Author Topic: FYI - New Kingfisher kit coming. (Read 5607 times)

Douglas Ames · « **on:** November 20, 2011, 08:26:13 PM »

If you drop down to Walt Umland's vendor site - Buildrightflyright.com/ Future kits list, he has a Profile Carrier Kingfisher in the works.

Wayne J. Buran · « **Reply #1 on:** November 21, 2011, 04:44:35 AM »

Doug, I checked Walters site but saw no mention. I sent Walter an E-Mail. Thanks for the heads up. BTW who designed the airplane originally.
Wayne

Douglas Ames · « **Reply #2 on:** November 23, 2011, 12:02:31 AM »

http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php?topic=21206.0

Says plans ready, prototype needs constructed. Don't know who's plans?

builditright · « **Reply #3 on:** December 26, 2011, 03:43:23 PM »

Quote from: Douglas Ames on November 23, 2011, 12:02:31 AM

http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php?topic=21206.0

Says plans ready, prototype needs constructed. Don't know who's plans?

Hi Guys, Let me first apologize for not responding to this until now.

The plans have in fact been ready for some time now and I needed a prototype built but did not have an engine until recently. Now that I have an engine I needed the time to fit it into my already packed schedule. The good news is I now have a volunteer to build the prototype.

As to who's plans they are... I purchased the rights to Larry Richards Kingfisher design and plans and then made some changes to more reflect the needs of the carrier event over a sport carrier model. Larry's model is and was very good as it was but I have not flown carrier since winning 2nd at the 1980 Nats so I can honestly say that I am a bit out of touch with the event and I as I said I now have a volunteer which has given me some ideas to improve the kit and will build and compete with the prototype in 2012. I am not mentioning his name right now simply so we can see how the changes we're adding will work out with the prototype.

I will be ordering the materials, cutting the prototype kit and then sending it out after the new year.

Wayne J. Buran · « **Reply #4 on:** December 27, 2011, 04:56:48 AM »

Looking forward to it.
Thanks
Wayne

skyshark58 · « **Reply #5 on:** December 27, 2011, 01:40:02 PM »

Is a Kingfisher legal for AMA profile carrier?

Balsa Butcher · « **Reply #6 on:** December 27, 2011, 02:10:33 PM »

Yes, Dick Perry's version in particular was/is very popular and has an excellent record in competition. In the article for the design the floats vs wheels controversy is addressed. As I understand it the Kingfisher operated in a support and training role with wheels however it was on floats during its wartime operational deployments.

Joe Just · « **Reply #7 on:** December 27, 2011, 07:28:00 PM »

The late Bill Skelton of the NW verified that the Kingfisher did take off and land on a Carrier he served on in WW2. He had pictures as proof.

Now, in looking at the small plans shown, is the proposed wing the correct shape?
Joe

Joe Just · « **Reply #8 on:** December 27, 2011, 07:57:58 PM »

I just looked at some Kingfisher photos on the net. In every case, the wing had a definate taper. I believe the plans were drawn long before the current emphasis on shape took place. Abouty 1989 ED's at the Nats and elsewhere began to insist that wing shape had to show taper if the 3 views did. Several well known Carrier pilots soon began loosing the 10 appearance points, and that changed in a hurry!
Hey Doc, remember no taper Mo-1 entries? Spearfish with "Voodo" wings? ETC, Etc?
Joe

bill bischoff · « **Reply #9 on:** December 27, 2011, 08:37:58 PM »

The flaps give the trailing edge some taper. You may need to enlarge the plan to see it.

builditright · « **Reply #10 on:** December 28, 2011, 12:41:33 AM »

Quote from: Joe Just on December 27, 2011, 07:57:58 PM

I just looked at some Kingfisher photos on the net. In every case, the wing had a definate taper. I believe the plans were drawn long before the current emphasis on shape took place. Abouty 1989 ED's at the Nats and elsewhere began to insist that wing shape had to show taper if the 3 views did. Several well known Carrier pilots soon began loosing the 10 appearance points, and that changed in a hurry!
Hey Doc, remember no taper Mo-1 entries? Spearfish with "Voodo" wings? ETC, Etc?
Joe

As Bill mentioned enlarging the photo shows the TE has taper in it.

As I mentioned I have been out of carrier since 1980, so I am not up on the current rules. Now after looking around for photos I noticed a few models that don't resemble a navy plane one is the Sig skyray; how is that one being used in the carrier event? Not to cause any issues for anyone using it but how does that model even qualify if it isn't even a military craft or look like one. "Just curious".

