Author Topic: What was wrong with the Goldberg Cosmic Wind? (Read 10612 times)

Curt D Contrata · « **on:** October 12, 2015, 06:51:01 PM »

Curious...
Over the years we saw lots of Shoestring Stunter's and just a few Busters, but saw only one Cosmic Wind*. I realize they were all lousy kits, but in spite of it the Shoestring was a great flier (never had a Buster, still have a Goldberg Cosmic Wind Kit, possibly the reason for asking).

Was there something wrong with the Cosmic Wind design and was it unpopular everywhere or just in Florida?

Curt

* The Cosmic Wind mentioned above was for sale and un-flown, part of a "Package Deal". I confess that we bought it and re-sold it, still un-flown... all way back in the 1970's.

Don Chandler · « **Reply #1 on:** October 12, 2015, 07:05:39 PM »

I had a couple in the 80's. Used them for Sport Race events in the San Francisco bay area, they were great for that. WAM had a scale Air Race event with 5 different classes and used one for that event also. Never saw one used as a stunter though, maybe that's why.

TigreST · « **Reply #2 on:** October 12, 2015, 07:12:38 PM »

I don't remember ever hearing that the Cosmic Wind had any issues. Production of both was to the same "die-crushed" style back in 1976/77. I just thought the Shoestring was a better looking machine and thought the mid mounted wing was a better way to go. Loved how the cheek cowl connected to the wing leading edge area on the left side. Mine had an over all Stearman Yellow fuselage/empennage (not true to scale) with red trim (as per the real aircraft scheme) with white Mono-Kote wings and the supplied kit decals. Fox 35 and a 2 or 2 1/2 oz Perfect tank, Goldberg red snap tight spinner. and alum. landing gear of my own design/build. First model I went inverted with. I've got one in the box on the shelf for the day when. Fellow flying buds had a Cosmic Wind done in all black dope with silk wing covering. It was o.k. but I don't remember it ever getting a good flight in, maybe due to a poor engine run. That was a long time ago.

T.

Dave_Trible · « **Reply #3 on:** October 12, 2015, 07:21:39 PM »

Hi Curt. Many years ago I had the Cosmic Wind and really liked it for what it is. I'd prefer it over the others and most any other flapless small profile kit I could think of. I spent many lazy evenings out in a friend's pasture flying over and again with an old Fox up front. Didn't need a great field to fly on. One day I'll blow up the three view I have and make several for the grandkids to fly- maybe a couple Tomahawks too.

Dave

Curt D Contrata · « **Reply #4 on:** October 12, 2015, 07:24:08 PM »

> I had a couple in the 80's. Used them for Sport Race events in the San Francisco bay area, they were great for that.

"Goldberg Racing" does no count! LOL

> Loved how the cheek cowl connected to the wing leading edge area on the left side.

Ah, so the Wind did not connect to the LE but went above the wing? Nose on the Shoestring was pretty strong, will have to go look a the C-Wind.

Curt

Curt D Contrata · « **Reply #5 on:** October 12, 2015, 07:25:53 PM »

>Tomahawk

Never understood that one. Mine stunted poorly, but were all the rage in slow rat.

Curt

Curt D Contrata · « **Reply #6 on:** October 12, 2015, 07:28:56 PM »

Quote from: Curt D Contrata on October 12, 2015, 07:25:53 PM

>Tomahawk

Never understood that one. Mine stunted poorly, but were all the rage in slow rat.

... We sheeted the LE. Still legal here in Florida for Slow Rat in the 70's. 300 Sq Inch was the only limiter I think.

Curt

Steve Fitton · « **Reply #7 on:** October 12, 2015, 07:37:44 PM »

The Tomahawk flies pretty good, especially with an FP-20 instead of a Fox for power.

bob whitney · « **Reply #8 on:** October 12, 2015, 07:46:02 PM »

i built a C/W in 64 at tech school USAF covered in silkspan and powered it with a McCoy 35 red head .was a fun plane to fly. i left it at the end of class and heard it made it through 2 more class's

always liked it's looks better than the other two

Bill Burton · « **Reply #9 on:** October 12, 2015, 08:01:40 PM »

RSM's "Miss Sarah" is basically a Cosmic Wind.

