Author Topic: QUEEN BEE FLIGHT REPORT (Phase II) (Read 6762 times)

minnesotamodeler · « **on:** April 14, 2007, 02:31:17 PM »

See the last "reply" for news.

I did it! Got my Queen Bee airborne in my back yard, 15' lines, just barely fits between the garage, 2 trees and a lilac thicket. (Not quite, as it turns out.)

GOOD NEWS: It flies, and flies well. Pretty stable, and cute in the air.

BAD NEWS: I must report it is GROSSLY OVERPOWERED with the .020...I think the PeeWee .020 could fly the 1/2A Snapper with no problem. On the tiny Queen Bee, .010 would probably even be too much. Does anyone make a .005?

The controls are GROSSLY OVERSENSITIVE...it could do with half, or less, elevator.

I used my picnic table for a takeoff deck, worried if it was long enough...HAH! I might have used 2 feet of it, probably not that much. FAST, well, you can imagine, on 15' lines. It was subjectively WAY quicker than the fastest combat wing I ever flew...maybe 1-sec. laps!

First flight only lasted about 10 sec., then engine quit (thank goodness). Second flight, I started stunting in self-defense. First loop nearly stalled it out of the air--that's when I found the controls were a bit on the sensitive side. Second loop looked much better, flew through it at full speed; next I WAS gonna do a lazy eight but when I pulled up into the inside part I clipped a tree branch at the top...the rest is history, and three distinct pieces.

This thing is more fun than oughtta be legal! I'm gluing it back together...but already planning a home-design for the .020, much larger, less fragile (weight was certainly no problem!)--with a more conventional nose and MM that will make it much easier to fuel, needle, etc.--the Queen Bee is entirely too cramped at the front for comfort.

Come to think of it, you could probably double the size of the Queen Bee and still be flyable with an .020. Hmmmmm..."King Bee"?

Also, I've been running some engines in, in my back yard. Two of my Cox production engines, in particular, seem to have some pretty severe vibration. The harmonics one of them set up made the props on the other engines (bolted to the same boardI) " blur", they shook so badly (these engines were not running). I changed props thinking that must be it; it wasn't. Anyone else experiencing this? I'm afraid this will shake a plane apart. Bummer...Before you ask, yes, I have reset the piston/rod ball joints.

--Ray

dennis lipsett · « **Reply #1 on:** April 14, 2007, 03:18:43 PM »

Ray, Hopefully you did put the prop on backwards to fly that little sucker, didn't you? Also the old Cox white plastic props were the ones to use for flying. They were a fat blades that held down the rpm, but thrust was good. They show up on the bay frequently at a reasonable price, usually a dozen at a time. If you used the Cox grey props you would or should have been drilled right into the ground and you could have made a competition F/F guy happy by selling him the prop.
All bipes are pretty maneuverable, smaller short coupled ones can really do tight turns. By all means reduce the elevator throw and perhaps add a little weight to the front to slow down the response. thats the trouble with getting older we forget that we can't keep up with these little 'toy' planes like we used to, thats why 5.3 second laps are so favored in P/A . You don'treally buy the adage that it presents the plane better at that speed do you?

frank carlisle · « **Reply #2 on:** April 14, 2007, 03:51:10 PM »

Clipped a tree!!! Now that's the sign of a mature and seasoned pilot.

What prop did you have on it? Did you put it in backwards? What length lines do you think you'll try next?

Clancy Arnold · « **Reply #3 on:** April 14, 2007, 08:24:56 PM »

Ray
I have NO pity for you. I TOLD YOU SO. LOL

Remember the first flight report on my IBTW Barnstormer I warned everyone about using 15 foot lines on these Pee Wee 020 planes.

Now you know what it felt like for me.

Glad someone else is getting their 020's flying. Where are the rest of flight reports?

Clancy

minnesotamodeler · « **Reply #4 on:** April 15, 2007, 05:58:11 AM »

Yup, Clancy, I freely admit, you told me so...I was kind of expecting something like this, or it would have been even worse. No, I didn't have the prop on backwards; a rather serious oversight. I was using an APC 4.2x2; also have a black Thimbledrome (Cox) 4.5x2, and a 4x 2.5.

Concerning the tree, Frank, what it's a sign of is a "mature and seasoned" tree! When measuring out a circle, one should always look UP as well as checking clearance at ground (or eye-) level...a little more overhang in that branch than I realized. Also, these little planes are fragile; it didn't take much of a clip to break it up. But I did hit bare branches, not just leaves... no leaves here as yet, still melting the last of the snow. And you know me, Frank, I'm gonna try the 15' lines again, with a reversed prop. I think if I move about 2 feet further to the west...

