stunthanger.com
General control line discussion => Open Forum => Topic started by: Robert McHam on January 07, 2007, 10:58:33 PM
-
I was wanting to know if there were any Scientific Half A kit collectors on the forum?
I know there are lovers of these simple but memorable hits.
Me? I am just getting started. I have Some great memories of several kits. My first was the Zig Zag. It was my favorite as well. Next was the Stuka. I never finished it because I was not to thrilled with my job of putting the wing together. I would continue to dig it out from time to time and put even more Testor's wood cement on the dihedral joint (that was where I was unhappy) and I still would not be satisfied.
Next model was the profile P-40 with the built up wing. It was my second favorite.
Now I have none of these, only the memories. Now I want to get some back. There were others I had my eye on and never did buy for one reason or another. I want to try and get those too. Not to collect and sit on a shelf... I want to build and fly them!
Robert
-
Two sources I can recommend, Robert.
Morrie Levinthal heads a group named Kits and plans Antiquitous (KAPA) and has a bunch of the old original kits, but expect to pay top$$$. A better (for you) source is Black Hawk Models (www.blackhawkmodels.com) - - They have around 20 of the old Musciano (Scientific) "hollow log" kits available and are re-introducing more each year. I remember having a couple of the ZigZags and Stuntmasters back in the '50s and '60s, before FM's "Fixit Wright" showed me how to convert the chuck gliders into ½A C/L planes. Not nearly as pretty as the Scientific stuff, but generally flew better.
-
Thank you Mr. Wenzel, I have been in touch with Mr. Larry Rice here on the board and presently the Zig Zag has been taken OOP temporarily to be reworked. Soon as it is back I will be glad to be the first in line for it! Hmmm. I just now realised I did not mention that to him. I better do that. The Profile P-40 does not seem to be one that is offered just yet. The Stuka on the other hand is available but I can wait for now on that one.
I just found the only picture thus far of any of my Scientific planes and it happens to be the carnage photo from an outing with my cousin David and his Guillow's Corsair.
It seems I had forgotten that I did fly it! My Stuka that is. And why the wing joint was always a problem. I had only put Aerogloss clear on it because I had spent so much time helping my cousin with his first flying model. So many memories... So long ago. ANyway here is my Stuka and his Corsair.
Robert
-
Ralph and Robert - glad to see more "loggers" out there. I have had a fascination with Walt's designs since I built my first one in the early 50s.
I agree on the prices of the original kits being quite high but, depending on what you plan to do with them, they may not be the best choice, as they can be a bit heavy.
Regarding the new kits, I've never seen them so I cannot comment one way or another.
My preference is scratch building and I've done a number of his designs that perform quite well.
Here are some pictures of my Bullet and Cyclone. Both are powered with OK Cub .049s and will do most of the AMA pattern.
Bob Z.
-
I'm not a kit collector, but I was a "hollow logger" back in the day.
I had two Ford Flivvers. Then a Gulf Hawk, which was not a true hollow log, but a Scientific profile with a ribbed wing.
Finally, I upgraded to a pair of Walt's better designs, the Cadet, which had both a ribbed wing and a box body. I currently have two more under construction from plans. The Cadet was a really-super 1/2A.
-
Welcome Gentlemen!
To clarify I am not a "collector" as such but there are several I want to get my hands on and build again and I just can't stop wanting those kits I didn't get way back when. I won't, however pay the top dollar prices. Im am not a top dollar kind of guy. More like a "middle of the road" and sometimes " as cheap as I can get away with" kind of guy! Plus I know how to scratch.
Everytime I saw one of the Scientific ads in a model magazine I would just drool over the whole bunch A little further down on my want list were:
kit # 72 the 20" span Super Suntmaster this one had the built up wing and full fuse.
kit # 20 the Little Stinker
kit # 71 Kingpin
kit # 140 Big Otto. Never like the name but I bet it would stunt all over the sky!
kit # 74 the Messeschmidt
kit # 48 Golden Hawk. This model's draw to me was mostly the beautful and quite large decal that looked like birds wings. The model itself ( to me) was rather humdrum.
But hey! Thats why so many models were offered! For the different tastes people have. I have no desire to "collect them all" to use a well worn advertising phrase. But I did like my fair share of them. #^
Robert
-
My original kit Scientific Sport Racer is what was my first really successful control line plane. It was not a hollow log. It had sheet built up fuselage with solid wing and tail surfaces. It was discontinued before I could afford another one. Have a set of plaans someone sent me that I can't use as half the parts don't show up. I will not pay collector prices for something that will be used. Hey, Blackhawk Models I might go for this one, "Scientific Sport Racer". Already have a kit of the "American Boy" I forgot I had. Doc Holliday
-
OK, Doc! I will keep it in mind. Next month we are moving to a larger facility and adding a larger machine shop so that we can produce more kits. There are a few kits that are in the pipeline right now but until we can pay for this move we will not be adding much more to our product line (53 kits right now).
