Trophy Trainer, then and now

[Brian Massey]

I'm looking at the Bob Kruger drawn plans for Tom Warden's Trophy Trainer, and comparing them to the plans given to me by Tom back in the 60's. Very close, but with some changes. This is the plane I plan on using for my first "winter project" (a new Chipmonk may be the second). I've built the "original" TT and it flys very well; I'm wondering with the changes how the newer version flys. If you've built the newer version I sure would like to get your feedback.
Some of the more notable changes: the nose length shrank from 11in. to 9in (A good thing I think); the elevator/stab while the same length, is shaped slightly differently giving more surface area to the Elevator (another good change); the number of ribs has gone from 12 to 20; wing offset shrank from 7/8" to 3/4" (is any even necessary?); wing thickness went from 2 1/8" to 2"; the tail moment went from 14" to 14 3/8"; the bellcrank is now mounted "facing in"; and the overall length went from 40 3/8" to 37". I'm assuming the changes evolved over time (by Tom and or others) to improve flight performance.

Any feedback is welcome.

Brian

[Andrew Borgogna]

Brian
I too built a TT from a set of plans I got from Tom back in 69, and recently I built a second one from a set of plans that I honestly don't know where I got them from.  I think I got them from the AMA plans people, for the longest time I thought I got them from Barry Baxter until Barry told me he doesn't have the TT.  Anyway I will compare  the numbers on my new plans to the numbers you have posted to see where my lives.  What really worries me now is I built the TT for VSC Classic next year.  I wonder if it is Classic legal now given the number of changes you have documented.  I really wish people would not change designs when they redraw plans it makes it difficult to know if you have a Classic legal plane.
Andy

[Andrew Borgogna]

Brian
I just when to the garage and took measurements off my plans and plane and I come up with the same numbers you did on the new plane.  My plans were redrawn in 1992 by a person named Bill Noyes and  the plans have two entries for Mr. Noyes one is labeled "revisited" both are dated 1992.  Above his name is Tom's name dated 1960.  I sure hope this plane passes muster in Tucson for VSC Classic or I will be one very unhappy person.
Andy

[Brian Massey]

Hi Andy;

I remember Bill Noyes well, flew often with him at Whittier Narrows from the mid 60's to the early 70's. On other posts here I have "gathered" that the later drawings of the TT are still considered classic legal. Of course I'm issuing no guarantees  . Perhaps someone else reading this post can chime in.

[Brian Massey]

Andy; just dawned on my, that builtrightflyright.com has kitted the TT using the later drawings that we seem to share. I'm sure they would know about it's classic legal standing. Also, Bob Kruger here on the forums should know, he is where I got my set of plans.

BYW, your pics look very good! How does she fly?

Brian

[Steve Helmick]

If you check the PAMPA Classic rules, you'll see that there's no provision for disqualifying any Classic entry for deviations, unlike OTS entries. Modify it all you want, tell them what you did, and fly with a clear conscience. The "Fidelity Points" are supposed to take this sort of stuff into account, giving you fewer static points for putting wing mounted gear in your Nobler, etc. Seems fair enough. On the other hand, if you provide evidence that somebody built one exactly that way back in the '60's, then you not only should not get penalized, but maybe even rewarded.

In general, sawing some length off the nose in order to get a decent balance point with a muffler isn't a huge transgression. Making the wings closer to equal length is probably more serious. Lengthening the tail moment or enlarging the horizontal tail is taking considerable liberties. But there's still nothing in the rules that says a CD or ED can prevent you from flying that plane in a Classic event. It will reduce Fidelity Points, if they are being used, or the Appearance Points, in case Fidelity Points are not being used. That's all they can do. Don't worry about it.
  Steve

[builditright]

Hi Brian,

Our Trophy Trainer kit is Classic Stunt eligible as far as I was told by Tom Lay the rights holder of Tom's stuff.

Tha mods we did were basically internal and should not have changed it's eligiblity.

