stunthanger.com
General control line discussion => Open Forum => Topic started by: jim ivey on October 05, 2010, 09:07:21 PM
-
one: It slows the airplane down due to the vacuum created on both sides of the wing. two: Once you change the angle of attack of the wing, it loses the vacuum on the positive side and increases it on the negative side, thus eliminating the need for flaps! ( thats why the stuka was flapless.)
-
Because he found it saved balsa in diecrushed, oops, die-cut sheets
-
Gota ask
polliwog =reflexed on both sides( lack of better description at the moment).
The original plans Quicker was this way and the the California models kit used same airfoil as VooDoo.
Sound right???
-
There are many other subtle features in Hi,s design of the Stuka, since you{mr Ivey} had one could you describe some of them for newer pilots??Regards Rob F
-
Yes Jim, Help us here!
Want to learn and will be your humble some times smart ass student( well I will at least) #^
David
-
No. No. The pollywog airfoil did not save wood. Hi Johnson didn't want the expense, or couldn't make shaped trailing edges. So the T.E. is a rectangular piece. The "pollywog" made a smooth transition into the flat trailing edge piece.
I have a "pollywog" Chief, and I can't tell any difference between a "pollywog" and a conventional airfloil.
Floyd
-
Randy, turned head and whispering over his shoulder, "Don't tell Floyd, but It was to save money on balsa, just like rectangular TE stock was to save money on machining."
-
Because he found it saved balsa in diecrushed, oops, die-cut sheets
Randy;
Not according to Bob Palmer.
V/r
Bob Kruger
-
Apologies for the sloppy drawing but hey..week before fist contest in 35 years! #^
So 8 lightning strokes of the pen with a few hiccups My guess is that #1 is a polly wog?
#1 Quicker Before California Models kit
#2 Normal
#3 Combat plane I designed in 69-70. Straight because at 12 years old it was easy to draw. Worked good.
#4 Based on NASA work, used on hand launch glider (flying models early 70s?)
-
Well in the case of the "stuka". It was as i posted. There was nothing to do with getting more ribs ot of a sheet of balsa.( It was never kitted) and the chief, the original wasn't "polywog". Dad and I built one about 1954 I helped cover it myself. NOT POLYWOG! The reason I remember that so well, was, it was our first time cover wet instead of dry. We died the silkspan with rit die. RED and CHARTRUESE, covered the whole airplane . no paint just clear. Polywog was called that because of the shape, you know , like a baby frog! I called them "Tadpoles" Hi didnt like it when I called it that. As for Rileys planes I cant speak, never built one. However I seem to remember his "diamond" airfoil. There would be no reason for a polywog , tadpole or baby frog airfoil on a combat plane it would be like putting air brakes on it.(Hmmmm. maybe thats why he was so slow.) If you dont hafta glue the covering to the ribs its probably not a polywog
-
And some people swear that the Chief had to have the covering glued to each and every rib. VD~
-
Did anyone out there ever build one of Hi's famouse Stunting Stuka's, and if so, do you have a picture you could post and a description of flight characteristics? I loved that plane and had the plans for years, but could never bring myself to build it cause it looked too complicated for my skill level. H^^
-
Did anyone out there ever build one of Hi's famouse Stunting Stuka's, and if so, do you have a picture you could post and a description of flight characteristics? I loved that plane and had the plans for years, but could never bring myself to build it cause it looked too complicated for my skill level. H^^
Someone(sorry I forget the name) brought what he said was an original HJ Stuka built by Johnson, complete with a Johnson SS engine. It flew fine, although he was pretty careful not to get too low.
I always liked the HJ Stuka and got a copy of the original article. Very interesting. The plane pictured uses a flat flap similar to a Flight Streak. The plans show the wing ribs cut in a pollywog shape. Totally different airplanes. The article goes on to say that you should adjust the tail length and size of the tail to suit your own preferences as to how sensitive you want the controls. Kind of leaves it wide open, you can build almost anything you want using the plans and the article as a guide and call it a Hi Johnson Stuka. Just my kind of design.
-
I,m building one right now,along with 10 short kits! Lotta work.There were only 3 built way back when,1of which was by Jim Ivey. Its a lovely plane,all who flew it said it had a wicked good turn. And yes its a complicated,read hard to build model.But why build only easy stuff? You,ll never learn anything taking the easy road,besides this model deserves to be reborn so others can see theres more than 1 way to fly stunt! Hi Johnson wasa tireless innovator,who has gifted us with this design as well as hiswell done engines. I,ll try to post pics on project,a first for me,till then, fly stunt! Rob f
-
I don't have the stuka plans but I do have the Hi Johnson's Spitfire. They were drawn by Hi march 25, 1959. Here are some of the polywog airfoils on the Spitfire.
