Author Topic: Jack Sheeks "Torino" (Read 5456 times)

John Miller · « **on:** May 17, 2007, 12:55:12 PM »

The responses both on the forum, and privately, have inspired me, sort of "Pumped me up" over this design. I've always wanted to build it, but I was just getting to it for this next VSC. I thought it would be appropriate for the 20th. running of the event.

Some of you know the competition history of this design. For those who don't, I'll relate a little of it that I know of, and hope I have it right. I'll also add my conjecture as to why we haven't seen many of these "Little Bulls" at previous contests.

At the '68 Nat's, Jim Vornholt showed up with the original Torino. By all accounts, it was a gorgeous plane, and in the hands of Jim, really flew well. But, there was a problem. Jim had wrecked his Nat's plane a week or so before the Nat's. He wasn't going to go, until, while visiting Jack Sheeks, he saw the unfinished Torino hanging on the wall. Jack had built the plane, had it in the clear dope, even flown it a couple of times. To make a long story shorter, Jim with some help from Jack, finished up the plane. It was a great finish, by the accounts of some who were there to see it.

Jim flew it very well, and was on his way to a possible win, when someone remembered seeing the unfinished plane hanging on the wall at Jacks house. There was a lot of discussion, and because of the work, and time spent on the finish, it was ruled that the BOM rule was satisfied, so it wasn't totally DQ'd, but it did have to forfiet appearance points.

The result was that without appearance points, Jim was moved down to 6th place. As it was related to me, both Jim and Jack took it well, and accepted the decision.

But, had it been different, the Torino might well have been a national championship design.

I think that the design might have lost a little flavor because of all the above. I think that may be part of the reason none, or few have been seen at contests.

Now, this isn't brought up to harbor discussion on BOM, or appearance points, those involved have accepted the facts long ago, rather I'd like to present an idea that might be a lot of fun for those who would like to participate.

Would any of you fellas like to build your own Torino for next years VSC XX? Do you like twin boomers?

How about if Cad plans, and laser cut parts were available? Not a kit mind you, just available.

Wouldn't a "Brazilian" stunt thing with the Torino be a blast for the 20th. running of the "Little Bulls"? Imagine a dozen showing up to compete. I can see it now.

Anyone interested?

John Miller

Randy Powell · « **Reply #1 on:** May 17, 2007, 04:19:42 PM »

John,

I built on while in high school. Powered (or rather underpowered) with a very poor running McCoy Series 21 35. The plane, as I remember, flew very well. I always wanted to build another one. I shudder to think how it would fly with a PA 40 Merlin in the nose.

John Miller · « **Reply #2 on:** May 17, 2007, 06:11:17 PM »

Randy, you're the first person I've heard of who has built and flown one of these. A .40 Merlin would be awsome though over powered. I'm thinkin' an Aero Tiger .36.

Gordon Tarbell · « **Reply #3 on:** May 17, 2007, 06:28:04 PM »

Can you show some pic's of the Torino?

Jim Pollock · « **Reply #4 on:** May 17, 2007, 07:09:11 PM »

Sea Vixon and Torino appear to be cut from the same mold. Sea Vixon with more sweep to the wing.
Torino with less sweep and the stab/elevator is in line with the boom where they are suspended high
between the rudders on the Sea Vixon. Of all the boomers, only one has a Nats win! Of course that's
Charles Mackey's fabulous Gobbleswantz in 1956.

Jim Polock

Shultzie · « **Reply #5 on:** May 17, 2007, 10:54:30 PM »

Quote from: gordon tarbell on May 17, 2007, 06:28:04 PM

Can you show some pic's of the Torino?

Help...I am diggin through my old boxes of slides....so far I can't find the pictures that I took. I have one other place out in the garage that I haven't looked through as yet. I will check with BOB PARKER AND JOE DILL both were with me when I was taking those photos of that Torino. Maybe they have photos...I am sure they might show up if we keep askin?

AT LAST...I found only ONE that I took just before our first qualification flight before the Kansas winds began "roarin' down the plain onto the planes.

John Miller · « **Reply #6 on:** May 18, 2007, 07:23:17 AM »

Thanks to Shultzie we have a scan of the plans to look at while he searches out a few pictures. Thanks Don.

John Miller · « **Reply #7 on:** May 18, 2007, 07:38:26 AM »

Again, thanks to Shultzie, we have scans of the original article. Page one with this post,

John Miller · « **Reply #8 on:** May 18, 2007, 07:41:01 AM »

Second page. Thanks again Donny.

