Author Topic: Golden Hawk (Read 2445 times)

Wayne Collier · « **on:** April 20, 2007, 12:44:57 AM »

It came in the mail today.

LARRY RICE · « **Reply #1 on:** April 21, 2007, 07:31:40 AM »

OK? Hoe about some text......for or againest.
Larry

George · « **Reply #2 on:** April 21, 2007, 08:14:09 AM »

That's a great looking kit. Love them pilots!

BTW, has anyone spoken with Walt since that last big storm? Lodi, NJ had a lot of flooding.

George

Wayne Collier · « **Reply #3 on:** April 21, 2007, 07:16:12 PM »

I like the kit. I've been wanting one for a long time. I've got a thirty year old Cox engine eager to pull it around. Even so, with other things to do and get done it'll probably be a while before I get started on it. I am impressed with the the fact that the plane could be built and flown in short order strait out of the box. I intend to go a little slower with some attention to details that are important to me. This brings up the question of glue. I tend to mostly use thick CA and 5 minute epoxy. Any suggestions on whether these are ok especially for joining the wing parts to each other and to the fuselage? I'm thinking epoxy to attach the fire wall, but will CA be ok for building and attaching the wing?

Bill Little · « **Reply #4 on:** April 21, 2007, 08:43:57 PM »

Quote from: Wayne Collier on April 21, 2007, 07:16:12 PM

I like the kit. I've been wanting one for a long time. I've got a thirty year old Cox engine eager to pull it around. Even so, with other things to do and get done it'll probably be a while before I get started on it. I am impressed with the the fact that the plane could be built and flown in short order strait out of the box. I intend to go a little slower with some attention to details that are important to me. This brings up the question of glue. I tend to mostly use thick CA and 5 minute epoxy. Any suggestions on whether these are ok especially for joining the wing parts to each other and to the fuselage? I'm thinking epoxy to attach the fire wall, but will CA be ok for building and attaching the wing?

Hi Wayne,

You can definitely use the thick CA for attching everything. I like the epoxy for the firewall, too.

Go inside that "log" and take out all you feel safe in doing, especially behind the wing. A lot of weight can be taken out of there. Larry really doesn't get the credit he deserves for bringing the "hollow logs" back to us! They might not be capable of a 500 point pattern, but they are just plain FUN! A sunny day, a battery and some fuel..... I'm 13 all over again! An besides, there aren't too many other kits out there that can take an "old man" back to his youth....

Bill <><

LARRY RICE · « **Reply #5 on:** April 23, 2007, 07:05:24 AM »

Thanks Bill!
You have an old Cox engine and a Golden Hawk kit.......Why not use Testers Cement and Aerogloss. Get the whole experience. Sure CA works ....it is just not the same. When you fly.... a Sig handle and string?
If you hollow more wood out remember to balance the model.
Larry

Bill Little · « **Reply #6 on:** April 23, 2007, 07:49:06 AM »

Quote from: LARRY RICE on April 23, 2007, 07:05:24 AM

Thanks Bill!
You have an old Cox engine and a Golden Hawk kit.......Why not use Testers Cement and Aerogloss. Get the whole experience. Sure CA works ....it is just not the same. When you fly.... a Sig handle and string?
If you hollow more wood out remember to balance the model.
Larry

Hi Larry,

I have recently built (almost finished!) a couple of 1/2 A models. I used Ambroid, Duco and Elmer's (except I did use epoxy for the plywood). But, as to the Aerogloss, I can no longer find it............ I used to use Aerogloss and Testors exclusively! I always like the original Aerogloss from the '60s, it seemed to really bond well.

I have the old "Perfect", Comet, Sig, and some other vintage 1/2A handles.

Bill <><

George · « **Reply #7 on:** April 23, 2007, 11:28:06 AM »

Aerogloss is still around but I think it only comes in little bitty bottles (3.5 oz. jars). Aerogloss cement was pretty good too, as was that plastic balsa stuff that was used for fillets.

If you use old plans, be careful of balance. Some of the originals were designed for tankless engines, like the OK Cub. Those kits also used 3/16" or 1/4" thick wings. When those planes were redesigned (late 60's?) they were shortened for engines with tanks (Babe Bee and Cub .049A mostly), and fitted with thinner (1/8" thick?) wings.

Kits are easier!

George

LARRY RICE · « **Reply #8 on:** April 23, 2007, 05:56:15 PM »

George,
At Black Hawk Models we are aware of the design changes that Scientific Models went through and we are careful when we release a kit to make it so that tank mounted engines may be used. The Golden Hawk that we are talking about in this thread is one of Black Hawk Models kits.
WWW.BLACKHAWKMODELS.COM
Larry

Paul Smith · « **Reply #9 on:** May 31, 2007, 06:29:54 AM »

I have two very successful 'Hawks.

Both are built very light and both do the complete "Musicano pattern".

I strongly suggest making a plywood or circuit board 3" bellcrank. Also, double-shear mounted, like a real stunter.
I know it looks dorky, but it sure gives good stability and manouverability.

The plane in the pitcher has a Cox product engine and Perfect 3/4 oz tank glued inside, in the traditional way.

Bob Zambelli · « **Reply #10 on:** May 31, 2007, 09:28:11 AM »

I really enjoy building the Musciano designs and I have attended some of the NVCL events.

The Golden Hawk will be my next model, powered by my trusty OK .049.

It should be ready for the 2007 NVCL event.

These fellows put on a fine event and it's always good to see them and do some friendly competing.

Bob Z.

don Burke · « **Reply #11 on:** May 31, 2007, 08:03:48 PM »

"Aerogloss is still around but I think it only comes in little bitty bottles (3.5 oz. jars)."

It is definitely not the old stuff. Reformulation for 'low VOC' has essentially ruined it.

The last new Aerogloss I used turned out to be nothing but, Cr**. I repaired a 1960s team racer since it was originally done with Aerogloss. The new stuff cracked after a couple of months. It still looks lousy. On another airplane I did in the same time period it got a white chalk on the gloss black and also cracked. I ended up touching it up and spraying on a Lusterkote clear coat. That seems to have been OK.

I did a couple of free flights, jap tissue and Aerogloss. The stuff didn't shrink right and never got a gloss even after 10 thin coats. NOT good stuff!

Wayne Collier · « **Reply #12 on:** June 01, 2007, 05:12:02 PM »

I'm painting my golden hawk this weekend. I like to let the paint harden a couple of weeks before flying so it'll be at least that long before I make an attempt at flying it. I'll be using my "favorite" reedy. It is a product engine from the mid to late seventies mounted on a golden bee tank. Internally the cylinder appears very similar, maybe identical, to the number four cylinder on my TD .049. It does have sub piston induction. Externally the cylinder is ground to accept a throttle ring but I seldom use one. I'm currently using a TD glow head. I would appreciate advice on prop and on line length. fuel is 15% nitro and 18% oil (part castor)

Paul Smith · « **Reply #13 on:** June 03, 2007, 09:14:56 AM »

Standard Musciano Rules specify 35' lines (at least for Speed and Racing). They worked OK for me and everybody else with a healthy engine.

The "minimum allowable" .008" 7-strand is the "almost universal" line of choice for those who hope to win, but .012" stranded or dacron will do for sport flying.

I think you could get by with longer or shorter lines in Stunt or for making a token flight for the Beauty Contest.

Some of the highly finished Beauty entried would have been better off on shorter lines. Likewise, my 'Hawk might have stunted better on 42's, but I never tested the theory.

The old Cox 5x3 in soft black plastic is a nice prop if you can get it.