Roger
-
Leoflyboy.....I for one would dearly love to see some pics of your build, and any info on those short kits would also be appreciated. H^^
-
I would love to show it to also, but someone has removed from the internet, All the sites. This also explains why all my files and pics became corrupted. Good job whoever you are. I'm sure you're not honest enough to P.M. me and explain why!!! .!. jim
-
Sean Whitely built a beautiful Hi Johnson Stunting Stuka and flew it at VSC in the 90's. I believe it had an unfortunate accident.
Chris...
-
The original 51" span Veco Chief (c.1951-52) DID in fact have a "pollywog" airfoil. I know, because I had one. The later (53" span) versions kitted by Veco & Dumas did NOT. As far as I know, only the 51" pollywog design is eligible for OTS. The others are for Classic.
As for the Hi Johnson Stuka, Sean Whitely's was a beauty. Then, a few years ago, Tony Naccarato brought a partially framed-up one of those to the VSC. Haven't seen it, or Tony, since.
-
Gravitywell ,et all,will read up on how to post pics of Stuka build as well as short kits. Will have molded LEs,turtle deck and part of cowl.Requires an easily built dihedral jig,used later in final asy.Pics after weekend.Anyone curious about polywog airfoil ,Google "reflex airfoil" good explanation of tech reasons this works as well as it does!Too bad Mr Johnson left us so early,his innovations are still comming to light ,50 years on,nothing like a great,daring innovater. Thanks to all for your interest!! Rob F
-
Jim
Check your email.
-
I think I blamed Hi Johnson for the "pollywog" airfoil and the rectangular T.E. Now, my memory says it was Gil Henry who actually engineered the Chief kit for HECO.
Floyd
-
reply to#9 Daaaaaaaave!!!! A 'fist contest" ? didnt know they had em! were you the "fister" or "fistee"? LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~
-
Knowing my luck both at the same time. HB~>
-
(snip) and the chief, the original wasn't "polywog". Dad and I built one about 1954 I helped cover it myself. NOT POLYWOG! (snip)
Hi Jim,
Not to beat a dead horse, but Ty and Mike Keville are totally correct. Ty even has an *Original* Chief *Kit* from Veco. It most assuredly HAS a *pollywog* airfoil. Maybe not quite as severe as Hi's Stuka, but definitely a pollywog (looks like a tadpole) airfoil.
The second generation Chief kit from Veco did not have the reflex airfoil, so that could have easily been the one you and your Dad built in 1954 or so.
Joe Wagner's plans for the Chief and Super Chief did not have reflex airfoils, but Gil Henry used it anyway in the first Chief kit to match the trailing edge stock he had on hand (as quoted from Mr. Bob Palmer).
Hi's Stuka is a truly beautiful stunt ship! I saw what was supposed to be one of the originals at a Brodak Fly In several years ago.
Mongo
-
Ok the only thing to do with a dead horse is to call the dog food company or the tallow factory.(as you can see been there done that.) however we're talking model airplanes here. Post a pic of that die-cut rib sheet. Please I'd like to see it. You can buy a web-cam at walmart that will work just fine cost less than 15 dollars. Even I can afford that. jim
-
Ok the only thing to do with a dead horse is to call the dog food company or the tallow factory.(as you can see been there done that.) however we're talking model airplanes here. Post a pic of that die-cut rib sheet. Please I'd like to see it. You can buy a web-cam at walmart that will work just fine cost less than 15 dollars. Even I can afford that. jim
Step back, and stand down, Jim. I am simply telling you (as well as several others are) that something is truth. And it is a well known truth. I do not have the kit, or I WOULD post a picture of whatever you wanted to see, and it wouldn't take a web cam to do it, simply a camera. The original Veco Chief kit had pollywog wing ribs. Nothing can change that fact. Period.
Bill Little
-
I can also attest to the Cheif having polywog ribs. I had the original kit years ago and the polywog scared me off of building it, so I sold it to a friend of mine. H^^
-
Well Ty....I believed you have closed that argument! LL~ H^^
-
While I'm at it, engine choices and fuselage widths options.
Throw that Ohlsson 23 in there and come on down to VSC! Bob Palmer was clearly an optimist.
Brett
-
Palmer's GO DEVIL (similar to a Chief) actually flew with my O&R 29, but just barely. I later removed the O&R and replaced it with an Evo 36. Much better! Bob claimed to have flown a Chief (or maybe Go Devil) with an O&R 23, but that now seems amazing, based on my personal experience.
Flo9yd
-
Thanks for all the detail pics. H^^
-
TY FYI veco didnt make a 35 back then no one did
-
What about the Fox 35???
Also ---when Ty built his, there were lots of 35 size engines around.
I saw a Chief with a McCoy 19 rear rotor speed engine in it. It flew very well until the control system jammed and it went in. That was in either late 1951 or 1052 at Sheppard AFB TX.
Bigiron
-
S?P Oh yes I want to get in here and stir the pot some to. My Father built a Veco chief and it was of the long span 53 or 54" and it had pollywog ribs. He had a devil of a time trying to get the paper to stay down. The Ringmaster also had pollywog airfoil and it was a little easier. Both of these ships had Fox engines one was 29 other was 35. So figure this one out?
