Has anyone built a half A Cessna Skymaster?
Seems there was a kit for C/L years ago but I never saw one myself. Come to think of it I don't know of a R/C version for this engine class.

Sure is a pretty plane!

Robert

Larry, Now that you mention it I do recall such plane but have yet to be closer than a small picture of one.

I am giving some thought to possibly making one myself... The plane is just such a cool plane. Probably the best way to have a twin for C/L flying!

I have only found a small 3-view so far. Rather undesirable as it does not show the fuse in profile. It is obscured by the boom. Still it would be rather close.
 The range of color shemes is widely varied when one takes into account both civilian and military uses.

I think I would want a sport plane capable of at least some decent inside and outside loops, nothing truly fancy, yet something that would be fun to fly again and again. Not just once an outing like so many scale planes.

Hey! An .020 version as well?

Robert

One problem is that most of these engines don't like to be run as puhers.

Sure, they can run backwards, but the bearings are set up for FORWARD thrust.   Don't expect long life if you run a typical plain bearing 1/2A as a pusher.

The washer may also be steel, and I bet teflon would work too!

Norvel and ap Wasp engines already have a washer, as does the Tee Dee .049/051.  Killer Bee and Venom engines have a washer too, as all these engines were often expected to be started with an electric starter.

Thanks George!

So far as I know there is nothing written that the rear engine must be used in the model. However I will probably use the best configuration for flying. That is a ways away from now however.

The first write up I remember seeing was in a model magazine or Flying... I don't think it was designed speciffically to be flown on just one engine, using the second engine only for take off... I guess it was how you perceived the information printed. What I remember reading was that once altitude was reached, one engine COULD be shut down for fuel economy. Not being a pilot I have no idea what the actual general practice with a full size... I suppose I could ride out to the airport and talk to some of the pilots there. We have a really cool little airport here!

As for which engine was shut down I seem to remember it was the front engine. I would not bet my dog on it though!

More to research!

Robert

<Snip>
Re-think that process, George. If the front engine is running the usual Counter-Clockwise direction, and the rear engine is running in "reverse" (i.e., Clockwise) then you have the doubled torque reaction you mentioned. As you said in a following statement, I would prefer the pusher prop, too.

Hi Ralph,

 ?... I thought that is what I said. I was referencing the idea that the reedies can run backward (CW) without modification using a standard prop installed backward, but it probably would be better to run it CCW with a pusher prop.

George

A possibility for this model could be an operating engine in front, dummie free wheeling prop in the back.  Would make designing and engine starting a lot easier.  As far as the real ones go, the first (called 336's) were fixed gear.  The idea of two inline engines was to make it easier (ergo safer) to fly if one engine failed in flight.  With counter-rotating props and inline thrust there was no yaw should this occur.  Many served (the 337 version) as O-2 spotter planes during the Viet-Nam war. 

 Shutting one down to conserve fuel would not have been a good idea, to keep any sort of speed the remaining engine would have to be run at a high power setting, increasing both fuel consumption and wear and tear on the engine.   It is interesting to note that Cessna had to mandate a warning should the rear engine go out, the reason being too many pilots were attempting to take off after their rear engine quit unnoticed (usually after the run-up).  This often led to very short flights or quick trips through the airport fence (ouch!)  An interesting airplane and would make a great model. 

I would be interested in such a plan!

Robert

Im have looked at that version a few times and in fact it stirred my interest! I do feel it could be made C/L . As a matter of fact this is an updated version (the brushless motors)  from an earlier version that had brushed motors and just before this one was offered, the earlier version went on clearance and sold for as little as $49.95!!! Including those wiggely stick thingies! I cannot tell you how tempted I was to get one then but I was financially strapped then (like most of the time) and had to pass...

I look forward to your efforts.

Robert