Jack Sheek’s “Mosquito” DOB

[Sean McEntee]

Just a whimsical academic exercise.  I’m sure this topic has come up before, but searches were inconclusive.

Jack’s “Mosquito Stunter” sure would make a cool Super 70s model but, after a search on Stuka Stunt, I found the source of the construction article being MA August 1981.  In reading the article, however, Jack talks about trying to, but not quite succeeding in getting the model squared away for the 1980 Nat’s.  One would figure that the model should have existed prior to the close of the 70’s, though if so, just barely.

Anyone have an idea if the model existed prior to 1980? 

[wwwarbird]

 I'll bet Keith Trostle has the answer to this one. It's a really cool model, Keith Sandberg used to have one with two .35's turning Tornado 10x6 3-blade props and pneumatic retracts. The thing really hauled butt and was very impressive to watch.

[Sean McEntee]

I'll bet Keith Trostle has the answer to this one. It's a really cool model, Keith Sandberg used to have one with two .35's turning Tornado 10x6 3-blade props and pneumatic retracts. The thing really hauled butt and was very impressive to watch.

     Yeah I remember Keith Sandbergs.  Jim Krieger had one also with 2x Fox 35s. He flew it at Kidventure a couple years ago and it was a real show-stopper.

     Me and the old man were talking awhile back about building one with LA 25s and doing counter-rotating props.  The hurdle would be, of course, finding a left-handed crankshaft.   That problem has been solved...

[Randy Cuberly]

Eric Rule at RSM offers a kit for the Sheeks Mosquito!  58 inch wingspan.

I have one of the kits but haven't built it.  Good wood!  Good plans!  Lazer cut!

Great project!

Randy Cuberly

[M Spencer]

Details of the retracts would be modt intresting . 

[Dan McEntee]

     Yeah I remember Keith Sandbergs.  Jim Krieger had one also with 2x Fox 35s. He flew it at Kidventure a couple years ago and it was a real show-stopper.

     Me and the old man were talking awhile back about building one with LA 25s and doing counter-rotating props.  The hurdle would be, of course, finding a left-handed crankshaft.   That problem has been solved...

   What!!!??? You been holding out on me? How has the left handed crank situation been solved? I have the RSM kit by the way, and no, you can't have it!

    I think Krieger's model had OS .35s engines in it. That would be my second choice over the LA .25's

   Type at you later,
  "The Old Man"

[peabody]

New Yorker Rob Aronstein had a partially assembled, scratch built, Mossie….I believe that I saw it in the early '90's.
Rob was/is a true craftsman, and the workmanship was impeccable. He planned retracts and Fox.35 power. I believe the hang up was the retracts?

[Robertc]

I've built two, second with retracts.  Power is Thunder Tiger 25s.  Great plane.  The retract plane
uses Jomar sound activated retract system Built it in 2000.  Toying with the idea of building another one,
electric power with retracts.

[Randy Cuberly]

Sean,

You've inspired me!  I went out and dug out that Mosquito kit and as soon as I can finish my latest "stunter" (painting now).  I'm going to clear the bench and build the "Mossie"; maybe about three weeks.  Should be a lot of fun to have and fly!  I already have a pair of LA25's that have been slated for it for several years.  I won't bother to use a left hand crank as I've seen too many twins fly very successfully without that.  A bit of off set in the outside engine usually takes care of the "Inside Engine Out" problem.

If you start on yours first, let me know if you run into any snags, it might save me a little grief!

Randy Cuberly

[Sean McEntee]

Sean,

You've inspired me!  I went out and dug out that Mosquito kit and as soon as I can finish my latest "stunter" (painting now).  I'm going to clear the bench and build the "Mossie"; maybe about three weeks.  Should be a lot of fun to have and fly!  I already have a pair of LA25's that have been slated for it for several years.  I won't bother to use a left hand crank as I've seen too many twins fly very successfully without that.  A bit of off set in the outside engine usually takes care of the "Inside Engine Out" problem.

If you start on yours first, let me know if you run into any snags, it might save me a little grief!

Randy Cuberly

Well cool!  You’ll finish yours before I start on mine. Already got a Skylark on the table. Won’t be able to start on the Mosquito until 2020.

[wwwarbird]

 Do as you wish Sean but FWIW the left hand crank really isn't necessary. Also, IMO, with a nice straight airplane neither left or right "engine out" situations are problem if you just stick to low and level flight until the other quits, which is what should be done at that point anyway. My PBY is built with zero/zero engine offset and trimmed with just a hint of outside rudder, other than getting a little light on the handle it's almost impossible to tell the difference with either engine out.

[Scott Richlen]

How about some PBY pictures?  Please!

Any more Mossie pictures?  It is appealing!

[john e. holliday]

I know on my B-25 and Ringmaster Twin I can tell when an engine quits.  That is when I level off and try to figure which one.  Think I have about 2 degrees of offset on out board engine.   With out board tank being smaller I start inboard engine first.