I am currently building from plans, a Super Chief (Wagner plans). It shows the kit version of the Chief and also shows the Super Chief which was never a kit. No mention is given for the 51 1/2 " wing spans. They are all 53" according to Wagner. He mentions that George Aldridge flew the super chief in 1950 & 51 and that two California fliers also built the Super Chief. This documentation would have to mean that at least the Super Chief is legal in OTS. It would seem to me that all Chiefs are OTS legal but these decision's are not for me to make.
H^^
-
S?P Oh yes I want to get in here and stir the pot some to. My Father built a Veco chief and it was of the long span 53 or 54" and it had pollywog ribs. He had a devil of a time trying to get the paper to stay down. The Ringmaster also had pollywog airfoil and it was a little easier. Both of these ships had Fox engines one was 29 other was 35. So figure this one out?
I am currently building from plans, a Super Chief (Wagner plans). It shows the kit version of the Chief and also shows the Super Chief which was never a kit. No mention is given for the 51 1/2 " wing spans. They are all 53" according to Wagner. He mentions that George Aldridge flew the super chief in 1950 & 51 and that two California fliers also built the Super Chief. This documentation would have to mean that at least the Super Chief is legal in OTS. It would seem to me that all Chiefs are OTS legal but these decision's are not for me to make.
H^^
HI Chuck,
The rationale on the "non legality" of the 2nd version Veco Chief *KIT* is that it was introduced after Jan. 1, 1953.
Under the original GSCB OTS rules, Joe's Super Chief wasn't legal, only the first Veco kit. Simply because Joe's Super Chief wasn't kitted or published prior to 12-31-52. The PAMPA rules are less restrictive and most everyone is using them, now.
Big Bear
-
S?P Hello Bill, The plans that I am using clearly state that the Super Chief was developed by George Aldridge in 1950 and 51. I do not think a ship has to be kitted or published to be OTS legal. The most popular models in use today never where to the best of my knowledge. Thanks Chuck
-
Chuck,
Didn't Joe Wagner claim the super chief?
-
Joe does not claim the Super Chief. He just reported that George was refining the Chief and that the super was a considerable improve over the original. I personally Believe that the Super Chief was 51 1/2" span just like the Original Chief. They are both in the same years. The Chief that is on the plans I have is the one that Veco produced and it was 53". Perhaps someone can confirm my opinion that the Super was 51 1/2" We shall see.
-
George Aldrich told me that he built 17 different modified Chiefs. The 17th modification was named the Nobler.
I think if someone looked at the Super Chief plans, he would find out who the designer of the Super Chief is.
You could also google Joe Wagner.
-
TY FYI veco didnt make a 35 back then no one did
What about the Vivell 35?????????
-
Many of you may remember "SMALLnet" that was originated and run by Randy Randolph and "Veco" Joe Wagner. I was in the fortunate position of actually building and maintaining the website for Joe. Joe included many comments regarding "full-size plans for all my Veco free flight designs and three of my Veco C/L models too." The CL models were "... Sioux, Chiefs, Squaws, Scouts, etc.".
I suspect if you asked Joe he would claim that the Chief was HIS design. He is the Engine Columnist for Model Aviation and you can get his e-mail there. If you contact him, please let us all know what he says.
Regards,
Bill Lee
PS: If anybody is interested, I could possible reincarnate the SMALLnet archives. Lots of good information there. Lots that is badly outdated as well since it was all written in the period 2000-2008
-
George Aldrich told me that he built 17 different modified Chiefs. The 17th modification was named the Nobler.
He told me (all of us) that, too, on the old RCO forum. And there was some pretty nice engineering reasoning applied to get there.
A lot of the top guys from that era get underestimated as far as their knowledge goes, unfairly. We know a lot more now, but only because we have had (collectively) 60 extra years to work the problems - and a head start from the good old days.
We stand on the shoulders of giants.
Brett
-
Well, I , for one, do.
Floyd
-
Hi Ty,
I also think most guys (and gals I guess! LOL!!) who seriously fly OTS still balk on the loss of 10 points for flaps. No one I know of around here (SE U.S.) has "Phase II" OTS for the flapped planes.
I would still like to build a Super Chief one day to Joe's specs. Super light, minimal finish, good .35 (I have a brand new Fox .35 sand cast ??). I could also use the "wrong side exhaust" Allyn/Veco .35 I have. ;D
Bill
-
"...Anyone flying a Chief in OTS is doing so for pure fun, it is not, for the most part, a very competitive model..."
Ty is essentially correct there, except I'll have to go out on a limb here and say that the finest, crispest OTS pattern I've ever seen flown was by Ted Fancher with an early version (i.e., pollywog airfoil) Chief at a long-ago VSC. He seemed to have it "in the bag"....right up 'til his engine (Johnson .32?) went sour for whatever reason.