If you're interested in a kit, we have them listed on our website, or just send me an email.
 
http://www.builtrightflyright.com
 

[Brian Massey]

Hi Brian,

Our Trophy Trainer kit is Classic Stunt eligible as far as I was told by Tom Lay the rights holder of Tom's stuff.

Tha mods we did were basically internal and should not have changed it's eligiblity.

If you're interested in a kit, we have them listed on our website, or just send me an email.
 
http://www.builtrightflyright.com
 

Between this and what Steve said, I think we have some authority.

Thanks guys!

Brian

[john e. holliday]

Don't know how many read the instruction books that come with Brodak and SIG kits.  One of the things that caught my eye on each was the statement that because of weather, humidity and temps, that plans be larger or smaller.  From the deminions that you stated that is a possibity when the plans were copied.  Now don't take my word for it.  Now how many classic planes and even Old Timers were built that came out with different deminsions than the kit box showed.  I mean an 1/8 inch on a 50 inch wing span could be from too much sand paper or not enough.  If someone complains about a design not being exactly the same as the original has HUA trouble.  I beleive at VSC they only look at the planes for appearance judging unless they are way off in size. 

[Andrew Borgogna]

Brian
Based on what others have said I don't thing we have anything to worry about regarding Classic, I feel much better on that note.  Since my name is generally in the bottom third of the results fidelity points have little or no effect on me.  As far as how it flies, it flies better than my original did in 1969.  The original plane had a .35, the new one has a Brodak .40 and it is built straight.  And with all do modesty I fly a little better now than I did then.  Brian I hope to see pictures of yours soon.  Everybody else, see you in Tucson in March.
Andy

[Brian Massey]

Don't know how many read the instruction books that come with Brodak and SIG kits.  One of the things that caught my eye on each was the statement that because of weather, humidity and temps, that plans be larger or smaller.  From the deminions that you stated that is a possibity when the plans were copied.  Now don't take my word for it.  Now how many classic planes and even Old Timers were built that came out with different deminsions than the kit box showed.  I mean an 1/8 inch on a 50 inch wing span could be from too much sand paper or not enough.  If someone complains about a design not being exactly the same as the original has HUA trouble.  I beleive at VSC they only look at the planes for appearance judging unless they are way off in size. 

Hi Doc; When I built my current TT from 40 year old plans, I wondered how "off" it may be due to the "old paper". But comparing them to the new plans the differences are "here and there" and nothing that could be attributed to the paper. I'm not sure when-where or who the changes came from, perhaps Tom himself over the years made changes to improve the plan. Perhaps if someone knows how to contact Bill Noyes he could shed some light . . . I'd be curious. I'm sure the new one will fly better and I'm looking forward to starting it when I get back from a business trip in early Dec.

Brian

[Chris McMillin]

Hi Brian,

All of the 70's Trophy Trainers I flew (one was Tom's second one that was all red with a Tigre 40 and the other was Bob Whitely's white one with a McCoy 40 Series 21) had foam wings. There were a lot of variations to the design.

Chris...

[Andrew Borgogna]

Chris
The one Bob was flying may have come from a kit.  I seem to remember that there was a kit of the TT with a foam core wing back then.  Can't say for sure, but keep remembering seeing one in a hobby shop.  Since I had built one I gave serious consideration to buying it.
Andy

[Bob Kruger]

Brian;

The Trophy Trainer plans that I did started as a "trace" of the of the Noyes plans.  The copy of Noyes' plans that I had was distorted enough (from being a copy of a copy of a copy of a....) that in order for me to build it "straight", it needed to be redrawn.

When I found out that Tom Lay (who has the rights to the Warden designs from the Warden family since Mr. Warden's untimely death) had an original Warden built Trophy Trainer in his possession, I asked him to compare the Noyes plans (and my CAD trace) with what he had.  As Tom nicely put it, "...the elevator and stab are pretty close to accurate..."  In other words, the Noyes plans were pretty far removed from the original Warden build "Trophy Trainer"  that Tom now owns.

