Author Topic: Original PDQ Baby Clown Kit (Read 2065 times)

Garf · « **on:** February 04, 2007, 02:08:00 PM »

I have a kit for an original PDQ Baby Clown in my stash. The box is destroyed, so it has no collector value. I would like to build it, but I remember the first one I built. I put a McCoy .098 on it and it was underpowered. I then put an OK .149 on it and it was still underpowered. The OK would catch fire when starting and one day it burned to the ground. I have a much better selection of engines today. Which do you suppose would work best?
TD .049, Fox .07, Queen bee .074, TD .09, Medallion 15, Fox 15 steel fin, Fox 15x?

Warren Leadbeatter · « **Reply #1 on:** February 04, 2007, 05:48:28 PM »

We have several Brodak Baby Clowns. They are all pretty light and fly really well. One has a Golden Bee 049 and has been reparied dozens of times. Another has a Black Widow 049 and a 5 blade 5x3 prop. While the other is a Baby Clown ARF and has a Norvel BigMig startup 049. This one is the heaviest and goes like a rocket.

I'm not sure if the original PDQ one is the same but ours are covered with Moneykote and only weigh between 5 and 7 oz. We fly them on 35' x 0.008 braided stainless lines.

Cheers

Bill Little · « **Reply #2 on:** February 04, 2007, 06:26:15 PM »

Hi Phil,

You got me here, buddy! I thought the Baby Clown is a 1/2A size plane. (??)

What you're describing sounds like the Flying Clown. What's the WS

Bill <><

Garf · « **Reply #3 on:** February 04, 2007, 07:02:59 PM »

Quote from: Bill Little on February 04, 2007, 06:26:15 PM

Hi Phil,

You got me here, buddy! I thought the Baby Clown is a 1/2A size plane. (??)

What you're describing sounds like the Flying Clown. What's the WS

Bill <><

wingspan-22.5"
wing area-134 sq. in.
fuselage length-18"
weight-5.5 oz. (supposedly)

The engine bearers are spaced so that an 09 has some slop. A medallion 15 will require minimal filing.

Steve Holt · « **Reply #4 on:** February 04, 2007, 08:25:08 PM »

Phil,
Shim the bearers in to fit an .049. The Medallion should be plenty of power if the airplane is light. Remember, the McCoy .09 was pretty wimpy and the Cub was even worse. A reasonably modern .10 like an FP would be way too much power and weight. An FP10 would be about right for the Flying Clown. The Norvel sport .049 engine or the Brodak should also be adequate and are more available. The old PDQ wood could be pretty heavy so you may have to replace some parts. I too have an old kit and plan to build it someday.
Steve

Garf · « **Reply #5 on:** February 04, 2007, 10:45:22 PM »

Quote from: Steve Holt on February 04, 2007, 08:25:08 PM

I too have an old kit and plan to build it someday.
Steve

Can you do me a favor. My rudder and vertical stab are missing. Could you put yours on a scanner and send me a scan so I can get the shape right?

Roger Vizioli · « **Reply #6 on:** February 05, 2007, 06:18:55 AM »

Phil,
As Bill said.
Your dimensions are close to those of the Brodak Baby Clown.
We have one flying with a Norvel .061 and it will spin you into the ground on 50' lines.
Just a thought.
Might want to rethink the engine size.
Roger V.

Garf · « **Reply #7 on:** February 05, 2007, 11:51:41 AM »

The first one I built was a VERY long time ago, so I have to assume I did something very wrong back then. The bearers are too wide stock to take an .049, so I may have to make some changes. The Fox .07 might be a good choice.

Steve Holt · « **Reply #8 on:** February 05, 2007, 03:30:33 PM »

Quote from: Garf on February 04, 2007, 10:45:22 PM

Can you do me a favor. My rudder and vertical stab are missing. Could you put yours on a scanner and send me a scan so I can get the shape right?

Phil,
As soon as I have a chance to dig out the kit, I will do it. Should not be a problem, but might be later this week.
Steve

Garf · « **Reply #9 on:** February 05, 2007, 10:56:26 PM »

Quote from: Steve Holt on February 05, 2007, 03:30:33 PM

Phil,
As soon as I have a chance to dig out the kit, I will do it. Should not be a problem, but might be later this week.
Steve

No hurry, i'm back to work now. Sure cuts into my building time.

Garf · « **Reply #10 on:** February 15, 2007, 10:29:47 PM »

Engine selection has been made. For better or worse, i'm going with the TD .09. If it proves too much, you all can tell me "i told you so".