Ted is currently at the Golden State meet in CA. Perhaps he'll see this upon return and explain about that engine run which pretty much ruined his chances. Prior to that unfortunate incident his Chief was "on rails" --- again, perhaps the finest OTS flight I've ever seen.
By the way, I keep calling the event OTS. In some circles (pun intended) it is today more likely to be called "the Jamison event" --- and, like many others, I'm not real thrilled about that.
Cheers!
-
Mike,
"it is today more likely to be called "the Jamison event" --- and, like many others, I'm not real thrilled about that."
I hope to change that this coming March.
-
The Model Airplane News plans of the Nobler are very interesting. I was doing one along with a 1949 kit of the Chief. The wings are very, very similar less the polywog airfoil and with a swept leading edge. The horizontal stab and elevators are EXACTLY the same size and shape, but the Nobler version is thicker.
The key breakthrough was lengthening the tail moment to get rid of occasional violent roll/yaw motions. The effect was to reduce the ratio of pitch rate to lift generation and keep it from stalling. The tapered wing provided additional yaw stability and less coupling.
Brett
-
Big bear joe didnt design the supercheif, hi and bob did.
-
I have received two emails from Joe Wagner. He has given me permission to put his letter on Stunt Hanger but so far I have not found a way to do it. I have been mistaken previous to this in mentioning the 53 " Chief. The plans I have (wagners) build a 51 1/2" wing. Joe says that he built the Super Chief by Modifying the Original Chief. He took two of them to the 1950 Nat's. While there his room mate was none other than George Aldridge (Navy Housing remember?) at that time George was a young man. George had a Chief that he had build. George was very impressed now much better the Super Chief flew than the Chief. When they all went home George had a set of Super Chief templates for the Super Chief. George set to work on the Super Chief making many improvements until he finally had the "First Nobler". Now that I have said the above I have to mention that it is not Joe Wagners letter. It is excerpt's from his letter. OK now I will try to find a way to put Joe's letter on here. If I don't find a way I will forward his letter to anyone who requests to read it.
I have to say that I never knew the Chief was involved in all this legal discussion for OTS. I want to add that I see no reason for the 10 point bonus for not using flaps? Do you think the flap legal planes would win the event all the time if they flew on the same basis as the non-flapped ones? I do not think so even though there are several ships that are great and OTS Legal. I.E; Smoothie, Nobler, Super Chief, and yes the Chief Pollywog or not (51 1/2" span)
Chuck
-
George Aldrich used to sit around the pool at night at the Rodeway Inn during the VSC's in Tucson, and tell stories of the old days to a bunch of us who would sit around and listen. George said that he used to go out to Los Angeles for the summers when he was a teenager. He would work part time for Fox manufacturing and spend the evenings with Bob Palmer building and flying controline model airplanes. George told us that he received a pre production Chief kit from Bob Palmer and built it. 17 modified Chiefs later he built the final version which was called the Nobler.
George never mentioned Joe Wagner during his stories of the Chief/Nobler.
So what is the truth?
Does Joe Wagner have anyone who could verify his version of Chief story?
Unfortunately, George Aldrich and Bob Palmer have passed away, and we can't ask them about the Chief story.
-
H^^ Really De? Do you have anyone to verify that what you say is the truth? Your last respounce on this thread is, I think beyond the conduct that is the norm on this site. It is time for me to move on, away from this thread. H^^
-
Forgive me for musing out loud, Chuck.
As far as you moving on, that's your choice.
-
I have received two emails from Joe Wagner. He has given me permission to put his letter on Stunt Hanger but so far I have not found a way to do it. ...Chuck
Why not just highlight the text and use the "copy" and "paste" functions? Copy the e-mail and paste the text into the SH message/editing box. I have done this often, sometimes with formatting complictaions, but it has always worked.
SK
-
H^^ Really De? Do you have anyone to verify that what you say is the truth? Your last respounce on this thread is, I think beyond the conduct that is the norm on this site. It is time for me to move on, away from this thread. H^^
De and I have had our disagreements from time to time, but nothing he said is out of bounds and there's no reason to doubt what he says. I think you are reading far more into it than there is, it seems pretty innocuous. He's just relaying what he was told.
Brett
-
Ty is essentially correct there, except I'll have to go out on a limb here and say that the finest, crispest OTS pattern I've ever seen flown was by Ted Fancher with an early version (i.e., pollywog airfoil) Chief at a long-ago VSC. He seemed to have it "in the bag"....right up 'til his engine (Johnson .32?) went sour for whatever reason.
Ted is currently at the Golden State meet in CA. Perhaps he'll see this upon return and explain about that engine run which pretty much ruined his chances. Prior to that unfortunate incident his Chief was "on rails" --- again, perhaps the finest OTS flight I've ever seen.
By the way, I keep calling the event OTS. In some circles (pun intended) it is today more likely to be called "the Jamison event" --- and, like many others, I'm not real thrilled about that.
Cheers!
HI Mikey. Thanks for the kind words. A little clarification is, however, necessary.
