Author Topic: My Next Subject - The Bobcat (Read 6023 times)

Jim Fruit · « **on:** September 28, 2013, 07:57:05 PM »

Hi guys:

I have started my next winter's project. It is going to be a WW II Cessna T 50 Bobcat. You know, the old "Bamboo Bomber". It actually is so ugly that it is cute. The "Bobcat 19" picture below shows the airplane that I want to replicate. There are plenty of pictures of it available for detail and it is all yellow instead of the usual olive drabs and silvers. I have come to the conclusion that my recent attempts for a few years in the past have been at too small of a scale to be effectively flyable. This was verified by my more recent Rearwin Speedster that, at 64", flys like a dream. So, I am making this model at 1-1/2" to the foot, resulting in a 63" wingspan. I drew my own plans (I wish I had learned to do CAD). That took me about five weeks. It will have throttles (of course), retracts and flaps. The building of this model is actually a precursor to the building of the model that I really want to build, the North American AJ-1 Savage. The two planes are of similar configuration and I am hoping to work out the kinks with this one before I start the Savage.

The "Bobcat 001" picture is the obligatory picture of the very start of the build of the model. A clean table, all of the ribs and spars laid out, etc. I originally was going to build the wing with scale rib spacing and cover the model with open bay construction. I even fabricated all of the ribs for that (43 each). But then I shifted gears and decided to cover the wings with 1/16" planking, so I threw away every other rib. I will do all of the rib simulation, etc., with an airbrush. I thought I would go with planked construction for the purposes of a better finish.

The "Bobcat 004" picture is about ten days hence. The wings are framed up with the motors and retracts mounted. They are only mounted temporarily to get the anchor bolts in place before planking the wings. I think I will plank the bottoms first. Then I will work out the flaps, the internal wiring, etc., etc., before I plank the top. I was going to mount the bellcrank in the wing, but I later decided to move it up into the body. The geometry works better because of the extreme dihedral of the wing. The plane was a WW II training plane, and because of a search for stability, it has a 6 degree dihedral on the top of each wing. It looks goofy.

The model will be powered by two Himax .30 sized motors with Castle Creations Thunderbird 54 ESC's. The system will be controlled by one of Clancy Arnold's U-Tronics four channel electronic controls. At this scale, the fuselage will be quite large. You may be able to see a drawing of it in picture "004". It will be slightly larger that my Rearwin Speedster, so I am hoping for about 7 pounds. Wow, I need to learn how to not be so long winded, my finger tips hurt.

Jim Fruit

Avaiojet · « **Reply #1 on:** September 29, 2013, 06:35:47 AM »

Jim,

Sent you a PM.

Charles

Allen Goff · « **Reply #2 on:** September 29, 2013, 06:36:08 AM »

Jim, I like it, maybe one of a kind for C/L scale. Looks like you have a good start on it. It's good to see a new creation in the works. Keep the pictures coming.

Blessings
Allen

john e. holliday · « **Reply #3 on:** September 29, 2013, 08:30:02 AM »

This going to be fun to follow as even tho some think the plane is homely I always liked the looks of it.

John Rist · « **Reply #4 on:** September 29, 2013, 12:13:39 PM »

Isn't that one of the types of airplanes used on the TV series Sky King?

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #5 on:** September 29, 2013, 12:51:37 PM »

Quote from: John Rist on September 29, 2013, 12:13:39 PM

Isn't that one of the types of airplanes used on the TV series Sky King?

Yes, but I think they had duded up the nose for that series (that is it's ugliest part).

JHF

Will Hinton · « **Reply #6 on:** September 29, 2013, 02:28:41 PM »

It resembles the Beech D-18 a lot. I think it looks really cool with the yellow. Good choice in avoiding the OD!
With the retracts, you'll have a good challenge there since the wheels hang out a bit, but safety for the model should the Nasties happen.
I'm with Allen - please keep the pictures coming!

Avaiojet · « **Reply #7 on:** September 29, 2013, 06:53:37 PM »

Quote from: Jim Fruit on September 29, 2013, 12:51:37 PM

Yes, but I think they had duded up the nose for that series (that is it's ugliest part).

JHF

I think your on to something really interesting. The Sky King series was viewed and enjoyed by many. Made me want to become a pilot and I did!

The aircraft, in my opinion and with all due respect, there's "nothing" ugly about it.

With your abilities and scale modeling experience, I know you will make an outstanding model.

Kudos and I'll be watching very closely.

Here's the full scale Songbird.

Charles

John Rist · « **Reply #8 on:** September 29, 2013, 07:59:42 PM »

Quote from: Avaiojet on September 29, 2013, 06:53:37 PM

I think your on to something really interesting. The Sky King series was viewed and enjoyed by many. Made me want to become a pilot and I did!

The aircraft, in my opinion and with all due respect, there's "nothing" ugly about it.

With your abilities and scale modeling experience, I know you will make an outstanding model.

Kudos and I'll be watching very closely.

Here's the full scale Songbird.

Charles

I take it the Songbird still exists and is still flying. How cool is that!

Fred Cronenwett · « **Reply #9 on:** September 29, 2013, 08:55:37 PM »

I got pictures of this Cessna UC-78 while I was in Wichita Kansas, restored and in great shape. The aircraft has lots of potential, the landing gear has an two joints almost like a knee and the wheel comes straight up instead of retracting aft like on the B-25.

Fred Cronenwett

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #10 on:** September 29, 2013, 10:23:17 PM »

Quote from: Fred Cronenwett on September 29, 2013, 08:55:37 PM

I got pictures of this Cessna UC-78 while I was in Wichita Kansas, restored and in great shape. The aircraft has lots of potential, the landing gear has an two joints almost like a knee and the wheel comes straight up instead of retracting aft like on the B-25.

