Author Topic: What if you could only use a .35 motor? (Read 13563 times)

EddyR · « **on:** January 18, 2007, 06:42:10 PM »

That is the question. What is the ultimate airplane you would use for Pampa advanced or expert class flying.Fox .35 or any other .35 you have. Would you build a classic or would you design something your self. Give me your ideas. What is the ultimate airplane? I/beam,foam,d/tube. Is a Nobler as good as it gets? I drought it.What wing area. Nose moment,tail moment.Tail volume or percent, 22,25,28 percent. The old classic had around 17-19 percent.I want to build the ut mate model for a .35 but I may use a Rustler/40 that only uses 3 ounces of fuel but weighs the same as a Fox .35 I am not looking for a classic. Several years ago I down sized a Junar to 580 square inches of wing area.What do you think of a 580 JUNAR? A Fox will only pull about 550 sq in. I have a Tucker Special with a Rustler 40 in it but I have always needed to us a 10/4 to keep the speed down as the motor has over powered the model. Throw every thing you have at me. I have several ST/35's and Brian will soon be making ABC p&l for them and I may use use one of them in this new plane.So what would you build?

Ed

Crist Rigotti · « **Reply #1 on:** January 18, 2007, 07:56:44 PM »

ED,
I'd build a Legacy 40 with a SSW OS 35FP. I have this combo when I flew Beginner and Intermediate and I felt it was almost unfair to the competition it flew so well. Even in high winds. Foam or built up makes little difference.
WA 565
TV= 29%
wt 46 to 50 oz
Yeah, a Legacy 40 for sure. See July/August 2003 Stunt News for the construction article.

RC Storick · « **Reply #2 on:** January 18, 2007, 07:58:05 PM »

I am currently finishing Viper 8. It has around 650-675 sqs. Satona airfoil ,PA .40 powered. 9.25 nose 17.25 tail. The thing I am going to prove to myself is 45 oz is better for me.

RC Storick · « **Reply #3 on:** January 18, 2007, 07:59:48 PM »

Quote from: Crist Rigotti on January 18, 2007, 07:56:44 PM

ED,
I'd build a Legacy 40 with a SSW OS 35FP. I have this combo when I flew Beginner and Intermediate and I felt it was almost unfair to the competition it flew so well. Even in high winds. Foam or built up makes little difference.
WA 565
TV= 29%
wt 46 to 50 oz
Yeah, a Legacy 40 for sure. See July/August 2003 Stunt News for the construction article.

You gonna fly this at Ice-O-Lated???

or the Big Mac???

RandySmith · « **Reply #4 on:** January 18, 2007, 08:12:36 PM »

Easy answer PA 35 or Aero Tiger 35

pulling a SV-35

Randy

Crist Rigotti · « **Reply #5 on:** January 18, 2007, 08:18:45 PM »

Quote from: Robert Storick on January 18, 2007, 07:59:48 PM

You gonna fly this at Ice-O-Lated??? or the Big Mac???

Very funny Bob. Actually, I'll fly the Phacade. I'm falling behind on the big stunter and I'm not sure I'll have it done by then. I put on the first coat of nitrate dope tonight. Now the real fun begins.

Jim Pollock · « **Reply #6 on:** January 18, 2007, 08:26:35 PM »

No problem whatsoever Ed!

My Akromaster powered by an SSW FP .35 or an AT .35

It flew really well with an OS .35S so the extra HP would help it come alive better. Oh, and it's classic legal as well......

Jim Pollock Adacter et Strenue

Bill Little · « **Reply #7 on:** January 19, 2007, 06:04:24 AM »

Quote from: RandySmith on January 18, 2007, 08:12:36 PM

Easy answer PA 35 or Aero Tiger 35

pulling a SV-35

Randy

YEP! LOL!!!!!!!!