BB

Allen Eshleman · « **Reply #10 on:** October 12, 2015, 08:17:14 PM »

I have one that was given me with A Fox 40 RC motor with the throttle completely open. It flew pretty good. At least I could do lazy 8's. Then, I broke in my B-40 (Brodak) on it. I did lots of 8's and some flying inverted. It's still here. Maybe I should test out my LA 40 on it. It is my engine tryout plane. I had an anemic McCoy 35 which struggled to pull it through a loop. Fun plane for me. Haven't flown it for several years.

Randy Cuberly · « **Reply #11 on:** October 12, 2015, 08:22:15 PM »

It's been a long time but memory tells me that the Shoestring Stunter was a much better fllier than the other two. I believe it had a thicker wing and better airfoil than the other two. I had a shoestring Stunter with a Fox 29 that would fly the entire pattern with no problem. A friend of mine had a Buster with a Fox 35 and it was very marginal for flying the pattern. It was a bit heavier than my Shoestring but not enough to really make the difference seen. I also believe the Shoestring had a bit more tail volume and that could make the difference.

I never flew a Cosmic wind but believe it had a somewhat thicker airfoil than the Buster.

My Brother did have a Miss Sarah from RSM and it was marginal for stunt with a LA25. Flew pretty much the same as the Buster. Strictly a sport stunt plane. Maybe loops, inverted flight...it was very scarey trying to do squares with it.

Randy Cuberly

Mike Keville · « **Reply #12 on:** October 12, 2015, 08:38:24 PM »

Not a dam# thing! Flew just fine on a McCoy .35 at Ft. Benning, GA, 1964. Granted, it wasn't a competitive Stunt design, but it tracked well and was a lot of fun.

That being said, the Goldberg Shoestring was a better flyer.

Gordon Van Tighem · « **Reply #13 on:** October 12, 2015, 08:46:22 PM »

http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php/topic,34591.msg350728.html#msg350728
Dennis Adamison was experimenting with the Cosmic Wind and electric conversion 2012/2013.
Seemed to like it.
G

Bill Little · « **Reply #14 on:** October 12, 2015, 08:52:33 PM »

The Cosmic Wind was my favorite in the looks department. I've had at least one of each and doubles (or more) of the Cosmic Wind and Shoestring. Maybe because it was my fav in the looks dept, it was also my favorite in the flying dept. To me there was not a lot of difference in the flying characteristics of the Shoestring and the Cosmic Wind. I would do the complete pattern with either. The Cosmic Wind was powered by an excellent McCoy .35RH and the Shoestring with an equally good .29 Red Head. Am building each now.

Bill

Curt D Contrata · « **Reply #15 on:** October 12, 2015, 09:28:04 PM »

From the provided link above... funny - the one I bought was green monocote too !

>The Cosmic wind is a low wing design, and with an IC engine it is prone to be a little "top heavy" because the vertical CG is so far above the wing.

Maybe that was the issue? I thought maybe it was the L.E.
Was it straight on the CW and on the Shoestring swept back a little? We liked the Shoestring wing, used it in a few other home brewed designs. Thought that wing would have made the Ringmaster a much better flying model. That, and flipping the Ring ele for the stab.

>One of the keys to the electric conversion is that it uses a second cheek cowl to help reinforce the motor mounting plate.

...there it is again, cheek cowl in the wrong spot? That plus the vertical CG?

C

Dennis Leonhardi · « **Reply #16 on:** October 12, 2015, 09:40:17 PM »

... in my opinion? Nothing!

I finished this one in '66 and flew the pants off it, with several different engines. Our club held a competition I don't remember very well, other than using the same airplane for multiple events ... appearance, stunt, speed (or racing) being parts of it.

I've seen many of that Goldberg series over the years and believe the CW is the best flyer of the lot - not to mention mine was very sturdy. It stunted very well and was one of the most "enjoyable to fly" airplanes I've had.