John Miller · « **Reply #9 on:** May 18, 2007, 07:48:30 AM »

Jim, you're right a bout the Sea Vixon. It's a neat semi scaler that also hasn't been seen much. I believe several designs done by Jack in his "model of the month" phase, share the same basic wing. In a regular, non twin boomer, check out the Scotsman. It's the first cousin to the Torino.

The Gobleswanze is indeed the only boomer to win the Nat's, but, the Torino came as close as one could.

Best wishes

John Miller

Tom Niebuhr · « **Reply #10 on:** May 18, 2007, 02:08:49 PM »

John,

I hope that you go ahead with the "Torino"

I have always been intrigued with boomers, and I actually have a new design boomer in my future. (It is still classified so no more details yet from the Texas Skunk Works)

Jack Sheeks and Charles Mackey did more with boomers than any others that I know of. I sure admire their pursiuts in pushing the envelope. They weren't afraid to try new things.

Here are some pictures:
1) Lew Wolcast (r) ("Gobbleswantz") and me ("Carousel") at VSC several year ago. I flew a "JD Falcon" that year, since the "Carousel" hadn't been flown yet.

2) My "Carousel"

3 & 4) A ""Sea Vixen" (I got this from the Vicstunt site, I hope someone can identify the builder)

John Miller · « **Reply #11 on:** May 18, 2007, 03:41:09 PM »

Darned if those Boomers don't look good.

I remember the Carousel and the Gobbleswanze at VSC. I believe my buddy Burt Brokaw wound up with the Gobbleswanze and it eventually took up residence in the NW.

Interesting note on the Sea Vixen. It appears that the flaps are only outside of the booms.

Well folks so far, there will be at least three Torinos at VSC XX. If we get a few more to commit, I'm going to sponsor an award for the best one.

John

Randy Powell · « **Reply #12 on:** May 18, 2007, 04:13:22 PM »

John,

Well, rather than another Torino, maybe I'll build a Scottsman as a compliment to your Torino since Jack and Jim did that. That would be fun.

Randy

John Miller · « **Reply #13 on:** May 18, 2007, 05:00:00 PM »

Well, that would be neat. the relationship between the two is obvious. It would be sort of a Jack and Jim stunt thing. Kewl.

Shultzie · « **Reply #14 on:** May 18, 2007, 06:33:22 PM »

Quote from: Randy Powell on May 18, 2007, 04:13:22 PM

John,

Well, rather than another Torino, maybe I'll build a Scottsman as a compliment to your Torino since Jack and Jim did that. That would be fun.

Randy

A SCOTTSMAN...RANDY! SHOW N' TELL ME MORE ABOUT IT?

Tom Niebuhr · « **Reply #15 on:** May 18, 2007, 09:33:07 PM »

John,

Ref the Sea Vixen:

A close look at the "bare bones" picture in the Sea Vixen article shows that the stabilizer and elevator had equal cord, and also had the center flaps. But the photos of the finished airplane has less stab, and no center flaps.

The article mentions that in order to get better turning, with the high tail, the tail moment was increased and the center flap section was locked out.

A few months ago I talked to Jack about the airplane.

I had noticed that the stab cord was decreased on the drawing. Jack said that this was also done to increase the turning ability.This is why the stab has a radius where the leading edge enters the rudders.

Since they made both changes at the same time, Jack told me that the problem was most likely the original short tail moment, and the center section flaps should work OK.

The FM plans have the correct tail moment.

Shultzie · « **Reply #16 on:** May 18, 2007, 10:18:19 PM »

Just for icen' on the twin boomer cake....here is Bob Barons plane that I thought flew extremely well in that very same 68 nats morning during that same qualification round.
Baaaaaaa-HUMBUG~! to the traditionalist Noblerheaded folks that couldn't get past the idea that Bob's HUMBUG....was NOT A COMBAT PLANE! It was in every sense of being...A VERY COMPETITVE STUNT THAT CUT THAT KANSAS HURRICANE WINDS BEAUTIFULLY.

One fact remains...twin and multi boomers truly have soooo much going for them, especially for the stiffness factor. Makes for some really smooth & groovin GOIN ON!