Larry ~^
-
I would like to see the cadet again. #^
James
-
I see Virginia Hobbysports Carries the Cadet from Blackhawk models and has a pic!
This what you were looking for James?
Robert
-
The Cadet that you are showing was not a Scientific kit. Black Hawk Models makes several kits that are not designed by Walt Musciano and this "Culver Cadet" was one of them. We no longer make this kit but it was a very interesting kit when we did. The kit included metal motor mounts for hi powered engines and several items to make it a very fast plane to fly.
Larry
-
It was like the one ama was talking about. They was nice little planes.
Take a look here......
http://cgi.ebay.com/Lot-of-3-Scientific-Flying-Model-Airplane-kits_W0QQitemZ270077441766QQihZ017QQcategoryZ1189QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
James
-
Thanks Mr Rice. I still have a lot to learn obviously. Just a bit off topic but is anyone kitting the Sceintific rubber models like the Skymaster or the sheet balsa rubber jobs?
Robert
-
Here's the Scientific Cadet.I've got a couple rib sets cut, still exploring LE & TE options. The original carved stock is off the market.
-
That's the one. Did you get the plans from Leonard ?
-
We have the Skymaster on a list to be offered but it is not a hi priority kit. We are also looking at the R/C kits and they are on the plan list.
Larry
-
That's the one. Did you get the plans from Leonard ?
I got the plans from Currell Pattie, our local logmesiter.
He won't mind if I burn a few copies to help spread the log.
-
Unless you want to bid with $$$ collectors on ebay I would check if your desired kit is available from Black Hawk Models. If not you can check with Currell, Jim Dodson, or the man himself, Walt Musciano.
Here is an excerpt from the Northern Virginia Control Line (NVCL) club site:
THE BEST PLACE TO ACQUIRE PLANS FOR THESE IS FROM THE DESIGNER:
MR. WALT MUSCIANO
133A DELLGLEN
LODI, NJ 07644
TELE: 973 340-9410
He has all the plans Also Jim Dodson, 843-521-1754, has plans, and some accessories, such as aluminum cowls.
Thanks to Jim and Currell Pattie for their help in building this list, and to Jim Smith, NVCL, for acquiring plans for the Lucky Racer. The Bel Air was removed for 2006 because it had a hollow wing and enclosed controls.
-
I got the plans from Currell Pattie, our local logmesiter.
He won't mind if I burn a few copies to help spread the log.
How much for a copy?
-
As I have mentioned before I am not all knowing about these kits and am learning things frequently, sometimes daily!
Tonight I learned there was another Stuntmaster! This one is the Baby Stuntmaster.
When I was a kid I just loved the wide variety of half A planes Scientific ran in their ads. There were:
Scale type planes, original designs, conventional landing gear, trike gear models, solid fuselages. profiles, built up fuses, solid wings, built up wings!
Many had colorful and exciting decals. Some did not.
My point is, no matter who you were there were probably several, not just one that really caught your eye.
As many as there were at that time, there were even more that had been offered previously. I am only finding out about some of these during this time of my life.
One recent plane that I really like is the Bullet. I have yet to see that one in an ad. I have no idea when this one was offered. Was this a plane only from plans published by Mr. Musciano?
Which brings me to another question. Of the (Gee! I think its around 50 or more,) books that Walter Musciano published ( I know, he himself did not publish them) which ones had plans for half A models?
I know of 2 presently.
"The Model Plane Manual" and " Building and Flying Scale Model Aircraft"
Robert
-
Robert - of all the Scientific planes I've built, the Bullet and the Cyclone are the two best flying.
Both do extremely well with the OK Cub .049Z.
You can see the two on an earlier post in this thread.
I really got carried away with the Bullet and put the leadouts INSIDE the wing, and also a fully detailed cockpit.
To make these birds work, they must be absurdly light - around FOUR ounces.
Bob Z.
-
We, at Black Hawk Models, expect to release both the Cyclone and the bullet later this year, in time for the Musciano contest season. The models that we currently make that are swarn by, for flight performance, are the Combat Master and the Golden Hawk.
Larry
-
Larry - Although I've not built one, I've seen the Golden Hawk fly and it's quite a performer.
Still stressing - build light.