[Dan McEntee]

    The desire to do the Sheeks Mosquito with two, counter rotating engines goes back along way. One of the early, unsung pioneers of electric from our area is a gentleman named Walt Brownell. I have known Walt for quite a while but have not seen him in several years and hope is is alive and well. Walt flew stunt and C/L scale, both very well. Being a retired McDonnell-Douglas engineer, Walt gravitated and took to the blossoming electric technology very quickly. As his experience progressed, he built a series of twin electric stunt models. As he was flying and trimming them carefully, he would stop in the hobby shop I worked part time at and we talked about the concept, set up and props. The airplane was a sorta stand way off scale model of some obscure French bomber but was about the size of the Sheeks Mosquito. Walt showed up at the Paducah contest with the first one and watching his practice flights, I was impressed. The model tracked like it was on rails and had a VERY good corner. In talking with him about it, he said he thought the airplane was a little heavy but having the prop wash flowing over the flaps helped in that respect. I can't remember what class we were flying then, advanced or expert, but when it came time to putting in officials, Walt put a whippin' on us all! He was almost embarrassed that he had won the contest but I told him he had the best flights as far as I was concerned. In continued conversations about the airplane and set up, I asked about prop rotation, and after many test flights, Walt settled on props turning out at the top as working the best, if I remember correctly. I think normal twin engine full scale normal operation is the opposite, tops turning in. I had always been in love with the Sheeks Mosquito and after seeing Walt's results I want to see if it was duplicated with an IC set up and hence the need for left hand crank shafts. There are ( or were at the time) props on the market that would work for my purposes in bot left and right hand rotation and would be used on the LA.25 because of recent and growing experience with the engine, This airplane would have covered several "wants". The desire for the Sheeks Mosquito, the desire to do a twin of any kind, and the chance to do something a little different to see how it worked. It would be easy as pie to do it with electric, but I want that sound of twin engines flying in sync. So the left handed crank  needs had nothing to do with line tension or single engine performance. Gordon Delaney and John Miller's dissertations of the set up for the Pathfinder Twin (which I have plans and parts patterns for!) have taught me what I needed to know about that. Now that Sean has done some leg work on getting them made, and if I ever get my collective act together around home and other life challenges let up, this may get moved back to a front burner. Again, this is just a " I wonder how that would work" exercise and not intended to create a world beater, although I expect to model's performance to be pretty good and very satisfying.  if for some reason the counter rotating prop thing doesn't work out, I plan on being able to set the thing up for conventional operation.
  Hey Scott, do a search on the forums here. I'm sure there are pics posted somewhere. Wayne PBY is freakin' AWESOME! And was done in the versy same vain that I want to do the Mossie.
  Type at you later,
   Dan McEntee

[Randy Cuberly]

Sean,
Actually I just want to build one as a "Fun Flier" Project!  It would be nice however if it did qualify as "Super 70's" for VSC next year!  My stiff neck and Old Body don't allow me to be very competitive  but it would be fun anyway!

Randy Cuberly

[Sean McEntee]

Sean,
Actually I just want to build one as a "Fun Flier" Project!  It would be nice however if it did qualify as "Super 70's" for VSC next year!  My stiff neck and Old Body don't allow me to be very competitive  but it would be fun anyway!

Randy Cuberly

Got my @ss kicked pretty good during PT today....I know what you mean by stiffness and soreness! 

Many years ago, a local STL guy who built some pretty nice profile scale models did a B-25 and a couple years later, a twin B-17.  Observing him and Dad get motors squared away and flying the models for him got my fire lit in doing a twin stunter.

A couple weeks ago, I was "war-gaming" what I could build after the Frisky Pete/Skylark tandem build project that Im working on is done.  Would like to build one more airplane before I get into something a bit more...serious...but in trying to keep my fleet small and mobile for Army-induced moving, the only roll for a model left to fill would be Super 70s/NOS-30.  I remembered the conversation Dad and I had about doing a Sheeks Mosquito with counter-rotating props (which is kind of hilarious as I cant remember conversations I had a week ago).  Thats what started the research project.  The only real historical "timestamp" in the MA article is his mention of flying it for judges warmup in the 1980 Nat's.  I find it hard to believe that Jack thought to himself "Well this would be cool", and knock it together in a few months and take it to the Nat's (not impossible, but unlikely I would think)  I would figure it took a year or more of development.  Just need some way to prove that the model existed in the late 70s.


As for the prop setup, I'm in the same mindset as dad.  Not a ton of them out there, and the counter-rotating props would be cool and different, even though the full-scale Mosquito didnt have them.

[Dave Hull]

Possibly interesting related sidenote:

The counter-rotating props on the Vought V-173 turned out at the top in order to cancel or mitigate tip losses from the low aspect ratio wing. It was a critical part of the overall performance of the design. Not sure it would provide any advantage on a geometry like the Mosquito.

Good luck with your project(s) guys! I always wanted a Sheek's Mossie. (Loved the part where Jack 'fessed up to his engine man that neither engine had been broken in!)

