Author Topic: Plane for the Fox .59 (Read 3881 times)

Andrew Borgogna · « **on:** June 28, 2007, 09:31:13 PM »

Well today I got the gaskets from Fox and a complete set of screws. The engine went together well, it has great compression and I can't wait to run it on the bench.

Anyway that is now what this post is about, here are some pictures of the plane that the engine came with. Does anybody have a clue what it might be, my friend believes it is a scratch built one off. The ribs look like them came from a kit, yet the wing has splicings that look like a kit might have been bashed. Up close the fuse has slots in the side where the bulkheads key into, I remember this being very common in the kits from the sixties. I would not expect that from a scratch build, I know I don't do that. The one wing panel came clean with a little help from the heat gun, the orginal coverning was silk and dope. Who ever built this plane was a serious modeler and I really look forward to bring it back to life. Phase one is done the engine is ready and phase 2 is underway.

Anyway if you have a guess I will greatly appreciate it.

Andy

Steve Helmick · « **Reply #1 on:** June 28, 2007, 09:54:17 PM »

This beastie looks a lot like a Veco Chief, until you get to the top deck...wing, tail feathers, and all. The restyle job makes it look a bit like the Kenhi/Midwest "Cougar", tho I may be confused with the "Panther". I kinda like it the way it is, or will be when restored. Be sure and post some pics.

Steve

Roger Vizioli · « **Reply #2 on:** June 29, 2007, 06:02:59 AM »

Photo "appears" to show a bend/kink in fwd. leadout.
If true, I would replace the leadouts.
R....

Andrew Borgogna · « **Reply #3 on:** June 29, 2007, 08:59:43 AM »

You are right about the leadouts, there is no eyelet on the leadouts just rapped around wire soldered together. I plan to replace the leadouts and give the control system a very good looking over.

Thanks for the comments.
Andy

Ward Van Duzer · « **Reply #4 on:** June 29, 2007, 09:30:22 AM »

Hi,

Yup, I'm going with the Kenhi Panther/Cougar. I think(?) the small one (B-C class) was the Panther, and the larger one (C-D class) was the Cougar. The picture is a Panther that was built, I believe, around 1950-51. These were both flapped, but maybe they gave you the option to fix the flaps. The signature of these was the covered canopy, thin wing with pointy leading edge. There was also a (slight) corner where the turtle deck met the fuselage side. This is visable in Andrews photo, and in mine! Now all we have to do is figger out which is which! And I'll bet an old AHC ad will tell me that!

Don Hollfelder of Niceville FL. used to fly the small one at the Atlanta contests 10-15 years ago.

Ward-o

Bill Little · « **Reply #5 on:** June 29, 2007, 10:14:46 AM »

The Cougar was the big one, around 54" WS. And when Midwest kitted them, the Panther turned into a bubble canopy plane.

Andrew Borgogna · « **Reply #6 on:** June 29, 2007, 10:36:26 AM »

It sure does look like the black and white picture. I will measure the wing span tonight, the builder may have extended the wing span. There appears to be splicing in the trailing edge, it could be that was wood length dictated by the box.

This is really good guys, I very much would like to fly this plane at VSC next year but I need to know what it is. Would the .59 have been a correct engine for the KenHi Cougher?

Keep the information coming, please.
Andy

Ward Van Duzer · « **Reply #7 on:** June 29, 2007, 10:48:36 AM »

More info...

See the ad posted below. Bill, The pic above is the little one. Note the squat wings and the long wings on the pic in the ad. And this little one has the turtle deck.

Yes, the wing span of the cougar was 54" with a 30" fuselage. And it was supposed to use a .29 to .35 engine per the ad.

Andrew Borgogna · « **Reply #8 on:** June 29, 2007, 01:50:40 PM »

I do see one obvious differences, the cougar pictured in the add has the landing gear mounted in the wings, my plane has the LG mounted in the fuse. Other than that there is a great deal of similarity, I do wonder about the engine size, a .59 is much bigger than a .35.
Andy

Ward Van Duzer · « **Reply #9 on:** June 29, 2007, 02:48:31 PM »

Andy,

Coupla things...