The Golden Hawk will be my project for 2007.
Bob Z.
-
To get good performance from ANY model airplane you should build lite. The two things to aim at are 1- lite wing loading and 2- good balance. When removing excess wood from a model remember that you may be altering the balance point.
Larry
-
Larry, you are so right. However a number of mfgs have included what most of us would call inferior wood.
Case in point is my first aquisition of a Scientific kit since I was a kid. I just weighed the fuse and when all the pieces are together it makes an easy to measure 3" X 12" X 6/32"
(or .28125") package. this weighed a whopping 38 grams on my little digi-scale.
I then took those figures and fed them into the handy-dandy balsa density calculator thankfully provided for us on stunthangar.com in the links section.
The density came up to 14.3 pounds per cubic foot which is quite heavy but
I might need to add that this is a profile fuse model of a Cessna, and not a hollow log model.
The other sheet with the wing ribs, stabilizer, elevator, wingstruts, rudder, verticle fin and wingtips I think is very close to the same. I actually do not know because the sheet is not quite complete and thus will give an inaccurate answer.
All this could be lighter but in truth could be why some of us had such good luck in the beginning! The wood this fuse is cut from is extremly hard. Makes it very durable.
For us non- beginners it would be so much better to have lighter stock to work with.
Any opinions as to the best substitute for this wood?
These will make great patterns for making a really fine flying plane in its stead!
Robert
-
I use 4 to 6 pound wood for stunt models and proto models, maybe a racing model would do well with super light bass wood, or use bass wood laminated onto the leading edge of the wing and tail, etc. Use the sheets you have to make templates. Take your little Scientific kit die cut sheets to the copy place and set them on a black and white copier, shoot them, and the outlines will come out quite nicely on the paper copies. Use these to make your templates and cut the new parts out of your contest wood.
For a profile, make sure to key the flat firewall to the fuselage, even if it has doublers and triplers.
Cover the model with carbon veil and dope after shaping, it'll become stiff and durable.
Bob Z. says one needs to build to 4 ounces for these models to fly really well, and he is right. It isn't "absurdly" light, as all competitive 18" Proto Speed models weigh the same (with sometimes much heavier engines). Musciano wing areas are similar to Proto models so we are really just creating a competition model at competition weight! Also note that Bob's model has a full cowling and spinner, so a light model can be complete too. This also makes the less than powerful engines better able to maintain and recover energy in stunt maneuvers. It allows proto models to attain higher speeds too!
For balance, use light engines and props. Scoot them back as far as possible if necessary. The balance is very critical on these tiny ships. (Most of the Golden Hawk's I see look like the firewall is mounted too far forward especially for a Babe Bee 049.)
-
Hi, Chris - by "absurdly light", I was comparing the weight to the original kits - some of which really felt like logs!!
I have found quite a few tricks to keeping the weight down. Saving a gram here and there adds up quickly.
Bob Z.
-
I wish I had known about building the log planes light. I usually built with what came in the box because I didn't know any better, With an OK Cub 049A they flew great for me on 20 foot of line. The old Perfect stuff. Did not know about wire and cable at that time. Also at that period in time a pint of fuel went a long way. May have to break down and get a couple. DOC Holliday
-
As far as balance, many older kits originally used tankless engines, like the OK Cub (which is an .049) or Wasp. For those, the fuselage is longer and a separate tank is located inside the fuselage (I usually hogged out a space for the "Perfect" tank). Many plans were redrawn for thinner wings and the tanked engines (like Cub .049A and Babe Bee). For these, the fuselage was shortened. I have no idea of all the changes that Scientific made.
The early Scientific Hollow Logs that I made were not particularly light. I would barely sand off the mill-marks on the balsa, and never thought of hollowing the log further (except for the tank). I didn't notice a problem with the weight because I was working at keeping it off of terra firma. :-[
Remember that if you can't find light balsa for the fuselage, you can laminate sheets to form the log...just no sheet sides and formers. That's a good way to use up some scraps.
George
-
Quote by John E. "DOC" Holliday:
"I wish I had known about building the log planes light. I usually built with what came in the box because I didn't know any better"
Many of us starting out had no choice but to do the same. I had no mentor or anyone with experience with flying model airplanes.
Earlier in my youth I built the plastic kits. these were well thought out designs that rarely needed any modification from what the factory supplied in the box. So I figured that whatever was in my Scientific box was just what I needed. I simply sanded smooth outer and left inner just as it came from the factory.