Your own mileage may vary, of course, thank goodness we don't all favor just ONE airplane!

Dennis

Motorman · « **Reply #17 on:** October 12, 2015, 09:57:38 PM »

Quote from: bob whitney on October 12, 2015, 07:46:02 PM

i built a C/W in 64 at tech school USAF covered in silkspan and powered it with a McCoy 35 red head .was a fun plane to fly. i left it at the end of class and heard it made it through 2 more class's

always liked it's looks better than the other two

Hey Bob, you know they still had a control line club at Lackland when I went through in '76. I built a 1/2a stunter with a kit and engine I got on base and everyone was amazed when they saw the stunts I could do.

MM

Keith Renecle · « **Reply #18 on:** October 13, 2015, 12:47:41 AM »

I had one when I was 16 and it flew very well. In later years I compared it to the Shoestring and I believed at the time that the CW flew better, but of course that was back then. Mine had an un-silenced Fox 35 on it.

It had a slight longer wingspan to the other two and I have been threatening to get one from Eric Rule (the Miss Sarah) because I figured out a really neat electric conversion for it. Here below is an old photo of mine from around 1966. Wow...... real Veco wheels and covered in silk! I was actually thinking about this last week-end when I was flying my old Ringmaster for the Fly-A-Thon and it actually has the same ancient Fox on it. The thing still runs even though the compression is almost gone! Well what can I say, I still enjoy the slimer's even though I am doing the electric thing these days!

Keith R

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #19 on:** October 13, 2015, 08:10:54 AM »

Curt: I do not think there was anything wrong with the Cosmic Wind - but no comments on why you did not see more of them. I think the Shoestring/Buster/Cosmic Wind trio were much better kits and all outflew the Ringmaster (that should get me in trouble) and were easier to fly than a Flite Streak. I recently built a Firecat and the basic layout is quite similar to the much later Cosmic Wind.

One really neat thing about the CW is that with the low wing position you could put a foot long tank on it if you wanted - unlike the others. My brother built a CW with a plain bearing ST-35 and strapped on a pen bladder tube. Got it some where north of 100mph - but the wings flexed a little too much for comfort! He later dialed it back to a roughly 85 mph and had a blast with it.

I remember chatting with Carl Goldberg, he said that the Shoestring was the kit that really saved & established CG Models. Not sure which was next, the Buster or the Cosmic Wind. I had a CW back when they first came out, and a Buster was my first NATs airplane. The CW remains my favorite, followed by the Shoe, with the Buster a distant 3rd...

Randy Ryan · « **Reply #20 on:** October 13, 2015, 08:38:05 AM »

My 2 cents: My first was the Buster which flys very nicely and has some asthetic appeal. The Shoestring is by far the prettiest and flys very well. The Wind on the other hand, what can I say? It's UGLY so I never bothered building one.

Paul Walker · « **Reply #21 on:** October 13, 2015, 08:57:15 AM »

I had one as a kid. I have one in the box now.

The problem as I see it IS the low wing. I will add dihedral so that the leadouts exit the tip at the vertical CG. Should fly better that way.

I will find out!

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #22 on:** October 13, 2015, 09:51:40 AM »

Quote from: Paul Walker on October 13, 2015, 08:57:15 AM

I had one as a kid. I have one in the box now.

The problem as I see it IS the low wing. I will add dihedral so that the leadouts exit the tip at the vertical CG. Should fly better that way.

I will find out!

Nah, just put the battery (yes the BATTERY!) in the wing..!

(just teasin, no doubt it would also LOOK better with dihedral...)

Garf · « **Reply #23 on:** October 14, 2015, 07:00:01 PM »

I was given an OLD cosmic wind. The front doublers are delaminating. If these are going bad, the bellcrank mount is most likely bad too. I don't want to find out the hard way. I suppose I need to take it apart to see.

GonzoBonzo · « **Reply #24 on:** October 14, 2015, 07:10:45 PM »

I had a Cosmic Wind many years ago. Fox 35 for power. Had lots of fun with that plane. One of Pat's ringmaster +P wings would wake it up though!