Really keeps those stab-elevators-flaps etc..from flexing. Take a close look at the control system on the Torino again. Again...the trailing edge sweep...the rather smallish flaps....and elevators? One thing I will NOT FORGET ABOUT THE TORINO...WAS JUST HOW PRECISE AND QUICK THOSE SQUARE CORNERS SEEMED! NO BOBBLEEE-WOBBLES OR BAR-BELL HOPPIN GOIN' ON!
Here is a look at Bob Barons interesting FLAPLESS MODEL! GADS! LOOK AT THAT TAIL PLATFORM...THINK IT IS STIFF ENOUGH...AND THEN SOME?

next photo...is BOB'S HUMBUG 666 (sign of the beast?) hummm?

Randy Powell · « **Reply #17 on:** May 19, 2007, 12:56:45 PM »

Shultzie,

I've only seen the plans for the Scottsman. Obvious relationship to the Torino. But I've never seen a picture of the built plane. Not sure how I missed it when it came out in FM.

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #18 on:** May 19, 2007, 11:36:44 PM »

Definitely similar to Torino except...DEE TUBE!!!!!

Shultzie · « **Reply #19 on:** May 20, 2007, 11:43:37 AM »

Quote from: Dennis Adamisin on May 19, 2007, 11:36:44 PM

Definitely similar to Torino except...DEE TUBE!!!!!

Thanks Dennis...
Your scanner works far better than mine.
I noticed the enlarged flaps near the body to wing area. Hummm? With that swept wing...humm? that looks like it might be a good idea, huh?

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #20 on:** May 21, 2007, 09:18:33 PM »

Schultzie:
RIGHT ON! It looks like a LOT of Jack's designs used either really narrow flaps or really SHORT span flaps. Guess maybe he did not really believe in using flaps???

Personally I like the slightly wider flap on the Scottsman from a functional standpoint - but it also fits the overall look of the bird. I LOVE the Torino, but the Scottsman would really be awesome too.

About the scans, the originals are yellowed, I touched them up using "Picture It" which I think is now an obsolete MS software. Anyhow after scanning I "converted" it to a B&W .jpg, then brightened it up a little.

Randy Powell · « **Reply #21 on:** May 22, 2007, 04:07:43 PM »

Hmmm, looking at that airfoil (Scottsman), I'm having second thoughts. But we'll see. I ordered up new plans for it (mine are so yellowed and cracked I can barely read them). We'll see. Hmmm.... Maybe a Knight?

Tom Niebuhr · « **Reply #22 on:** May 23, 2007, 12:12:31 AM »

Randy,
The airfoil looks different, but like I said, Jack was never afraid to try something out of the ordinary. The "Torino" and "Scottsman" airfoil look very much alike. I think that it is still worth trying.

Randy Powell · « **Reply #23 on:** May 23, 2007, 10:33:18 AM »

Tom,

I ordered several Jack Sheeks plans from Flying Models recently. Some I have but are very old and damaged, others I had at one time or another, but have been lost or given away and some I never had. 6 plans in all. I'll probably pick one to build, all are classic legal.

There were several of Jack's designs that weren't published until the early 70s that I wish qualified for classic like the Swinger 2, Old Glory and Bewitched. Sigh...

John,

By the way, the actual name of the plane in question in this thread is the Torino "S"

Jim Pollock · « **Reply #24 on:** May 23, 2007, 09:17:14 PM »

Reading the first part of the Torino article, Jack states that it is not the ultimate stunt plane.
Oh, golly, gee whitakers, maybe not the ultimate stunter, but a very pretty one indeed!
I suppose you could build the Scottsman as an I beamer also. Unfortunately it's not a boomer
design though. I think the Torino is a worthy build just because of it's graceful beauty.

Jim Pollock

Bill Little · « **Reply #25 on:** May 24, 2007, 08:49:26 AM »

The Torino S is definitely a sharp looking stunt plane!

May have to build one, also.

John Miller · « **Reply #26 on:** May 24, 2007, 12:23:01 PM »

For those reading this post, who might be interested in building the Torino, I'll be starting the Cad work on the plans over the weekend, while attending the NW Regionals. I'm planning on two variations to the plans. One as it was published, strip ribs etc. The other modified to use full ribs, as Gordan and I used on our renditions of Gierkes All American Eagles. I posted pictures on this method recently to this forum, if you'd like to see what I'm talking about.

The plans are going to CAD, so we can have the parts laser cut. Currently, ther're 4 of us who will be building Torinos for VSC XX. It's a sort of "Tribute" thing for Jack and Jim.