I do remember trying to carve out some of the inside once with one of those cool looking Xacto wood carving blades I had in my hand-me-down Xacto set, (the blade that looked like a basketball hoop) but alas I absolutly no experience with wood carving and the blade was dull. it would not cut into the wood at all. just sort of scraped across it. It looked sharp to me. I had no idea then it was really dull. I just thought I am not doing this right or maybe this was the wrong blade for what I wanted to do. I just gave up and together went the plane.
It flew so well for me I felt that future models would be left untouched. I had yet to learn that there was still room for improvement.
Robert
-
My Scientific Cessna kit came with a two piece cowl which was molded as one unit. The flashing has a letter "B" on it. I wondered about this and looked around and the old Berkeley model boxes caught my eye. The "B" in Berkeley at first appeared to be the same exact style. Upon closer inspection they are not.
Does anyone have any info here?
Robert
-
In defence of the Scientific Model kits and Black Hawk Models kits it is not easy to make a kit that will be perfect right from the box. What engine will be used, how experenced is the pilot, how experenced is the builder these are all considerations that must be taken seriously.
We try to make our kits for beginners who will pound them into the ground more times than they will land them and hope that the more experenced modelers will know to lighten them up. We make them easy to assemble and rete the difficulty on the box to help a tyro go in the right direction, and we stress that balance is VERY IMPORTANT. No kit is perfect, there is no way to know if the model is headed for a contest or for a beginer.
Our wood is ordered medium for the block fuselage and hard for the sheet wood. In models that we expect will be flown by experenced fliers (Giant Stunt Master) we try to keep the weight down while keeping the plane strong.
Doc,
Take a look at the Autogiro in the 1/2a building section...looks pretty good.
Larry
-
As far as I am concerned the wood selection truly was the saving grace for my success with my first. I promise you that no store bought plane could have flown nearly as well nor traken the torture it eventually went thru. True I did my part in assembling it well. I coated the whole front end in Ambroid several times and the wing fillets though not prominent nor well shaped were built up with layers of Ambroid as well.The fillet between the firewall and fuse was done the same. To me, I built the thing like a tank!
I was able to piece together all of the sheet pieces in the kit and calculated the density of these parts. It came to 19.2 pounds per cubic feet.
So, why does the letter "B" appear on the cowl flashing?
Robert
-
As it is not one of my kits I can not answer the "B" question however here are some suggestions;
Take time to read EVERYTHING on the directions and there is probably an obsecure note to it. You may need to cut ther to fit a certain engine or attach some small part.
It may denote the part for packing the box at Scientific Models.
Larry
-
...I coated the whole front end in Ambroid several times and the wing fillets though not prominent nor well shaped were built up with layers of Ambroid as well. The fillet between the firewall and fuse was done the same. To me, I built the thing like a tank!
Ahh, I remember the old Ambroid bubbled fillets well! Then I learned to double-cement a joint to allow for evaporation and to use the tube-type balsa fillet material from Pactra. I also remember putting gauze on the firewall and fuselage front with Ambroid for extra strength... and to hold the landing gear on. :D Sometimes had to reposition the landing gear and drill an intake hole in the firewall for my Space Bug, Jr.
So, why does the letter "B" appear on the cowl flashing?
Robert
I think Larry nailed that one...so they would know what kit to put it in.
George
-
George, you and Larry are probably right about the letter on the cowl flashing but if that were true (and still probably is) why is the wheel pants flashing lacking a simalar marking? Wheel pants are no more universal than a cowling shape is ( excepting a barrel shaped cowl for radials) This is a Cessna and does have what appears to be correct pants with the fins on them. Really cool they are!
I guess what threw me off on the "B" is that it is not a simple block letter B. It has panache and looks at a glance like the stylised "B" in Berkeley.
By the way Larry, How much longer on the revamped Zig Zag kit?
Robert
-
Robert,
We are swamped with orders and about to relocate to a larger office and build a larger factory to produce more kits, that's the hold up. Here is a deal for you: You order a "Zig Zag revamped" from me and include $26.50 plus $4.00 shipping I will put one in a box for you. Since the new instructions are not complete yet I wll include Scientific's instructions, there will be some minor changes but you can handle them. The box art is not done yet so you will get the old lable.
Larry
-
Larry, I will be happy to wait for the new box art!
In the meantime I have kinda been in a holding pattern till I came across a "new breed" of Scientific model. Keep in mind I am still learning more and more of the offerings. By this I mean that a lot of what I find out "new" will be old news to some of you who had more intimate contact with the line of models than I did.
Also keep in mind that one of the the reasons I was so taken by the line of models offered by Scientific! I would seek out their ad each monthe to see if there were something different. They always had a lot! To me it was like being a kid in a candy store knowing you could only have one out of so many to choose from.
