A Snark? No wonder we didn't get any Juniors. They were all hi-jacked!

[Scott Richlen]

Take a look at this:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/RARE-VINTAGE-COMET-SNARK-SM-62-MODEL-AIRPLANE-U-C-GAS-POWERED-ENGINE-049-NOT-COX/382365072528?hash=item5906bbfc90:g:g64AAOSwXMZab85Q

Really super-neat.

But from an aviation point of view, I'm sure that it didn't fly worth beans (if it flew at all!)

So, back in the day how many well-meaning Mommies and Daddies bought Junior one of these (or one of their multitude of other versions) knowing that Junior wanted to fly CL?  Talk about an instant dead-end!!

When I was in Junior High and flying the little balsa planes I had built from kits, kids would approach with a plastic that they were unsuccessfully trying to fly.

[peabody]

I believe that Tom McLain built one?
Bigger

[Jim Mynes]

Only $800???
I wish he had two of them...

[Larry Renger]

Wan’t the full scale Snark a Flying wing plane?

[Elwyn Aud]

Surface to Surface cruise missile. Essentially an unmanned aircraft. It looked pretty similar to the model.

[Brett Buck]

Wan’t the full scale Snark a Flying wing plane?

   No. The model looks more-or-less like the real thing. Cape Canaveral got its start as a test site for the Snark and other similar V1-inspired "cruise missiles". Let's say that the state of the art of guidance systems was not up to the task at the time, and they Atlantic around Cape Canaveral was referred to as "snark-infested waters" for the large number of Snarks that went for an unintentional plunge.

     The state of the art for large ballistic missiles was not any more advanced, so they screwed around with these sorts of unpiloted aircraft (Snark as an IRBM, BOMARC as an interceptor that was supposed to replaced piloted planes like the Avro Arrow), until it became obvious that if you could guide an airplane adequately, you could guide a ballistic or SAM just as adequately. Shooting down a Polaris missile reentry body was and still is very difficult compared to shooting down a Snark cruising around at low altitudes and 600 mph.

    Brett

[Bob Heywood]

Wan’t the full scale Snark a Flying wing plane?

In the pure sense, not exactly because of the vertical stabilizer. But, there was no horizontal tail surface. Both the Comet RTF and Scientific hollow log had a horizontal tail for obvious reasons.

[M Spencer]

Its Highly Undercambered . It should glide well . 



Being from the land of No Nitro ( Pre drag racing in N Z ) , later seeing a Cox on 20 % , we figure that is the answer to everything .
If They ( the plastic planes ) dont melt .

The looks of the thing would be enough to entice most brats . Intresting the thing looks ' unopened ' prestine.

[dennis lipsett]

I built a Scientific Snark when I was a lot younger. Gutted it as much as I could but it really was a rock on a string.

[Scott Richlen]

You can imagine how badly that heavy chunk of plastic would fly (if it even got off the ground.)  Except for maybe the PT-19 you had to fly off asphalt since most plastics would take the better part of a lap to build up enough speed.  Of course, attempting to fly over asphalt on your first flight with a plane that barely flies is not a recipe for follow-on flights...

These things made quick work of aviation dreams in a youngster who just blew a year's allowance on buying "pretty"...

[Bob Heywood]

You can imagine how badly that heavy chunk of plastic would fly (if it even got off the ground.)  Except for maybe the PT-19 you had to fly off asphalt since most plastics would take the better part of a lap to build up enough speed.  Of course, attempting to fly over asphalt on your first flight with a plane that barely flies is not a recipe for follow-on flights...

These things made quick work of aviation dreams in a youngster who just blew a year's allowance on buying "pretty"...

Oh, but how we lusted after them...

Actually, the P-40 was pretty much fun. The TD-1 and Flying Circus were decent also.

P.S. Little Stinkers were a lot of fun too.

[Brett Buck]

Oh, but how we lusted after them...

Actually, the P-40 was pretty much fun. The TD-1 and Flying Circus were decent also.

P.S. Little Stinkers were a lot of fun too.

