Author Topic: My next Plane is a Navion (Read 1956 times)

john vlna · « **on:** January 12, 2012, 08:08:41 PM »

I have always liked the Navion, and have built a couple of models over the years. At Brodak's this year someone mentioned that they had seen a picture of one on a carrier. Well they are right as the attachment shows. Apparently one operated from carrier USS Badoeng Strait (CVE-116) as an observer of amphibious operations, without arresting gear.

Lee Thiel · « **Reply #1 on:** January 12, 2012, 08:28:11 PM »

Hi John, sooooo, if the Navion had no hook, does that mean you would have to land it in the 20 feet with no cables, free wheeling? Now that would be a challenge. I am still trying to stop in 20 feet with hook and cables. Good looking plane, and something a bit different.
Lee TGD

john vlna · « **Reply #2 on:** January 12, 2012, 10:04:01 PM »

Back in the 70's, according to a construction article on the OV-10 Bronco in AAM, the AMA authorized the plane to compete in carrier using brakes. I don't know if anyone actually did it however.

It seems to me that since the Navion did land and take off, that a hook could be added for contest use.

I have seen that precidence. A few years ago Ted kraver flew a Convair Pogo. Although it never flew on or off a carrier it was intended for shipboard use. Ted added a hook, which the prototype did not have. Unfortunately he didn't make a landing but did get bonus points.

Wayne J. Buran · « **Reply #3 on:** January 13, 2012, 06:05:31 AM »

Anybody care to Redux a Ryan Fireball?
Wayne

Wayne J. Buran · « **Reply #4 on:** January 13, 2012, 06:43:26 AM »

John, attached is a Ryan Fireball three View. It looks Navionesq no? Just a thought.
Thanks
Wayne

Mike Anderson · « **Reply #5 on:** January 13, 2012, 07:13:52 AM »

Quote from: Lee Thiel on January 12, 2012, 08:28:11 PM

Hi John, sooooo, if the Navion had no hook, does that mean you would have to land it in the 20 feet with no cables, free wheeling? Now that would be a challenge. I am still trying to stop in 20 feet with hook and cables. Good looking plane, and something a bit different.
Lee TGD

Actually, an arresting hook is required - Paragraph 3 --

3. Aircraft Requirements. Model must have a fixed or retractable landing gear. ....... The model must be equipped with an arresting hook which when extended may not be longer than a one-third (1/3) the length of the fuselage.

Also, an unarrested landing, while possibly true to scale, would score zero landing points as the definitions of the landing points require ' Arrested landing ..... ' for all three cases.

john e. holliday · « **Reply #6 on:** January 13, 2012, 09:30:16 AM »

There were several planes that were flown off of and landed on carriers without hooks. Would make for an interesting carrier landing in CL if we would eliminate the hook requirement. Then there would be absolutely no argument on the MO-1, as well as a couple of others.

Wayne J. Buran · « **Reply #7 on:** January 13, 2012, 09:39:59 AM »

Oh boy, I'm staying out of this one!
Wayne

dankar · « **Reply #8 on:** January 13, 2012, 10:31:37 AM »

I feel Navy Carrier should be a model of a Combat aircraft that was a Warbird. Not an experiment like MO-1. The hi wing box fuselage is big advantage over say a Corsair etc. If said warbird took off from Carrier in wartime make it legal and just add a hook.

Mike Anderson · « **Reply #9 on:** January 13, 2012, 11:09:08 AM »

Let me quote Pete Cunha's extremely wise observation in the Kingfisher thread:

" ...... 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?"

What is to be gained by narrowing the requirements for scale points to a particular era or a particular mission or type?

If an interested party has a model in mind that expands our contestant pool, then getting nit-picky about designs is only harmful to the event.

Bob Reeves · « **Reply #10 on:** January 13, 2012, 11:36:51 AM »

Quote from: Mike Anderson on January 13, 2012, 11:09:08 AM

Let me quote Pete Cunha's extremely wise observation in the Kingfisher thread:

" ...... 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?"

What is to be gained by narrowing the requirements for scale points to a particular era or a particular mission or type?

If an interested party has a model in mind that expands our contestant pool, then getting nit-picky about designs is only harmful to the event.

While I somewhat agree with this, being in the Navy on a carrier I can't help but believe real carrier airplanes have tail hooks. All others simply don't count....

