Author Topic: Randy Powell's amazing "CUSTOM SHOESTRING" here for the memories (Read 6076 times)

Shultzie · « **on:** December 21, 2015, 05:15:31 PM »

Still one of the most beautiful "Semi-scale" stunt rides ever built....This is Randy Powell's amazingly model from a few years back? Which year Randy? Time flies when we were havin' so much fun flying at the Gig Harbor's airport.

Steve Helmick · « **Reply #1 on:** December 21, 2015, 06:05:29 PM »

You've got good taste, Donny. Randy's "Shoe" is one of my favorites from his stable. I wish he'd put a new stabilizer in it and let me watch it fly some more.

Steve

wwwarbird · « **Reply #2 on:** December 21, 2015, 06:23:05 PM »

Yep, very cool plane.

Mark Scarborough · « **Reply #3 on:** December 21, 2015, 06:42:32 PM »

Rumor has it that he in fact built a new stab for it, and its in finishing process,
as soon as he returns to the real world,, ( read that snow, rain and wind) I am sure he will jump in on here and let us all know,
I too love this design,,

Mark Scarborough · « **Reply #4 on:** December 21, 2015, 06:43:25 PM »

although, is this his first or second one,, not sure

Paul Walker · « **Reply #5 on:** December 21, 2015, 07:29:30 PM »

What!!!! Snow in the wetlands of western Wa? Can't be...

We have snow over here on the East side of them hills. I am just now fixin to get the snow blower out so we can traverse the "Pass" to get to those wetlands for Christmas with our older daughter. The "Pass" is currently closed though. If it is closed tomorrow, we will drive through Portland to get there. Ugh.......

Yes, Randy needs to get that one back in the air for US to enjoy!

wwwarbird · « **Reply #6 on:** December 21, 2015, 08:11:43 PM »

Randy's 'Shoe would look really cool with a "Powellized" version of the original full scale paint scheme.

Mark Scarborough · « **Reply #7 on:** December 21, 2015, 09:04:41 PM »

Quote from: Paul Walker on December 21, 2015, 07:29:30 PM

What!!!! Snow in the wetlands of western Wa? Can't be...

We have snow over here on the East side of them hills. I am just now fixin to get the snow blower out so we can traverse the "Pass" to get to those wetlands for Christmas with our older daughter. The "Pass" is currently closed though. If it is closed tomorrow, we will drive through Portland to get there. Ugh.......

Yes, Randy needs to get that one back in the air for US to enjoy!

Dang Paul, I thought I was going to read how you were getting the snow blower out to clear the circle so I could come up and fly,, oh well,
travel safe,, I get to come to spokane for Christmas with mom in the valley,,

Paul Walker · « **Reply #8 on:** December 22, 2015, 09:16:56 AM »

Got skis Mark?

Gerald Arana · « **Reply #9 on:** December 22, 2015, 09:23:36 AM »

Quote from: Shultzie on December 21, 2015, 05:15:31 PM

Still one of the most beautiful "Semi-scale" stunt rides ever built....This is Randy Powell's amazingly model from a few years back? Which year Randy? Time flies when we were havin' so much fun flying at the Gig Harbor's airport.

Are there any plans available for this great ship?

I'd sure like a set if they're available. Jerry

john e. holliday · « **Reply #10 on:** December 22, 2015, 09:47:42 AM »

Randy is a member on here. PM him, but I doubt he has plans drawn, then again I could be wrong.

Mike Haverly · « **Reply #11 on:** December 22, 2015, 10:02:45 AM »

I was there that day, Spring of 2008. There were "issues" to be worked out. The picture was taken at the airport in Gig Harbor, WA.

Better yet, look for yourself. http://flyinglines.org/planes.06.08.html

Mark Scarborough · « **Reply #12 on:** December 22, 2015, 12:30:55 PM »

Quote from: Paul Walker on December 22, 2015, 09:16:56 AM

Got skis Mark?

for me or the plane? I can do the plane pretty easy,, not sure if I can stand up on skis,, LOL, ,and the whole rotation in one spot could be an issue,, however, I DO have a couple saucer/sled things, ,I could put one in the center of the circle and it would rotate relativly on axis to avoid having to actually move my feet?
of course with the blizzard snowfall, and fog, visibility may be an issue even if only 70 feet away,,

Mark Scarborough · « **Reply #13 on:** December 22, 2015, 12:32:29 PM »

Quote from: Gerald Arana on December 22, 2015, 09:23:36 AM

Are there any plans available for this great ship?

I'd sure like a set if they're available. Jerry

It s aBill Simons Classic legal design,, not sure but perhaps Pampa has plans, or some other source,,

Geoff Goodworth · « **Reply #14 on:** December 22, 2015, 03:37:42 PM »

Mark, these pics have to be the second one. The first was red and yellow inspired by—if not actual—No 24, Spud Runner colour scheme.