EddyR · « **Reply #8 on:** January 19, 2007, 08:45:04 AM »

Randy What is a SV 35? I am trying to stay under 580 sq inches. I want a small plane.I have had a muscle disease for over 20 years and it is very hard to fly large model any longer. PA 40's and 650 sq is not where I want to go. I have a JD Falcon almost built and it is fine for classic but not expert PA.
Ed

Steve Holt · « **Reply #9 on:** January 19, 2007, 09:24:16 AM »

From the options currently available, it would be hard to beat a Vector 40 with an Aero Tiger. Most of the modern "stuff" in a smaller package. Alternate power to save money could be a Magnum 36 perhaps with one of Randy's side exhaust adapters and a pipe. Just thinking ahead until I need a better airplane.
Steve

Bill Little · « **Reply #10 on:** January 19, 2007, 10:24:41 AM »

Quote from: Ed Ruane on January 19, 2007, 08:45:04 AM

Randy What is a SV 35? I am trying to stay under 580 sq inches. I want a small plane.I have had a muscle disease for over 20 years and it is very hard to fly large model any longer. PA 40's and 650 sq is not where I want to go. I have a JD Falcon almost built and it is fine for classic but not expert PA.
Ed

Hi Ed,

AFAIK, we're only "funnin' ", but an Aero Tiger 36 with appropriately sized SV "numbers" would be a great combo, I'm sure!

Something VERY similar to a Vector 40. I do not believe a pipe set up is really needed unless it is VERY windy outside.

Some playing around with the "visuals" would yield a plane that "presents" larger than it really is similar to what Billy did with the Juno.

BTW: John does pertty good in Expert with his Cavalier.

Richard Oliver · « **Reply #11 on:** January 19, 2007, 11:22:52 AM »

I think this started out as an airplane for a Fox 35 but even if not I would have to say the best plane would be a Mustunt 3 by Al Rabe, by far.
RO

Alan Hahn · « **Reply #12 on:** January 19, 2007, 11:27:28 AM »

Since when did a 36 become a 35!

If you are going to allow those, I should be able to choose a Brodak 40 which I believe weighs less than either the TT or Magnum 36's.

RandySmith · « **Reply #13 on:** January 19, 2007, 12:01:11 PM »

Quote from: Alan Hahn on January 19, 2007, 11:27:28 AM

Since when did a 36 become a 35!
If you are going to allow those, I should be able to choose a Brodak 40 which I believe weighs less than either the TT or Magnum 36's.

Hi Alan

This was a "what if" question, there is NO rule against a 40 or any size motor up to a .91, No one is not allowing anything

Regards
Randy

RandySmith · « **Reply #14 on:** January 19, 2007, 12:06:53 PM »

Quote from: Ed Ruane on January 19, 2007, 08:45:04 AM

Randy What is a SV 35? I am trying to stay under 580 sq inches. I want a small plane.I have had a muscle disease for over 20 years and it is very hard to fly large model any longer. PA 40's and 650 sq is not where I want to go. I have a JD Falcon almost built and it is fine for classic but not expert PA.
Ed

HI Ed

I built the first airplane with the Stuntcraft wing system in it in 1974, it was powered by a 35 engine and was 560 sq in. The SV wing system allows me to generate any size wing I want from 500 to 800 sq. in. , or bigger - smaller if desired, depends on the rib stations selected. The one I flew the most is fairly similar to the newer 35-40 size planes that are out
Vector 40
SV-40
Tempest 40
Dreadnought 40

All of these are Really great flying airplanes as their record in contests prove, you could be very competitive with one of these and an Aero tiger , PA 40 ul . Brodak 40 , K&B 40 , Magnum 36 TT 36 etc.

Regards
Randy

Trostle · « **Reply #15 on:** January 19, 2007, 12:32:03 PM »

Assuming the question is for unpiped engines, my hands down choice would be the Chizler with an Aero Tiger. If it is not built to fly in the Classic event, I would use a bit thicker airfoil. This would be competitive at any contest until there is wind. And it will handle the wind as well as any other unpiped 35 ship. The tuned pipes go a long way to improve performance in the wind. If pipes are permitted for this question, then put a pipe on the Aero Tiger in the Chizler with a thicker airfoil.

Second choice for an unpiped engine would be the OS Stunt 35.

There have been some good suggestions in response to the original question, but the Chizler with a strong engine would compete well with any of them.

