stunthanger.com
General control line discussion => Open Forum => Topic started by: Steve Hand on November 02, 2007, 10:34:15 PM
-
The current round-up roustabout concerning possible favorites on both boards, seems to have tapered off dramatically as to kit preferences and/or favorites. Instead of me just saying "this is the one" just yet, let's do this. We are basically looking at a multi-engine project no matter where we go (6-4), as to your wants. There are two which obviously are the favorites. I am going to list the two and all of you who are interested can take it from there as to a final (pros and cons) preference. Let me say this. It is easy to have an opinion, but keep in mind, no matter which one is finally selected, it won't be cheap. As I said before, I don't mind not making much off of this, but I cannot go into production without a healthy downpayment. I can not venture into this with the cash outlay I will need up front, without a specified number of orders that will require at least half of the price once it has been determined. There won't be any extras or leftovers. Let me say one more thing, because it has bothered me. I have not attempted to do this for any ulterior motive or profit. Neither have I tried to promote myself or the planes that I sell. This is not my income. It is just something I enjoy doing because I love building model airplanes and seeing the efforts of others doing the same.
Sooooo, commence with whatever you want to talk about concerning the following two planes. Keep in mind that if you do want to build one, the expenses go far beyond the purchase of a kit if you intend to eventually fly it.
Convair B-36
Lockheed Constellation "Connie"
-
Then, B = C and A = C.... I think I got it! D>K
Just my opinion, but I would bet that you will be hard pressed to get a dozen orders for either plane from this group, so I hope that it will be a labor of love as opposed to a business decision. Keep us posted.
-
Hi Steve,
Both are admirable projects. Unfortunately, the "most favorite" of those two for me would be the B-36. Why unfortuanely? Six (count 'em *6*) engines. Not a huge Airliner fan so the Connie, although a pretty plane, would never end up on even my build *considerations* list.
My choice? *D* LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~
-
I really got to hand it to these four and six engine guys. I just helped design and build a twin engine 1/2A and I could not even imagine building a four engine job.
Well maybe a well engineered Connie kit.
Chris...
-
Chris,
Thanks for the photo. It piqued my interest so much that I went looking. This may be the site where you got the picture, but I didn't have time to look through them all. For the rest of you take a trip over to conniesurvivors.com and enjoy facts and pictures of the current status of these ladys. It is fascinating. Thanks again, Chris.
-
Not every engine was built to be a PUSHER.
Unless you plan on using ball bearing engines with "trapped" crankshafts, you better stick with front-engine designs.
-
Chris,
Thanks for the photo. It piqued my interest so much that I went looking. This may be the site where you got the picture, but I didn't have time to look through them all. For the rest of you take a trip over to conniesurvivors.com and enjoy facts and pictures of the current status of these ladys. It is fascinating. Thanks again, Chris.
You welcome Steve.
I have a soft spot for them as my dad flew them for TWA.
Chris...
-
Not every engine was built to be a PUSHER.
Unless you plan on using ball bearing engines with "trapped" crankshafts, you better stick with front-engine designs.
What do you mean by "trapped" crankshaft? Why can't a bushed engine be used in a "pusher"?
Bigiron
-
By "trapped", I mean prevented from moving fore-and-aft in the crankcase.
For example, a G21 or a Nelson would be good.
A Babe Bee or a Fox 35 Stunt would have a short life in a pusher.
-
Yeah,
I bet after several hundred flights they would start a power degradation!
Come on Paul, a little practicality here. How many hours of flying would one of these B-36's accrue?
Babe bee's as pushers is as natural as running them frontwards. With so little rotating mass, where is the wear force going to come from, the massive torque through the heavy weight propeller? Oh brother!
Heard the one about not using starters on Foxes and McCoy's? Oh, my son has been using one for about 200 flights on the Fox 35 and it's running as well as ever. He must have a light touch, and know how to get it primed.
The old ladies and their wives tales are a form of comic relief, though.
I'll bet the B-36 builder uses a modern R/C motor and has a pretty good time of it. All one of them completed, that is!
Chris...
-
I picked up 6 Veco Spinners and Tornado Yellow pusher props off ebay a while back. They had been used on a B-36 in the '50s-'60s. McCoy 19s is what I believe was referenced. Hey, they were REALLY cheap! 1-1/2" spinners IIRC. They are stored away right now. ;D
-
LOL, lots a tales concerning Fox Stunt .35,s.....seeing as how the back side of the prop drive washer comes into contact with the front of the crank case and main bushing long befor the crank pin will even be close to the inside surface of the back plate, there is no problem running them as pushers, or even starting them with electric starters.........Regards, Phil H^^
-
Lets start a new thread IE Fox's with starters or pushers.. I'll go first..
-
That triple tailed Connie is so gorgeous, I can remember laying in the front yard as they were coming and going to the old Municipal Airport just off down town Kansas City, Missouri. Have never had the pleasure of seeing a B-36 in the air. So I guess I will have to start saving my dollars now for the Connie. Have fun, DOC Holliday
-
There IS one choice of poweplant that makes multi engines a cinch. Electric.
-
There IS one choice of poweplant that makes multi engines a cinch. Electric.
Come on Isky! With these old birds, using electrics would similar to taking your cousin to the prom! Ya had a date but that's about it. D>K
-
In 1963 I flew on a Connie from Balto. to Heathwick..it was a charter flight, very cramped, took aloooong time, but what a georgous airplane! From what I have read, it may have been one of the last commercial uses of the Connie. I feel lucky to have experienced it...Bob
-
The production model will be the Connie. If any of you are interested just e-mail me at mollycary@yahoo.com and I will keep you current as to the status. It is going to be engineered to accept gas or electric.
-
Hi Steve, just tried to send you an E-Mail. My yahoo mail it could not be delivered as address is unknown. Anyway my E-Mail is: jehold662032004@yahoo.com . I want to be on the list for a Connie. Have Fun, DOC Holliday
-
Doc, go to his profile and scroll down to his E-Mail address--- it is different than the one he listed (probably a mis-spelling oversight) -- I did and it worked on the second address.
Bigiron
-
SORRY ABOUT THE E-MAIL ADDRESS!!!!! I LEFT OUT A LETTER> >>>> mollycarly@yahoo.com
-
I guess if it wasn't for me being so lazy I would have went to the profile. Also now everyone knows I want a Connie. As Melvin says, "I must be getting old to be flying stunt and now thinking of scale". I have challenged him several times to fly the full pattern and find out how much difference there is to flying stunt than pitting a racing plane. Have fun, DOC Holliday
-
If the name of the game is "most engines win", go for the Spruce Goose, eight of 'em and all up front.