Author Topic: O&R .33 RH (Read 4971 times)

W.D. Roland · « **on:** February 09, 2010, 08:07:24 PM »

Built this Veco Tom Tom using O&R .33 for power.
Found the engine in a box of engines I bought last year along with 4 nice Fox .35 stunts and a few others.

Wondering what size prop I should start with.
As a youngster had a nice flying Clown(?) with a O&R .23 and if memory is right used a TF 9x4 wood prop, My memory recently seems to be often wrong.

Physically the RH is the same size as the .23. I read somewhere that the RH marked it as a .33 and also last year for production of this engine.

Hope it will be happy with the 9x4.
Any clue if this is a good starting place?

David

EddyR · « **Reply #1 on:** February 10, 2010, 06:39:56 AM »

David I like your O%R .33 in the Tom Tom. I had several .23's and .33's as a kid. My VecoTom Tom I built a few years ago looked nothing like yours. The original Veco Tom Tom looked like a Smoothie with out the big round wingtips. Did Veco have two kits with the same name.

Ed

Brian Massey · « **Reply #2 on:** February 10, 2010, 10:15:53 AM »

The OR brings back memories. My dad flew an OR .60 ignition engine converted to glow on a Ringmaster. A couple of times the engine backfired midair and start running backwards; never a good landing when that happened.

The 9-6 is probably close, but I think I would try a 10-5 or even a 10-6 just to see.

Brian

George · « **Reply #3 on:** February 10, 2010, 10:56:12 AM »

Quote from: Ed Ruane on February 10, 2010, 06:39:56 AM

David I like your O%R .33 in the Tom Tom. I had several .23's and .33's as a kid. My VecoTom Tom I built a few years ago looked nothing like yours. The original Veco Tom Tom looked like a Smoothie with out the big round wingtips. Did Veco have two kits with the same name.
Ed

A Tom Tom was the first "larger than 1/2A plane I flew. It belonged to a friend and was powered by a GOLD head McCoy .29RR (Gold head was lowest compression).

Here's the Tom Tom from an old Veco advertisement.

David, can we assume you made some mods to yours?

George

FLOYD CARTER · « **Reply #4 on:** February 10, 2010, 11:47:46 AM »

There were several Veco kits similar to Tom Tom, all designed by Joe Wagner. This is the Veco SCOUT 1/2-A stunter. Tee-Dee 049 power. It featured a symmetrical airfoil, and is a good stunter (but fast!)

(the other is an "Pinto", sort of a scaled-down Oriental)

Floyd

George · « **Reply #5 on:** February 10, 2010, 01:33:12 PM »

Quote from: FLOYD CARTER on February 10, 2010, 11:47:46 AM

There were several Veco kits similar to Tom Tom, all designed by Joe Wagner. This is the Veco SCOUT 1/2-A stunter. Tee-Dee 049 power. It featured a symmetrical airfoil, and is a good stunter (but fast!)

Floyd

Great looking Scout. No wonder it is fast, mine has a Cub .049B in it.

George

Jim Kraft · « **Reply #6 on:** February 10, 2010, 06:12:14 PM »

I think the Tom Tom you have is the Dumas version. If I remember right it was Dumas that took over Veco, and they changed the Tom Tom and several other kits.

W.D. Roland · « **Reply #7 on:** February 10, 2010, 07:47:38 PM »

Jim,Floyd,George and Brian

I have seen this discrepancy come up before.
Don't ask me!!!!

I am learning that confusion is a normal part of life for me!!!!
At least I didn't call a Jetco kit a Veco, this time...

Batteries in camera are dead so I scanned part of the box and plans.
I guess in the back of my mind a red and white checkered box = both Veco and Dumas.
This box says Dumas.

The picture on the box and the picture on the plans say VECO on the top of inboard wing with Tom Tom on outboard. The rudder and front fuselage have VECO decals affixed.(enlarge scans)
The 3view drawing on the plans list J.E. Barr as the designer.
The plans only list the VECO .19 for power.

This kit was in my hobby shop inventory when we closed in 76 or so.

Interesting construction.

Thats all I know!

Brian
You think a 9x6 and not the 9x4?
9x6 is what I ran on .35 sized fast combat engines in the 70s.
The RPM operating range is much different..........................................
Anyone know if the .33 made much if any more power than the .23?
Don't want to over prop it and burn it out.
Looks well broke in with very good compression and free bottom end, almost the feel of a B.B. engine.

Thanks
David
51336

EddyR · « **Reply #8 on:** February 10, 2010, 08:16:46 PM »

David I think I had my .33 in a Super Ringmaster and I remember it fly right up to my level at the time. I used everything I could get in home design combat models. I built a lot of 36 " span originals in those years. I have a Cub.29 that I am looking for something to put it in. Maybe a Ringmaster Jr?

Ed

john e. holliday · « **Reply #9 on:** February 11, 2010, 05:48:32 AM »

David has the newer version of the Tom Tom. I have an original hanging in the shop. Flew it one year in classic. It is the built up version of the Tomahawk in which there is the old and new versions.

Brian Massey · « **Reply #10 on:** February 11, 2010, 04:00:53 PM »

Quote from: W.D. Roland on February 10, 2010, 07:47:38 PM

Jim,Floyd,George and Brian

I have seen this discrepancy come up before.
Don't ask me!!!!
I am learning that confusion is a normal part of life for me!!!!
At least I didn't call a Jetco kit a Veco, this time...

Batteries in camera are dead so I scanned part of the box and plans.
I guess in the back of my mind a red and white checkered box = both Veco and Dumas.
This box says Dumas.

The picture on the box and the picture on the plans say VECO on the top of inboard wing with Tom Tom on outboard. The rudder and front fuselage have VECO decals affixed.(enlarge scans)
The 3view drawing on the plans list J.E. Barr as the designer.
The plans only list the VECO .19 for power.

This kit was in my hobby shop inventory when we closed in 76 or so.

Interesting construction.

Thats all I know!

Brian
You think a 9x6 and not the 9x4?
9x6 is what I ran on .35 sized fast combat engines in the 70s.
The RPM operating range is much different..........................................
Anyone know if the .33 made much if any more power than the .23?
Don't want to over prop it and burn it out.
Looks well broke in with very good compression and free bottom end, almost the feel of a B.B. engine.

Thanks
David
51336

Hi David; I never ran an OR 33, but plenty of McCoy 29's/35's/40's. I never used a 9/4, but did run 9/6's, 10/5's and 10/6's; the 9/6 only on the 29's. Never had a problem, but was just a kid back then and maybe just didn't know any better

Of course I always flew stunt, never combat, that will make a difference.

Brian

W.D. Roland · « **Reply #11 on:** February 17, 2010, 08:17:23 PM »

And the call me insane for liking the old Read Heads

Those were my first engines and I loved them! and could start them.

If the weather ever gets fixed so the field can dry will post results of test flights with 9x6 vs 9x4.

Debating on 52 or 60ft lines.....

David

Juan Valentin · « **Reply #12 on:** February 26, 2010, 01:05:29 PM »

Hello David
Thanks for replying so fast to my message. here is the Little Tomahawk That I`m building it looks a lot like the Tom Tom you built. I hadn`t seen the Dumas version of the Tom Tom until I opened an issue of American Modeler from march 1962. Hope weather improves and let us know how it flies.

Juan

W.D. Roland · « **Reply #13 on:** February 26, 2010, 01:24:37 PM »

Hey Juan
Have 6 airplane to sort out, 3 never flown.
If the weather keep this up the number will rise!
Its nice, warm and dry sitting at the building bench between 2 heaters.

Will be next week before I can get to town and see about copies of plans and tracings

David