Keith Trostle

EddyR · « **Reply #16 on:** January 19, 2007, 01:26:28 PM »

I have plans for all the planes mentioned here except the small SV and Randy gave me a set of his airfoil's many years ago. I have flown the original Vector 40 back in 1990.The Chizler is the size plane I am looking for. How about a Chizler using Randy's Stunt Craft airfoil? Keep the input coming. Randy is the Vector 40 of today smaller than that built by Carl and myself back in 1990?
Ed

Bill Little · « **Reply #17 on:** January 19, 2007, 01:31:43 PM »

Quote from: Ed Ruane on January 19, 2007, 01:26:28 PM

I have plans for all the planes mentioned here except the small SV and Randy gave me a set of his airfoil's many years ago. I have flown the original Vector 40 back in 1990.The Chizler is the size plane I am looking for. How about a Chizler using Randy's Stunt Craft airfoil? Keep the input coming. Randy is the Vector 40 of today smaller than that built by Carl and myself back in 1990?
Ed

Hi Ed,

I am sure you can build a SV airfoiled 550-575 sq. in. plane with an Aero Tiger 36 (or similar) that would be as good as about anything out there, at least until you get to the Walker Trophy Fly Off.

The Chizler or a Gieseke Nobler style with the updated airfoil, a slightly shrunken Juno (I know you like that one), etc..

Bill <><

James Lee · « **Reply #18 on:** January 19, 2007, 02:11:30 PM »

Back to the original question... Given a Fox 35, I would be really tempted to go with a Gieseke Nobler. Using a warmed up Fox and an unquestionably proven airframe seems like a really nice combo, and Classic legal.
And as been pointed out the Aero Tiger 36 in a Cavalier would also be a hard to beat combo.....
IMO
Jim

RandySmith · « **Reply #19 on:** January 19, 2007, 02:15:42 PM »

Quote from: Ed Ruane on January 19, 2007, 01:26:28 PM

I have plans for all the planes mentioned here except the small SV and Randy gave me a set of his airfoil's many years ago. I have flown the original Vector 40 back in 1990.The Chizler is the size plane I am looking for. How about a Chizler using Randy's Stunt Craft airfoil? Keep the input coming. Randy is the Vector 40 of today smaller than that built by Carl and myself back in 1990?
Ed

Hi Ed

The Vector I designed back in the mid 80s was 627 sq. in. this is the one that you ,Carl , Dale Barry , Tom Dixon and ,many others built and flew, They mostly used motors like the ST 46 , HP 40 and the 40-46 FSR type enginess.
The 40 size SVs are about 540 sq. in , and are very happy on smaller motors , even though some have used FSR and ST 40 -46s on them.
If you like I can send you a plan of whichever you would like. they were doing a building class here last year using these 4 planes , but it never got finished.

Regards
Randy

RC Storick · « **Reply #20 on:** January 19, 2007, 02:33:46 PM »

Quote from: RandySmith on January 19, 2007, 02:15:42 PM

Hi Ed

The Vector I designed back in the mid 80s was 627 sq. in. this is the one that you ,Carl , Dale Barry , Tom Dixon and ,many others built and flew, They mostly used motors like the ST 46 , HP 40 and the 40-46 FSR type engines.
The 40 size SVs are about 540 sq. in , and are very happy on smaller motors , even though some have used FSR and ST 40 -46s on them.
If you like I can send you a plan of whichever you would like. they were doing a building class here last year using these 4 planes , but it never got finished.

Regards
Randy

That was unfortunate. Kinda closed due to lack of participation and time crunches. Maybe again in the future

Randy Powell · « **Reply #21 on:** January 19, 2007, 02:40:56 PM »

Given the .35 limitation, I'd probably build another Bill Simon's Shoestring with an OSFP35 or perhaps a reworked OS35S. It would depend on what I could get ahold of. I really liked the way that plane flew...when the engine was working.

Dennis Moritz · « **Reply #22 on:** January 19, 2007, 03:17:54 PM »

Brodak Buster with a honking Tower 40. Beginner pattern done in about 2 and a half minutes. Landings, however, usually flip over. Also legal in classic. Again, landings usually flip over.

Jack Weston's Gieseke Noble flies great with an FP40 set up with extra head gaskets. Very nice and consistent break. At the last NATS Mr. G said he wanted one just like that.

John Miller · « **Reply #23 on:** January 19, 2007, 05:11:15 PM »

Dick Williams Electra, with an OS .35S and a chip muffler. One of the best unknown stunters out there. RSM kit too.

Peter Nevai · « **Reply #24 on:** January 19, 2007, 05:37:12 PM »

Gene Schaffers Stunt Machine OS35S

Bill Little · « **Reply #25 on:** January 19, 2007, 05:44:49 PM »

Well, Eddy didn't say it HAD to be a Fox 35!