Dennis, I may add a a little nose weight just in reinforcing the breaks, but the CG is really just about right, it grooves well for all its sensitivity. I am gonna cut down the elevator travel, probably use a taller horn, maybe limit the BC travel. I'm using about 2" line spacing at the handle.

The other thing: I'm only getting about 1-minute runs out of that tiny tank, admittedly I'm not running fully leaned out but still... by the time you get the battery off, tweak the needle a little, set the plane in the stooge and get out to the handle, you're left with maybe 30 seconds or so of flight time. 'Course that amounts to 20-30 laps with these short lines, so it's enough for now! But it does need a bigger tank. Must be some way of adding an auxiliary.

No comments on the production engine shakes?

--Ray

Wayne Collier · « **Reply #5 on:** April 15, 2007, 06:30:00 AM »

Vibration often is but does not have to be balance related. I've seen some engines go from wild to smooth just by turning the needle a little. Maybe they were turning an rpm that magnified a balance problem? If you haven't already done so, try reorienting the prop in relation to the piston. Some internal balance problems can be compensated for by making sure that the prop is in line with the crank pin. Also, were you leaned out properly? I suspect that many cox engines may shake like an old washing machine if they are tending to four stroke. Make sure you lean enough to be in solid two stroke mode. Just some observations and comments--I realize that you may be a far better engine guy than me. Always possible that there is some machining error in that particular engine. If the crankshaft is loose in the bearing surface it may be trying to bounce as well as rotate.

ken cook · « **Reply #6 on:** April 15, 2007, 06:45:36 AM »

Ray, I was given a copy of the prints of the Queen Bee a few years ago. I was asking one of our club members if he had any plans for a .020. He showed up with the Queen Bee the next week. I got right to it cutting all parts. I built the wings, assembled the stab, and cut the fuse. The problem I discovered was the assembly of the wing to wing using the strut wire depicted. I only have a poor xerox copy of it anyhow. It looks as though the strut just pierces through the ribs. Is this how its supposed to be? My picture only shows the leadout side of the fuse. The bellcrank appears to mount to the triangular gussets. It doesn't show how its connected. I'm sure its not difficult to figure out. Its just when I started to drill for the bellcrank screw, I had barely enough room for the nut. It was right against the fuse. I had the bellcrank centered in the fuse slot. It seemed as if I needed to move my bellcrank forward . I scrapped that fuse. I'm just real excited on finishing this plane. Thanks , Ken Cook

LARRY RICE · « **Reply #7 on:** April 15, 2007, 08:50:15 AM »

I added a tank to a PeeWee .020 once. I drilled a hole in the Cox tank and ran a fuel to the aux. tank. It works, just keep the tank close.
As to the vibration.......NO-ONE LISTENS

Estes C--p! Go fishing then get a COX engine!
Larry

minnesotamodeler · « **Reply #8 on:** April 15, 2007, 11:54:54 AM »

Quote from: ken cook on April 15, 2007, 06:45:36 AM

Ray, I was given a copy of the prints of the Queen Bee a few years ago. I was asking one of our club members if he had any plans for a .020. He showed up with the Queen Bee the next week. I got right to it cutting all parts. I built the wings, assembled the stab, and cut the fuse. The problem I discovered was the assembly of the wing to wing using the strut wire depicted. I only have a poor xerox copy of it anyhow. It looks as though the strut just pierces through the ribs. Is this how its supposed to be? My picture only shows the leadout side of the fuse. The bellcrank appears to mount to the triangular gussets. It doesn't show how its connected. I'm sure its not difficult to figure out. Its just when I started to drill for the bellcrank screw, I had barely enough room for the nut. It was right against the fuse. I had the bellcrank centered in the fuse slot. It seemed as if I needed to move my bellcrank forward . I scrapped that fuse. I'm just real excited on finishing this plane. Thanks , Ken Cook

Several things are kinda odd about this little jobby--you've named two of them! Yes, the strut wires are intended to pierce the end ribs from top to bottom; kinda difficult to say the least. One buiilder, I think it was Frank Carlisle, glued doublers on the end ribs and sandwiched the wire between.

The bellcrank, well, I used a dowel made from a bamboo sish-kabob (sp) skewer instead of a bolt, and glued it to the triangular gussets. The dowel is flush against the fuselage. Bellcrank is indeed centered in the slot.

The design calls for no leadouts; just flying lines attached directly to the BC, both running through the same guide (loop in the wire strut). That's something else I think I'll change in my rebuild.

