asymmetric bellcrank?

I still hope to find a way to 3D print one of these and fly the crap out of it.

Thnks

My theory is that Cox was proud of his new PeeWee 020 and wanted to to get into use, hence the F-100 Sabre and Pitt Special were built in the 020 size.  Maybe he thought that some parents might judge the 049 to be too big for their kids and that the 020 would be better.

My first flying model was a first edition Little Stinker priced at $7.95.  The original engine was not so good, but I was able to get to fly quite well with a PeeWee off a card.

Paul Smith


Advertise Here
Tags:
 


Advertise Here