One of the builders is Mike Pratt, who has good contacts for laser cutting. When he's got a solid price on that, we'll let it be known. We are not trying to make money with this deal, just cover the costs.

You don't have to have the CAD plans, or the laser cut parts to join us. I also feel that the Scottsman, because of it's obvious relationship to the Torino, would be a natural for those wishing to stay away from a boomer. It appears that the wings for both are basically identical, so it could be built with either a 'D" tube as the plans show, or as an I-beamer as Jack originally drew it up.

John Miller

Randy Powell · « **Reply #27 on:** May 24, 2007, 04:51:36 PM »

John,

If I build the Scottsman (and I probably will), it will be as an I-Beamer... probably.

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #28 on:** May 25, 2007, 10:30:32 AM »

John M:
I didn't catch if you were looking for numbers yet, but if the lasered Torino happens I'd be interested too.

Tom Niebuhr · « **Reply #29 on:** May 26, 2007, 08:49:30 AM »

Wouldn't it be great to a see lot of Jack's designs at the next VSC. What a tribute to one of the most prolific designers, and an all around nice guy!

It looks like I will be building the "Sea Vixen"

I noticed that the FM plans directory shows the "Sea Vixen" to have 56" wing span. Yet my FM plans measure 52 1/2". The bare bones picture in the article has 2 more ribs in each wing than the plans.

I talked to Jack yesterday about this. He said that the correct wing span is 56" and the magazine plan is too small. We also discussed the decreased stab area and the center section flaps that were later locked out, as shown on the plans. After talking to Jack, I will build the airplane using the center flaps, and the full stab as in the pictures, This is more like the full size airplane.

Jack also recommends to add a tail wt box, since the original was nose heavy.

Jack is going to mark up a drawing for me so that the airplane will be accurate.

Tom Niebuhr · « **Reply #30 on:** May 26, 2007, 10:50:03 AM »

One additional comment from Jack Sheeks when we talked last night. He felt that the "Sea Vixen" was a good airplane, but, a little less sweep back would be better.

Although I did not ask him, the "Torino S" has a little less sweep back, and should be a great airplane.

John Miller · « **Reply #31 on:** May 26, 2007, 03:41:42 PM »

Tom, I think this is a really good idea. Jack was soo prolific. I think ther're at least a dozen designs of his in the classic manual from PAMPA. I'd love to see a bunch of his designs show up for the next VSC. I'd be willing to sponsor a special award, for a Sheeks design.

Bill Little · « **Reply #32 on:** May 26, 2007, 03:49:47 PM »

Hi John,

You might be "light" with your guess! LOL!! As I recall, Jack DID publish under a couple pen names, also.

Never the less, there are a bunch of them!!

I built the "D" tube Messerschmidt 109 that came out in '70 I believe, but was flying in '68 or'69. So it's Classic legal. I *believe* the companion P-51B that was published under a pseudonym is also Classic legal. "Joe Berry" was the name, IIRC. ?? ??

Bill <><

Jim Pollock · « **Reply #33 on:** May 26, 2007, 08:00:59 PM »

Hmmmm,

This idea wouldn't go over so well with everyone attending VSC, but, why not increase it by one day and
include a separate contest for a select designer each year? Make this one a Sheeks contest day, next year
it could be a Mackey day and so on......ect. Some of the designers that I think deserve inclusion are
Jack Sheeks, Charles Mackey, Bob Palmer, Dick Mathis, Lew McFarland, Dave Gierke, Bob Gialdini, Frank Warburton.
I'm sure some of our Birtish and Ausie friends can chime in with more international classic airplane designers names.

Jim Pollock, pushing the envelope - with my nose of course.......

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #34 on:** May 26, 2007, 09:42:54 PM »

Jim P
Never been to VSC but your idea sounds plausible for that venue. Not sure an extra day would be needed though; how just a Pilots Choice kind of award for Best Sheeks airplane, or Best Palmer airplane, etc?

BTW, got my hands on one of Big Art's photo albums. Here's a pix of two of my very favorite people in the world..

Tom Niebuhr · « **Reply #35 on:** May 28, 2007, 11:35:12 PM »

Dennis,

Thanks for the great picture of Shirley and Jack. Shirley still looks at Jack that way! What a great couple.

Robertc · « **Reply #36 on:** June 01, 2007, 08:05:39 AM »

Several years ago, I did ask Jack what he thought his best flying design was and it was the Torino. He thought he might have the orginal plans still and would GIVE them to me if he could find them. Turns out, he had gived a bunch of plans away and the Torino in that bunch. I did get a set of the plans and was planning to have it at VSC in 2003, but a forced job change and a move changed all of that.