Dave

[Trostle]

Proper rotation for counter rotating props on twin engine fighters is evidently dependent on the design of the aircraft.  I should go and do some research, but I am fairly certain the prop rotation is different from the full size deHavilland Mosquito/Hornet designs and the Lockheed P-38.

Keith

[Sean McEntee]

Proper rotation for counter rotating props on twin engine fighters is evidently dependent on the design of the aircraft.  I should go and do some research, but I am fairly certain the prop rotation is different from the full size deHavilland Mosquito/Hornet designs and the Lockheed P-38.

Keith

Hiya Keith,

        The Mosquito did not have counter-rotating props, as evident in picture found on the intranet. Scale operation isn’t really the name of the game here, just an expirament in performance.

Back to the initial topic, do you have any idea about the models existence prior to 1980?

[Trostle]

Hiya Keith,

        The Mosquito did not have counter-rotating props, as evident in picture found on the intranet. Scale operation isn’t really the name of the game here, just an expirament in performance.

Back to the initial topic, do you have any idea about the models existence prior to 1980?

OK about the information on the Mosquito props.  I do know that the Hornet had counter-rotating props as did the P-38.  I also understand that you are not concerned about the scale aspect of which way the props turn, but on the full scale aircraft, it did make a difference in performance/handling regarding the relative rotation of the props.  I think some of the electric twins have found the same thing..

The only thing I have about the Sheeks' Mosquito is the August 81 issue of Model Aviation where the thing was published.  He wrote that he had the wing done before a contest in early 1980 and that the model was flown, though not in competition at the 1980 Nats.  From that, one could assume that the plans were probably drawn up before the end of 1979.  That is all I know about the Sheeks' Mosquito.

Keith

[Dan McEntee]

    I agree with you Kieth on the importance of counter rotating props on twin engine aircraft performance. I'm not sure on the Mosquito and given the many different marks of that airplane, it could have varied over the production life and eventually leading up to the Hornet. I would have to research that also. The P-38 did have counter rotating props, and I remember reading something years ago, that some of the early production models were sent to England on Lend Lease, but they did NOT have C-R props, as this was thought to be a "sensitive" feature and our government didn't want to share it. The British did NOT like the airplane and they did not receive any more.. I am also going by my memories of discussions with Walt on the subject and his experiences. Something to think about on whatever twin you build.
  Type at you later,
   Dan McEntee

[TigreST]

 Regarding the British and their use ( or lack there of) of counter rotation in full scale airplanes during WWII.  I've read, somewhere in my historical aircraft book collection, that one reason for not using Counter Rotation on twin engine aircraft was parts commonality and availability. More so in the case of a complete power package. One engine type that could be used in any number of airframes as was the case with the RR Merlin.  You could swap any engine from a left wing to a right wing install with no fear of there being a problem.  You only had to build the one engine to fit all airframes.

The P-38's that they tested were with the engines turning the same direction, perhaps  for the same reason as stated above.  The early P-38's were said to be prone to supercharger issues which made them less reliable...the Brits did not get supercharged Allisons on their test rides.  This perhaps give them lack luster performance?

T.

[Trostle]

Regarding the British and their use ( or lack there of) of counter rotation in full scale airplanes during WWII.  I've read, somewhere in my historical aircraft book collection, that one reason for not using Counter Rotation on twin engine aircraft was parts commonality and availability. More so in the case of a complete power package. One engine type that could be used in any number of airframes as was the case with the RR Merlin.  You could swap any engine from a left wing to a right wing install with no fear of there being a problem.  You only had to build the one engine to fit all airframes.

The P-38's that they tested were with the engines turning the same direction, perhaps  for the same reason as stated above.  The early P-38's were said to be prone to supercharger issues which made them less reliable...the Brits did not get supercharged Allisons on their test rides.  This perhaps give them lack luster performance?

T.

Nevertheless, the Merlin powered production Hornets/Sea Hornets had counter rotating props with the "airscrews rising outwards" was preferred to either "airscrews rising inboard" or using "unhanded" engines for a variety of reasons.  (Here, "airscrews rising outwards" is the same the tops of the propellers turning inwards.)

In contrast, the P-38 used counter rotating props with the tops of the propellers turning outwards.

In each case, there were reasons that one solution was preferred over the alternative.

Keith

[Dave Hull]

Regarding the lack of acceptance of the P-38 by the Brits--Some have pointed out that the fuel available in Britain at the time was not as high in octane rating and not as consistent as what the Allisons were set up for in the States. This was supposed to have had a marked effect on max power settings, operating ceiling, and reliability. (Presumably detonation occurring more frequently, and at settings that the factory recommended.) This info from one opus on the P-38 by an obvious admirer, so uncertain to the exact extent of truthfulness. I am struggling to remember the name of the book, as I only borrowed it and it is not in my library....

My uncle worked at Lockheed building P-38s and Hudsons before he shipped out to Europe as a combat soldier. They were complicated and took a lot of work to build.

Having a model with counter-rotating props would be fun, but the starting routine would probably have to include some extra mental "safety steps." I think you should go for it, Sean.

Dave