MikeyPratt · « **Reply #25 on:** October 15, 2015, 09:45:46 AM »

Quote from: Mike Keville on October 12, 2015, 08:38:24 PM

Not a dam# thing! Flew just fine on a McCoy .35 at Ft. Benning, GA, 1964. Granted, it wasn't a competitive Stunt design, but it tracked well and was a lot of fun.

That being said, the Goldberg Shoestring was a better flyer.

Hey Mike,
I have to agree, they flew pretty good. Sure you could do a few things to improve their performance. But for the most part, they were pretty good flyer's. I also think that they were well liked because they were in every hobby around the country and a different and/or better alternative than the old Ringmaster.

Later,
Mikey

Glenn (Gravitywell) Reach · « **Reply #26 on:** October 15, 2015, 11:42:08 AM »

Back in the very early days of my C/L addiction, I had one of each and really didn't find too much difference between any of them. I should preface that with "I have never flown a full stunt pattern in my life and have no intention of ever doing one. I am a fun/sport flier only so can't speak to how it stacks up against a "real" stunt ship. But for full blown, tear holes in the sky type flying....build one and put a smile back on your face!

Chris McMillin · « **Reply #27 on:** October 15, 2015, 02:16:07 PM »

I think you build the wing upside down and the wing then has a little bit of effective dihedral, then make the sheet gear legs with wheel pant shapes flt as depicted on the instructions to get some side area down low with maybe some Williams Bros Racing wheels and it would be a decent profile stunter as far as something that little goes. They all look good when properly painted and decaled like the real airplanes they are patterned after. The Cosmic Wind is one the mot beautiful airplanes designed so I cannot go for the ugly comments.
Chris...

Richard Logston · « **Reply #28 on:** October 15, 2015, 02:50:38 PM »

The Cosmic Wind was my first 35 powered u/c airplane i learned to fly with. As a leaner just flying level was a stunt! I have many good memories learning the basics with that airplane. Engine was, yes you guessed it! A McCoy 35 redhead. As I recall I paid 3.95 for the airplane and 5.95 for the engine. A gal. of fuel was 5.00. Those were the days my friend, thought they would never end!!!

Curt D Contrata · « **Reply #29 on:** October 15, 2015, 05:07:35 PM »

This has turned into a fun thread, nice stories.
Maybe I'll build the kit I have one day, thanks.

Curt

john e. holliday · « **Reply #30 on:** October 15, 2015, 06:48:33 PM »

I've had at one of each and could tell no difference with my flying ability at the time. But through the years I have had more Shoestrings. My son got a second place in an unofficial sport race at the NATS after regular racing was done using the Buster.

eric rule · « **Reply #31 on:** October 17, 2015, 09:17:38 AM »

Just for the record. The Miss Sarah is a Cosmic Wind.

Many years ago when I was just getting started I purchased booth space at what is now the AMA show in CA (at the time it was owned by Bill & Anita Northrup and held in Pasadena). As chance would have it my booth was located next door to the Goldberg booth. Over the course of the show I had the very real pleasure to speak many times with Mrs. Goldberg (an extremely nice lady). During one of our conversations I shared with her my many experiences flying the Cosmic Wind and mentioned to her that I was going to be manufacturing C/L kits. One of the models I would like to produce was the Cosmic Wind because I liked the looks of it and really appreciated the low wing since it allowed me to put a full size tank on the model plus it flew well. Mrs. Goldberg told me to go right ahead and produce the kit but she asked that I not call it a Cosmic Wind and suggested that I not copy the plan for use in the kit (copyright considerations). After some additional conversations with her about the Cosmic Wind I told her that I would do just what she said after getting an AutoCAD drawing completed for use as the plan.

That is how RSM came to produce the Miss Sarah (named after my grand daughter). The CW (Miss Sarah) is a fun model that is capable of flying the complete AMA pattern. If built reasonable light, although no one would suggest it be used for Expert Stunt, it performs quite well.

