News:



  • May 03, 2024, 05:58:31 AM

Login with username, password and session length

« previous next »
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Cockpit details...that make ya "GO HUMMM?" :)  (Read 1445 times)

Offline Shultzie

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 3474
  • Don Shultz "1969 Nats Sting Ray"
Cockpit details...that make ya "GO HUMMM?" :)
« on: February 11, 2010, 12:00:48 PM »
 Cockpit details on CLPA stunters have alway fasinated me!!!
While surfing through Claudia's photostream....I found this close up photo of Ted Fancher's beautiful World Cup stunt machine and after looking closely...
TED IF YOU ARE LURKING..."GADS!" Is that a piece of Pizza from last nights hanger session at the Pub & Eatery? LL~


Any one care to share some stories or detailed photos of CLPA stunt machine canopies?
Logged
Don Shultz

Offline Jim Pollock

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 948
Re: Cockpit details...that make ya "GO HUMMM?" :)
« Reply #1 on: February 11, 2010, 01:23:15 PM »
Also,  there is a miniature SF Chronicle sitting on top of the instrument panel.
Ted's had one of those in just about every TP he built.  I sure don't know how
he gets them that small without any distortion to the words?

Jim Pollock   :o
Logged

Offline Tom Niebuhr

  • AMA Member
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2768
Re: Cockpit details...that make ya "GO HUMMM?" :)
« Reply #2 on: February 11, 2010, 02:42:05 PM »
The mug of beer goes great with the pizza.
Logged
AMA 7544

Offline Neville Legg

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 593
Re: Cockpit details...that make ya "GO HUMMM?" :)
« Reply #3 on: February 11, 2010, 03:03:13 PM »
That's just plain daft! LL~

Cheers      Neville
Logged
"I think, therefore I have problems"

(not) Descartes

Offline Tom Niebuhr

  • AMA Member
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2768
Re: Cockpit details...that make ya "GO HUMMM?" :)
« Reply #4 on: February 12, 2010, 06:41:22 AM »
Check out Shultzie's "As Time Goes Bye" thread on LeRoy Gunther. The cockpit is a work of Art.

It is a shame that so few people have detailed stunters today. Some of the current airplanes don't even look aerodynamic and look more like Mack Trucks.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2010, 07:41:52 AM by Tom Niebuhr »
Logged
AMA 7544

Offline Shultzie

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 3474
  • Don Shultz "1969 Nats Sting Ray"
Re: Cockpit details...that make ya "GO HUMMM?" :)
« Reply #5 on: February 12, 2010, 10:35:45 AM »
Although I have posted these two shot before....I re scanned these detailed canopies by Dave Gierke and Gerald Phelps!
What effort...(One word of CAUTION!) We always have to remember to GLUE N' NAIL DOWN everyone of these teenie-meanie' details inside those delicated plastic see thru canopies...ENGINE AND PROP VIBRATION...can break them loose, and can become like SAND-BLAST GRIT. The damage they can do to a WORK HORSE CLPA flying machine is amazing. %^
Logged
Don Shultz

Offline Randy Powell

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 10478
  • TreeTop Flyer
Re: Cockpit details...that make ya "GO HUMMM?" :)
« Reply #6 on: February 12, 2010, 11:26:30 AM »
>>It is a shame that so people few have detailed stunters today. Some of the current airplanes don't even look aerodynamic and look more like Mack Trucks.<<

I'd like to point out that there was motivation for a lot of cockpit detail back in the day. Back when appearance points meant something (like 40 points in the era shown), it was worthwhile to spend a ton of time on this. Now, with appearance points devalued (and moves to devalue them even more if not entirely eliminate them), get ready for a lot of ARFs and ARCs, simulated canopies and vanilla stunters.
Logged
Member in good standing of P.I.S.T
(Politically Incorrect Stunt Team)
AMA 67711
 Randy Powell

Offline Paul Smith

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 5801
Re: Cockpit details...that make ya "GO HUMMM?" :)
« Reply #7 on: February 12, 2010, 03:59:49 PM »
Quote from: Jim Pollock on February 11, 2010, 01:23:15 PM
Also, there is a miniature SF Chronicle sitting on top of the instrument panel.
Ted's had one of those in just about every TP he built.  I sure don't know how
he gets them that small without any distortion to the words?

Jim Pollock   :o

The old time analog photography with REAL FILM had a lot better resolution than today's pixilated digitized gizmos. As in microfilm, microdots, and other James Bond props from Q.   I can get my hands around the pubs inside the canopy.

I'm curious about all the fine print on the outside of the planes.

Logged
Paul Smith

Offline Randy Powell

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 10478
  • TreeTop Flyer
Re: Cockpit details...that make ya "GO HUMMM?" :)
« Reply #8 on: February 12, 2010, 05:19:52 PM »
>>I'm curious about all the fine print on the outside of the planes. <<

All I can say is, that's a lot of Letraset.
Logged
Member in good standing of P.I.S.T
(Politically Incorrect Stunt Team)
AMA 67711
 Randy Powell

Offline Tom Niebuhr

  • AMA Member
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2768
Re: Cockpit details...that make ya "GO HUMMM?" :)
« Reply #9 on: February 14, 2010, 07:58:10 AM »
Randy,

It up to us to make sure that "appearance"  doesn't dissolve into a display of arf Noblers with wrinkled $cote.

Your "Slider" is an example of what an aerodynamic looking airplane is, even (gulp) without a detailed canopy.

The letraset work on the above examples show extreme patience and dedication, one letter at a time.

