Author Topic: And they wondered why it was hard to get running!!! (Read 3770 times)

Robert McHam · « **on:** February 13, 2010, 09:13:46 PM »

I thought hard to give this thread the right title. This was the most I could muster

I really frown upon thread titles that give virtually no idea as to the nature of the thread. As Yosemite Sam says: "OOOO that really burns my biscuits!!!"

Anyway down to the meat of the matter.
I saw this plane on youknowwhatbaY and it struck me as how a beginner might do things with no one to ask for help.

I would like to ask if you can A: Spot the problem and B: Offer a workable solution.

Besides what we can offer now, I have to guess that since the problem still exists, the plane never flew in its present configuration. What a shame. I have to guess this is one avid modeler that never saw his even modest potential.

Robert

Joe Messinger · « **Reply #1 on:** February 13, 2010, 09:43:59 PM »

Looks like the tank is in a pretty bad location and poorly attached and, the landing gear won't allow prop clearance?

Russell Shaffer · « **Reply #2 on:** February 13, 2010, 10:00:24 PM »

Looks like the front end of a Baby Flite Streak. You can see where there was once a tank mounted Cox and the plane looks to be fuel softened. But it sure never flew or ran with this set up. How much were they asking for this fine conglomeration of miss matched pieces?

Steve Helmick · « **Reply #3 on:** February 13, 2010, 10:10:34 PM »

Having the fuel feed line hooked to the tank overflow is a surefire plan for never crashing the plane. The feed line should hook to that angled tube on the top of the tank. Personally, I would have put the cylinder outboard, the tank inboard. No landing gear is a better plot for a 1/2a, too.

Steve

Brett Buck · « **Reply #4 on:** February 13, 2010, 10:11:53 PM »

Quote from: Robert McHam on February 13, 2010, 09:13:46 PM

I would like to ask if you can A: Spot the problem and B: Offer a workable solution.

   A) Obvious. Bet it would run out a prime, though.

   B) Also obvious. Other than the obvious, I can't see why it wouldn't work. Ugly work, however.

   Brett

Elwyn Aud · « **Reply #5 on:** February 13, 2010, 10:49:55 PM »

Bet it would start great with the plane inverted as long as they held the nose low.

ray copeland · « **Reply #6 on:** February 13, 2010, 11:14:06 PM »

B: find a workable solution.
Remove engine. Sand or file front of mounting block and add 3/32 or 1/8 ply to extend 1/2 inch above existing block with epoxy. Notch block a little to move tank forward 1/4 to 1/2 inch. Add 2 sided foam tape to side of tank and remount as close to engine as possible with foam tape and rubber bands around fuse. Remount engine to ply more in line with center line of tank. Engine can be turned on mounting plate to outboard side if needed. Easy fix!

dennis lipsett · « **Reply #7 on:** February 13, 2010, 11:34:38 PM »

besides everything else that was mentioned i don't see a needle valve on that engine.
Dennis

Wayne Collier · « **Reply #8 on:** February 14, 2010, 02:51:03 AM »

That long wedge, probably 3/4 ounce tank, is one of my favorite kinds of 1/2a tanks. However, as stated by Steve H., there won't be much fuel draw from the overlow pipe. Plumbing looks like the major problem.

Larry Fulwider · « **Reply #9 on:** February 14, 2010, 06:41:55 AM »

Quote from: Robert McHam on February 13, 2010, 09:13:46 PM

. . . I really frown upon thread titles that give virtually no idea as to the nature of the thread. As Yosemite Sam says: "OOOO that really burns my biscuits!!!"
. . .

A good reminder

Larry Fulwider

Robert McHam · « **Reply #10 on:** February 14, 2010, 10:56:38 AM »

Wow! Thanks for all the interest and comments guys!

First I need to let you know that it is indeed a Baby Flite Streak. Good eye Russell

"Looks like the tank is in a pretty bad location and poorly attached and, the landing gear won't allow prop clearance?"
Joe, It is in a bad location but since this was obviously added as a second life effort for this plane, I just don't think one could do better with the location without making some serious but but not totally major changes. I cannot say about the landing gear till I get it here and can see it close up.