The plans call for no landing gear; I bent some light gear out of about .03 wire and clamped it behind the engine; used lightweight Indoor wheels.

I got some pictures; I'll dig 'em out, but if you can find the original Queen Bee building thread on this forum you'll get reams more information on it.

--Ray

minnesotamodeler · « **Reply #9 on:** April 15, 2007, 12:10:06 PM »

Quote from: LARRY RICE on April 15, 2007, 08:50:15 AM

I added a tank to a PeeWee .020 once. I drilled a hole in the Cox tank and ran a fuel to the aux. tank. It works, just keep the tank close.
As to the vibration.......NO-ONE LISTENS
Estes C--p! Go fishing then get a COX engine!
Larry

Larry, I thought about that but don't really want to ruin a Peewee tank...on my Black Widow I bent an angle into the end of one of the vents and ran a line from it to the pickup nipple; then hooked an outside tank to the outside vent. That worked (works) really well, I can even run bladder pressure through it and get extra steady runs. But the Peewee tank of course doesn't have extended vents inside. I may try to drill out one of the vents and put an extended one in, that wouldn't completely ruin the tank. I may finally resort to what you suggest, though. I really would like to have longer runs.

Wayne, the Cox vibration is indeed rpm-related; if I needle it down to a breaking run it becomes a blur and just about shakes itself off the test board; max rpms are somewhat smoother but really just a higher-frequency vibration I think.

Shaft bearing is not loose; no transverse play at all. The engines in fact are still sorta stiff, just have a few runs of them. I have some other of these engines that don't shake like the latest two I've tried.

I will try turning the prop some on the shaft, relative to the piston, to see what difference that makes.

--Ray

ken cook · « **Reply #10 on:** April 15, 2007, 01:23:19 PM »

Ray, thanks for the pics. I must say your plane is great looking. I did just what you suggested. I put an additional rib next to the tip and was going to laminate the wire in between. I even toyed with the idea of making a fancy strut out of 1/32 ply. I'd rather stick to the original design. I was told to use some colored jap tissue with clear dope over it for weight concerns. What did you use to cover ? I've built several free flights recently. I can say just from regular use it tears. I usually dope the fuse and I found this makes the tissue brittle. You noted that it was plentiful in the horsepower dept. If I cover with 00 silkspan would this be a problem? As for your production engines, I had a few shake real bad as well. Although, after several runs they smoothed out to be real good runners. I have one currently thats not doing so well. It just doesn't want to peak like the others I've run. I noticed out of all of them I'm getting a lot of blackened oil afterwards. Once this oil dissipated, they seem to run terrific. I've found after a good 20 min of run time they really come around. I know what you mean though about the vibes, they're real bad. One of mine would shake the needle valve out of adj to the point it would richen and die. Ken Cook

LARRY RICE · « **Reply #11 on:** April 15, 2007, 01:35:15 PM »

A good engine might be a CO2 engine. I think that "Dirty Dan" has some available.
Larry

ken cook · « **Reply #12 on:** April 15, 2007, 01:38:09 PM »

Ray, I don't know how I missed that thread on the Queen Bee. I have all the info I need thanks to yourself and the rest of the fellows. I started mine last year and its been on the table for months. I hate to start another without finishing. Ken Cook

dennis lipsett · « **Reply #13 on:** April 15, 2007, 03:56:10 PM »

Quote from: LARRY RICE on April 15, 2007, 01:35:15 PM

A good engine might be a CO2 engine. I think that "Dirty Dan" has some available.
Larry

Larry,
There are a few problems with CO2 to consider before you go and do it. It is a very low rpm type of power usually never run more then 4k and they usually use a fairly large type of prop. The biggest obsticle is the tank. You need a place to put it on the plane and it if used with the small tank that your used to , it really dosn't give you any additional running time. A larger tank gets heavy really quickly. You wouldn't believe how heavy a 150CC tank can be or how you would ever get it into a plane.
Then there is the problem of running in cooler weather and the loss of efficiency out of the motor and the shorter runs that come with it.
CO2 is wonderful on a hot summer day, terrible in the cold.
I've got about 10 units of different manufacture from Bill brown units to Gasparin and even Davis modified 020 and 049 units.
Make no mistakes about it CO2 is a fairly powerful form of propulsion for what looks like a deceptively simple form of propulsion. Bob Davis had mentioned that he had made a prototype head for the Cox TD/Medallion motor. I asked him why he never released it. His answer was that the world wasn't ready for this at this time. It had monstrous torque and of course needed a healthy size tank to get the type of runs that modellers would have wanted.
If you have never attended any of the Toledo or WRAM shows in the 80's and early 90's you would see the Davis 049 CO2 unit chugging along swinging a graupner 12/7 prop, you know the heavy grey 4 stroke prop that they sell. Forget that it wouldn't fly a plane at the rpm that it was swinging, but think of the power that it puts out on a 9" prop and all of a sudden you get a healthy respect for these little gems.