Wayne J. Buran · « **Reply #11 on:** December 28, 2011, 04:54:22 AM »

Wing taper was an issue on some profile carrier models. The wing has to resemble the real aircraft at least in AMA Profile carrier. I now there was an issue with someones Spearfish because the leading edge was straight and not tapered. If this kit is to be succesful a review of the AMA Profile Carrier rules and the three views that will be used to support this model should be reviewed if it is to belegal. My thoughts anyhow.

Wayne

john e. holliday · « **Reply #12 on:** December 28, 2011, 09:40:28 AM »

In Profile Carrier, if the plane does not meet or look like the 3 views you only lose the 10 bonus scale points.

Wayne J. Buran · « **Reply #13 on:** December 28, 2011, 02:15:32 PM »

10 points is 10 points.
Wayne

bill bischoff · « **Reply #14 on:** December 28, 2011, 05:10:13 PM »

To directly address Walter's question, carrier models are not required to be scale to be legal. Scale models receive bonus points, which a Skyray would not receive. As long as the engine is a .36 or smaller, a Skyray is a legal profile entry. It is also a legal Class I entry with any engine up to .40.

skyshark58 · « **Reply #15 on:** December 28, 2011, 05:15:47 PM »

And it doesn't need to be a Navy airplane! A Beechcraft Bonanza will get 10 points if it "closely resembles" the scale three veiws of that aircraft. Mike

bill bischoff · « **Reply #16 on:** December 28, 2011, 06:48:05 PM »

I didn't know a Bonanza was ever tested or intended to make carrier takeoffs or landings. T-34 perhaps...

skyshark58 · « **Reply #17 on:** December 28, 2011, 07:16:11 PM »

For profile 10 points there is no requirement it is only "encouraged that the planes outlines follow some type of Navy aircraft" as stated in the AMA Carrier rule 3.3. The plane need not have anything to do with carrier opperations, just "resemble" the three views.
The 100 scale points for class I & II is a different ball game. Mike

Mike Anderson · « **Reply #18 on:** December 28, 2011, 10:18:37 PM »

No class 'requires' a scale model to be entered - nor does any class require a 'carrier aircraft'.

As Bill stated, a Skyray (the Sig kit) can be entered in any class as long as the engine limitations are met.

For 'Bonus Points' all three require that the model represent a 'Carrier Aircraft'. A Bonanza can be entered but to receive bonus points you would have to prove that it is a 'carrier aircraft'.

Bonus points are covered in section 8 of the rules -

8. Bonus Points.
8.1. A scale model of a carrier aircraft of any nation, provided it displays the national markings of the using nation, shall receive bonus points. A carrier aircraft is any man-carrying aircraft which was successfully flown and which meets at least one (1) of the following requirements:
a. Aircraft made actual carrier-type takeoff and arrested landing on an actual or simulated carrier deck, or
b. Aircraft is designated as a carrier aircraft by an acceptable source (in cases where actual carrier-type takeoff and arrested landing are not documented).

The rest of section 8 describes the number of points and the major components of each class. It does not relax the requirement that it be a carrier aircraft for Profile.

There is a discussion of similar issues in this thread:

http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php?topic=17006.0

starting with post #12 or #13 --

Bob Reeves · « **Reply #19 on:** December 29, 2011, 04:02:08 AM »

This will get you Bonus Points and a short kit (Laser cut parts and plans) will be available from RSM for a reasonable price (~$50.00)

FJ-4B Profile, 350 sq/in for Thunder Tiger 36. The first prototype's are on the way from RSM now. This is a scaled down version of my Big FJ-4B with a little less wing sweep to make a slider more effective. Once I get one built and the slider worked out I'll add it to the plans and it will be ready for prime time.

Wayne J. Buran · « **Reply #20 on:** December 29, 2011, 04:06:01 AM »

Good job Bob. That should generate some more interest in Carrier.
Thanks
Wayne

Bob Reeves · « **Reply #21 on:** December 29, 2011, 07:13:02 AM »

Thanks,

Eric has graciously offered to do the laser cut parts and print the plans for anyone that wants them. He didn't feel the market was big enough to do a full blown kit and I agree. I didn't want anything out of it in order to keep the cost down, just what Eric needs to cut the parts and print the plans. Please don't bug Eric just yet, I would like to get at least one framed up to be sure everything fits as it should and get the slider design finalized.