MikeyPratt · « **Reply #37 on:** June 02, 2007, 01:09:02 PM »

Quote from: Ty Marcucci on June 01, 2007, 09:07:51 AM

Here is Jacks "The Knight". Another neat one worth modeling just because it is different and it's an I beamer too.

Ty the Knight is a Way Cool model that I always wanted to build. Kind of looks like a Goodyear Racer called "Rivets" that I saw at the Chino airport on display. I have had the privilege to know Jack and Shirley for a long time and they are as good as they come. Super friends and fun to be around. The Torino "S" was on my list of thing to build and that low down John Miller let the cat out of the bag so to speak. Now I have to get going and ger-er-done for VSC.

FYI: The numbers on this model are very close to some of the modern designs and should be hard to beat in Classic. AT 36 powered, "I" beamer, 42 ounces= A__ kicker

Mikey

Tom Niebuhr · « **Reply #38 on:** June 02, 2007, 01:32:51 PM »

Mikey,

Glad you are now in with us on this! So will you build a "Torino S" or a "Knight"

Like I posted elsewhere, When I moved from St Louis back to Northern NJ, I flew out of the Warwick NY airport where Bill Faulk was the FBO. So the "Rivets" is close to my heart, and of course, the "Knight" sure has a strong resemblance. (I also flew out of the Sussex, NJ airport where Leo Loudenslager was based.)

I have aways been interested in the "Sea Vixen", so that is what I am building.

BTW, When I talked to Jack a few days ago, he said that he had given you plans to another of his airplanes that was not published, but is Classic legal. A ME with a 49" span. Can you supply any more on this airplane?

I hope everyone will post construction pictures of their Sheeks airplanes as progress is made..

MikeyPratt · « **Reply #39 on:** June 02, 2007, 03:22:43 PM »

Quote from: Tom Niebuhr on June 02, 2007, 01:32:51 PM

Mikey,

Glad you are now in with us on this! So will you build a "Torino S" or a "Knight"

Like I posted elsewhere, When I moved from St Louis back to Northern NJ, I flew out of the Warwick NY airport where Bill Faulk was the FBO. So the "Rivets" is close to my heart, and of course, the "Knight" sure has a strong resemblance. (I also flew out of the Sussex, NJ airport where Leo Loudenslager was based.)

I have aways been interested in the "Sea Vixen", so that is what I am building.

BTW, When I talked to Jack a few days ago, he said that he had given you plans to another of his airplanes that was not published, but is Classic legal. A ME with a 49" span. Can you supply any more on this airplane?

I hope everyone will post construction pictures of their Sheeks airplanes as progress is made..

Tom,
The Torino "S" is my choice for the next Classic project but if you have a number of good pictures of "Rivits" I could rethink this whole thing <LOL>.

I still have the drawings for the 109 in a box somewhere and the plan is to redraw them in CAD and have laser cut parts available.

Later,
Mikey

Tom Niebuhr · « **Reply #40 on:** June 02, 2007, 05:04:21 PM »

Mikey,
Sorry I don't any pictures of "Rivets"

Unfortunately Bill and "Rivets" were lost in Cleveland before I took any pictures.

Shultzie · « **Reply #41 on:** June 02, 2007, 09:26:19 PM »

Quote from: Ty Marcucci on June 02, 2007, 08:37:52 PM

I have a soft spot for the Rivets. While in Idaho, our club had an event we called "Mouse Racing" It was not 1/2A Rat, but more like 1/2A Goodyear. The rules stipulated TD.049 only, profile of any plane that raced in the Thompson, Bendix races, or Reno races. Lots of planes to choose from. BUT the Rivet had that Tee tail and was a challenge to get the elevator to work. Especially at 1/2A size. But I made a 90 degree crank in the bottom of the rudder that worked. Cute little thing. It had a hollow profi8le fuselage, so the controls wre buried inside. Got to thank Al Culver for the ideas.

Those Boeing wind tunnel modelers sure have their ducks lined up in a row.

Quack, Quack! AAAAFLACK!!!

AP^Kinda like a turkey shoot??