Clancy Arnold · « **Reply #14 on:** April 15, 2007, 06:50:14 PM »

Ray
I changed the IBTW Barnstormer to external tank. It was easy being that one of the original Cox Pee Wee 020's I had came with a plastic radial mount. I only had to trim the sides of the mount to clear the sides of the fuselage. The bolt hole pattern was the same just the plastic mount was round where the metal tank had mounting ears.

The radial mount is similar to the "U" mount for the 049 engine. See picture.

With the original metal tank I got 1 min 30 sec run time leaned out, but now expect 3 to 4 minutes run time.

Remember that I am flying on 30 foot lines and still have good line pull.

Clancy

minnesotamodeler · « **Reply #15 on:** April 15, 2007, 08:47:17 PM »

Quote from: ken cook on April 15, 2007, 01:23:19 PM

Ray, thanks for the pics. I must say your plane is great looking. I did just what you suggested. I put an additional rib next to the tip and was going to laminate the wire in between. I even toyed with the idea of making a fancy strut out of 1/32 ply. I'd rather stick to the original design. I was told to use some colored jap tissue with clear dope over it for weight concerns. What did you use to cover ? I've built several free flights recently. I can say just from regular use it tears. I usually dope the fuse and I found this makes the tissue brittle. You noted that it was plentiful in the horsepower dept. If I cover with 00 silkspan would this be a problem?

Ken, my Queen Bee is covereed with Nelson Litefilm iron-on plastic. It is really light and fairly fragile, but perfect for the QB. I would think 00 silkspan and dope would work equally well. I painted the fuselage/tail with Rustoleum rattlecan paint, no primer if I remember right and just one coat, I just wanted to get some color and minimal fuel proofing on it without adding any weight to speak of. I needn't have worried about it; I don't think even a full extra ounce would have any adverse effect.

I'm thinking now, 20 to 25' lines would be about ideal for the 1/4As, maybe the old 27' 1/2A lines of yore. But my backyard will only accommodate 15' so I'm gonna keep playing with that.

Wish I had one of those non-tank backplates for the .020. I've been studying the PeeWee tank interior, and can't see any way around drilling an access hole through the wall for a fuel line to an auxiliary tank per Larry's suggestion above. I do have a TeeDee .020, front rotor type, that would use an exterior tank, but I'm thinking that would be sorta suicidal on 15' lines, it does outpull the PeeWees by a bit.

These things are sure a lot of fun in such a tiny package!

--Ray

Mike Spiess · « **Reply #16 on:** April 16, 2007, 10:06:42 AM »

As I said before My 020 is set up for free flight and a eyedropper tank and was thinking of going back to the original tank now I might not. I have a hole drilled into the tank side that I may attach to another tank. Just remmember The fuel line has to be tiny and theres a really tight bend it must make to attach to the barb in the tank and comes off easly. Don't ask how I know.

minnesotamodeler · « **Reply #17 on:** April 16, 2007, 11:17:49 AM »

Yeah, it's not really set up for that application, is it...pretty cramped in there. Awfully small to be trying to wire it onto the barb; I may try a glob of Goop around it if it looks like it may not stay. There's always a way....

LARRY RICE · « **Reply #18 on:** April 16, 2007, 11:25:52 AM »

Ray,
Would you like me to send you my tank (already drilled amd set up)? Send me a mailing address.
Larry
Captain Blackhawk

minnesotamodeler · « **Reply #19 on:** April 16, 2007, 11:38:24 AM »

Thanks Larry, I PM'd you.

dennis lipsett · « **Reply #20 on:** April 17, 2007, 05:03:08 AM »

Quote from: minnesotamodeler on April 16, 2007, 11:17:49 AM

Yeah, it's not really set up for that application, is it...pretty cramped in there. Awfully small to be trying to wire it onto the barb; I may try a glob of Goop around it if it looks like it may not stay. There's always a way....

Get the small tubing that little red riding hood sells on the bay. OK so it's really Campell Custom Kits. These f/F guys have the stuff for all your small needs.
dennis

minnesotamodeler · « **Reply #21 on:** April 17, 2007, 07:51:42 AM »

Thanks for the tip, Dennis.