Douglas Ames · « **Reply #22 on:** December 30, 2011, 05:40:36 PM »

Hmmmm.... Kingfisher vs. FJ-4B @ Tulsa Glue Dobbers in 2012 ?

Wish I wasn't so loaded up with other non-modeling projects.

STEPHEN DINERMAN · « **Reply #23 on:** January 01, 2012, 04:45:58 PM »

When I designed my profile Kingfisher (Flying Models Oct 1987) I looked for proof of landing and the best I could do is Rand McNally Color Illustrated Guides World War II Airplanes Vol 2 1977 ( http://www.amazon.com/World-War-II-Airplanes/dp/052888171X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1325461140&sr=8-1 )

The excerpt I used to consider this a valid carrier model is:

Quote

"The tough and versatile Vought OS2U Kingfisher was the Navy's best and most popular carrier-based reconnaissance plane."

Joe: The leading edge is straight and the trailing edge is tapered. If you want 3-views, just let me know.

Steve

Mike Anderson · « **Reply #24 on:** January 01, 2012, 05:36:48 PM »

Steve -

I would appreciate a set of 3-views for the Kingfisher. If you can get them into PDF or JPG and post them here, that would be the most useful for everyone.

Otherwise, I can scan/convert and post them.

Thanks in advance --

john vlna · « **Reply #25 on:** January 01, 2012, 05:39:18 PM »

Steve,
I always liked your kingfisher, maybe some day I'll build one. I did fly Schaeffer's Class I/II (FM 04/83) for several years. Nice and light but no airfoil and the dihedral is not scale. I also have a foam wing 15 profile. Kingfishers fly very well.
John

john vlna · « **Reply #26 on:** January 01, 2012, 05:44:07 PM »

Mike
Here is a good 3v. Note that they did not have hooks, however they have been flown alot in the carrier event and did fly on/off carrier as did other recon light planes.
john

skyshark58 · « **Reply #27 on:** January 01, 2012, 06:01:18 PM »

Here are the blueprints of the tail structure of a Kingfisher. No hook structure.
Can anyone come up with a picture of a Kingfisher even sitting on a carrier deck?

Mike Anderson · « **Reply #28 on:** January 02, 2012, 12:13:45 AM »

Quote from: john vlna on January 01, 2012, 05:44:07 PM

Mike
Here is a good 3v. Note that they did not have hooks, however they have been flown alot in the carrier event and did fly on/off carrier as did other recon light planes.
john

Thank You!

Mike Anderson · « **Reply #29 on:** January 02, 2012, 12:23:00 AM »

Quote from: skyshark58 on January 01, 2012, 06:01:18 PM

Here are the blueprints of the tail structure of a Kingfisher. No hook structure.
Can anyone come up with a picture of a Kingfisher even sitting on a carrier deck?

A tail hook is not required for scale points to be awarded, nor photos of carrier operations --

8. Bonus Points.
8.1. A scale model of a carrier aircraft of any nation, provided it displays the national markings of the using nation, shall receive bonus points. A carrier aircraft is any man-carrying aircraft which was successfully flown and which meets at least one (1) of the following requirements:

a. Aircraft made actual carrier-type takeoff and arrested landing on an actual or simulated carrier deck, or

b. Aircraft is designated as a carrier aircraft by an acceptable source (in cases where actual carrier-type takeoff and arrested landing are not documented).

I would opine that the source quoted by Steve Dinerman above has been an "acceptable source" for all these years and that is the basis for the Kingfisher having received bonus points for all these years.

Wayne J. Buran · « **Reply #30 on:** January 02, 2012, 05:09:02 AM »

Well, I for one am looking forward to the kit and plans. Anything new for carrier is of great help to put life into the event that I have always enjoyed. BTW I have yet to see a drawing of the infamous MO-1 with a hook. The best anyone has ever done was a blury picture of it on the deck of the Langley.
Wayne

john e. holliday · « **Reply #31 on:** January 02, 2012, 09:19:42 AM »

If you look real close at the blurry picture of the MO-1, you will see hooks on the spreader bar of the plane. It did not have a tail hook as such and somehow got past the rules in competition. I stood in line at past NATS where they worried more about the width of the nose of an MO-1 than the deal about the real airplane not ever being equipped with a tail hook. I also remember another design that was published and flown at local contests that was not allowed to fly at the NATS that year because the person giving scale points said the fairing between the fuse and wing was too large. A lot of changes were made in carrier while I was out playing with F2C planes.