Sorry about being long winded, back to my discovery. The BEL-AIR. This was a hollowog but the wing was not of typical construction. It was a solid balsa wing that had been shaped on the outside but also hollowed on the inside much like the fuselage! Now, I find that really cool! In order to hollow the inside the wing was made in 2 halves. A leading edge "half" and a trailing edge half. Seems the bellcrank was buried in the hollow. Not positive on that yet. That would make for a pretty sleek aircraft.
I actually have heard of others that did this but I did not know Scientific offered any.
I may soon be the owner of one of these cool planes. If so I can hardly wait to inspect it close up!
If anyone has more knowledge of this or knows of other models with this construction please let me know.
Robert
-
Several companies expermented with the hollow wing. Berkley made several and I believe that Enterprise tried a couple. The Bel Air is the only one that Scientific made. Black Hawk Models offers a Boby Fire Ball that has a hollow wing but it is made up of 1/16" wing skins shaped over a 1/4" basswood spar.
Larry
-
After I built my Zig Zag. I thought of something similar.not quite so drastic a 1/4"x1/4"! My idea was 1/16" skins top and bottom with a 1/8" X 1/4" balsa laid flat at one third the chord. this would have doubled the thickness of the wing and yet weigh almost nothing at all. Actually I thought of 14"X1/4" also and compared the other near sizes and I had convinced myself the 1/8"X1/4" was the best for a 3" to 3" 1/2" chord.
In reality the resultant airfoil, though an improvement would not perform nearly as well as the 1/4"X1/4" would have. I had also thought of using short dowels up to 3/8" thick thinking the skins would follow the curve both on top and bottom better. Them I would think of all that dense lazy wood between the dowel that was only contributing to the weight and not the strength of the structure and my young mind would just shudder at the thought.
I wish I had done some of those experiments then...
Robert
-
Once upon a time in a land far far away "Arrow shafts" were used as spars. They are light fiberglass tubes that are very ridged. Hmmmm?
Larry
-
Actually Larry, I was visuallizing those as I was writing the last post. For small models like these one shaft would easily build 2 wings. Or for that matter Carbon fiber tubes, or even the simple aluminum arrowshafts. Those would be really cheap (in my thoughts) I have not priced these as yet. I have bought from wallyworld some inexpensive (about $3.50 ea.) aluminum shafts wrapped in CF.Very light and strong and yet not too cost prohibitive.
More Hmmm...
Robert
-
Quote by Larry Rice :
"Several companies expermented with the hollow wing. Berkley made several and I believe that Enterprise tried a couple. The Bel Air is the only one that Scientific made."
Does that mean that the Bel Air is pretty rare? If so, I will be rather fortunate! Un fortunatly this particular beast has already been built so I am guessing it would not have nearly the value a kit NIB would be. It also suffers from years of hangar rash and does not have all the decals on it ( that is just a guess) comparing it to the picture I have seen on a box lid. It does however have the original cowl but with the apppropriate cutouts for an OK Cub and an internally mounted tank for same. I'll see about getting a pic. I don't really care to know how much its worth. I think I will like it. Thats what counts.
Even though I don't care so much about its actual dollar value, I would like to preserve whatever value it does have. Does anyone have advice on what the best use of this plane would be? Leave as is or strip it and refinish it with a knock out finish and display it?
Robert
-
VALUE? While it is an interresting plane I do not know of any collectors that do not already have one or more new in the box kits. They are easy to get from E-bay at a low price. There many other kits that are worth much more and harder to get. A Scientific Challenger, Autogiro, or Secret Weapon to name a few.
Re-finish? For me I would try to keep it in the original finish style and not over do it with a high tech finish. Since there are so many NIB kits out there I would probably be ok to just fly it for fun.
Larry
-
About the Bel-Air... It was Kitted by both Enterprise and Scientific. I am guessing the Enterprise is the older of the two?
Can anyone shed some light on this?
For instance if Scientific took over Enterprise's model line, what happend to the Moon-Liner? Or the Razzle Dazzle? Both sweet looking, imaginative designs once kitted by Enterprise.
I have seen both brands on the big auction site.
Robert
-
A little more re weight. For a "typical" Scientific Log with a 18" span and about a 3" chord, you can get an unfinished fuselage with firewall attached down below 10 grams, if you use contest balsa, and do a lot of hollowing. The wing, using the same balsa, also can come in around 8 grams or so. Indoor Peanut tissue paper can add strength with hardly any weight gain. Also, you can tint clear with Rit dye for a light finish, and actually brush it on (the Rit dyed thinned clear seems to clog spray systems easily). Yes, weight is very critical, especially for Stunt. It is somewhat critical for NVCL proto Speed rules, and not as critical for Kalamazoo rules, which uses a pure speed timing. However, a few extra grams, invested in areas that strengthen the model, will not hurt in Team Race, where pit time is the critical variable.