Don't let the landing gear throw you. These were some of the first models to use gear in the wings. As such, many builders were afraid a hard landing might destroy the whole magilla and therefore went back to what they knew. Put a wire gear in the fuselage!

As for the Fox .59, the Cougar was a pretty large airplane at the time for a .35 and it wouldn't have surprised me at all to see someone put a .59 in the Cougar. Larry Scarinzi's Blue Angel was only about a 58(?) inch span. The .59 is not a real strong engine by todays standards and would probably do well in a Cougar.

W

Willis Swindell · « **Reply #10 on:** June 29, 2007, 03:14:57 PM »

Ward
I think that your plane is a Wild Cat. I built several of them in my teens. But that was a long time ago I could be wrong.
Willis

Bill Little · « **Reply #11 on:** June 29, 2007, 04:01:50 PM »

Quote from: Ward Van Duzer on June 29, 2007, 10:48:36 AM

More info...

See the ad posted below. Bill, The pic above is the little one. Note the squat wings and the long wings on the pic in the ad. And this little one has the turtle deck.

Yes, the wing span of the cougar was 54" with a 30" fuselage. And it was supposed to use a .29 to .35 engine per the ad.

Now you have really got me confused, Ward-o!

Did Midwest change the Panther from a "regular" wing to the semi-elliptical wing when they kitted the Panther? I have not see a picture of the Kenhi Panther. But the Cougar didn't change much when Midwest kitted it. My flying buddy had the Midwest Cougar in the mid '60s.

I could always tell the *Midwest* planes apart (disregarding the Panther's bubble canopy) because the smaller Panther had the very curved tips.

Ralph Wenzel (d) · « **Reply #12 on:** June 29, 2007, 04:07:05 PM »

You might consider a "Biceps", the Don Yearout-designed aerobatic bipe from 1960. Around 48" wingspan for the top wing, perhaps 40" for the lower wing. Tanks Hangar cut me a short kit for $85. Must be 10 sheets of ribs and half-ribs!

Steve Holt · « **Reply #13 on:** June 29, 2007, 04:30:36 PM »

I believe this is a Chief with a modified upper fuselage. The Kenhi Cougar had a swept back leading edge and a multispar construction instead of the "C" tube leading edge. The Midwest version of the Cougar had conventional C tube wing construction with sheeted trailing edge and capstrips.

The two small aft spars are typical of the Chief construction as well as the straight leading edge. The shape of the vertical tail is also Chief.

The Kenhi Panther had a semi-eliptical wing with the multi spar construction and very highly swept leading edge. The Midwest Panther had a similar planform but with the wing stretched from 48" to 52" and a "C" tube wing construction.

Steve

Andrew Borgogna · « **Reply #14 on:** June 29, 2007, 04:40:13 PM »

I think I can put the planes identity to rest. I sent an email to my friend asking him if the plane might be a Cougar, and he confirmed that it is. He said they bought the engine a lot of wood enlarged the 35 size Cougar up to what they thought would be right for the 59. I will take some measurements and see how much the enlarged it. I have the current numbers being 54" wing and 30" fuse, I really don't think they added too much. By the way the reason the flaps are glued down was the original builder Joe Brzycki didn't think the larger wing would need them.
Andy

Ward Van Duzer · « **Reply #15 on:** June 29, 2007, 05:36:02 PM »

Wow! This is fun!

W.

Jim Kraft · « **Reply #16 on:** June 29, 2007, 06:15:28 PM »

Andy; I have been flying a Fox 59 for years, and it will work very well in a plane that size, as well as my 68" span Taurus with 850 sq. in. I have been flying it in a 550 sq. in. 51 inch span Viking for several years, and it works well in that plane also. It will take props from a 12-5 to 13-6 and every thing in between. It is really a very user friendly engine except for the noise factor. If you run it in a deep four stroke just breaking in manuevers it really is not to bad, and the exhaust note is very low.