My Chief was not the early polliwog version and was flown only in classic the year that Bob Baron won the event with his reproduction of one of his versions of the flapless, twin boom high speed stunters (Old Timers is once again failing to disgorge the name of this well know ship...somebody will remind us). As I recall I came in second to Bob that year despite an overrun due to trouble getting my small case Johnson "s" started in a timely fashion. Lost landing and, of course, pattern points as a result. It was, as you reported, an excellent flight that just took too long to complete. With a reasonable landing and the pattern points it would have been a fairly large margin of victory but, alas, that's not how the rules work. Bob Hunt was one of the judges that year and has several times commented on the quality of pattern the old Chief was able to produce.
The airplane is still hanging on the wall of my office but the little Johnson was replaced late in its useful life with an Aldrich McCoy .40 which, frankly, was way more power than the very light ship required. It did its best work with the little "s". That engine, by the way, was the very same engine I had in my first Ares which I built immediately after seeing Billy win the '59 Walker Cup. I was dating Shareen at the time and she "helped" me paint it in the back of Paulsen Office and Hobby supply where I worked after school and weekends for a time.
I guess I shouldn't complain about her helping me paint the Ares. It was a whole lot more benign than the "assistance" she provided on my VSC Nobler.
Ted
-
My Chief was not the early polliwog version and was flown only in classic the year that Bob Baron won the event
Ted
Ted: Whoops...thought it was the polliwog version. No matter. That was still among the finest patterns I've ever witnessed....right up 'til the infamous flameout.
As for Shareen's "assistance" with your Nobler, Uncle Jimby's video of that recreated event remains an all-time favorite here.
-
Replies # 30, 32, 35 and 39 should clear this whole thing up. Check 'em out.
-
A couple of notes from Joe Wagner's Chief/Super Chief plan:
George
-
ty check this out Chief vs. Superchief
9:18 PM
Reply ▼Reply
Reply all
Forward
Delete
Junk
Mark as unread
Mark as read
Delete all from sender
Print message
View message source
Show message history
Hide message history
Show details
Hide details Joe Wagner Joe Wagnervecojoe@juno.com
Send email
Find email
View detailsTo jvey41@hotmail.com
From: Joe Wagner (vecojoe@juno.com)
Sent: Tue 10/26/10 9:18 PM
To: jvey41@hotmail.com
Dear Jim, Good to hear from you ! I met you once or twice in the mid-1950'sand still remember your happy-go-lucky attitude... Here's the FULL story of the Chief/Super Chief. 1. The first Veco Chief was an improved version of Bob Palmer's earlier"Go-Devil Senior", as kitted by Burbank Mfg. Co. circa mid-1947. (The assets of that company were transferred to Veco -- then Heco --in 1948.) The Chief changes from the Go-Devil included full-span flaps and Fox .35 power. (The Go-Devil used half-span flaps & was powered by an Orwick .64 spark ignition engine. Both the Go-Devil and the first-version Heco/Veco Chief used a "pollywog" wing airfoil.) Note that there was NO relation between the Veco Chief and the"Boxcar Chief". The "Boxcar Chief" was made by Ricks Mfg.Company; they went bankrupt and Veco bought their assets(very cheap) and started the Veco kit-making business at Ricks'old premises at 2400 North Hollywood Way in Burbank. 2. I joined Veco in the Fall of 1949, as a free flight designer. For the upcoming 1950 Nationals at Dallas I designed a greatly-modified version of the Veco Chief (the one with the pollywog airfoil) to fly as my personal entry. This was the ORIGINAL "Super Chief". It used the same wing and horizontal tail planforms as the Veco Chief (version 1) but had a different airfoil and was constructed MUCH differently. 3. I built two Super Chiefs and took them to Dallas. At the motel there I shared a room with George Aldrich. ( This was a "luck of the draw" situation.) We knew nothing of one another at the time. George was a mere 16 then; just starting out in his stunt-flying career. He admired the way my Super Chiefs performed; much better than the stock Veco Chief (with its pollywog wing) he had built at that time. After the Nationals I supplied George with templates for the Super Chief. (No full-size plans were drawn up for that -- in those days we at Veco didn't build our prototypes from plans, but from thin aircraft plywood templates.) 4. My Super Chiefs flew so much better than the first-version Chiefs, we decided to revise the Veco kit to an improved version. However, that differed from my Super Chief in several ways, mostly because "management" felt that my built-up flaps and tail surfaces were too advanced for "the average modeler" to accept. 5. The Veco Chief (final version) used sheet balsa flaps and tail surfaces, a more scale-like fuselage design; and a thinner airfoil. (This was purely for economy -- so that more ribs would fit on a die-cut sheet) 6. Meanwhile, George Aldrich (living in San Antonio, TX, 1200 miles east of the Veco plant in Burbank, CA) continued with his Super Chiefs, modifying those he built and flew in several ways that he felt improved the performance even more. One was changing the control hookup so as to provide equal deflection for the flaps and elevators. George then went to a tapered wing planform, and eventually ended up with his "Nobler" configuration, using the fuselage shape and color scheme of the French Caudron race plane of 1936. 7. George and I kept in touch from time to time; and after he had won several prestigious model contests with his Nobler, and finished school, he visited the Veco factory, hoping to get a job there working alongside Bob Palmer, Hi Johnson, and me.As an inducement, he offered Gil Henry (Veco's Big Boss) royalty-free rights to kit his Nobler. Gil -- always short-sighted -- turned George down flat. 8. Having seen the benefits of my Super Chief's thick, built-up flaps and tail surfaces, Bob Palmer (who had left Veco by then and gone back to work for Lockheed) came up with his "Smoothie" design, which Veco kitted... Bob's later "Thunderbird" was thefinal derivative of the Super Chief -- although it owed more to my own final improvement to the big stunt model, the "Hand-kerchief" (so-called because it was covered with royal blue dyed silk "kerchiefs" that Thrifty Drug Stores happened to have "on sale" CHEAP at that time. ...I do still sell copies of my Chief/Super Chief (and Squaw) full-size plans. But I don't have any on hand right now. I'llhave more printed tomorrow, on my way back to southernCalifornia from my present home in southeast Alabama. Sincerely, Joe
-
to bob, bill and randy. feel free to remove my post about the polywog and the chief. I think the email from oh yeah I forgot to mention my friend joe. I think uts settled now. no need to cut and paste anymore Ty jim
-
I'm confused bt an earlier statement, I thought the ju-87 stuka had flaps.