As much as I love detailed cockpits, I wish that I could come close to mastering the work of Gierke, Kostecky, Gunther, and the Grandmaster Ron Burns
« Last Edit: February 15, 2010, 12:06:42 PM by Tom Niebuhr »
Logged
AMA 7544

Offline Larry Fulwider

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
Re: Cockpit details...that make ya "GO HUMMM?" :)
« Reply #10 on: February 14, 2010, 10:39:37 AM »
Quote from: Randy Powell on February 12, 2010, 11:26:30 AM
. . .
I'd like to point out that there was motivation for a lot of cockpit detail back in the day. Back when appearance points meant something (like 40 points in the era shown), it was worthwhile to spend a ton of time on this.  . . . get ready for a lot of  . . . simulated canopies  . . ..

It would be interesting if appearance points were categorized to something like 18 + 2 for canopy. Appearance points aren't necessarily integers, so the difference between a .9 canopy and a 1.8 canopy would be worthwhile? I can imagine a simulated canopy getting a 1.1 out of 2?

Or maybe a 19 + 1 split?

       Larry Fulwider
Logged

Offline Shultzie

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 3474
  • Don Shultz "1969 Nats Sting Ray"
Re: Cockpit details...that make ya "GO HUMMM?" :)
« Reply #11 on: February 14, 2010, 11:43:46 AM »
Quote from: Larry Fulwider on February 14, 2010, 10:39:37 AM
It would be interesting if appearance points were categorized to something like 18 + 2 for canopy. Appearance points aren't necessarily integers, so the difference between a .9 canopy and a 1.8 canopy would be worthwhile? I can imagine a simulated canopy getting a 1.1 out of 2?

Or maybe a 19 + 1 split?

       Larry Fulwider

???? Wonder what what  would happen to the  appearance points..say......if over time...
some of those amazing details break loose from vibration and from the stress  (which sadly MANY DO....ESPECIALLY after months of flight time in practice and performance.

 (Remember also that that opening in and around that cockpit...can become a stress point weakness zone H^^...and soooo many older war weary  high mileage CLPA stunt ships with those once beautiful canopies...LOOK PRETTY SAD with all those ugly stress cracks that seem to appear out of thin'air!!! ~^

Those beautiful but FRAGILE acetate canopies could begin to look pretty, pretty, pretty shabby from all those little details doing their SANDBLAST dancin-n-jitterbuggin routine on the inside surfaces.
Also most RitzeeDyed acetate and fragile canopies..that are exposed to both sunlight and exhaust residue not only fade and end up with a drastic color shift and even worse,  can quickly reduce  any advantage extra appearance might have had when it was shiney and new?

With that in mind... :! :!perhaps in the long run....a beautifully simulated canopy could be the best choice. H^^
Logged
Don Shultz

Dave Adamisin

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Cockpit details...that make ya "GO HUMMM?" :)
« Reply #12 on: February 14, 2010, 12:31:12 PM »
Quote from: Paul Smith on February 12, 2010, 03:59:49 PM
The old time analog photography with REAL FILM had a lot better resolution than today's pixilated digitized gizmos. As in microfilm, microdots, and other James Bond props from Q.   I can get my hands around the pubs inside the canopy.

I'm curious about all the fine print on the outside of the planes.


My favorite "fine print" of all time was on a Don Bambrick plane. His stuff was always georgous and lots of people would do close orders on them He printed the following along the fillet under the stab in 1/16" letters: "If you can read this, you're looking too damned close"
Logged

Offline Randy Powell

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 10478
  • TreeTop Flyer
Re: Cockpit details...that make ya "GO HUMMM?" :)
« Reply #13 on: February 14, 2010, 03:00:48 PM »
Dennis,

That's why I've gone to using Hawai'ian on planes. Then they have to ask.   ;D
Logged
Member in good standing of P.I.S.T
(Politically Incorrect Stunt Team)
AMA 67711
 Randy Powell

Offline Jim Pollock

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 948
Re: Cockpit details...that make ya "GO HUMMM?" :)
« Reply #14 on: February 16, 2010, 09:25:36 AM »
I think we forgot to include Tom Warden as one of the masters of paint, and so forth.  I has been said that the inside of his airplanes looked as good as the outside, except without paint!

Jim Pollock   ::)
Logged

Offline Shultzie

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 3474
  • Don Shultz "1969 Nats Sting Ray"
Re: Cockpit details...that make ya "GO HUMMM?" :)
« Reply #15 on: February 16, 2010, 01:11:05 PM »
Quote from: Shultzie on February 14, 2010, 11:43:46 AM

Also most RitzeeDyed acetate and fragile canopies..that are exposed to both sunlight and exhaust residue not only fade and end up with a drastic color shift and even worse,  can quickly reduce  any advantage extra appearance might have had when it was shiney and new?

With that in mind... :! :!perhaps in the long run....a beautifully simulated canopy could be the best choice. H^^

After I found that old un-ID'd photo of the June 67 Super chipmunk this morn...I just notice a couple of slide of my 35 year old Chipmunk also "shows-ta-goya' just how my once beautiful dark Midnight blue Ritz dyed..(or died) canopy faded out to a wuzzzzie-under panty pink....

strange how old slides show just how horrific any of the old Rit dye canopies faded out so quickly...just months on those old Sting Rays of mine...Even that dark Midnight blue one on my old Avenger in just 3 months of strong summer sunlight started fading faster than the  71 year old nerves in my right carpooled' tunnel right hand n1 n~ LL~
Logged
Don Shultz

Offline Randy Powell

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 10478
  • TreeTop Flyer
Re: Cockpit details...that make ya "GO HUMMM?" :)
« Reply #16 on: February 16, 2010, 03:22:23 PM »
I use black dye myself. Seems to last a bit longer. But I imagine it will be clear in 40 years (if I ever have a plane last that long).
Logged
Member in good standing of P.I.S.T
(Politically Incorrect Stunt Team)
AMA 67711
 Randy Powell

Advertise Here
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags:
 


Advertise Here