I found this pic that Randy sent me in 2003

SteveMoon · « **Reply #15 on:** December 23, 2015, 08:49:11 AM »

Great looking plane! I built a Simons Shoestring about ten years ago
and gave it the original Shoestring lime green and red paint job.
Really looked good, and looked especially looked good at the end of
the lines. Plans were available from Flying Models back then, not
sure where to find them now. Unfortunately, I lost the plane at the
VSC in 2010 on circle 3 when a crazy whirlwind came up and I was
basically just along for the ride at that point.

Steve

Brent Williams · « **Reply #16 on:** December 23, 2015, 11:25:43 AM »

Here are a the plans for the Bill Simons Shoestring. They are a bit grainy, unfortunately.

Tom Niebuhr · « **Reply #17 on:** December 23, 2015, 12:52:04 PM »

As I recall, Bill had the Shoestring at the 2nd weekend of the GSCB October 1970 contest. The first weekend was the first OTS contest.

Since I had travelled from St. Louis, that was the only weekend that I would have seen Bill's airplane. To me it was the best looking airplane that I had personally seen Bill with. It was either Candy apple red, or metallic red. Bob can help on that.

The Southwick Skylark was one of the first airplanes with the thicker airfoil that is now the norm. The Shoestring drawing that Brent shows appears to have the thick airfoil. With todays TT .36 or a .46 that airplane is still competitive.

Gerald Arana · « **Reply #18 on:** December 23, 2015, 01:58:52 PM »

Quote from: Brent Williams on December 23, 2015, 11:25:43 AM

Here are a the plans for the Bill Simons Shoestring. They are a bit grainy, unfortunately.

Thank you Brent!

Jerry

Geoff Goodworth · « **Reply #19 on:** December 23, 2015, 04:43:49 PM »

Tom, my copy of the plan is packed away as I shelved a build project due to the way Classic rules were drafted in Oz where the plan is the final arbiter—despite any conflicts.

The plan makes the span 56" with 2" asymmetry while the magazine article says the span is 57". The Skylark has only 1" asymmetry and I was able to draw a wing outline that works with little difficulty using Pat Johnston's Skylark drawing and the Shoestring tip. Pat's Skylark drawing was authenticated by Ed Southwick when it was drawn

Also, with just the two airfoils shown on the plan, there is a significant difference between the airfoil lengths in the elevation and the chords shown on the wing plan view.

I discussed the discrepancies at length with Bob some years ago and, as the draftman is no longer with us, there is no way of learning why the plan is wrong on such fundamental dimensions.

Tom Niebuhr · « **Reply #20 on:** December 23, 2015, 05:49:25 PM »

Geoff,
Unfortunately, many mag plans had mistakes for many reasons. Draftsman interpretations or misinterpretations of rough pencil sketches, and short lead times made it hard or impossible to confer with the designers. .

Many of us built the JD Falcon from the mag plans but they didn't look like John D'Ottavio's airplane.

It was when John D'Ottavio and I were detailing the JD Falcon kit that it became clear. We used John's metal rib templates and measured the actual airplanes and parts from some of his airplanes. He used 3 1/2" tips, the Model Airplane News plans showed 3" tips. The tail surfaces on the M.A.N. plans were one rib bay too short. The fuselage was too deep and almost looked pregnant. The rib shown on the fuselage side view was different than the rib templates elsewhere on the plan. The rudder was about 20% too big. There were other difference also.

Since mag plans were mostly before the introduction of CAD, the French curve was the only means to draw airfoil and tip shapes. Airfoils were commonly drawn different on the top and bottom.

Frequently kitted airplanes were changed to fit in the box.

Today's reproductions of the Classics are more accurate, but since many were published with mistakes, both the old mag plans and the newer reproductions are legal, presuming that the newer plans were recreated using the original models as "templates".

Ted Fancher · « **Reply #21 on:** December 23, 2015, 05:56:21 PM »

The boy...Randy, that is...knows pretty, for sure.

Dan McEntee · « **Reply #22 on:** December 24, 2015, 08:47:49 AM »

Quote from: Bob Hunt on December 22, 2015, 04:39:30 PM

This Bill Simons design was built in 1968 and Bill flew it at the 1969 Nats. I went with Bill to that Nats and we stayed at Red Rinehardt's house in Doylestown. We stayed up late every night that week playing killer games of ping-pong (without any "numbers" on the balls...). The design was published in FM in the early 1970s. It is absolutely Classic legal and is a great flying ship. I should know, as Bill gave it to me to practice with when I was between planes. (I was too busy in those days riding and racing motorcycles to build!). Here's an interesting note: That ship was built around an Arnie Stott cut and covered Ed Southwick Skylark wing. When it was published the draftsman who drew the plans put on the drawing a much different, and thinner wing. Technically that ship is only Classic legal with the Skylark wing. I was in Bill's shop when he opened the box from Arnie Stott... Memories.