"A) Obvious. Bet it would run out a prime, though.
B) Also obvious. Other than the obvious, I can't see why it wouldn't work. Ugly work, however."
Brett, You are exactly right but I just had to share this someones heartfelt attempt to be one of us. Ugly? Sure but I can see that the previous owner was trying to keep things simple which is a good thing to do when you don't have a clue.

"B: find a workable solution.
Remove engine. Sand or file front of mounting block and add 3/32 or 1/8 ply to extend 1/2 inch above existing block with epoxy. Notch block a little to move tank forward 1/4 to 1/2 inch. Add 2 sided foam tape to side of tank and remount as close to engine as possible with foam tape and rubber bands around fuse. Remount engine to ply more in line with center line of tank. Engine can be turned on mounting plate to outboard side if needed. Easy fix!"

Ray, this of course is the serious but less than major change I referred to. A more simple solution would be to simply replace this engine with a tank mount engine!
I'm not sure why this engine was mounted so low in the first place. Could have been mounted higher.
Notching the block for the tank and modifying the mount is the best overall solution of course.

"besides everything else that was mentioned i don't see a needle valve on that engine."

Dennis, Thanks for noticing but it really is hard to tell from this view. Regardless, easy fix as I have an extra needle or two.

"That long wedge, probably 3/4 ounce tank, is one of my favorite kinds of 1/2a tanks. However, as stated by Steve H., there won't be much fuel draw from the overlow pipe. Plumbing looks like the major problem."

Larry, You too have a good eye. That tank is a Perfect #3. This is the only tank close to this size and shape that has the pick up tube located on top. All the others have the pick up tube exiting the tank on the end of the tank.

I hope to have this plane here soon to give it life again!, Robert

Brett Buck · « **Reply #11 on:** February 14, 2010, 02:59:18 PM »

Quote from: Robert McHam on February 14, 2010, 10:56:38 AM

"A) Obvious. Bet it would run out a prime, though.
B) Also obvious. Other than the obvious, I can't see why it wouldn't work. Ugly work, however."
Brett, You are exactly right but I just had to share this someones heartfelt attempt to be one of us. Ugly? Sure but I can see that the previous owner was trying to keep things simple which is a good thing to do when you don't have a clue.

Didn't say it wasn't "heartfelt". I paraphrase Feynman - " The universe doesn't care how great a guy you are, you can still be wrong". No one starts out with the idea that they are going to screw it up. I am sure they did the best they knew, but, you have to admit, it's not the greatest thing you have ever seen nor is it likely to work very well.

All that aside, it will be OK for upright flight if you just hook up the fuel correctly. It's so far above the pickup you will need to be careful starting it because once the fuel gets over the hump it will siphon through the needle. I can't immediately see a good solution to the tank that results in it being in the right place. Maybe with the engine flipped over, you could mount it on the inboard side overlapping the crankcase, but I don't think that you will be able to get the long tank shown in there. You would be tempted to mount the tank in the wing, but I think you will find that it will interfere with the bellcrank. One wonders if it balances correctly - it was clearly designed with a tank mount engine in mind.

I have the same tank, converted to uniflow, on my 1/2A Skyray. But that is set up for a Medallion/TD and there is plenty of room for a tank. Last time I flew it (about 20 years ago) it worked very well.

I would also suggest EXTENSIVE flushing of the tank with lacquer thinner then fuel, and clearly, disassemble the engine and clean that up with alcohol. I would also find a filter.

Brett

Robert McHam · « **Reply #12 on:** February 14, 2010, 04:46:35 PM »

Brett, Thanks for your words of wisdom.

True, there is no telling what may be in that tank by now so removal of one of the end caps is in order. Minimally it should have a good flushing but I would feel much better being able to see and touch what is inside. When they are this old and even if the tank is NIB you can have loads of surprises hidden in there. For more on this subject check here: http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php?topic=15668.0

Realistically there are too many problems trying to locate this tank in this wing at this time. Better to try that arrangement when on the initial build. In this case I will simply replace this engine with a tank mount engine. I will use the tank and engine from this on something else. Naught will go to waste.

Best news of all this plane and her homely sister (but she has a great personality

) will go on to fly again as they were meant to!