The Bel Air was mentioned previously. I built a kit version and competed in Team Race before it was made illegal. The wing can best be characterized as clamshell construction. You can fly it in Unlimited now, and should stunt well.
Currell Pattie
-
Thanks for your observations! Glad to have you here Mr. Pattie!
Robert
-
I built my first model at summer camp in the 50's and this thread jolted my memory...It was a Zig Zag..flew great, thanks!..Bob
-
A little more re weight. For a "typical" Scientific Log with a 18" span and about a 3" chord, you can get an unfinished fuselage with firewall attached down below 10 grams, if you use contest balsa, and do a lot of hollowing. The wing, using the same balsa, also can come in around 8 grams or so. Indoor Peanut tissue paper can add strength with hardly any weight gain. Also, you can tint clear with Rit dye for a light finish, and actually brush it on (the Rit dyed thinned clear seems to clog spray systems easily). Yes, weight is very critical, especially for Stunt. It is somewhat critical for NVCL proto Speed rules, and not as critical for Kalamazoo rules, which uses a pure speed timing. However, a few extra grams, invested in areas that strengthen the model, will not hurt in Team Race, where pit time is the critical variable.
The Bel Air was mentioned previously. I built a kit version and competed in Team Race before it was made illegal. The wing can best be characterized as clamshell construction. You can fly it in Unlimited now, and should stunt well.
Currell Pattie
Hi Currell!
How have I missed seeing you here? Glad to see you. I hope to build that F-7U Cutlass this winter! It is so odd that I just HAVE to do it! LOL!!
Bill <><
-
I built my first model at summer camp in the 50's and this thread jolted my memory...It was a Zig Zag..flew great, thanks!..Bob
Indeed the Zig Zag sure brings back memories! It was just so different than most of the others. I thought it a great flyer as well. Especially when I got the right engine and prop on it. It would go vertical immediatly upon release!
Robert
-
I've been helping the kids at an orphanage (in North Carolina) to build and fly 1/2A C/L planes for about two years. Larry has recently supplied us a set of stuntmaster kits to build (and some engines, thanks again Larry!). I usually build the first one for the kids to see how it will look when completed, and then one of the youngest kids receives that one when we're done building the rest.
The kids like to have the wheels attached, but the planes fly better (lighter) without wheels. So, I set some aluminum tubes into the front bottom of the fuse, and made up a set of gear to fit. I expect that it should be able to take off with the wheels, and then the gear will drop off in flight. Please see the attached photos.
On this one, I used some forstner bits and exacto knife to open up the fuselage from the bottom, to lighten it. And I took off some balsa from the front of the fuselage to move the engine back a little.
We use dope in spray cans to finish the planes, because the building time is limited. Does anyone still make clear dope in spray cans?
Please contact me if anyone can make donations of 1/2A building and flying materials. Thanks.
Dave
-
Thats a good idea. Have you tried it out yet?
-
The model hasn't flown yet, but the gear easily falls off when I pick up the plane. The gear wire is a loose fit into the aluminum tubing. Wind resistance may increase friction, and tend to retain the gear somewhat, but I think the engine vibration will cancel out that effect. I'll try it the next time I can get up to the orphanage.
Dave
-
In order to further minimize the overall weight, I used less outboard weight (a penny on the outside edge of the horizontal stab) and used a reverse pitch prop. I only have one of those props. Does anyone know of a source where I can buy additional reverse-pitch 5.0D 3.5P 3-blade props? (also called a pusher prop or a right hand prop)
Dave
-
I am pretty much with Z man: I like the Bullet and the Cyclone for Stunt (have built two Bullets, one Cyclone). All models are from scratch, in order to keep them light. This season, the Cyclone seemed to perform a bit better.
Of the standard 18" models, I would have to put the Stuntmaster ahead of the Zig Zag, due to the wider chord of the former.
Currell
-
Does anyone know where 1/2A-sized reverse-pitch 2 or 3-blade props can be found?
-
Go to Tower Hobbies site and type in pusher propellors in the search box. Have fun, DOC Holliday
-
Thanks John, but all I could find on the Tower Hobbbies site was a 3-blade 6-4 prop and some props for electric. I think the 3-blade 6-4 prop is a little big for a Babe Bee, and the props for electric seem to have a different hub.