In fact he mentioned using the Rustler 40 himself. I know what Ed is talking about, the BIG planes are just tiring to fly sometimes! And I don't have a strength problem...........

Bill <><

Jim Thomerson · « **Reply #26 on:** January 19, 2007, 05:49:23 PM »

I would take my Gonzo Fox 35 off the trainer it is presently pulling around. I would build another iteration of my Vanity design of the early 80's. 540 squares, box spar -beamer, first one was 48 oz, second 42. Think I could knock a few oz off if I built one today. They flew pretty good.

Richard Oliver · « **Reply #27 on:** January 19, 2007, 09:59:23 PM »

Mustunt 3, way ahead of it's time and all of the things you guys now use. From 1971-2
Al Rabe designed this one for the smaller engines with all of his Mustang, Bearcat technologies!
RO

billbyles · « **Reply #28 on:** January 19, 2007, 10:04:12 PM »

Quote from: Trostle on January 19, 2007, 12:32:03 PM

<snip>

There have been some good suggestions in response to the original question, but the Chizler with a strong engine would compete well with any of them.

Keith Trostle

Keith, but how would it do in the Mako Muncher/Chizler Chomper wars?

Bill Byles

Trostle · « **Reply #29 on:** January 19, 2007, 11:33:16 PM »

Quote from: billbyles on January 19, 2007, 10:04:12 PM

Keith, but how would it do in the Mako Muncher/Chizler Chomper wars?

Bill Byles

Hi Bill,

When that Chizler was flying against that Shark 35, the Shark 35 (Whitely) won most of the time.. It was certainly not just because the Shark 35 was a great flying airplane. Those wars ended over 7 years ago when the Chizler lost an up-line at the handle. There might be a different story now.

I intend to build another Chizler for Classic someday. It is too good of an airplane for me not to have one. The two I have had are probably the best flying airplanes I have had and probably the best flying non-piped ship that I have flown.

It is still an intriguing idea to build the Chizler but with a slightly different airfoil, (a bit thicker and a bit more rounded LE) and a pipe with Randy's Aero Tiger.

Keith Trostle

EddyR · « **Reply #30 on:** January 20, 2007, 06:58:11 AM »

Bill Bill Werwage built a lot of versions of the Juno before the published 46 size one. Most were .35 powered. I have had five Juno's and they are hard to duplicate performance in the 46 size so to start a 35 size project would be a long project.The high taper in the trailing edge make the plane difficult to trim. It is very line length sensitive.On the 46 size Juno 63 ft eyelet to eyelet is the ideal length.Performance can drop of pretty quick in a 35 size if every thing is not right on.Many people have started down this path to design the perfect plane and have spent years getting it right. That is the reason for my asking all these questions There have been some great answers here and Randy may soon have the answer for me. The Chizler and the Mustunt are great designs. The Chizler body never appealed to me and the Mustunt always seemed large for a 35.I will get out my plans and look at them again.
Ed

Zuriel Armstrong · « **Reply #31 on:** January 20, 2007, 07:10:45 AM »

I would build the Jetco Dolphin. Slick little plane with straight leading edge and nice lines.

I also have a set of reduced size plans for the Geo XL called the GEO 54. It would do great with an AT36 or PA40UL.

Tom Niebuhr · « **Reply #32 on:** January 20, 2007, 08:23:45 AM »

That's easy.. J.D.Falcon with one of the engines that Randy recommended.

BTW, the JD Falcon will be reviewed in the March 2007 FM

Ward Van Duzer · « **Reply #33 on:** January 20, 2007, 08:53:43 AM »

Yo! on the Schaffer Stunt Machine! Post classic era, and sexy as all get out!

1
(must be my NE heritage!) I would have done that instead of my current G' Nobler, but I wanted a multi-use AirFrame. Aero Tiger, of course...

EddyR · « **Reply #34 on:** January 20, 2007, 09:04:04 AM »

Tom I have a JD Falcon under construction.
Ed

Bill Little · « **Reply #35 on:** January 20, 2007, 09:16:21 AM »

What I love about this thread, and CLPA in general, is that noi one agrees on the "perfect" design! Everything posted here is a great flying plane! In different people's "hands" a different design is preferred.

With the widespread wealth of trimming expertise, just about ANY of the designs for CLPA can be made to perform at the highest levels.