--Ray

LARRY RICE · « **Reply #22 on:** April 17, 2007, 10:30:42 AM »

Ray,
I have the engine in hand and will mail it out either today or tomorrow. Here is how it works: Inside of the tank is a pickup fuel line provided by Cox, attach a small fuel line to it, you will find that the small line fits over the Cox line tightly.
It's no problem man!

Larry

LARRY RICE · « **Reply #23 on:** April 17, 2007, 11:30:15 AM »

Oops!
I stand corrected. I have fuel tubing that fits the engine. I use to sell it.....I just forgot. I had to make a box for the engine so that slowed the mailing effort. I am including some fuel tubing, a prop and the complete engine (it is a little frozen, can be soaked in fuel, your engine is better). It is on the way!
Larry

(love these little guys.)

minnesotamodeler · « **Reply #24 on:** April 17, 2007, 03:24:57 PM »

Great, thanks Larry, I'll be watching for it. Anything you need that I have? I'm getting a fair collection of .020 parts.

--Ray

Clancy Arnold · « **Reply #25 on:** April 17, 2007, 06:56:03 PM »

Ray
Just had a thought.

You should place a want add in the classified section of stunt hangar for a plastic radial mount for a Cox 020 Pee Wee engine.

Some one should have one like mine. Maybe they will trade a metal tank for the plastic mount.
Clancy

minnesotamodeler · « **Reply #26 on:** April 21, 2007, 08:34:26 AM »

Quote from: minnesotamodeler on April 17, 2007, 03:24:57 PM

Great, thanks Larry, I'll be watching for it. Anything you need that I have? I'm getting a fair collection of .020 parts.

--Ray

Hey Larry, I just rec'd the package, thanks much...the P/L is soaking but I think it's a goner, though the case/shaft are OK. Tank is what I'm really interested in, of course--looks good. Just one question: The interior fuel line exits through the hole in the side of the tank, but is cut off flush..did you insert a piece of metal tubing in the end, and then a fuel line from that to the separate tank? Or should I just discard the existing fuel line and run my own through the hole to the interior barb? How securely will soft fuel line stay on that barb?

Thanks again. Us PeeWee guys have to stick together. No personal reflection intended.

--Ray

LARRY RICE · « **Reply #27 on:** April 21, 2007, 10:10:16 AM »

I included fuel line for you to replace the cut off line with, It must be TIGHT if it is not wrap soft wire around it.
It seems like everytime I have something new that I am comming out with someone beats me to it or lets the cat out of the bag. Your reference to "Pee Wee" ...hum!
I have just finisher testing our NEW "Pee Wee Pup" kit and am about to cut the first dozen. How Did You Know?
This kit will be a VERY low cost kit meant for the .020 to .049 engines. It is in the trainer class but will out fly most 1/2A planes. List price will be $12.00. After that will be the "Pee Wee Pursuit" a little larger and better flying $15.00. Next the "Stunt Runt" a profile biplane that can do stunts, cost $20.00. Those will be followed by a "Super Stunt Runt" and a "Thunderbug" ($18.00) stunt plane. All in 1/2A, all profile except the "Super Stunt Runt".
Larry

minnesotamodeler · « **Reply #28 on:** April 21, 2007, 11:57:51 AM »

Sounds great, post some pics, will you??

As to the PeeWee reference, no, I'm not really psychic (psycho maybe); that's the name of the reed-valve .020, is it not? I use it to differentiate from my TeeDee front rotor .020.

I'm guessing the Super Stunt Runt and Thunderbug are built-up wings, maybe? I'd love to see 'em.

--Ray

P.S. I'm forwarding the good parts of your .020 I won't use (case, crank) to Robert McHam; see, you got 2 guys flying with one donated engine!! Cool, or what? Love this forum (and community)!

LARRY RICE · « **Reply #29 on:** April 21, 2007, 01:35:46 PM »

I was joking about the Peewee. Yes the .020 and .010 reed engines were called PeeWee's.
I have the pictures of the Pup on a floppy and once I figure out how to post it I will. I will see if I can e-mail you one.
Sorry, the Super Stunt Runt is a build up fuselage and flat wings and the Thunderbug is a profile with flat wings but man can she fly. The pup will have our exclusive adjustable push rod. As to built up wings I have the plans at a laser cutter now and we are working out the problems. How far ahead can you see?
Larry

minnesotamodeler · « **Reply #30 on:** April 21, 2007, 01:51:59 PM »

Far, tadpole, far...

LARRY RICE · « **Reply #31 on:** April 21, 2007, 04:08:19 PM »

I think that I got the Pee Wee Pup picture up.