Ward Van Duzer · « **Reply #17 on:** June 29, 2007, 07:12:49 PM »

Willis,

you could very well be on the money! The Wildcat is a real possibility...(Seventy year old memories suck) But now we have to research that series of ???cats!

Good grief, this is fun!

W

Andrew Borgogna · « **Reply #18 on:** June 29, 2007, 07:27:37 PM »

I came home tonight and took the measurements, it is basically stock Cougar with an additional 1 inch added to each wing. If you look close to the wing tip area you can see the additional 1 inch that was added. Now I am debating whether to cut off the added wing area or leave it as it was originally built. It is great to have these kinds of decisions to work on. I removed the remainder of the covering and tomorrow I will get to some serious sanding.

I really hope you are having as much fun as I am. The engine is ready and the plane is getting there. Now that I know the plane is Classic and most likely Old Time legal I will have it ready for VSC 20.
Andy

Andrew Hathaway · « **Reply #19 on:** June 29, 2007, 09:02:29 PM »

The first time I looked at this thread there was no question in my mind that the plane is a Veco/Dumas Chief. The wing, tail surfaces, even construction description all fit with the later Chief. After seeing the suggestions that it's anything but a Chief, I went ahead and dug out the kit plans. Your measurements are very close, 53" wing, 38" fuse. The rib count is correct +1 on the visible wing. The plan form is identical, as is the narrow center section sheeting. The rib cutout is identical to the plans, as are the spar locations, landing gear, etc. Even the spliced trailing edge with the scrap doubler visible in your pictures is shown on the plans. About the only part that doesn't fall right in line is the fuselage, but then a fairly prominent portion of the plans suggests modifying the fuselage to customize your model. Not to say that it's not a Cougar, but if it is, it's funny that it has so much in common with the Chief.

Andrew Hathaway · « **Reply #20 on:** June 29, 2007, 10:55:41 PM »

The only problem is the Cougar as illustrated has a tapered wing. Also here are a couple pics of Cougar's from the forum here in different threads. All have tapered wings and don't match the plane shown here. Did any version of the Cougar ever have a constant chord wing?

Bill Mohrbacher · « **Reply #21 on:** June 30, 2007, 07:09:45 AM »

Forget the Wildcat, it is much smaller than the Cougar! 36" or 40". My Wildcat is on the right. Ed Staniek is holding the Scalemaster Jenny (44") on the left.

Bill Little · « **Reply #22 on:** June 30, 2007, 09:29:47 AM »

Quote from: Ward Van Duzer on June 29, 2007, 05:36:02 PM

Wow! This is fun!

W.

Hi, My Friend,

Yes, it is! it's like playing a Mystery game and solving "who done it"!

Ward Van Duzer · « **Reply #23 on:** June 30, 2007, 09:33:47 AM »

A N D ..................

It looks like the Cougar is not a Cougar!

In the 1952/53 KENHI ad...
WS 51 " length 36 1/2" suitable for .29 - .50 engines (and a partially cowled upright engine)

In the 6/63 MIDWEST ad...
WS 54" Length 30" (misprint?) suitable for .29 - .35 engines with a fully open upright engine

Both have tapered wings, our subject has a straight wing.

And the landing gear moves around!

It looks like we should take Ty's lead and start measuring Chief wings!

W.

Ward Van Duzer · « **Reply #24 on:** June 30, 2007, 09:38:29 AM »

NOW for the real question....

Will it be legal for VSC?

As what?

OTS?

CLASSIC?

It's pretty obvious it existed (sometime) back then........

W.

Bill Little · « **Reply #25 on:** June 30, 2007, 10:03:03 AM »

Quote from: Ward Van Duzer on June 30, 2007, 09:38:29 AM

NOW for the real question....

Will it be legal for VSC?

As what?

OTS?

CLASSIC?

It's pretty obvious it existed (sometime) back then........

W.

It will be legal for Classic if the builder verifies that it was built, *or designed*, before Jan. 1, 1970.