-
It just hit me while browsing the APC site. You said Babe Bee which is a reed valve. It will run either direction as well as any Cox reed valve engine. All you need to do is turn the standard prop around and crank the engine clockwise. If you need a starting spring I will have to get the parts box from my son to get a spring. I was racing a Black Widow with left hand prop. Hope this helps. Have fun, DOC Holliday
-
Actually John, I'll be using the Babe Bee on the front of the plane, and I want to run the prop clockwise with a pusher prop so that the torque will turn the plane away from the circle. This, I'm hoping, will allow a smaller outboard weight to be used.
-
It just hit me while browsing the APC site. You said Babe Bee which is a reed valve. It will run either direction as well as any Cox reed valve engine. All you need to do is turn the standard prop around and crank the engine clockwise.
Nope, turning the prop around won't reverse the pitch, just reduce the pull because the blade airfoil is now backward.
David's right, he needs a pusher prop if he wants to run the engine backward on a tractor arrangement.
-
Dave,
On my Golden Hawk I just used the tip weight supplied in the Blackhawk kit. I also am using the kit supplied landing gear firmly attached. I did hollow out the log a little to save weight. I only put one coat of paint on because paint can be heavy. I'm using a mix and match Cox reedy which is probably similar in power to a Black Widow. I'm using a Windsor/Master Airscrew 6x3 prop turning in the normal direction. I did put in a little rudder offset to help with line tension. I'm flying the thing on 42' Spiderwire braided lines (20lb strength/8lb diameter). I've had no line tension problems even up high, and the lap times are really fast. I've flown it inverted and done loops. My point is that the planes will probably be ok with the kit supplied tip weight and a normal tractor prop even with Babe Bee power- especially if you use 30' to 35' lines and your drop off gear works out.
Best wishes,
wayne
-
Thanks for the info, Wayne.
-
OK! I tried to stay out of this but I am old and have to put my two cents into everything. If line tension is in question simply place a washer under the two screws on the inboard side of the engine. The engine will pull the lines tighter than the torque of the prop will. The wing weight does not help with line tension, it's purpose in life is to counter the weight of the controls on the inboard wing to keep the plane flying level. This is a big help because if the out board wing is up and the inboard wing down the plane will turn, bank and stall into ground.
Larry
-
Thanks again for all of the very helpful info. I built a lot of kits, as a kid, but didn't receive any external input except for the instructions that came with the kits. At 12 years old, I started a flying club with about 10 members. They looked to me for help, but I only knew what I had learned first hand from my own experience. All in all, we had loads of fun. We flew our own interpretation of "stunt" with 1/2A to .40-sized planes, and flew a lot of combat with slab planes and Golden Bee engines.
Now that I'm back into flying C/L, working with the kids, and learning some new things, it's still a lot of fun.
-
BTW David, once you take the plane inverted, the reverse pitch will work against you. That's why most folks don't bother.
George
-
That's a good point, George. Hadn't thought about that.
-
I have about two dozen Logs hanging in the basement now, most of which were scratch built. I have found that two pennies, mounted near the longitudinal CG, is adequate for counterbalancing things (the pennies usually are buried in the wing, unless I am in a rush). Also, you do not need a lot of engine offset. One thin washer on the IB mounting bolts is sufficent. For my Speed models, I don't use any.
I can't overemphasize the effect of weight on these little models. Once again, contest balsa will get a well hollowed "typical" Scientific Log (Enterprise, for that matter) fuse and wing combo well below 20 grams. They stunt so much better in this model.
For a real thrill, try an F-82!
Currell
-
David,
Some things to consider:
The older kids should be more skill-capable so you should shoot for very light models as Currell pointed out above.
Younger kids will have less (and fewer) skills so don't expect as much out of them. They also become impatient and want to see results.
When I built my first "Logs" in the fifties, the wings were thicker (~1/4"). I build several planes that had NO additional hollowing and sanding only enough to hide the mill marks on the balsa. A couple coats of clear, a couple coats of color, add decals...off to fly. They were powered by an OK Cub or a Cox Space Bug Jr. They flew as well as I could, but nothing to write home about.
I guess what I'm saying is match the effort and details to their age and abilities. Since you are there to help, you can raise the bar a bit, but don't expect a young person to wait and wait for a finish when they are going to crash it.
Remember KISMIF...Keep It Simple, Make It Fun.
Also, having drop-off gear is neat and fun at your site but may not be allowed at any AMA meets.