WS 16"
AREA 48 SQ
ALL HARDWARE PLUS ADJUSTABLE PUSH ROD
LIST PRICE $12.00

Bill Little · « **Reply #32 on:** April 21, 2007, 09:22:16 PM »

I like it, Larry. Cute "little Pup"! You do really know what it's all about.

Bill <><

Bill Adair · « **Reply #33 on:** April 27, 2007, 04:53:12 PM »

Ray,

Sorry to hear about your Queen Bee crash. By all means repair it, and try it on longer lines. A larger tank would be much better, but I never figured out how to add one.

Interesting that yours was overpowered with a Pee Wee engine.

Mine was flown without a landing gear, on Dacron lines, and it appeared to be underpowered at the one mile altitude level in Denver CO. I don't remember the line length I used, but it was probably the length recommended in the construction article. Pretty sure I used Cox fuel, and the recommended Cox prop on mine, but that was decades ago (early sixties), so I could be wrong.

My wife still remembers me flying the Queen Bee, as it was loads of fun for her and the kids to watch. By dithering the elevator at a certain rate, I could slow to a hover, and hang vertical on the prop. Dithering faster would allow it to descend, and dithering slower would let it climb, though very slowly. That's probably what happened to my Bee, as I vaguely recall running out of fuel in a hover, and not having room to recover.

Bill

minnesotamodeler · « **Reply #34 on:** April 27, 2007, 08:15:53 PM »

Sounds like BiSlob type maneuvers, great fun I'm told--ask Frank Carlisle about it!

No way would my Queen Bee hover; it zipped around like a crazed dragonfly. Maybe yours was heavier; mine only weighs 2 oz, & half of that is the engine. It's already repaired and ready for another go. Can't use longer lines in my backyard, tree overhang is borderline as it is. I'm gonna reverse the prop and hope that slows it down considerably. I also threw together a miniature "BarnDoor", one of my .049 designs, for the .020--just needs paint, and it'll be ready too.

--Ray

Bill Adair · « **Reply #35 on:** April 27, 2007, 09:50:18 PM »

Ray,

Mine was covered with colored Jap tissue, and clear dope. I knew a little about balsa selection back then, and did try to keep it light. Used colored Aerogloss on the solid parts, but no sanding sealer to fill the grain.

Possibly the altitude was the major factor in power loss, as my Fox and McCoy 35 powered Ringmasters, and Shoestrings, were very marginal there. We went on temporary assignment to Baltimore a few years before, and I took one of my Ringmaster along. I was simply amazed at how much better it flew at sea level!

The reversed prop may help, but probably not as much as longer lines.

Your BarnDoor is very cute! Looking forward to the flight report, as it looks much easier to build than the QB. Still have a couple of Pee Wee engines, one new one in the bubble pack, and another in excellent condition.

Years after I had the QB, I walked into our AF base exchange in NM one day, and found all the model stuff piled in a shopping cart at close out prices. I bought every Pee Wee, and Baby Bee they had left, at $2.98 and $3.98 each! Unfortunately, there were only a few of each left over, and all those .049's were eventually used, or traded away.

Bill

minnesotamodeler · « **Reply #36 on:** April 28, 2007, 02:05:04 AM »

Bill, the "ShedDoor" (miniature BarnDoor) is indeed a much easier build; the Queen Bee is an intricate little thing surprisingly difficult to get together, I guess you know already. I threw this new model together from my scrap bin in probably 2 hours actual building time, spread out over a couple of days. Its big brother is a very capable and fun flier so I expect good things from the little one. Should also be much tougher than the Queen Bee, a very fragile plane. I tested it just this morning by dropping it down the stairs RTF, engine and gear mounted and all-- not my usual MO but it did prove the point, bounced all the way down to the bottom without a scratch.

Altitude probably is the difference; we are at about 1000' here, maybe a little less. I remember in my competition days, flying combat, having to set my planes up differently at different contests, going from a low of 800 or so up to maybe 2500'. Different fuel, different prop, different control throw. And they still flew worse at the higher elevations. I had a big ol' Equalizer, big fat wing for a combat plane of that era, that I saved just for certain contests at altitude. What's Denver, 5000 feet plus? Gotta make a major difference.

I'll file a flight report on the ShedDoor when I get it done. Hopefully I can keep it out of the trees.

--Ray

minnesotamodeler · « **Reply #37 on:** April 28, 2007, 04:56:55 PM »

I just got in (from my back yard!) from a flying session with the repaired Queen Bee. What a blast!