Bob Hunt

Hello Bob;
By Skylark wing, do you mean the Sterling kit wing? Or the wing from the magazine plans? I have one of Ken Smith's kits, and a Sterling kit, and a set of the magazine plans and I think I see a different size in each. I know the kit differed from Ed's original model. I also have the mag plans for the Shoestring also and I think I had a conversation with you at one time about errors in the drawing? Too much water under the bridge to remember for sure. I have the RSM kit for Whitely's model, and have the vision of doing Bills and Bob's models as a matching pair! better get tothat project one of these days.
MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!!!
Dan McEntee

Geoff Goodworth · « **Reply #23 on:** December 24, 2015, 04:58:26 PM »

Tom, thanks for your reply. As a special purpose machine designer in a previous life, I am very familiar with the possibile variations in hand-drawn plans. Much of my machine design had to integrate with other machines—transfer lines, for example—so my machines had to integrate completely. However, when I drew plans by hand, I always put the effort into the airfoil sections on the drawing and then getting the wing plan view right was fairly simple as I was only ever dealing with straight lines for the LE and TE.

Dan, armed with the information in this thread, I would use the plan from the RSM kit—drawn by Pat Johnston and authenticated by Ed Southwick.

Randy Powell · « **Reply #24 on:** December 24, 2015, 05:12:23 PM »

Aloha from Kona Coast where it's 82F and clear.

The original Shoestring I built (the red and yellow one) was built from Flying Model plans and flew pretty well, but had serious engine issues. The paint scheme was a copy of the Spud Runner that what then hangered in Nampa, Idaho. Everything but the spuds on the rudder as I couldn't get a good picture to make a decal from. I fought it for a season but it finally succumbed when the POS motor quit in the cloverleaf in the howling wind at Portland and met it's demise.

The second one was built in 2008 and used the flying models plans but with changes the King suggested (as I know Bob Hunt). These included an original Skylark wing (though Pat Johnston cut ribs for me rather than using a foam core wing). After fighting this plane for most of a year, it was finally decided that the stab was twisted. It had also sustained some minor damage and hanger rash (I might have kicked it a couple of times). It was stripped to the wood and the stab, elevators and flaps were replaced and it was completed up to covering and 3 or 4 coats of clear and went in the rack as other projects got in the way.

As soon as I get back, I'm shooting some clear on my PA plane I've been slaving over and then I am going to complete the Shoe for VSC. There was some thought to making it electric, but I will probably stick with the PA 40UL as it ran great in the plane.

The paint scheme is, as yet, undetermined. But it won't be Chartreuse and Fire Engine Red.

Geoff Goodworth · « **Reply #25 on:** December 24, 2015, 09:04:21 PM »

'But it won't be Chartreuse and Fire Engine Red.'

If you want it to be authentic, it needs to be Chartruese ans Chinese Red—darker than fire engines.

There's nothing wrong with the Spud Runner scheme and here is a pic of the spuds.

I also have some pics of No 24 Time Bandit that Garry Austin posted during his build. The two schemes pretty much the same but the fin/rudder was red and yellow checker board.

Merry Christmas

Randy Powell · « **Reply #26 on:** December 25, 2015, 01:07:25 PM »

Geoff,

We'll see. Not at all sure what I'm going to do. I just hope it flies straight now.

Dan McEntee · « **Reply #27 on:** December 25, 2015, 02:34:31 PM »

Well, I have been able to check some things out here. I have the Ken Smith kit of the Skylark, and it probably has the same plan that the RSM kit has, which I'm assuming is the plan that Bill Byles worked with Ed Southwick on touching up on in the early 90's. It's wing spans 55 3/4". The magazine plan measures out approximately 1 inch shorter in span and the #1 rib is about 1/8" thinner. The kit shows a span of 52 1/2 inches. If I was going to build a model of teh Skylark, I would for sure opt for the RSM kit or similar plan. It boils down to what was in Mr Stott's mind when he started cutting wing cores. Did he cut the wings for the Sterling kit, or did he cut them to match the model magazine plans. The only thing I haven't checked on is the flying model plan for the Simmons Shoestring and see what it's span is. Judging from the plan view posted above, it looks a whole lot like a SIG Chipmunk wing.. Later on tonight I'll dig up the Shoestring plan and compare. If the project comes to reality, one could choose any of the wings and it would fit the criteria of classic legal, in my opinion. You just need to choose the wing that is closest to the wing span of the model as it was designed, I think. Interesting subject.
MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!
Dan McEntee

Randy Powell · « **Reply #28 on:** December 25, 2015, 09:23:03 PM »

My understanding was that the Shoestring was built in 1968 or 1969 and Bill flew it for quite awhile before it was published in Flying Models (this according the Flying Models article). That would make it Classic legal. I flew mind in classic several times, anyway.