Mike Anderson · « **Reply #11 on:** January 13, 2012, 12:17:23 PM »

Quote from: Bob Reeves on January 13, 2012, 11:36:51 AM

While I somewhat agree with this, being in the Navy on a carrier I can't help but believe real carrier airplanes have tail hooks. All others simply don't count....

As was I .... (AQF-2, VF-32 Swordsmen, 2 cruises aboard John F. Kennedy)

However, I realize that Navy Carrier (the event) has a great many avenues of appeal if we can just keep from killing it off by imposing too narrow a view of what it should or should not encompass.

If John wants to fly a Navion or Ted a Pogo, it doesn't have any affect on MY enjoyment of the event.

Lee Thiel · « **Reply #12 on:** January 13, 2012, 05:05:34 PM »

Sure thing, fly it for sure. Add a tail hook if thats required. Was just curious to start with, not questioning if it quaified for carrier.
Lee TGD

bill bischoff · « **Reply #13 on:** January 13, 2012, 06:22:37 PM »

Dare Hobbies has a profile Navion kit that would be just right. Kit #306CL. We have one in stock at the hobby shop.

bill bischoff · « **Reply #14 on:** January 13, 2012, 06:50:46 PM »

OK, I just went and reread the rules. To get bonus points, the plane must be a "carrier aircraft", per rule 8.1. What defines a "carrier aircraft" is either a documented carrier takeoff and arrested landing, per 8.1a, or else to be designated as a carrier aircraft by an acceptable source, per 8.1b. So, it's a carrier aircraft if an acceptable source says it's a carrier aircraft? That still doesn't define what it means to be a carrier aircraft. Is it like pornography, where you can't define it but you know it when you see it?

To me, the important question is why does rule 8.1b exist? Was it always in the rules, and if not, when and why was it added? Was it meant to allow subjects thought to have made arrested landings, but no proof was to be found? Or was it perhaps an acknowledgment that some aircraft that operated off carriers without arresting gear, but were still supposed to be bonus point worthy? If this question can be answered, it should clear up lots of long-simmering debates. If it can't be answered, perhaps it is time for the Navy Carrier Contest Board to fix the rules.

Everybody has an opinion of what they want the rules to be, but what really matters is what the rules actually are. If we can't be sure what they are, they need to be fixed.

don Burke · « **Reply #15 on:** January 13, 2012, 08:43:11 PM »

Quote from: john e. holliday on January 13, 2012, 09:30:16 AM

There were several planes that were flown off of and landed on carriers without hooks. Would make for an interesting carrier landing in CL if we would eliminate the hook requirement. Then there would be absolutely no argument on the MO-1, as well as a couple of others.

U-2?
C-130?

john vlna · « **Reply #16 on:** January 13, 2012, 09:21:27 PM »

The U-2 made arrested, with a hook, landings.
The C-130 landed without a hook

skyshark58 · « **Reply #17 on:** January 13, 2012, 10:22:22 PM »

If you look closely at a North AmericanNavion and aNorth American T-28 Trojan you will notice the shape of the wing and tail are very close. A little 1/2" balsa to make the canopy a little higher,add a hook and you have a T-28 that no question was a carrier based aircraft.
Mike

john vlna · « **Reply #18 on:** January 14, 2012, 09:46:12 AM »

Mike,
Good Point. It is also similar to the Fireball and Dark Shark made by Ryan. By the way both Ryan and North American made Navions. Ryan obtained the rights to the Navion in 1948.

John

larry richards · « **Reply #19 on:** January 22, 2012, 09:53:00 PM »

I remember kitting the Ryan Fireball (FR-1) as a profile. I did some homework before I made the kit. According to actual pictures of the Fireball, it had a hook and it was attached to the center line of the fuselage at the flap hinge line. It also did its test flights at Alameda Naval Air Station, California for single engine landings. The jet engine was a GE J-31 and the recip was a Wright R-1820. Tests were performed with the J-31 off and the R-1820 running. Then the J-31 running and the 1820 off. I looked for the tests for arrested landings to see when and where a carrier was used but to no avail. Might you have this info? Larry

skyshark58 · « **Reply #20 on:** January 22, 2012, 10:24:24 PM »

Here are some 3 views and carrier information. http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/models/aircraft/Ryan-FR1.html

Mike

larry richards · « **Reply #21 on:** January 23, 2012, 10:04:36 AM »

Thanks Mike for all of the info requested. Now my info is complete. Larry