I'm running an APC 4.2x2 prop, installed backward to spoil the blade airfoil, hopefully slow it down a little...well, emphasis on "little"...maybe 1.5 sec. laps now. Biggest difference is that I now use most of the picnic table to get in the air, rather than the 18" or so it needed before.

This is on 15' lines, I think I may have said 12' before but I measured them again--15' from prop to handle.

I made I guess 8-10 flights with it, of varying duration. It flies great, does the prettiest loops you ever saw...figure eights too if youj're quick (I mean early in the flight).

That's the only problem: The tank is miniscule, no more than 1 minute running time, less if you're set rich. Worse than that, it won't feed inverted after the first half-dozen laps. Attempt a figure eight after that and you land, the flight's over. After a few more laps than that, it won't even feed through a loop. Yes, the fuel pickup is routed correctly, toward the lower outside quadrant of the tank. I guess as fast as the laps are, it would do better set exactly horizontal to the outside--but bottom line is, the tank's just too small.

The next model, the ShedDoor (shrunk BarnDoor) will use the modified tank Larry sent me, with an exterior tank made like a balloon tank but from the finger of a latex glove. It doesn't need more than 1/4 ounce I don't think; but the integral tank is so full of fuel line and bolts there's hardly any room left for fuel. You'd think they would have put an extended tank on these little puppies, a la Black Widow, etc.

As far as the equipment goes, The .020 started readily, no problems, needled OK if a little touchy, ran very cool (well, with 60-sec. flights it would, wouldn't it?), consistently re-started with one or two "spins" of the spring starter. Not loud enough to bother anybody. Even my repaired QB was undamaged by several bounced-in landings when it quit up high. A model this size designed for durability would be indestructible!

If the exterior tank works well I'll be building other 1/4-A airplanes. As I said before, this is so much fun it oughtta be illegal! Just step out the back door, set up on the picnic table (don't even have to kneel down on my old knees) and go! I set a concrete square in the ground at circle center so I can miss the tree branches--ain't much room for error there.

Frank, you gotta get yours in the air--it'll make you a kid again.

--Ray

Bill Adair · « **Reply #38 on:** April 28, 2007, 09:51:58 PM »

Ray,

Great report on the reborn Queen Bee! Brings back a memory or two, and makes me want to build another for sure.

The ShedDoor sounds rugged enough to withstand quite a bit of abuse. Now I'm really looking forward to your flight test results.

One thing I wanted to mention, was the experiments done some years ago with Balsa tanks! Don't know if the subject was brought up on this forum, but the construction was balsa, sealed inside and out with thinned Hobby Poxy. Your Shed looks like it could be adapted easily, by hollowing out the fairing blocks, and coating inside and out with thinned epoxy. Epoxy in the pickup and vents, before epoxying on the final outer shell. You would have to be careful about engine mounting screws penetrating the tank area, but thats easy enough to prevent.

I don't remember hearing any long term problems with this technique, but there could have been side effects that were never mentioned, like deterioration of the epoxy.

I'll see if I can find more information on some other forums.

Bill

minnesotamodeler · « **Reply #39 on:** April 29, 2007, 06:13:22 AM »

Bill, that's a great idea, thanks! Let us know if you get more info, definitely something to keep in mind. I'll post pics of the floppy tank and container I have planned for the ShedDoor, this afternoon.

--Ray

minnesotamodeler · « **Reply #40 on:** April 29, 2007, 04:21:48 PM »

Here's the promised pics of the tank, along with the airplane itself, since I realized there's not a picture of it on this thread.

Tank is, as stated, "floppy balloon" type, non-pressurized, using the finger off a latex glove. I'll shorten the fuel line when I get to the final installation, probably on both sides of the joiner. I haven't measured the capacity but it's probably twice the stock tank, or more. If I need yet more I can just use a longer finger! (No comments, please)

--Ray

Robert McHam · « **Reply #41 on:** April 29, 2007, 04:55:26 PM »

Good idea Ray!

Quote by Bill:
"I don't remember hearing any long term problems with this technique, but there could have been side effects that were never mentioned, like deterioration of the epoxy."

My take is, nothing lasts forever. It would seem to me that balsa with a good solid coating of Ambroid would do at least as well as epoxy. I never did have any fuel problems with any of my planes that I used Ambroid to fuel proof the firewall and engine compartments. So I would have to say, So what? If you have to replace the tank in a year or two or three. A tank may still outlast an actively flown airframe!

I have been toying with the idea of the lost wax mold process used in some fiberglassing jobs to make custom tanks since I can't make it to the store anymore and pick out the right size and shape "Perfect" brand tank like I used to buy.