Dennis Moritz · « **Reply #32 on:** October 17, 2015, 07:37:14 PM »

A Miss Sarah I know flies in Foxberg. It'll do the pattern when my friend wiggles the handle. 3.5 second laps. Mebbe. I had a favorite Bro Buster very light wood. Powered by a screaming Tower 40 it turned very tight. Loved it. If you looked closely you could tell there were corners on a square. Possible to do a plus verticle eight. Three loops strung verticle before hitting overhead.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Dennis Moritz · « **Reply #33 on:** October 17, 2015, 09:10:05 PM »

The three Goldberg kits and knokoffs, two by Brodak, one by RSM, fly similarly, far as I have observed. All depends on build weight, power plant and straightness of build. LA25s can be marginal power if weight is up. Modern 40s or 35s, (laughable designation, since we are talking about schnuerle engines introduced in 1970s) will pull these birds with authority. Like Flite Streaks and other sport planes, too heavy too slow, makes for a doggy.

Elwyn Aud · « **Reply #34 on:** October 18, 2015, 09:50:54 AM »

Dan Banjock seems to have had a good run with his in Foxberg.

Dennis Moritz · « **Reply #35 on:** October 18, 2015, 03:10:14 PM »

Yep. That's the Miss Sarah I was thinking about. Very nice pics.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mike Lauerman · « **Reply #36 on:** October 23, 2015, 01:20:08 PM »

Dan Banjock's C.W. is a great example of how far detailing goes on an otherwise 'under rated' profile.
The Goldberg C.W. was one of my own favorites, I found it comparable to my Sterling F51 Mustangs.
All of these were sport fliers, and had scale like landing gear, and paint detail.

Have to agree the Shoestring had more in the 'flyability' dep't.

Eric provided me with a 'Miss Sarah' 3 years ago, I'm still working on it, between house repairs/renovation and the rigors of retirement. There is also another Sterling Mustang going up as well. Something about those two...

Tim Soukup · « **Reply #37 on:** August 13, 2019, 08:41:46 PM »

I’ve always been a fan of the Goodyear/Formula 1 Aircraft made during the Heyday of of the 50’-60’s-70’s.
I’m talking the Full sized versions, not the models. There are a bunch of Models that could be done by “Kit-bashing” any of these three (4) kits. John Sharp’s Nemesis Racer heads the list. As I recall, the Cosmic Wind racers were popular too, both the low wing, Little Toni, and its Mid-wing brother “the Minnow”.

I have often wondered why you couldn’t either re-cut the Fuse for a mid-wing version, or more simply, leave the center fuse cut-out (epoxied) and move the wing up ala Shoestring. Of course, you’d need to recut the Doublers to match. The real “Minnow” was actually a bit longer in the Nose and had a stretched fuse.

The purists would Poo-Poo the ideas here and the Sport Racers (Goldberg, Fox-Berg, MidWest Sport Race) are limited to kits (or faithful reproductions). I wonder how hard it would be to get Brodak’s or RSM to introduce a newer version of a different airplane, keeping with the spirit and intent of the original CG or RSM kits? A Cassutt could be done from a Buster kit (just re-cut the Tail feathers), similarly, build an Owl. The venerable “Rivets” could be attempted, I even sketched one out once. There are history books about these birds, it might be a fun and interesting experiment.

Paul Walker · « **Reply #38 on:** August 13, 2019, 09:36:20 PM »

I had one as a kid also. I loved it.

However, the low wing makes it problematic for good stunt flying, as the vertical CH is way off. I have a Miss Sara kit and will add enough dihedrial to get the LO's in line with the CG. Should fly better that way.

Gary Dowler · « **Reply #39 on:** August 13, 2019, 09:49:57 PM »

2016 I got back into the game and the first thing I built was a Shoestring Stunter. Flew decently for 2 years, After getting some help trimming it out from Mark S, it flew very well........for two flights. Then the lines snagged on a weed on takeoff on flight 3 that day and it was destroyed. I wouldn't mind at all building another one. It was about 32oz, and started with a Fox 35, which gave way to a 20FP. Better engine.