I remember a quote by Billy Werwage several years ago where he said that in his opinion the greatest strides in the last 50 years have been in "power"! Not that much in the area of aerodynamics has really been vastly improved upon. Billy, himself, was not able to compete with his own '62 version of the Ares because he could not "power" it to the level he felt was correct at the time. Now, that airplane can compete very well. (How many VSC wins??)

The comment on "power" seems to be a very true statement! How many times have we seen the comments from the experts as to the fact that a good Classic design, with the right power, can compete just about anywhere?

Take an Aero Tiger, or Magnum 36XLS and compare it to the Fox 35. Only hundredths or thousandths of a cubic inch difference in the displacement, but those engines can "power" a plane on 5%-10% nitro that the Fox would have trouble pulling usiing 20%-25% nitro! Just such a difference in 50 years of engine developement.

We all have our favorites and none of them are "wrong".

Bill <><

Tom Niebuhr · « **Reply #36 on:** January 20, 2007, 10:15:02 AM »

Ed,
Is your JD Falcon from a Blue Sky Models kit?

Andrew Borgogna · « **Reply #37 on:** January 20, 2007, 11:40:33 AM »

I guess I would build the exact plane I am currently building a Don Stills Stuka Stunt, with the exact same engine I plan to use a box stock Fox .35.

I built one back in the sixties and hope this one flys as good. A second choice would be a GMA Nobler it flys better than I ever will.
Andhy

EddyR · « **Reply #38 on:** January 20, 2007, 12:36:33 PM »

Tom it is the Blue Sky kit .A fellow mover from this area Charlotte NC to Florida about a year ago and I bought it in the box un started.It took a while to find the 3/8 rods to build it on.Buy the way I have some pictures of John's plane taken at Cocxsakie NY about 20 years ago.How old was that plane at that time.Someone told me it was built in the 60's.I will post a picture but I need to spend some time going threw some pictures to find it.

Well it didn't take long to find it.This plane is golden orange color.
Ed

Tom Niebuhr · « **Reply #39 on:** January 20, 2007, 01:49:00 PM »

Ed,
That is not John's Falcon! It is mine! AMA #7544.

I build it in the late 80's or early 90's, with John's actual templates. It was candy apple orange with a gold undercoat, and powered by a Big Art .40FP. The candy color was brilliant in bright sunlight, but it goes away on a cloudy day.

The kits are exactly the same, except that the kits have a molded turtle deck, instead of having to carve a block. I had retired the airplane, and then a few years ago took it out for another flight.. I pushed it with a rich setting, I new better.. but...

It was a great flying airplane, and my current Falcon flies just as well, powered with a RoJet .40SE. It is the kit prototype. John gave me a sample of his custom brewed reddish orange paint so that I could match it. I might add that with the modern RoJett, penetration in the wind is unbelievably good.

Thanks for posting the picture, it is going in my file.

EddyR · « **Reply #40 on:** January 20, 2007, 02:52:26 PM »

Tom Think back real hard and see if you remember my plane from that contest.I flew the green All American with the yellow wheel pants.My trophy says 1993.It was only 14 years ago. Here are some other pictures from that contest. I flew Windy's plane that day. It is the one with the green canopy. I also flew a I/beam classic plane but I can't remember what it was.Windy walked up to me and said I new you were here when I saw the I/beam. At that time I lived in Florida.Windy taped one of his long interviews that day but I never say it.
Ed

Leo Mehl · « **Reply #41 on:** January 20, 2007, 03:32:17 PM »

I would go with a Green Box Nobler with a Johnson 35 with muffler. At 45 oz. its a good combination. I designed a plane in the early 90's that I called the Arctic Fox that had a ABC fox 35 in it and it flew real good even in the wind. Gene Matheny and I figured out the size plane for a fox 35 was around 500 square inches. Another very good plane was Designed by Mike Gorman called the All American PHD that was a very good flyer with an upright engine and staight leading edge with flaps. I really liked this plane. I think Roy De Camera has plans and patterns for this plane. For information con tact him.

Tom Niebuhr · « **Reply #42 on:** January 20, 2007, 03:35:07 PM »

Ed,
Unfortunately I don't remember your All America. I won the Classic event that day with the Falcon.

Phil Bare · « **Reply #43 on:** January 20, 2007, 07:06:18 PM »

Question: what does a piped engine have to do with how a plane handles wind?