Or maybe it was not the ju-87 you meant by the term stuka ?
-
Ty and everyone else I seemed to offend . Sorry , I only intended to tell you guys what Hi's thinking was behind that pollywog airfoil on the stuka. Because someone asked. Again sorry To one and all jim I
-
Ty and everyone else I seemed to offend . Sorry , I only intended to tell you guys what Hi's thinking was behind that pollywog airfoil on the stuka. Because someone asked. Again sorry To one and all jim I
Hi Jim,
Not a problem on my end. I love a good debate as long as it stays civil. You have seen a lot in yuor day, and the information is good to know.
Bill
-
Jim,
Thanks for sharing your knowledge. Many of us have heard bits and pieces, but not the whole story.
Joe Wagner adds interesting notes to his plans that provide some insight, but of course, not the whole story.
George
-
Bill,
Thanks for your help. I think this on going issue may finally be settled. D>K
-
As I said, We used to sit around the pool in the evenings at the VSC's years ago, and listen to George Aldrich and Bob Palmer talk about the old days .
Bob Palmer was very unhappy because Joe Wagner redesigned the Chief.
George Aldrich didn't think much of Joe Wagner's opinon's regarding engines.
Many guys listened to the stories, and I'm sure that some of them are still around.
And Chuck, I don't lie.
-
I didn't get to sit around the pool and listen/argue with GMA. But we had our differences...about really important stuff. Like the color of his Nobler at the Longview, Tx meet in 1956 (or was it 57?) It was Maroon, dammit! And his FliteStreak (with the new Combat Fox silver head) was yellow Jap tissue and Maroon, dammit! The reason I knew these facts was I was 13 or 14 at the time, and George was really old, probably 24 years old, thereabouts, walking around on water.....he won Open, with a little wind sailing after the pattern (clockwise) and he won combat, beating our own Werner Harvey easily, Werner's Halfast was no match for the FS, sporting a single wheel.
Years/decades flew by, Clarence Buhl's dog jumped up on George at the VSC, I held a hanker-Chief on his bleeding noggin, (George's not the dog's) and suddenly he recalled the maroon (dammit) Nobler! Maroon Testor's butyrate in the square jar, wouldn't shrink for beans....but, hey, don't get me started.....
dg :)
PS: Lordy, I love this hobby....
-
Dale
I have been told y'all kept loosing the HLGs......I don't think GMA was to blame. Neither was Cliff.
And it wasn't my Diapers either.
>:D
-
::) 8) ;) :D :) #^ :)! n~ :##
And the Beat goes on
;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Seems joe and I are the only ones whos chiefs didn't have a polywog. lets see now joe drew the one I built. I think his E-mail sorta prooved that. And like ty said about the veco35. Idont really dont really care about the old go-devil chief be cause i never built one. I dont care what someone else built or think they saw someone else build . It has nothing to do with this thread! It is about Hi's thinking when he designed the stuka and why it was flapless. jim
-
Seems joe and I are the only ones whos chiefs didn't have a polywog.
Well, then you and Joe obviously did not have one of the early 1950s Veco kits. It's that simple.
-
Well, then you and Joe obviously did not have one of the early 1950s Veco kits. It's that simple.