Andrew Borgogna · « **Reply #26 on:** June 30, 2007, 02:18:32 PM »

My friend Denny is trying to locate the original builder if he is still alive. This plane according to Denny was built in 1970, so if it is not a Cougar then I can't fly it at VSC. It was built to be a Cougar, but it was scratch built so the constant cord wing may have just be easier to build and that was the path he took. Again when I mentioned Cougar to Denny he quickly responded that yes that was indeed the plane he wanted to build. It seems the original builder really liked the Cougar and Super Chipmonk. Oh well regardless I will continue the project, I gave my word to Denny the plane would fly again. We go back to Jr. High School days and I couldn't disappoint him. He is planning to meet me and Larry tomorrow at Whittier Narrows just to watch us fly.

By the way, I ran the Fox 59 this morning and that is a brute of a motor. It still seems like too much engine for the plane but hey that's what it flew with and that's what it will fly again with.

Andy

Jim Kraft · « **Reply #27 on:** June 30, 2007, 03:53:10 PM »

My favorite from the Ken-Hi ads was the Bobcat, but I never built one. I thought it looked really neat.

Garf · « **Reply #28 on:** July 01, 2007, 12:38:11 PM »

This is supposed to be a S.D. Zilch.

Andrew Borgogna · « **Reply #29 on:** July 05, 2007, 10:28:38 AM »

An update on how the project is going. All the material has been removed from the wing and some initial sanding was done. The elevator and elevator hinges were removed. One side of the elevator had a terrible warp so I decided to replace the all of it. I opened up inspection areas under the bellcrank and elevator control horn to give a good visual inspection. Everything looks good, I am sure the bellcrank assembly will withstand a pull test. The original builder new how to build planes, this was clearly not his first attempt.

I placed and order for super coverite, of all the iron ons I have used I like this the best. It is not fuel proof and requires a coat of nitrate dope before anything will stick to it. I learned that lesson the hard way as I watch great sheets of butyrate dope peal off an R/C plane I built many years ago. The only real sticking point now is access to the bellcrank to install new lead outs, the current ones are most definitely not up to current standards for safety.

I am going to be gone for a couple of weeks the family is heading north to Montana on Saturday in a motor home. We will hit six national parks on the way. My wife keeps telling me to take a plane along just in case I get bored and want something to do. Who knows I just might do that. Also this past weekend I put a couple of flights on a the Profile Nobler, all in all I do believe the plane has potential. I look forward after I return to continue ringing it out with the help of Larry Renger.
Andy

Jim Thomerson · « **Reply #30 on:** July 05, 2007, 10:40:53 AM »

Some years ago, I built an #7 Easy for my Fox 59. Worked pretty well; however, I had "strengthened" the wing structure as allowed by PAMPA OTS rules. The outside wing folded and came over and cut the fuselage in two. I discovered a crack in the Fox crankcase; sold it as a parts engine, and trashed the rest of the airplane.

Kim Mortimore · « **Reply #31 on:** July 05, 2007, 10:16:51 PM »

At the '64 (I think) Dallas Nats, I saw Larry Scarinzi fly his Fox .59 powered....senior moment (ANOTHER one!)....someone help me out here--jet style, large body, trike gear, Navy colors. Unmuffled Fox made quite an impression on this 15 year old kid. Jerseyan Scarinzi said the local yokels had told him that the wind doesn't blow in Texas. He must not have seen any Westerns.

Kim Mortimore

Bill Little · « **Reply #32 on:** July 06, 2007, 08:11:18 AM »

Quote from: Kim Mortimore on July 05, 2007, 10:16:51 PM

At the '64 (I think) Dallas Nats, I saw Larry Scarinzi fly his Fox .59 powered....senior moment (ANOTHER one!)....someone help me out here--jet style, large body, trike gear, Navy colors. Unmuffled Fox made quite an impression on this 15 year old kid. Jerseyan Scarinzi said the local yokels had told him that the wind doesn't blow in Texas. He must not have seen any Westerns.

Kim Mortimore

Larry's *Blue Angel*.

Author Topic: Plane for the Fox .59 (Read 3881 times)

Willis Swindell