AD Skyraider

[Randy Ryan]

I'm sure its been done but I don't recall ever having seen a Douglas Skyraider Stunter (full fuse, not profile). Pictures anyone?

[Ara Dedekian]

Randy


        The old Midwest series of Warbird profile stunters included a Skyraider. I saw one flying at Flushing Meadows, N.Y. back in the 1970's and seem to remember it did OK as a sport stunter.

Ara Dedekian 

[Dennis Leonhardi]

I'm sure its been done but I don't recall ever having seen a Douglas Skyraider Stunter (full fuse, not profile). Pictures anyone?

Love that airplane Randy, and the moment arms just look like a natural.  Don Typond did a beauty in the '70s as I recall, Flying Models plan #CF-257.  Looked like it could almost win scale events.

50" span, 520 squares, original powered by a SuperTigre G.21/.35.  I don't think I have the article any more, but do have the plan file.


Dennis

[Trostle]

 Don Typond did a beauty in the '70s as I recall, Flying Models plan #CF-257.  Looked like it could almost win scale events.

50" span, 520 squares, original powered by a SuperTigre G.21/.35.  I don't think I have the article any more, but do have the plan file.

Dennis

Flying Models, March 1972

Keith

[Bob Whitely]

He did say fuse not a pukey profile.  RJ

[Randy Ryan]

Thanks guys, I'll go take a look, I think I have Mar 72 FM

[Trostle]

He did say fuse not a pukey profile.  RJ

That Typond design in FM is far from a "pukey profile".  As has already been suggested, it would make a decent Fun Scale entry.  Plus, it has all of the "numbers" to be made into a decent flying CLPA model and could still look like a Skyraider.

Keith

[Dan McEntee]

That Typond design in FM is far from a "pukey profile".  As has already been suggested, it would make a decent Fun Scale entry.  Plus, it has all of the "numbers" to be a decent flying CLPA model.

Keith

   It is a very nice airplane and one that helped turn my attention to stunt. I think either in that article or a follow up was a nice tutorial on carving and painting pilot figures.
  Type at you later,
    Dan McEntee

[wwwarbird]

That Typond design in FM is far from a "pukey profile".  As has already been suggested, it would make a decent Fun Scale entry.  Plus, it has all of the "numbers" to be a decent flying CLPA model.

Keith

 Keith,

 I think Bob was responding to Ara's preceding reply mentioning of the Midwest Skyraider.

 Pat Johnston put something up here a while ago about doing a profile Skyraider of his own design. Pat designs good airplanes. I think I told him to do a full fuse version and he could count me in.

[Ara Dedekian]

    OK, I think I've got it. You read a post ALL the way through, THEN reply!

    My two favorite airplanes are the Noorduyn Norseman and the Skyraider, especially the A1E with the tinted rear canopy. The appeal to me being they're both really cool flying utility vehicles; flying dump trucks with a look that "only a mother could love". The Skyraider, I believe, holds the record for the most ordnance carried aloft by a single prop driven plane.
    What turned me on to the Skyraider was the box art on the Midwest kit(!) (I still have the kit). Didn't have a clue what a Skyraider was back then and the more I looked into the design and its history, the more I liked it.


Ara 

[Bob Reeves]

I think the AD would make a perfect semiscale stunter powered with a 4 stroke.

Had a squadron of Skyraiders on the Hancock, our A4's always seemed to end up parked back with the Skyraiders. They are pretty large and that big radial, well what can I say about what a big radial sounds like when it's starting. We had to constantly check our backs, usually the AD's would launch after the A4's but once in a while (for some reason unknown to me) they would move an AD up while we were still on the deck. 

[John Park]

Folks:
Anyone ever read 'The Lonely Sky' by Bill Bridgeman?  It has a section all about Bridgeman's time on AD production testing - well worth reading, as is the whole book.  VERY highly recommended.

[pipemakermike]

if you are looking for a plan there is an RC verson here that looks like a good candidate for conversion. It is about the right size

[John Jordan]

Al Rabe did one back in 1972 March Flying Models  ST35 48 oz  50" wing span 520 sq. in.  Plans are from Carstens Flying Plans  plan number CF-257

[Al Rabe]

Not me.  That was Don Typond's airplane.