But I like idea of the Kingfisher for a new kit for profile if it will get people to flying carrier. Besides in Profile some people can make up for the lack of the 10 measily scale points. Now in scale carrier I can remember a plane that had a wing as thick as the side view of the fuselage. It won a few NATS with what I thought was way out of proportion wing in the side view.

Now if Walter comes ou with the kit I may be interested.

builditright · « **Reply #32 on:** January 02, 2012, 09:31:42 AM »

Quote from: skyshark58 on December 28, 2011, 07:16:11 PM

For profile 10 points there is no requirement it is only "encouraged that the planes outlines follow some type of Navy aircraft" as stated in the AMA Carrier rule 3.3. The plane need not have anything to do with carrier opperations, just "resemble" the three views.
The 100 scale points for class I & II is a different ball game. Mike

Okay now I am confused...

If thats the case then why would anyone ask if it is legal?

Wayne J. Buran · « **Reply #33 on:** January 02, 2012, 11:11:23 AM »

Walt, it doesn't matter put me down for one. I'll send a down payment.
Wayne

john vlna · « **Reply #34 on:** January 02, 2012, 12:24:23 PM »

By the way, the hooks on the gear of the MO-1 and others of that era were for longitudinal wires to keep the planes from side slipping of the deck. They were ultimately discarded as unnecessary.

Although I have never seen the picture Mike potter searches for, I think it very likely that Kingfishers flew on/off carriers. Both planes probably used brakes to stop.

MO-1's were tested on carriers, There is not a lot of info, but enough.

And, both have been flown enough in the event that legality is not an issue.

Mike Anderson · « **Reply #35 on:** January 02, 2012, 06:24:28 PM »

Quote from: builditright on January 02, 2012, 09:31:42 AM

Okay now I am confused...

If thats the case then why would anyone ask if it is legal?

Walt --

There are two issues here that often confuse people -- ANY plane is "legal" to fly in any carrier event provided the engine is legal for that event and provided it meets the minimum wing area and profile definitions in Profile class. You can enter a Ringmaster if you wish in any of the three AMA classes as long as the engine fits the class. Whatever plane you enter, you will receive your High Speed points, Low Speed points, and Landing points. You MIGHT receive Bonus points, if your plane meets the requirements of section 8 of the rules that are quoted above -- 10 points for Profile Class or 100 for Cl1 and 2. The quoted line in your post ("It is encouraged that the plane outlines follow some type of Navy aircraft.") appears in the description of Profile class only and is kind of a useless sentence since it is NOT a requirement and since the Bonus points section describes the requirements to receive Bonus Points.

A historical note -- Profile class did not receive bonus points when the event first appeared in the rulebook. The sentence 'encouraging' scale like outlines was not removed when the Bonus points for Profile were added.

john vlna · « **Reply #36 on:** January 04, 2012, 10:34:27 PM »

Well, I haven't found a picture, but as of Dec 31 1941, Kingfishers were assigned to the Saratoga, Wasp and Hornet. Since these carriers were deployed at the time, it follows that Kingfishers were flying on and off the deck.

Source: US Navy Aircraft 1921-1941 by William T. Larkin

Wayne J. Buran · « **Reply #37 on:** January 05, 2012, 04:59:52 AM »

John, thanks for the clarification.
Wayne

skyshark58 · « **Reply #38 on:** January 06, 2012, 11:18:35 AM »

Here is something interesting!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the end of 1941 there were enough Kingfishers so that planes were being sent to all the inshore patrol squadrons, including Bob Ellis' VS-70. The squadron was moved to NAS Kodiak, Alaska, and Bob was made its C.O. Before leaving Sitka, Bob was ordered to build a veritable "land carrier" alongside the inlet to the air station.
The strategists feared that we would need fighter facilities should Japan take a jab at North America through southeast Alaska as many thought they would. Engineers and workmen were moved in, and they built a short runway complete with catapult and arresting gear. The floats were taken off an OS2U, and the plane was equipped with its fixed land-plane wheels and a welded tailhook for the purpose of testing the land carrier. The catapult takeoff went well, but the trap was a disaster. The tailhook worked. It grabbed the cable, but it was far too taut. All the gear in the plane that was not nailed down flew out the front end, scattering navigation books, rubber rafts, thermos bottles and even the loop direction-finder antenna down the runway. The pilot and radioman received a few stitches and a week in sick bay, but they recovered. (The vegetation-overgrown runway is still in place against the hill at Sitka, but to this day that Kingfisher test is the only takeoff and landing ever made there.)