Bill Little · « **Reply #44 on:** January 20, 2007, 07:36:20 PM »

Quote from: Phil Bare on January 20, 2007, 07:06:18 PM

Question: what does a piped engine have to do with how a plane handles wind?

The way we set them up, it controls the speed up of the engine, is I guess, the best way to describe it. The pipe is acting like a brake so the plane will not "wind up" in the wind as bad in manuevers. It stabilizes the run.

Maybe someone else can give a better explanation! I don't always need to know "how", I just need to know "does it".............. as in "does it" work for me?

Bill <><

Jim Pollock · « **Reply #45 on:** January 20, 2007, 08:05:10 PM »

Bill,

You can only go with what you know.... There may be other planes out there that are better than my design, but I havn't flown it! Also, I've never flown an airplane that you can hammer the the 1st and 3rd corners of a triange or hourglass like my Akro.

Jim Pollock

Bill Little · « **Reply #46 on:** January 20, 2007, 09:25:37 PM »

Quote from: Trostle on January 19, 2007, 12:32:03 PM

Assuming the question is for unpiped engines, my hands down choice would be the Chizler with an Aero Tiger. If it is not built to fly in the Classic event, I would use a bit thicker airfoil. This would be competitive at any contest until there is wind. And it will handle the wind as well as any other unpiped 35 ship. The tuned pipes go a long way to improve performance in the wind. If pipes are permitted for this question, then put a pipe on the Aero Tiger in the Chizler with a thicker airfoil.

Second choice for an unpiped engine would be the OS Stunt 35.

There have been some good suggestions in response to the original question, but the Chizler with a strong engine would compete well with any of them.

Keith Trostle

Hi Keith,

I am intrigued by this. By "thicker airfoil" would you suggest what Bob Gieseke did with the Nobler airfoil (since the Chizler uses a Nobler wing)? Or something along the lines of the SV airfoil, T.P., Impact, etc., ?? A more "modern fatter" airfoil?

What's funny is that I would have thought you would lean more towards your own TA-152!

Thanks
Bill <><

rob biddle · « **Reply #47 on:** January 20, 2007, 09:59:42 PM »

Hi gents,
I assume the original context of the thread was to see what people would regard as a competitive p.a model in .35 size.
Many of the "Classic" designs can be made to really perform with a modern powertrain and offer a bit more character than many modern P.A models.

I love flying .35 size models, they are far less tiring to fly than the "Big guns" and for relaxing sport flying with the "boys" they can't be beaten.

I just started building another "Ramrod", powered with a O.S .35s. if it turns out half as good as the last one it should be a real hoot!

Trostle · « **Reply #48 on:** January 20, 2007, 10:22:47 PM »

Quote from: Andrew Borgogna on January 20, 2007, 11:40:33 AM

I guess I would build the exact plane I am currently building a Don Stills Stuka Stunt, with the exact same engine I plan to use a box stock Fox .35.

(ckip)

Andhy

Just for the record:

The Don Still Stuka appeared as construction articles in several magazines.

The April 1952 issue of Air Trails with plans and the accompanying Doug Rolfe cutaway showed the model with a Fox 29. A caption under one of the photographs stated "For motors .19 to .35."

The January 1961 issue of Aeromodeller showed the Fox 25. The magazine reported that the Fox 25 was Don's preferred powerplant for his 30 ounce model which was the engine he used when he placed 2nd at the previous World Championships, leading the U.S. Team to first place.

Keith Trostle

Bill Little · « **Reply #49 on:** January 21, 2007, 12:37:04 AM »

To add a *little* to Keith's comments, I still have the '52 Air Trails and the plans that were offered then, and it varied a touch from the one he flew at the '60 WCs. That '60 WC plane was the one that Ambroid kitted, how accurately I don't know since I have never seen the kit.

The Fox 25 Don used was the '57 version that was built in the .19 case by using a .29 sleeve and piston to bump th e.19 up to .25. I haven't weighed mine to compare , but it is a little bit lighter *I think* and is almost the equal to a "stock" Fox 35. The '57 Fox 25 is a really nice "vintage" stunt engine with a 4-2 break to rival the best Fox 35s.

I remember a story told around that time that mentioned Don painting his Stuka in "non-German" red/white/blue, since it had not been that long since WW II.

Keith, a comment on my post to you above??

Bill <><