Peter Nevai · « **Reply #42 on:** June 03, 2007, 12:04:20 AM »

It would be very nice if a torino were available in laser cut, using a conventional wing. (no clue on how to build a I beam) the tough part would be fitting a suitable canopy and of course those non obtainable needle nose spinners. Without either it would be a poor replica of a Torino.

Also with todays composits I figure a carbon torque tube can be used in order to eliminate the need for dual push rods to the elevator.

An Aero tiger 36 would probably be the Ideal power choice or a LA 46.

The sweep in the wing may make adjustable lead outs a bit dodgy. getting all of those flap sections aligned will be a challange as well. Tail heavyness may also rear it's ugly.

Oh BTW attached is a photo of the rivets

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #43 on:** June 03, 2007, 06:25:59 AM »

Rivets was first built with a low tail (the one shown in Peter's pix) then rebuilt with a T tail. Here's section of drawing from Mendenhall's Air Racing book that shows the differences...

Tom Niebuhr · « **Reply #44 on:** June 03, 2007, 07:40:10 AM »

Peter.
"(no clue on how to build a I beam)"

"I beam" wings are not as difficult as they look at first glance. Bob Hunt's "How to build I-Beams" video with Bill Werwage, shows and tells all, including making a simple template for making the strip ribs, and how to strenghten the spar. Many of the old plans showed the bellcrank mounted through the spar. Bill shows it just aft of the spar. Also using triplers in the center of the spar. The video is a must.

Using a similar rib tool, I made all the "Sea Vixen" strip ribs, a few days ago, in about 20 minutes.

Another neat revelation is using 000 steel wool for "sanding" the bays and not going through all those ribs.

With the swept wings, Jack told me that he now has plywood plates top and bottom that also mount the bellcrank if it is in the center section, Use of carbon is also recommended.

As to the two pushrods, they seem to be used more because of the lesser support of the elevator horns, although some of Charles Mackey's airplanes used one elevator horn. Personally I have used the two pushrods.

John Miller · « **Reply #45 on:** June 03, 2007, 08:36:27 AM »

I have started re-drawing the Torino into CAD. I intend to do the plans in two versions. One, as designed, with strip ribs, the other modified to use the same type of construction as used in the Novi, and All American Eagle series. I did a post recently showing this proccess.

Mike and I, as well as several others will be using these plans, and files, to have laser cut parts made from them. I hope to have the plans finished soon.

John Miller

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #46 on:** June 03, 2007, 10:04:12 AM »

Peter:
I've never built an I-Beam either, but watched my brother build 3. I figure I need to build one to continue to bulk-up my aeromodeling resume!

Carbon is a nice addition but remember the structure was designed without it. Rigid carbon around flexing balsa structure is BAD, per Windy's experience with is Mig way back when. Carbon cloth laminated into the structure with epoxy is a great idea.

As for the tailheaviness, remember very few classic era birds were equipped with mufflers. Sheeks used a lot of Fox 35's (6.5 oz) and later, Enya 35's (I think around 7 oz) so almost any modern engine you use will likely be heavier than that, especially with a muffler.

Using a carbon torque rod - that's a DARNED interesting approach!

Bill Little · « **Reply #47 on:** June 03, 2007, 10:42:24 AM »

Hi Dennis,

I have built 4 I-Beamers using Billy's methods of CF re-inforcement and have had zero problems. One is over 10 years old and has a ton of flights on it.

In the right places, the CF makes the plane much more durable and a better flying plane.

Jusy my personal experiences with those methods.

Bill <><

Tom Niebuhr · « **Reply #48 on:** June 03, 2007, 11:19:58 AM »

Bill just said it all..."In the right places, the CF makes the plane much more durable and a better flying plane."

Dennis is also right, stiff CF against flexing balsa is like having a break notch, and can ruin your whole day. Billy uses CF on the spar caps, but uses plywood for the spar doublers and triplers. Structures require thought for the strength vs weight game. Just as always, beef up only where it is necessary, light is good, but light in the wrong places is very bad!

Over the years we have seen I-beamers fail, we have seen foam wings fail, etc., the learning never stops. Built properly they all are great.

Bill Little · « **Reply #49 on:** June 03, 2007, 11:43:56 AM »

Thanks, Tom. I didn't mean for it to sound like I was downing what Dennis said. Not in the least! I have seen the failures of all types of wings. Evenwhen Bob G.'s CF covered plane snapped.

It has to be done correctly, and I just follow what I see thatr works. Very *little* experimentation on my part, I just ain't that "stunt smart"....

But I doo love 'em just the same!