Mike

Mike Anderson · « **Reply #39 on:** January 06, 2012, 02:40:24 PM »

Mike --

What source is that passage from? If it's printed somewhere that constitutes all the proof that any judge could ever need.

Bill Little · « **Reply #40 on:** January 06, 2012, 04:36:59 PM »

What readily available engines would be suggested for this model, especially for a newbie? (I'm a carrier dummy)

BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM

Douglas Ames · « **Reply #41 on:** January 06, 2012, 05:30:21 PM »

Quote from: john vlna on January 04, 2012, 10:34:27 PM

Well, I haven't found a picture, but as of Dec 31 1941, Kingfishers were assigned to the Saratoga, Wasp and Hornet. Since these carriers were deployed at the time, it follows that Kingfishers were flying on and off the deck.

Source: US Navy Aircraft 1921-1941 by William T. Larkin

I'm thinking they were Float-equipped Kingfishers. A complement of 4 were assigned to each of the above Carriers. It makes sense they were hoisted in and out of the water by on-board cranes. The aircraft were recovered by taxiing onto a landing mat (towed surfboard-looking thing the size of the float). This allowed the hoist cable to be hooked up safely with the engine off while the ship was under way. An Observation plane with a cruise speed of 170 mph and a couple .30 guns isn't much use without the added benefit of the floats, i.e.- Sea rescue of downed pilots...your fellow pilots.

Here's a pic of the USS Wasp recovering one of the Gemini space capsules.
2nd pic is a Curtis Seahawk being recovered.

skyshark58 · « **Reply #42 on:** January 06, 2012, 05:52:20 PM »

Mike, here ya go. I still haven't found a photo of a kingfisher on a carrier. I too suspect they may have been hoisted off into the water and recovered the same way, but no photos.

http://www.kadiak.org/vs/vs70.html

Mike

john vlna · « **Reply #43 on:** January 06, 2012, 07:36:07 PM »

Doug makes a good point why have a Kingfisher on a carrier if it didn't have floats. Well it was a scout plane so it could be I think. The same problem remains however, I have never seen a picture of a Kingfisher of any type on a carrier.

There is a precedence. The Berliner Joyce OJ-2 was used in the 30's as a Cruiser (float) and carrier (wheeled) Scout plane. It is documented with a hook. It is rare to find a picture of one on a ship

Balsa Butcher · « **Reply #44 on:** January 06, 2012, 07:38:20 PM »

Above is great source, enjoyed reading it. This report and 30 years of C/L carrier Kingfishers being flown in competition should pretty much end this controversy. What is to be gained by disqualifying this design anyway?

As far as Brother Bill's question...ready to copy? OK, Thundertiger .36 (needs OS or Perry carb,stock one requires muffler pressure), Magnum .36, Webra 32 or 36, OS-32 (my favorite), ST-34 (a powerhouse),OS-35FP (less power than the others but will get you going), Irvine 36 (hard to find), Nelson 36(not recommended for beginners IMHO), Older engines: K&B 35, Fox 36, ST G-21 or C-35 (R/C carb versions). did I forget any?

bill bischoff · « **Reply #45 on:** January 06, 2012, 08:13:45 PM »

For bolt it on right out of the box simplicity, the OS 32F is hard to beat. This was the version introduced in the late '80's. The stock carb works great, and mine goes about 80 on 10% on my Hellcat. I've seen lots of abused ones for sale, but once a month or so a nice one comes up on the 'bay. And Pete, you forgot the Evolution 36. Mine is about a second faster than the 32F, but needs an OS carb. The stock carb works great on the bench, but doesn't have strong enough draw to get off the ground without a pretty significant sag on takeoff.

john e. holliday · « **Reply #46 on:** January 07, 2012, 08:45:16 AM »

Bill, which OS carb? Have an EVO .36 I got for a bid on the bay.

Balsa Butcher · « **Reply #47 on:** January 07, 2012, 08:59:24 AM »

Left off Enya 35s or the new .32 as well.

skyshark58 · « **Reply #48 on:** January 07, 2012, 09:43:22 AM »

Wheeled Kingfishers on the deck of the aircraft carrier USS KWAJALEIN be transported somewhere! Mike

skyshark58 · « **Reply #49 on:** January 07, 2012, 09:47:40 AM »

After looking closer I see some on floats and maybe some on wheels. The photo isn't real clear to me. Maybe someone else can see better. Mike