Robert

Bill Adair · « **Reply #42 on:** April 29, 2007, 09:22:43 PM »

Robert,

Your right on the money, nothing lasts forever, and particularly my model airplanes!

Interesting idea on homemade tanks. There is an endless array of small nylon bottles, with screw caps on the market. Surely one can be found to adapt as a clunk tank for small models?

The problem with the Queen Bee is the short fuselage, and the bellcrank directly behind the firewall. I don't remember how mine balanced, but if there is room for a bit of nose extension without upsetting the balance, that might help make room for an external tank. It's so darn cute that I'd hate to mess with the outline.

Ray,

Great idea with the latex glove finger, not to mention what funny puns they allow!

Have you ever tried the Nitrile medical gloves, instead of latex? I know latex doesn't stand up very long to nitro fuels, and wondered if those non-allergenic Nitrile gloves are any better?

I have an endless supply of Nitrile gloves, as my son-in-law is very allergic to latex. My granddaughters can't even bring latex balloons home, and when I go shooting with him, I have to remember to bring guns with wood or plastic grips, not rubber.

Next time you make a run of Queen Bee kits, please let me know!

Bill

minnesotamodeler · « **Reply #43 on:** April 30, 2007, 02:03:25 AM »

Bill,

I haven't tried the nitrile gloves; don't know how they'd react (or not) to the fuel. Simple thing to try. The latex will actually last surprisingly long--I had tried them before when first experimenting with balloon tanks in general. Yes, they eventually grow sticky like the party balloons do, but can be several months before that happens. May depend on nitro level too, I'm using 15%.

It just occurred to me, I could run a pressure tank on the modified .020--that would certainly solve any fuel feed problems!

Bill, I kept a set of templates for the QB, I could cut you one out if you really want it--course I'd do it more enthusiastically if I had several orders, it's more efficient, but I could do 2 or 3 and just keep the extras on hand.

As far as lengthening the nose, no, it would require a major rework to gain enough room for a tank--the balance is perfect as is; besides, it's sort of a fragile little thing and a longer nose would make it even more so. With its little snub nose it really is very cute zipping through those loops --it just is what it is, and we're stuck with the integral tank with it. I wish I had an .010 to try, I think it would fly well with it and the run duration might be a little better. Or maybe some machinist will take pity on us and make a tank extender for the .020. It wouldn't take much--a 1/4" wide ring would be enough I imagine, and the backplate bolts are 2/56 threads I think, no problem getting longer ones. Probably would be cost-prohibitive to machine that groove in one side and the tongue on the other, though. Just a little wishful thinking.

I'm painting the ShedDoor; it'll be ready to go as soon as it cures out. It'll be interesting to see how it works.

--Ray

Robert McHam · « **Reply #44 on:** April 30, 2007, 03:18:09 AM »

Bill, I think I just read the answer to your question on how to losw weight on the PeeWee .020.
Quote by Larry Renger:
"I think I saw that someone skeletonized a Babe Bee (NOT Baby Bee) or Pee Wee tank, and the back with a Dremel tool to make a very lightweight mount similar to the support designed for the Thermal Hopper. Then he used an external tank."

By doing this, you would losw the weight you wanted by drilling some holes in the tank and backplate and wallowing them out with a dremel! Then attach fuel line to the pickup nipple!
This was posted in the thread about the backplates.

Robert

Mike Spiess · « **Reply #45 on:** April 30, 2007, 08:43:17 AM »

%^I have an .010 never put in a plane I'll get back to you an the out come.

Quote from: minnesotamodeler on April 30, 2007, 02:03:25 AM

Bill,

I wish I had an .010 to try, I think it would fly well with it and the run duration might be a little better. --Ray

minnesotamodeler · « **Reply #46 on:** April 30, 2007, 12:57:55 PM »

OK Mike, but be forewarned I've acquired --twice!-- ".010s" that turned out to be .020s, one of them in pretty wretched shape besides that I paid 'way too much for, thinking I was getting a serviceable .010...I'm fast becoming a skeptic on the matter!

--Ray

Mike Spiess · « **Reply #47 on:** April 30, 2007, 02:50:40 PM »

#^No Ray I have one in hand .010 a TD. It sounds like a bumble bee on steroids. Ill send a picture a little later.

Mike Spiess · « **Reply #48 on:** April 30, 2007, 07:51:38 PM »

Here's the picture I promised. Starting on the left first is a .15 then .049, .020., .010. They are all TDs I don't have a .090

minnesotamodeler · « **Reply #49 on:** May 01, 2007, 07:54:45 AM »

OK I concede...that for sure appears to be a gen-yoo-wine .010. Interested in selling it?

--Ray