Then to get me back in the air I resurrected a used Cosmic Wind (Thanks to Mark). Same OS 20FP went on that. (well, the rebuilt version of it after the previous crash literally broke the engine case. Thanks to Dane on that rescue). It was marginally heavier at 34 oz, but it flew just as well. I retained the "as built" controls, but if I were to do it again I would change that. Whoever built it used solid leadouts, which I didn't mind, but the leadout position is too far aft, with the up line being behind the spar. It had too much yaw. I could tell a difference between the two planes though from the difference in the vertical CG being higher on the CW. Over this last winter the outboard wing has taken a serious warp. Debating what to do with it. In level flight at about 8' I can clearly see the underside of the wing. Trying it out this spring it made inverted interesting.....

Gary

Will Hinton · « **Reply #40 on:** August 14, 2019, 07:11:25 AM »

Way back when they first came out from CG, four of us had a combat event that required any of the three CG kits and a Fox 35 with 10% fuel and 60 foot lines. We flew all summer and kept score each weekend with the winner at the end of summer winning a gallon of fuel from the other three guys.
Talk about evenly matched competition! We had an absolute blast with those. If they had any problems we were too green to know it and never felt the airplanes lacked anything between them. That was one of my favorite summers.

phil c · « **Reply #41 on:** August 14, 2019, 04:35:57 PM »

The only things "wrong" with the Cosmic Wind were the straight leading edge- may cause a different kind of wobble flying in a gusty wind.
The wing was a bit low. about an inch below the thrustline- I don't have one around anymore to check. It would cause a slight "different" wobble from gusts.

The fastest was the Buster. It had the thinnest wing. The Shoestring and Cosmic Wind were thicker at the root which was handy for building.

Andre Ming · « **Reply #42 on:** August 14, 2019, 09:32:01 PM »

Never built any of them, but thought the Shoestring the most appealing aesthetically.

Andre

Robert Whitley · « **Reply #43 on:** August 14, 2019, 10:50:58 PM »

I have very fond memories of the Cosmic Wind.
For Christmas 1971 I wanted a flying model airplane.
Growing up in a small town I had never seen a model airplane fly but I had seen PT 19s in the bigger town hobby shops and thought that I might get one of them.

To my surprise on Christmas morning I opened this box of wood and whatnot that was to become a Cosmic Wind.
Shortly after I subscribed to Model Airplane News and a life long addiction to aviation was set in place.

A Fox 35 was soon to follow and eventually something resembling the picture on the kit box was flyable.

In the meantime our family had moved to another larger community and I made friends with other like minded young teenagers who also had CG models.

Between us there were a couple of Shoestrings, a Buster and my Cosmic Wind. All powered with Fox 35s.
We had a blast flying them and eventually all the models met the inevitable violent end doing unplanned figure 9s.

My father who always so encouraged me in my modelling and flying career is quite elderly and in failing health. In my limited spare time I am scratch building a replica using the original engine and a few of the remaining original hardware so he can once again see his little boy’s Cosmic Wind fly before he passes on.

Based on my nostalgia and fond memories I feel the CG Cosmic Wind is one of the best models ever for how it kindled my aviation passion.

Air Ministry . · « **Reply #44 on:** August 14, 2019, 10:59:47 PM »

Thinking the Comic wind could be kit bashed into a Ginny / Little Mike . ( the short wing version)

There weere pictures in the magazines of a Sweet Pea ' Big goodyear ' that looked like a rework of the Shoestring kit .

Think the ribs in the C W & Shoestrig are about the same, with the Buster being similar to the half span rib , right through .

The plans , some anyway , are on the plan download sites . Brodak does revised kits of them .
Lighter , better for the 25s. But the original solid LE & TE ' log ' condtruction would be more durable for RACING . like Bendix here in Aus .

Dennis Leonhardi · « **Reply #45 on:** August 15, 2019, 04:44:57 AM »

I chose the Cosmic Wind because (1) there was a lot more room for a tank, and (2) while the leading edge was straight, unlike the Buster there was sweep in the trailing edge - and I've found that to greatly help in the wind.