Garf · « **Reply #11 on:** February 25, 2007, 03:27:04 PM »

Ran into a problem. While preparing the TD .09 for mounting, I noticed that the front housing that holds the venturi is cracked. Does anyone out there have a new or good used one?

john e. holliday · « **Reply #12 on:** February 25, 2007, 07:43:34 PM »

Unless the housing that holds the venturi is completely broken off a good plastic cement will seal it up. Or clean it good and use J-B Weld. DOC Holliday

Bill Little · « **Reply #13 on:** February 25, 2007, 07:44:42 PM »

Quote from: john e. holliday on February 25, 2007, 07:43:34 PM

Unless the housing that holds the venturi is completely broken off a good plastic cement will seal it up. Or clean it good and use J-B Weld. DOC Holliday

MEK will glue it back together real good, too.

Bill <><

Richard Grogan · « **Reply #14 on:** February 25, 2007, 07:51:30 PM »

Quote from: Garf on February 25, 2007, 03:27:04 PM

Ran into a problem. While preparing the TD .09 for mounting, I noticed that the front housing that holds the venturi is cracked. Does anyone out there have a new or good used one?

Like Doc sez, and use alcohol to clean it with(degrease) ....

Bill Little · « **Reply #15 on:** February 25, 2007, 08:15:37 PM »

Quote from: Richard Grogan on February 25, 2007, 07:51:30 PM

Like Doc sez, and use alcohol to clean it with(degrease) ....

By all means, it really has to be cleaned well! BTW: MEK is a "glue" for Plastics (like Doc said!), Probably one of the very strongest and permanent ones you can use! It literally melts the plastic at the joint and when it solidifies (dries), it is at least as strong as it originally was.

Bill <><

Robert McHam · « **Reply #16 on:** February 25, 2007, 08:31:57 PM »

Quote by Garf:
"but I remember the first one I built. I put a McCoy .098 on it and it was underpowered. I then put an OK .149 on it and it was still underpowered."

Also one must consider that in our early days we could have been doing other things wrong.
First and formost is having the prop on backwards. On an anemic powerplant you might get away with such a mistake if flying free flight but doubtfully C/L.
Old fuel. Oft times we juniors used leftover fuel of questionable age and potency but had little choice in the matter.
Things like this and weak starting batteries made getting our motors started at all very difficult. When they did run, it was like music to our ears! we didn't care too much about the specs on the motors, we just wanted to fly something!!!

Robert

Warren Leadbeatter · « **Reply #17 on:** February 26, 2007, 05:07:30 AM »

I cant believe you are going for a Tee Dee 09 on the Baby Clown... I have Cox Black Widow 049s on 2 of ours and they are fully aerobatic on 35' lines. I have another one with a Norvel Big Mig 049 and it absolutely rips, so I fly it on 45' lines and it still hoots! A friend of mine has one with a Norvel Big Mig .061 and it's over powered to buggery, so fast, you need to fly it on 52's.

Unless yours is extemely heavy or the PDQ vesion is much bigger than the Brodak version, you would be much better off with a Tee Dee 049 or Medallion 049 rather than an 09. Maybe those old OK's and McCoys are heavy and gutless little engines... could that have been the problem?

Cheers

Garf · « **Reply #18 on:** February 26, 2007, 10:42:29 AM »

The McCoy was no powerhouse, and the cub was on its last legs with very little compression. It also liked to catch fire when starting.

Garf · « **Reply #19 on:** March 07, 2007, 08:44:38 PM »

I found a new front housing for the TD .09. Now to put a little bench time on it. Considering the use of .012 X 52" lines, how much wingtip weight should I use. I lined up the inner edge of the fuselage with the centerline of the wing to get a little offset.

Garf · « **Reply #20 on:** March 17, 2007, 07:38:02 PM »

I test ran the TD .09. It didn't want to draw fuel very well. Someone may have played with the venturi bore. I went ahead and got a Medallion .09 venturi housing and installed it. I like the looks of this better than the TD setup. Less to go wrong. It should still have pleanty of power.

Bill Little · « **Reply #21 on:** March 17, 2007, 09:14:08 PM »

Quote from: Garf on March 17, 2007, 07:38:02 PM

I test ran the TD .09. It didn't want to draw fuel very well. Someone may have played with the venturi bore. I went ahead and got a Medallion .09 venturi housing and installed it. I like the looks of this better than the TD setup. Less to go wrong. It should still have pleanty of power.

Hi Phil,

I think the Medallion front end will wok better on suction. It will be a *little* less touchy, and it should still be plenty for the Baby Clown.

If it works anything like the .049 Medallion, it just might 4-2 for you.

I forgot to mention that I have a PDQ Circus Prince that I built back in '65 that I am refinishing now which flys with a Fox 15 X. It has a 27" WS, a brother (same wing) to the Flying Clown, the Baby Clown's bigger brother.

Bill <><