I have not built one of Larry's kits yet but the old Scientific kits had the landing gear positioned in a groove in the firewall. It was held in place by the engine. I found that the frequent crashes plus the "prying" stresses imposed by landing in the grass (which usually consisted of one bounce plus one or more loops) would loosen the wood screws I used to mount the engine. For that reason I started using cement and gauze to hold the LG in place.
Of course these are only opinions.
George
-
Hi George: Another way to attach the LG is simply to mount it between the firewall and the Log itself. Make the grooves in the balsa.
I talked to Mr Frisoli. the son of the original owner of Scientific, at one of the NVCL Musciano Meets. You certainly are correct that, as the years went on, the airfoil sections went from virtually 1/4" to 1/8", as newer models were introduced (as a general rule). Profit margins were so tight, that they had to do it. Note that the Little Bipe steadily went down in span, over what I recall is at least three different spans.
The Blackhawk Golden Hawk, as supplied, would be one tough bird, and great for kids to knock around. However, it can be scratch built at 1/3rd the weight, and this is what you want for contests, or if you want good stunting capability.
Currell
-
Thanks a lot for all of the helpful input.
Dave
-
Thanks Currell, never thought of putting it behind the firewall.
Here are my two little Bipes, from plans. Scaled up the wings from the little 1/4 size top views:
-
Nice looking little Bipes, George.
I'm a self styled Scientific historian, and tracing the ads in MAN and FM and other mags in the early 50s, you find at least three versions, in this chronological order:
Span 16" area 78 sq in
15 80
12 70
And there may have been one I missed.
The Little Bipes you see at Musciano Meets are always the 12" version. They stunt surprisingly well. But the earlier ones are legal and should go even better. I asked Walt about the different spans, but he didn't really follow the ad copy back then. He was too busy designing and flying.
Currell
-
Nice looking little Bipes, George.
I'm a self styled Scientific historian, and tracing the ads in MAN and FM and other mags in the early 50s, you find at least three versions, in this chronological order:
Span 16" area 78 sq in
15 80
12 70
And there may have been one I missed.
The Little Bipes you see at Musciano Meets are always the 12" version. They stunt surprisingly well. But the earlier ones are legal and should go even better. I asked Walt about the different spans, but he didn't really follow the ad copy back then. He was too busy designing and flying.
Currell
I have the later instruction for this "Little Bipe" and it seems to be dated 1972. One sure thing about ity being later is that it shows a Cox Baby Bee mounted on the plan. I measured the quarter scale and indeed it was 3 inches in span making it 12" span full scale.
My question is, did the Little bipes of yore share the same fuse and simply had the longer spans or were they actually a bit longer in length as well?
Robert
-
I have the later instruction for this "Little Bipe" and it seems to be dated 1972. One sure thing about ity being later is that it shows a Cox Baby Bee mounted on the plan. I measured the quarter scale and indeed it was 3 inches in span making it 12" span full scale.
My question is, did the Little bipes of yore share the same fuse and simply had the longer spans or were they actually a bit longer in length as well?
Robert
Robert,
The first Little bipe I had was in the 1953 time frame. It was built by a friend, and I traded my "Daisy Defender" BB gun for it. Power was an OK Cub (which I still have). There was no Babe Bee at the time...it came later. The plans you mention are probably the same version that I used for the two Little Bipes above.
I too would like to find the older plans and build one of those...and power it with that old Cub. I am guessing that the original plans look more like the picture in the ads.
I THINK when Scientific made a comeback in the early seventies is when many (if not all) were redesigned with the 1/8" wings. Most were originally designed with a thicker airfoiled wing. Perhaps Currell can set us straight on that.
At least that's how I remember it. ::)
George
-
Just days ago one of the P-40 kits that I mentioned in my first post of this thread went for $102.50!! The kit number of this one is S-92 and the example shown in this picture is of the box art that I had.
The one that sold was of an earlier art work on the box but the model is pretty much the same I think.
Profile fuselage and 21 span built up wing. I guess it means I had good taste in models way back then as the ones that I really like seem to sell for the most. Other Scientific kits in condition as good as the S-92 kit sold for about half as much including some of the larger engine models with greater spans.
It is hard for me to understand sometimes what goes on in their minds. surely these are not all being built!
The P-40 was one I really enjoyed and has a great story to go along with it but not not one of the kits I feel like I just have to build. Perhaps one day I may change my mind. It was a really cool plane.
Robert
-
Does anyone know how I can get a subscription to this magazine? Is it still in existence? I used to get this, but lost contact.
Thanks,
Jimmy L Dodson
Beaufort, SC
-
Jimmy, I believe that KAPA is no more.