Al

[wwwarbird]

I think the AD would make a perfect semiscale stunter powered with a 4 stroke.

 That goes for pretty much any semi scale C/L model.

[Douglas Ames]

I think the AD would make a perfect semiscale stunter powered with a 4 stroke.

Had a squadron of Skyraiders on the Hancock, our A4's always seemed to end up parked back with the Skyraiders. They are pretty large and that big radial, well what can I say about what a big radial sounds like when it's starting. We had to constantly check our backs, usually the AD's would launch after the A4's but once in a while (for some reason unknown to me) they would move an AD up while we were still on the deck. 

I can imagine oil being slung on the A4 canopies if they SPADs lauched first. 

[skyshark58]

The Douglas AD-2 Skyraider carried 8000 pound of ordnance and the Martin AM-1 Mauler carried 12,650 !

[Wynn Robins]

heres a 50" one

I really want to build one - but everyone says they are ugly - I LOVE them

have the full size plan in PDF if you need it

[55chevr]

We got some direct air support from Skyraiders in Vietnam ... I thought then that they were beautiful. Plus they carried 500 lb bombs and Zuni-s ... I still think that they are beautiful.


Joe

[Trostle]

The Douglas AD-2 Skyraider carried 8000 pound of ordnance and the Martin AM-1 Mauler carried 12,650 !

Interesting comparison. I have some reference material that gives the specifications on these two aircraft.  According to the Illustrated Encyclopedia of Aircraft, the Skyraider could carry 8,000 pounds of external stores, the Mauler could carry up to 4,500 pounds of external stores. 

This reference lists the empty weight of the Mauler is 14,500 pounds and the maximum take-off weight as 23,386 pounds.  Of the 8,874 pound difference between empty and max weight, I would assume some of that weight would have to be fuel, thereby making the specification that the Mauler could carry over 12,000 pounds of ordinance questionable.

There is some interesting information on the Mauler in the above referenced listing.  The short desriptions given states that the two prototypes of this aircraft were powered by the PW 4360-4 engines, the 4-row monster that powered some other notable aircraft from that era.  But the specification block in this reference lists the Wright  R-3350-4 Cyclone which is basically the same engine as the Skyraider.  I am sure that with the PW 4360, the performance of those prototype Maulers was quite impressive.

Now, if we look at Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation, it list the Mauler powerpland as the PW 4360.  It lists some different weights but not in the realm of 12,000 pounds of armament.

I would be interested in the source of that information.

In either case, these are remarkable aircraft and illustrate the developments from WW II that led to these aircraft.  Each could carry a bomb load almost matching the B-17, and could fly higher and faster from the deck of an aircraft carrier.  However, they did not have the range. of the B-17.

Keith

[Paul Smith]

I built two Skyraiders for carrier.

The problem is low wing area and a huge fuselage.  If it's built anywhere near true scale the fuselage is like a blimp and the wingspan is six feet.   

A "Skyraider-like" stunter would be cool - with an undersize body and a lowered aspect ratio.

[Randy Ryan]

heres a 50" one

I really want to build one - but everyone says they are ugly - I LOVE them

have the full size plan in PDF if you need it

Certainly not beautiful like a Mustang of a Spit, but still I like it too. Don't know that I'll ever build one, but its on my radar a ways out.

[Randy Ryan]

heres a 50" one

I really want to build one - but everyone says they are ugly - I LOVE them

have the full size plan in PDF if you need it

I would like a PDF of these plans!!!!   I LIKE IT!!!

[Wynn Robins]

you might just have it by e-mail 

[proparc]

I think the AD would make a perfect semiscale stunter powered with a 4 stroke.

Gave me an idea for whipping up a new one in ACAD for a Saito 76\72. Bigger than Don's version. Couple of days work and boom! Maybe post it over a John's CAD section for people to download.

[Randy Ryan]

Typond's plans in hand thanks to Wynn Robins!!!!

[proparc]

Got plans from Wynn also. Thanks Wynn- lets see if we can whip up a set of CAD plans for everyone.

It just occurred to me, that I really didn't ask anybody what they thought about a set of plans for a Saito 62\72 powered Skyraider. What do you guys think?

[proparc]

Maybe Tania Uzunova could turn it into an Inventor 3D drawing based on my DWG files. That would be seriously hot!!