I asked Tom redline a set of plans that I sent to him.  Tom extensively modified the plans based on the original Warden built Trophy Trainer he owns (notice the emphasis on Warden built in this thread - it should now be making a dent).  Based on what Tom sent me, I updated the plans.  Tom Lay then did a final verification based on the Warden build Trophy Trainer he owns.  Once verified, it went to both PAMPA for their plans service and Walt Umland to kit, as Tom Lay released the rights for both.

I don't know if anyone else has another original Warden built Trophy Trainer.  If they do, it would be interesting to do a comparison.

No doubt that the Trophy Trainer was an evolutionary design that went through a series of updates.  Regardless, the plans that I did were based on an original Warden built Trophy Trainer, and Tom Lay verified the drawings based on the Warden built Trophy Trainer in his possession.  This includes moments, spans, chord, shape, size, etc.  Simple as that.  And, if anyone wants to debate that with Tom, have at it.

V/r

Bob

PS - Bellcrank facing inboard in a personal preference, especially in profiles.  Feel free to reverse if that is your preference.  I also used a modification of the Rabe suspended bellcrank mounting system, as I feel it helps eliminate the stress risers induced on the wing of a profile.  Word from the field is that it builds and flies fine. 

I'm looking at the Bob Kruger drawn plans for Tom Warden's Trophy Trainer, and comparing them to the plans given to me by Tom back in the 60's. Very close, but with some changes. This is the plane I plan on using for my first "winter project" (a new Chipmonk may be the second). I've built the "original" TT and it flys very well; I'm wondering with the changes how the newer version flys. If you've built the newer version I sure would like to get your feedback.
Some of the more notable changes: the nose length shrank from 11in. to 9in (A good thing I think); the elevator/stab while the same length, is shaped slightly differently giving more surface area to the Elevator (another good change); the number of ribs has gone from 12 to 20; wing offset shrank from 7/8" to 3/4" (is any even necessary?); wing thickness went from 2 1/8" to 2"; the tail moment went from 14" to 14 3/8"; the bellcrank is now mounted "facing in"; and the overall length went from 40 3/8" to 37". I'm assuming the changes evolved over time (by Tom and or others) to improve flight performance.

Any feedback is welcome.

Brian

[Andrew Borgogna]

Two things that stand out in my mind.  Over 40 years ago I went to Tom Warden's home and bought a set of TT plans from him and it was intended to fly on a .35.  That probably explains the longer nose and the reduction in rib count.  When people started putting .40 size engines on the plane they cut the nose back to accommodate the heavier engine and could afford to add the extra wing ribs with the additional power.  My plane had a .35 and flew well enough with it.  I say that because my skill level back then did not include flying the entire pattern.  I sure wish I had saved those plans.
Andy

[Chris McMillin]

It won't matter what Trophy Trainer one builds, they are all legal as Tom's original, the plans,the Noyes kits, etc are all by time period.
Chris...

[Andrew Borgogna]

Chris
I think you hit the nail on the head they are all time period correct for Classic.
Andy

[Brian Massey]

Brian;

The Trophy Trainer plans that I did started as a "trace" of the of the Noyes plans.  The copy of Noyes' plans that I had was distorted enough (from being a copy of a copy of a copy of a....) that in order for me to build it "straight", it needed to be redrawn.

When I found out that Tom Lay (who has the rights to the Warden designs from the Warden family since Mr. Warden's untimely death) had an original Warden built Trophy Trainer in his possession, I asked him to compare the Noyes plans (and my CAD trace) with what he had.  As Tom nicely put it, "...the elevator and stab are pretty close to accurate..."  In other words, the Noyes plans were pretty far removed from the original Warden build "Trophy Trainer"  that Tom now owns.

I asked Tom redline a set of plans that I sent to him.  Tom extensively modified the plans based on the original Warden built Trophy Trainer he owns (notice the emphasis on Warden built in this thread - it should now be making a dent).  Based on what Tom sent me, I updated the plans.  Tom Lay then did a final verification based on the Warden build Trophy Trainer he owns.  Once verified, it went to both PAMPA for their plans service and Walt Umland to kit, as Tom Lay released the rights for both.