Robert

Larry Renger · « **Reply #13 on:** February 14, 2010, 05:08:24 PM »

Actually, having the cylinder inboard seems to fly better through maneuvers. No idea why, though.

Robert McHam · « **Reply #14 on:** February 17, 2010, 12:41:45 PM »

They're here and the Baby Flite Streak brought with it a surprise!

It has a tank buried in the outboard wing panel. When I say buried, I mean well buried. The fill and overflow tubes are pretty much flush with the covering. The pick up line exits the leading edge and was the first and easiest clue to the buried treasure contained within. I am thinking now that the #3 Perfect was placed where it was simply because the original builder couldn't figure how to get fuel in the tank once the model was completed.

"besides everything else that was mentioned i don't see a needle valve on that engine."
Dennis, The needle was very hard to see in the first picture but I thought I saw it. Now having it in hand the needle is there and you should be able to make it out in these pictures.

The landing gear is terribly short and offers no prop protection but it does beat the belly rubs. Not sure if it is worth keeping considering the weight it adds. It can easily be removed as it is held in place with screws.

Overall it is coated with dust and has far more holes in the covering than I had hoped for but no worries I knew up front it had holes and definitely need to be recovered.
Overall there is no other damage to be repaired and a cleaning is in order.

There is one other problem that the original builder passed on to me. The elevator push rod has an awkward "Z" bend and the push rod rubs hard against the fuse making free travel impossible. Another reason this plane would have been a failure at the field but also easy to repair.

Robert

Robert McHam · « **Reply #15 on:** February 17, 2010, 03:05:52 PM »

The sister plane "Student" from plans out of AAM is in better condition and was better built overall. Nothing binding or in161 product engine with a single need of replacement.
Two wheels, one tank mounted engine or an engine with an external tank and she would fly.

The Perfect#3 tank that was outside the Baby Flite Streak fits beautifully on the Student as you can see. Not sure just yet how I will go with this one but she sure wants to go flying! That makes two of us.

I think I will dig out the tank in the Baby Flite Streak (BFS) and see what's what there. That engine looks brand spanky new but for a little discoloration on the piston top and the starter spring is oxidized. Seriuosly folks I bet it never really ran! It's just a 191 single port .049 and the BFS really wants more than that. I have something special in mind...

Robert

Douglas Ames · « **Reply #16 on:** February 17, 2010, 06:34:06 PM »

Yes, it's a shame when you have no help or advice. Good way to loose a potential C/L modeler.

Here's how I did my Baby F/S. Sadly, it's now a ceiling ornament.

Robert McHam · « **Reply #17 on:** February 17, 2010, 07:18:24 PM »

Thanks for the good words friends.

"Here's how I did my Baby F/S. Sadly, it's now a ceiling ornament."
Doug, it is really nice. Good work!

"Digging out old models like that and redoing them is pure fun. Sorta like archeology."
You bet Ty, I really did pretty good on this deal. Could have been a junk pile but no. Still I do love anticipating what will be next.

Check out the engine for the BFS! I call it my Cox "Fyre Cracker"

Something I souped up myself a little with a Hi- perf back plate and is that a groove I see on the bottom of that piston skirt? Oh, yeah it is a little groove on the bottom of that piston skirt!

Robert

George · « **Reply #18 on:** February 17, 2010, 08:07:17 PM »

Robert,

If that is an old Kaysun prop on that "souped up" engine, I'd consider swapping it for a modern prop before running it.

George

Robert McHam · « **Reply #19 on:** February 17, 2010, 09:18:44 PM »

Doesn't that red prop just look so good on it? Really sets it off, that and the red spinner.

George, thanks for your concern, but I can only find three cracks in the inner part of the hub and one crack in the outer part of the hub and from the front you can't hardly tell at all. Slap the spinner on and no one would ever know!

Seriously, it does look good and that is why it is still around. Display only my friend. It definitely will not be run on any engine. Period.

Robert

john e. holliday · « **Reply #20 on:** February 20, 2010, 09:20:03 AM »

Looks like the old Kavan plastic props that I used on my OK Cub .049A. 6-3 of course. Then the hobby shop quit carrying them because some people said they were unsafe.