[Tom Niebuhr]

Don Typond's Skyraider was hanging from the ceiling of the Hobby Hut on Route 23 in Pompton N.J. for years. I don't know if Linda still has the hobby shop. Maybe one of the Circle Burners can tell us. As I remember it is a beautiful airplane and should be a very capable stunter. I have no idea how much it weighs. 

If Don's Skyraider is still around, maybe someone can take pictures. 

[Randy Ryan]

Don Typond's Skyraider was hanging from the ceiling of the Hobby Hut on Route 23 in Pompton N.J. for years. I don't know if Linda still has the hobby shop. Maybe one of the Circle Burners can tell us. As I remember it is a beautiful airplane and should be a very capable stunter. I have no idea how much it weighs. 

If Don's Skyraider is still around, maybe someone can take pictures. 

Pictures would be great!

[wwwarbird]

 I'd love to see some pics of that one.

[Tom Niebuhr]

I have located the airplane. I will have someone photograph it.

[wwwarbird]

 Awesome! 

[proparc]

This is the CAD screenshot for the initial concept for the Saito 62\72 Skyraider. Early days still. Structural engineering for the 72 is not easy,(trust me on this lol). So I have quite a ways to go. Even at this stage, the canopy alone 1.5X the size of Don's ship. The rudder is 1.25X as large.

[Wynn Robins]

now - if you laser cut some parts for this bad boy - I'd be keen to build one - would be electric with retracts though!!!!1

the EMS warbird cowl and canopy would make building one of these a piece of cake!

[proparc]

As I am going to be leaving Don's Skyraider behind, I felt I needed shots of the ship to guide me as I rock and roll with the CAD. Here are some pictures I am using as a guide. These shots are EXTREMELY important because, this is the way the ship ACTUALLY looks.  

This is important, if you look carefully, you'll notice that the fuselage IS NOT round aft of the cowling. This puts it more within the spec of a standard stunt ship. You want to take advantage of this change in direction toward greater simplicity if you can. There are no browny points for unnecessary complexity.

[proparc]

Another CAD Screenshot. Starting to "tighten the thumbscrews". Deepened the fuselage. I now have a side profile I like. Still a long way to go. We are now long gone from Don's design, and getting deep into 72 "big block" territory. I realize the landing gear looks a bit dorky but, the prop in the drawing is 14" in diameter. If your going to be rolling with a 62\72-good likelyhood of a prop that size. Definitely for the 72!!

[Bob Whitely]

I have thought about the A1 also. However isn't the wing supposed to be on
the bottom of the fuse? Looks kinda dorky in the middle, kind of like putting
the wing of a P51 in the middle of the fuse. I also think that it should be no larger
than about 62-63" wingspan.  RJ

[proparc]

I have thought about the A1 also. However isn't the wing supposed to be on
the bottom of the fuse? Looks kinda dorky in the middle, kind of like putting
the wing of a P51 in the middle of the fuse. I also think that it should be no larger
than about 62-63" wingspan.  RJ

I know-I know, i'm supposed to be rolling Al Rabe style with the wing on the bottom. I don't really want to roll with the bottom wing high-dihedral thing but, your absolutely right of course Bob. I was kinda hoping for something "average folk" like me could build. But here's the good news, it's CAD with a DWG extension so you can rock and roll with the drawing anyway you want once it's finished.

That's the beauty of CAD; you can make it look like a Cessna 172 once you get the drawing into your program. Someone like yourself with a zillion years of stunt building experience and Nats wins can do the hard one, and "regular folk" like me can do the easy one.

Tell you what, i'll drop the wing a 1/2". I put it where a typical full-on competition stunt ship would have its wing but, i'll try to get with the program and straighten up and fly right lol.

As to the wing being 62-63-I never had any intentions of making it that big. Not even close.

[wwwarbird]

 I realize you're still "tweaking" the design Milt, but the canopy is waaaay to big. About 2/3rds the size of what you're showing would be getting in the ballpark.

 For anyone who hasn't seen one in person, the real Skyraider is a BIG airplane. On the ground they are noticeably larger than a typical single engine fighter. One of the distinct features of the full scale single place Skyraider is how proportionally small the bubble canopy is to the rest of the airplane. This can be considered an important detail in designing a "believable" semi-scale model.