I don't know if anyone else has another original Warden built Trophy Trainer.  If they do, it would be interesting to do a comparison.

No doubt that the Trophy Trainer was an evolutionary design that went through a series of updates.  Regardless, the plans that I did were based on an original Warden built Trophy Trainer, and Tom Lay verified the drawings based on the Warden built Trophy Trainer in his possession.  This includes moments, spans, chord, shape, size, etc.  Simple as that.  And, if anyone wants to debate that with Tom, have at it.

V/r

Bob

PS - Bellcrank facing inboard in a personal preference, especially in profiles.  Feel free to reverse if that is your preference.  I also used a modification of the Rabe suspended bellcrank mounting system, as I feel it helps eliminate the stress risers induced on the wing of a profile.  Word from the field is that it builds and flies fine.  

Thanks for the great synopsis of the TT's plan history! I hope no one thought I was eluding that someone "messed" with the original, I always assumed that the changes were part of a normal evalutionary process. Also, I had never really considered the effects that the aging process would have on old paper plans; I know my old plans from the 60's are quite delicate now.

I'm still in Montana on business/pleasure so I can't start the new TT for awhile. When I do, it will be off your plans, and I can't wait to fly and get a chance to compare. My first thoughts are that it will be a better flyer. . . partly because it will not be the first plane I've built in 35 years, like the first TT I built when I got back into this great hobby (sport?).

Thanks again.

Brian

[Brian Massey]

Two things that stand out in my mind.  Over 40 years ago I went to Tom Warden's home and bought a set of TT plans from him and it was intended to fly on a .35.  That probably explains the longer nose and the reduction in rib count.  When people started putting .40 size engines on the plane they cut the nose back to accommodate the heavier engine and could afford to add the extra wing ribs with the additional power.  My plane had a .35 and flew well enough with it.  I say that because my skill level back then did not include flying the entire pattern.  I sure wish I had saved those plans.
Andy

Andy; by any chance did we fly together in the past? I flew at Whittier Narrows from the mid 60's through the early/mid 70's. I belonged to the Barnstormers MAC and attended some SCCA (Southern California Control-line Association) meetings. I remember Tom Worden and Bill Noyes well, but my memory gets real foggy after that.

Brian

[Bob Kruger]

Brian;

No worries.  No ill intent on your part was ever considered.  I just wished to keep the record straight on the verification process Tom Lay and I went through.

The Warden build Trophy Trainer that Tom Lay owns varies considerably from the set of plans you sent me, again pointing to an evolutionary process the design went through over the course of a decade or two.

If and when you decide to build another, Walt Umland can provide a short kit that includes all ribs and plywood laser cut.  The quality of his work is outstanding.

V/r

Bob

[Ward Van Duzer]

For what it's worth...

There is a William Noyes listed as an author of several books on United States Large Cents. While I have no contact info on Mr. Noyes, His books are distributed by: Charles Davis at Numislit@aol.com

Have fun!


W.

[Dan McEntee]

  Reading these made me go down to the plan file and pull both sets of trphy Trainer plans I have, Tom's and Walter's. They both look pretty much the same to me without laying one over the other on a light table. One thing I got curious about was the similarity to the Noyes Challenger. i had a set of those plans already out and compared them. The airfoil is just a fuzz smaller, and the nose moment is about a 1/2 inch shorter, but very similar otherwise. Kind of like both models were based on someones favorite set of numbers at the time. I'll have to do a Trophy Trainer soon for a double duty profile.
   Type at you later,
    Dan McEntee

[Andrew Borgogna]

"Andy; by any chance did we fly together in the past? I flew at Whittier Narrows from the mid 60's through the early/mid 70's. I belonged to the Barnstormers MAC and attended some SCCA (Southern California Control-line Association) meetings. I remember Tom Worden and Bill Noyes well, but my memory gets real foggy after that.