      Apropos of the "endless argument" (AKA 15 guys with an axe to grind VS stunt AKA BOM) - why did people lust after them? Because *they looked cool*, little jewels. A slab-wing 1/2A is ugly no matter what you do to it. Even this Snark model looks pretty cool, just look how well the spinner fits. Its certainly going to be barely functional in flight, but most of these plastic airplanes ended up as display models at best. Most kids never got the engine started.  People still wanted them and Cox (and a lesser extent, Testors, Aurora, Comet) sold this stuff as a viable business for several decades, and was the only exposure to CL or model airplanes most people ever got.

     You have to have a "hook" with some lasting appeal. Appearance definitely factors into the "curb appeal" of stunt. For combat and for those with exposure to it, FAI TR, it's the furious action, for other events its, er, nothing, which is why they are dead aside from the hard-core enthusiasts.

   Most of our approaches to "participation" involved looking at what we are doing wrong, and trying to "fix" it. The operates on the supposition that we are failing. We have had a viable event in essentially the current form for the better part of 60 years -  I look at it by starting from what we are doing *right* and trying to continue and enhance it.

     Brett

[Fredvon4]

My entry was not the Cox, Aurora, Testors WenMac... but they did find there way under our Xmas tree pretty often

Then again, with a beginning in the late 50s with .35 sized balsa models, Fox or McCoy powered that our dad played with---- as we kids got them (plastic ARFS) we managed to actually fly, albeit briefly, many of the PX or Sear's catalog TOYS

Hell I hate to think how many hours of building and finishing any Estes rocket to just see it escape gravity and never be seen again......

Still, all in all , I tend to think the bad rap a lot of these RTFs gets is unfounded.....

I just seemed to be some where in my life that the day after Xmas had so many home garages puking out Glow fuel smoke and all of us neighbor kids could not wait to have a good weather day to go crash the smithereenes out of our new toy

I know there is some validity to the notion that many tied and gave up....

Ttoday, 60 years later, WE are all evident that some of it was fun and stuck...
 

[Bob Heywood]

I know there is some validity to the notion that many tied and gave up....

Ttoday, 60 years later, WE are all evident that some of it was fun and stuck...

And the people say..."Amen"

Aurora Bonzo in my collection...

[Dan McEntee]

 I would shure like to have me that there Bonzo!. Brett is correct in that we did ,(and still do ) lust after them because they did look so cool! I will agree that they were not the best way to get started, but the models could fly. The PT-19, when properly set up and adjusted, could fly very well, as long as the person got a bit of help or at least followed the instructions. Hand launching over tall grass could be done. I have flown several of my Cox models in my collection, and videos can be found on YouTube flying my Cox Stuka and Piper Super Cub. just search my name and Cox Stuka and they should come up.
   Type at you later,
   Dan McEntee

[Larry Renger]

Having some small acquaintance with the brand, I never met a Cox design that wouldn’t fly. There were problems with some, but with two exceptions, power to weight was not a problem. The losers wer the Hyper Viper electric models (NOT the Hyper Viper stunter that Mike Pratt designed, that was a winner)

Stability wise, they all got retuned early on in my watch so they would fly smoothly with your hand locked to your chest. The only one with no room for correction was the P40. But Bart Klapinski could fly 3 of them at once!

A couple had “peculiarities”! The Fokker Triplanes would do an unrecoverable (we had a pile of scrap to prove that) outside tumble if you input down too fast. The TD4 would flex its wings and do a death dive if, again, you input down too sharply.

The Stuka was a great flyer and capable of loops, but very fragile. Sad!

I could do a (large) square loop with the PT19. And every maneuver in the modern pattern with the Me-109. The Hyper Viper stunter was pattern capable too.

Of course I didn’t deal with all 50+ years of Cox planes, but in my experience, flight performance was a consistent requirement. The story goes that early on, Roy Cox insisted on making the first test flight on each new prototype. If you wanted to keep working there, it better fly!

 

[Dane Martin]

The only one with no room for correction was the P40. But Bart Klapinski could fly 3 of them at once!

And he still has 3 of them! So cool.