[Bob Whitely]

Milt, I understand and can appreciate what you do. I do very much like semi-scale
planes and know how difficult it is to design one that flies well and doesn't look like
a cartoon as a lot of them do.  I know it took me a few weeks to sketch up my
Turbo Raven and still make it fly like a stunt ship.Forgive me if I was nit picking.
And yes, the canopy on the real one is very small compared to the overall size of the
plane. When I was in the service I was able to get up close and personal with the
Skyraider and it IS a large a/c for a single engine plane. Skinny up the fuse a little plus
the lower you make the wing the shorter the gear gets and things start looking a
little more esthetically pleasing.  Plus it takes a certain amount of work to build one
of these, just a little more to really make a difference.  I'm looking forward to what you
come up with...Bob

[Brett Buck]

I know-I know, i'm supposed to be rolling Al Rabe style with the wing on the bottom. I don't really want to roll with the bottom wing high-dihedral thing but, your absolutely right of course Bob. I was kinda hoping for something "average folk" like me could build. But here's the good news, it's CAD with a DWG extension so you can rock and roll with the drawing anyway you want once it's finished.

That's the beauty of CAD; you can make it look like a Cessna 172 once you get the drawing into your program. Someone like yourself with a zillion years of stunt building experience and Nats wins can do the hard one, and "regular folk" like me can do the easy one.

Tell you what, i'll drop the wing a 1/2". I put it where a typical full-on competition stunt ship would have its wing but, i'll try to get with the program and straighten up and fly right lol.

As to the wing being 62-63-I never had any intentions of making it that big. Not even close.

   I wouldn't hesitate to put the dihedral in. I think it would tremendously improve the appearance of the airplane. I would also use a Snaggletooth-style airfoil for exactly the same reason Al did, maybe not as thick (because I don't think you need it with modern engines) to further enhance the appearance. It won't end up with as much dihedral as the prototype because the wing will be far thicker, so you can only move it down so far

     Brett

[proparc]

For cryin-out-loud, we got Bob Whitely and Brett Buck in here. Yikes, talk about being under pressure. If Doug Moon and Paul Walker step in here, that's it-i'm out.

Okay-okay. Here's a version with a smaller canopy, dropped wing, shorter landing gear, and bigger dorsal fin per the actual 3 views. I don't like the actual canopy size sooo, I created a new file with this canopy.

[Randy Ryan]

Geez, this generated so much interest I guess I'll find another subject to build!!!!

[wwwarbird]

Geez, this generated so much interest I guess I'll find another subject to build!!!!

 Sorry Randy, I was worried about the hijack a while ago here...

 Should probably move this one over to the Design section Milt, and then deepen the fuselage some...

[Randy Ryan]

I have located the airplane. I will have someone photograph it.

AWWWW-RITE!!!!

[proparc]

Geez, this generated so much interest I guess I'll find another subject to build!!!!

I know-I thought this was just a little thing on the side LOL. The way this is going, were going to have to call in Al Rabe,Igor Burger,Serge Krauss, John Miller and Tania Uzunova on this project.  

[Trostle]

Just to put things in perspective, here are some profiles of the Skyraider.    That is a big airplane.  The canopy appears quite small when compared to other single place warplanes.  These profiles also show that Don Typond really captured the appearance of the full scale aircraft.

Another comment about the Typond design.  The wing is mounted as low on the fuselage as possible with its symmetrical section.  The Typond design shows and his article mentions that the wing has dihedral but neither his construction article or the magazine plans show how much other than the angles shown for the main spar.  There should be no suggestion that the amount of dihedral that would be appropriate for a semi scale rendition of this aircraft would have any adverse affect on performance for CLPA. Several semi-scale stunt ships with dihedral have successfully competed at the highest levels as aptly demonstrated by Al Rabe and his masterpieces where he has two National Stunt Champion titles as well as a second place at the one World Championships where he flew.

Keith

[Bob Reeves]

To put it in perspective the AD is almost 39 feet long, B25's fuselage is only 9 feet longer. Acording to the internet, the B25 could carry 3,200 pounds and as Ted posted the AD can carry 8,000.

Amazingly the range of the AD and B25 are almost the same, wouldn't Doolittle have had fun if he had AD's.