I ran several very different engines on mine and always considered it a real favorite.

John Given · « **Reply #46 on:** November 05, 2019, 06:49:11 PM »

Quote from: Tim Soukup on August 13, 2019, 08:41:46 PM

I’ve always been a fan of the Goodyear/Formula 1 Aircraft made during the Heyday of of the 50’-60’s-70’s.
I’m talking the Full sized versions, not the models. There are a bunch of Models that could be done by “Kit-bashing” any of these three (4) kits. John Sharp’s Nemesis Racer heads the list. As I recall, the Cosmic Wind racers were popular too, both the low wing, Little Toni, and its Mid-wing brother “the Minnow”.

I have often wondered why you couldn’t either re-cut the Fuse for a mid-wing version, or more simply, leave the center fuse cut-out (epoxied) and move the wing up ala Shoestring. Of course, you’d need to recut the Doublers to match. The real “Minnow” was actually a bit longer in the Nose and had a stretched fuse.

The purists would Poo-Poo the ideas here and the Sport Racers (Goldberg, Fox-Berg, MidWest Sport Race) are limited to kits (or faithful reproductions). I wonder how hard it would be to get Brodak’s or RSM to introduce a newer version of a different airplane, keeping with the spirit and intent of the original CG or RSM kits? A Cassutt could be done from a Buster kit (just re-cut the Tail feathers), similarly, build an Owl. The venerable “Rivets” could be attempted, I even sketched one out once. There are history books about these birds, it might be a fun and interesting experiment.

I would really like to be able to build a .35 sized Rivets!!!

Dennis Leonhardi · « **Reply #47 on:** November 05, 2019, 07:17:40 PM »

Quote from: John Given on November 05, 2019, 06:49:11 PM

I would really like to be able to build a .35 sized Rivets!!!

Seems to me someone published a "Rivets" stunt design - anyone else?

Dennis

RandySmith · « **Reply #48 on:** November 06, 2019, 03:25:22 PM »

Quote from: Curt D Contrata on October 12, 2015, 06:51:01 PM

Curious...
Over the years we saw lots of Shoestring Stunter's and just a few Busters, but saw only one Cosmic Wind*. I realize they were all lousy kits, but in spite of it the Shoestring was a great flier (never had a Buster, still have a Goldberg Cosmic Wind Kit, possibly the reason for asking).

Was there something wrong with the Cosmic Wind design and was it unpopular everywhere or just in Florida?

Curt

* The Cosmic Wind mentioned above was for sale and un-flown, part of a "Package Deal". I confess that we bought it and re-sold it, still un-flown... all way back in the 1970's.

The goldberg series was one of my favorite as I had many Busters , Shoestrings and Cosmic Winds, they all flew very well IF they were built light and straight, and NOT NOSE HEAVY, Nothing wrong at all with the CW , and as others have said, Shoestring was the best one
Randy

Trostle · « **Reply #49 on:** November 06, 2019, 04:42:38 PM »

Quote from: AirClassix on November 05, 2019, 07:17:40 PM

Seems to me someone published a "Rivets" stunt design - anyone else?

Dennis

Dennis,

You probably already knew this and were waiting for someone to bite.

Jack Sheeks published his Knight in the June 69 issue of Flying Models. This was the result of his search to have a T-Tail stunter. In his article, he explained that his first attempt was not very successful. He then wrote "The "Rivets design provided the inspiration ... it could be kept in the same general form..." Indeed, the Knight kept the lines of the Rivets with it swept LE, a rakish fuselage and the horizontal tail mounted on top of the vertical tail. Classic I-Beam construction with more than usual LE sweep, the TE was straight with slightly tapered flaps. Inverted engine for a .35. Had cheek cowls to further go along with the Rivets/Goodyear theme.

An interesting observation on this design. Yes, the horizontal tail was mounted on top of the vertical tail. But that vertical tail was not very high. In fact, the horizontal tail was only about 1" above the thrust line. It did give the impression of a high tail because of the slope of the rear fuselage deck.

Jack wrote that he like the way it flew so he built two of them.

Keith