Yeah, Mikey,
They musta had one a the "better looking" non-pollywog airfoiled later Chiefs! VD~
Bill
-
They musta had one a the "better looking" non-pollywog airfoiled later Chiefs! VD~
"Better looking"? Not by a long shot! The original, 51" span, early '50s Chief (and its smaller cousin, the 39.25" span Squaw) featured gently rounded tips on their wings, stab/elev's and fins. They had a very pleasant appearance, as opposed to the later re-designs marketed by both Veco & Dumas, both of which had "regular" airfoils and unappealing, squared-off tips. Those Joe Wagner re-designs were completely different designs. (The re-designed Squaw, in particular, was an abomination!) "Beauty" being in the eye of the beholder, my opinion is that the later versions were MUCH less appealing, aesthetically.
(Egad! I used to make fun of crabby old curmudgeons who couldn't let go of the past .... and suddenly it turns out that I BE one. Sorry, folks...)
-
D>K Mike or somebody. Does anyone have photographs that show the two models. I would be interested in seeing the beautiful Chief and the ugly Chief. Same for the Squaw.
-
"Better looking"? Not by a long shot! The original, 51" span, early '50s Chief (and its smaller cousin, the 39.25" span Squaw) featured gently rounded tips on their wings, stab/elev's and fins. They had a very pleasant appearance, as opposed to the later re-designs marketed by both Veco & Dumas, both of which had "regular" airfoils and unappealing, squared-off tips. Those Joe Wagner re-designs were completely different designs. (The re-designed Squaw, in particular, was an abomination!) "Beauty" being in the eye of the beholder, my opinion is that the later versions were MUCH less appealing, aesthetically.
(Egad! I used to make fun of crabby old curmudgeons who couldn't let go of the past .... and suddenly it turns out that I BE one. Sorry, folks...)
Gee, and I'm so surprised to get that reaction from you Mikey, who'd a thunk it?... S?P
-
Guys,
Seems this got away from the original question - why the Polywog? I think the discussion about the saving wood is one that has been going around for a long time. It seems that there is truth to this, whether it was to use the square stock for TE or to get more ribs per sheet can be resolved. In one of the posts someone has an original Chief kit - polywog - count the ribs per sheet and post them. Then we need someone who has the later symmetrical wing and count the ribs per sheet - post them here.
One other possibility is that it was simply a marketing gimmick that was used to get flyer's to buy the kit. Someone must have one of the old Air Trail mags from when the Chief was first introduced. Would be interesting to see if the add calls out anything about the wing design (remember the adds for the differential flaps on the "T" Bird and the "flys better in the wind" airfoil for the Smoothy).
What hasn't been addressed is does the polywog airfoil have any advantages? In the post on Hi Johnsons "Stuka", Hi seems to think that it performs as good or close enough to a flapped symmetrical design without the hookup complication (on his version of the Stuka with the double angle TE the full flaps would be a challenge). In an article on the sidemount Barnstormer, Dave Cook indicated that Lew Andrews also thought that the flat flap with square edges gave performance that matched the flapped ships. Now the question is if it works well with fixed TE flap does it work better or worst with movable flaps? It seems that if it did it wasn't that much of an advantage to go through the trouble of sticking down the covering. Anyone build and fly both versions of the Chief?
Best, DennisT
-
Hi Dennis,
Jim did describe the thoughts Hi had on the pollywog in his first post. That is the answer for at least Hi's thinking.
According to Bob Palmer, in his words, the Heco/Veco reason was to use existing TE stock. Bob was working for Gil Henry at the time, so I am inclined to go with that answer. ;D
Big bear
-
"Better looking"? Not by a long shot! The original, 51" span, early '50s Chief (and its smaller cousin, the 39.25" span Squaw) featured gently rounded tips on their wings, stab/elev's and fins. They had a very pleasant appearance, as opposed to the later re-designs marketed by both Veco & Dumas, both of which had "regular" airfoils and unappealing, squared-off tips. Those Joe Wagner re-designs were completely different designs. (The re-designed Squaw, in particular, was an abomination!) "Beauty" being in the eye of the beholder, my opinion is that the later versions were MUCH less appealing, aesthetically.
(Egad! I used to make fun of crabby old curmudgeons who couldn't let go of the past .... and suddenly it turns out that I BE one. Sorry, folks...)
Mike, someone posted a later Dumas Chief that sorta resembled a Flite Streak, but that was WAY after Joe's redesign. Might that be the version you are referring to?
George
-
A question that may fit in with this discussion
So why did Riley use Polywog on Quicker? the plan built not the kit
Or same question for Bobby James 'A Bomb' that won Stunt and 3rd in A speed in 55?
David
-
Also Dave Gierke used the poly-wog airfoil on his NOVI IV stunter. It flies extreemly well.
Bigiron
-
(remember the adds for the differential flaps on the "T" Bird and the "flys better in the wind" airfoil for the Smoothy).
What hasn't been addressed is does the polywog airfoil have any advantages? In the post on Hi Johnsons "Stuka", Hi seems to think that it performs as good or close enough to a flapped symmetrical design without the hookup complication (on his version of the Stuka with the double angle TE the full flaps would be a challenge). In an article on the sidemount Barnstormer, Dave Cook indicated that Lew Andrews also thought that the flat flap with square edges gave performance that matched the flapped ships. Now the question is if it works well with fixed TE flap does it work better or worst with movable flaps?