Brian"

Brian
We most likely did fly together.  But the reason you don't remember me is I had just come out of the service had a Flite Streak I was flying with a Fox .36X that I still have.  As I remember Tom and is friends flew on the circle near the far fence behind what is now the caged speed circle.  After a few weeks of coming out with my Flite Streak and trying to learn the pattern, Tom took me aside and told me I needed to get a better plane if I wanted to improve.  I asked him what he would recommend and he said the Trophy Trainer.  As I said before we went back to his place and he sold me a set of blue line plans for $10.00.  On the table in his front room was the backup plane was planning to take to the Nats.  I "assume" the plane was the Continental, it was a pearl blue and it was the first plane I had ever seen with ink lines.  To say the least it was beautiful, he also told me the primary plane was in the bedroom but I did not get to see it.  Again I assume it was the red, white and blue version everybody is familiar with.  I am currently building an RSM Continental.  I only flew there for a few months before my first son was born and that put the brakes on my flying for a while.  When I returned it was to R/C not control line.  The one thing I remember about Tom was how nice he was to a rank armature like me.  Everybody else that flew with him was contest quality flyers, yet he had no problem letting me fly with them.  In short the Tom Warden I remember was quite a nice guy.  Anyway that’s my story and I am sticking to it.
Andy Borgogna

[john e. holliday]

Andy you were so lucky to have guys like that.  But, I remember the guys in the early years of flying combat, rat race(my favorite event) and Navy Carrier(my second choice) being great people to fly with.  It was after I stopped trying so hard to fly F2C that I started flying stunt.  A lot of great people, even the experts.  I have a set of Trophy Trainer plans somewhere.  May have to build one just so I can I built one.  Take care and hope to see you and your lovely flying partner at VSC.   

[Bob Kruger]

I'm on my fifth Trophy Trainer. #4 is the only one left. It is comprised of #'s 3 & 5.  1 & 2 were from Umland kits, #3 was from plans.  Parts is parts...
I like the way it flys with the OS .46 LA-S, 11 x 4 or 5, GMA 10-22 fuel, 63 eye to eye .015 Tom Morris lines.\\
It is 1960s era parameters and if it had a swept LE, I think it would fly even better  in some maneuvers.  Or perhaps I just need to trim it better and fly much, much more.   Lots of wing, great looks on the end of the lines.

Ty;

Coming with a set of ribs and a wing layout that incorporates a tapered leading edge would not be difficult.  Of course, whatever made would not be elidgable for Nostalgia or Classic fidelity points, but it would be a fine flyer. 

If you are interested, let me know.  With some very simple CAD work and it can happen. 

Bob

[Brian Massey]

Brian
We most likely did fly together.  But the reason you don't remember me is I had just come out of the service had a Flite Streak I was flying with a Fox .36X that I still have.  As I remember Tom and is friends flew on the circle near the far fence behind what is now the caged speed circle.  After a few weeks of coming out with my Flite Streak and trying to learn the pattern, Tom took me aside and told me I needed to get a better plane if I wanted to improve.  I asked him what he would recommend and he said the Trophy Trainer.  As I said before we went back to his place and he sold me a set of blue line plans for $10.00.  On the table in his front room was the backup plane was planning to take to the Nats.  I "assume" the plane was the Continental, it was a pearl blue and it was the first plane I had ever seen with ink lines.  To say the least it was beautiful, he also told me the primary plane was in the bedroom but I did not get to see it.  Again I assume it was the red, white and blue version everybody is familiar with.  I am currently building an RSM Continental.  I only flew there for a few months before my first son was born and that put the brakes on my flying for a while.  When I returned it was to R/C not control line.  The one thing I remember about Tom was how nice he was to a rank armature like me.  Everybody else that flew with him was contest quality flyers, yet he had no problem letting me fly with them.  In short the Tom Warden I remember was quite a nice guy.  Anyway that’s my story and I am sticking to it.
Andy Borgogna

That sounds exactly like the Tom I remember. When we first met I didn't know pattern and he was a great help to me too. I remember him flying in the North West corner of the fenced grass field; I don't remember the speed circle, but do remember the teathered car circle that was across from the parking on the East side of the field.

Let me know hw the Continental flys!

Brian