A few comments that are illustrated in other threads and mentioned often enough...
1) Just a FWIW: I don't remember anyone mentioning the airfoil of the "Smoothie" in the windy weather ads. Although the term airfoil technically refers to an actual wing, we are used to using it in place of "wing section", and since we're talking about the chief's section, I assume this was meant. My impression has always been that the planview shape of the "Smoothie's" wing was given the credit for windy weather advantages. I can see this, since it approximates an elliptical wing. The MAC of an elliptical wing is about 42% of the half span out, which is farther inboard than any other shape not approaching a delta or triangular wing. This concentrates the lateral upset forces inboard, where they don't have as much unbalanced leverage. So I wouldn't think in those terms regarding airfoils - pollywog or not.
2) I think that the polywog shape would be a disadvantage with flaps, since like Al Rabe and Igor Burger say, it should be better to ease the transition at the hinge line by making the aft section, before the flaps, a bit convex.
3) I agree that the polywog, perhaps with the concave surface concentrated a bit further back, would be advantageous for flapless wings though, since it would be a smoother approximation of the ordinary section with flat stationary flaps - like the Flite Streak. As I posted, NACA tested at full size and found this to be a more efficient wing at zero flap deflection than one with the flaps as part of the "airfoiled" wing section. XFOIL agreed, when I had it test such a wing vs. the NACA 00xx section of the same % thickness.
4) Whether a plane flies better with or without flaps is a function of the following:
a) The tail moment available to overcome the wing's negative pitching moment tendency from deflected flaps. The PDQ "Super Clown", Sterling
Yak-9 and P-51 come to mind as too short-coupled to show a definite advantage.
b) The relative deflection of flaps and elevator.
c) Personal preference.
I think that the polywog airfoil might be quite good on a flapless plane, but cannot imagine it being any kind of advantage on a flapped plane. From what I've read, the squared-off t.e. flap has advantages - what used to be termed the Kamm effect on race cars. Probably a tapered flap, like 1/4" -> 1/8", with sharply edged trailing edge would allow the air to rejoin down stream, giving the effect of an area increase. Again, amount of flap used vs. total wing area is the consideration.
Edit: The last question...I'd think that the flat moveable flap, or a tapered thin one as described above would be better than one incorporated in a classic airfoil shape. I think that Al found this to be true in his famous experiments.
SK
-
...Or same question for Bobby James 'A Bomb' that won Stunt and 3rd in A speed in 55?
David
Darn, now you have me interested in Bobby Jones' A-Bomb (MAN 5506), though that "Fireball" canopy might be hard to come by!
Got a new K&B Green Head .23 that could go in it (Don't have the K&B .19).
So many planes.... :-\
I'm surprised noone mentioned what a pita it is to cover a polywog wing...or is it just me?
George
-
The A--Bomb-
Polywog airfoil apparent in first image. Last Pic is of it flying off the old Cleveland circles. That's a fiction, of course, but it makes a nice background for Dave E's safety column in our newsletter.
Edit: corrected typo.
-
Sorry bout that George, I have been told I instigate trouble! LL~ LL~ LL~
Thanks for the plan image upload Serge, I tried the copy I had but apparently was saved in wrong format or the wrong magick smoke flavor. Silly black boxes.
-
SK,
I agree with what you say about the section performance. What I was getting at with the Smoothie section was referring to ads for the kit (I believe on the Brodak site there is an explanation that Bob Palmer told John about the Smoothie section - he had two version one with the kit section (~40% high point and one with a high point at 25%, Bob liked the 25% most conditions except high wind). To get back to the Chief, someone out there should have a copy of the ads for the Chief (original and second version). When this plane was in its prime CL was a serious competitive business. The designer might not be on involved with the sales ads (except for flying and winning contests). Truth in advertising was not the rule and ads were all trying to have an edge to get you to buy the kit, a gimmick, not anything that was all right or wrong just something to get attention. So that's what would be interesting to see what was the sales pitch in the ads.
Best, DennisT
-
Yeah, I remember the discussion over at SSWF about the Brodak kit vs. what was shown in the Air Trails article by Bob Palmer (8/52? 'also had the Roy Clough slotted saucer, which I built and loved). I have it up on the shelf, just out of reach here. Anyway, that section has its thickest point way back and a sharper nose radius. I think Bob mentioned using and preferring the NACA 0018, which is thickest at about 30% chord, but that point would be further forward on the part with widest flaps, when the flaps are included in the chord, as they should be. I don't know whether he changed the ribbed sections toward the tips. "Windy weather stunter" was a phrase I do remember though, for the "Smoothie". The good old days of adventure in design! The"Chief" was heavily advertised, and many were built around Elkhart, where I grew up. Many seemed to be in Army colors and were done well. Unfortunately, I was too young know much about its wing sections and heard no talk about them.
SK