Fred Cronenwett

Fred:

I saw the funky geometry on the landing gear and said "phooey on that". The gear does not raise straight up, but winds up slightly behind the extended position and the wheel protrudes about 3/4 below the bottom of the cowl. Makes one wonder why they even bothered. I solved the geometry by drawing a side view of the two positions of the extended wheel and the retracted wheel. I then placed the retract mount in a position that satisfies both the extended and retracted positions. This resulted in the mount for the retracts being on a negative angle inside of the motor mounts. The effect of this can be noted in the "Bobcat 004" photo above. The retract struts are mounted in the wing. The wing is resting on those struts and the firewall. The rakish angle that you see in the wing is the angle that the retract mounts are installed at. I also have only 85 degree retracts.

JHF

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #11 on:** September 29, 2013, 10:29:38 PM »

Quote from: Will Hinton on September 29, 2013, 02:28:41 PM

It resembles the Beech D-18 a lot. I think it looks really cool with the yellow. Good choice in avoiding the OD!
With the retracts, you'll have a good challenge there since the wheels hang out a bit, but safety for the model should the Nasties happen.
I'm with Allen - please keep the pictures coming!

Will:

Similar appearences, yes, but very different airplanes. The D-18 had Pratt & Whitney 450's, this T-50 has Jacobs 225's. One overpowered and one underpowered.

See my response to Fred about the solution to the retracts.

JHF

Avaiojet · « **Reply #12 on:** September 30, 2013, 06:21:34 AM »

Jim,

Clever guy on that gear accomplishment! Kudos!!

What brand did you use? Will you provide photos of the install in your Thread.

I would like to see photos.

Thanks,

Charles

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #13 on:** September 30, 2013, 10:33:45 AM »

Quote from: Avaiojet on September 30, 2013, 06:21:34 AM

Jim,

Clever guy on that gear accomplishment! Kudos!!

What brand did you use? Will you provide photos of the install in your Thread.

I would like to see photos.

Thanks,

Charles

Charles:

The retracts are E-Flite. There is not much to show in a photo yet. Just a hole in a block of wood. Maybe later.

Jim Fruit

Avaiojet · « **Reply #14 on:** September 30, 2013, 01:00:14 PM »

Quote from: Jim Fruit on September 30, 2013, 10:33:45 AM

Charles:

The retracts are E-Flite. There is not much to show in a photo yet. Just a hole in a block of wood. Maybe later.

Jim Fruit

Jim,

You're always quick to respond and generous with information. Thanks.

Is this the gear you have?

E-FLITE 25 - 46 85 Degree Main Electric Retracts by Eflite EFLG310

Charles

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #15 on:** September 30, 2013, 05:59:49 PM »

Quote from: Avaiojet on September 30, 2013, 01:00:14 PM

Jim,

You're always quick to respond and generous with information. Thanks.

Is this the gear you have?

E-FLITE 25 - 46 85 Degree Main Electric Retracts by Eflite EFLG310

Charles

Si...

Will Hinton · « **Reply #16 on:** October 01, 2013, 01:04:14 PM »

Jim, The really neat thing with the D and E 18's is the nice variety of cabin arrangements one can accomplish. We had a mixture of 7 different Beech's at the FBO I worked for in Syracuse and they were almost all different and very comfy for the clients.
I've threatened to model one of those way too many times without any follow up!!!! Maybe you'll inspire me to finally get with it!
Your retract solution sounds really good.

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #17 on:** October 01, 2013, 06:09:00 PM »

Quote from: Will Hinton on October 01, 2013, 01:04:14 PM

Jim, The really neat thing with the D and E 18's is the nice variety of cabin arrangements one can accomplish. We had a mixture of 7 different Beech's at the FBO I worked for in Syracuse and they were almost all different and very comfy for the clients.
I've threatened to model one of those way too many times without any follow up!!!! Maybe you'll inspire me to finally get with it!
Your retract solution sounds really good.

Will:

I really like the D 18 too. The problem with mine was the scale at which I chose to do it. I did it at 1" to the foot, resulting in only a 48" wingspan. That and the extreme taper of the wings put the entire wingtip way behind the center of gravity. The wingtips were only about a 4" chord, I don't think they offered much lift at the speed the model flew. Several mistakes in that one. Today I try to pick a subject with very little taper (straight preferred). If you choose to do one, I suggest about an 1-1/2" to the foot scale. That would give you a 72" wingspan.

JHF

Will Hinton · « **Reply #18 on:** October 02, 2013, 09:53:08 AM »

I think you're correct on the scale, and with yours, I thought it was really a good looking ship, but it did seem kind of small when I watched it in the air. To me, I think you are refining the selection process in a very astute manner and I see the possibility of real success for you in the future. Seriously, I do.

Fred Cronenwett · « **Reply #19 on:** October 02, 2013, 10:56:10 AM »

After flying several small, medium and large models I have learned that bigger flies better.

The wing loading on a small model I keep in the 16-20 ounce per square foot, on medium models I try to stay within the 23-28 ounce per square foot.

My profile B-29 (13 lbs, 96" span) is over 30 ounces per square foot, but due to the size of the wing it's not a problem. On the larger models I can go to the 30-35 ounce per square foot without problems.

If you add a 1.5 ounce servo to a 2 lb model that is almost 5% of the total weight, add that same 1.5 ounce servo a 9 lbs model and that servo only represents 1% of the total weight. And the larger model can tolerate a heavier wing loading compared to the smaller model.

There does come a point where the model becomes too big to transport or hang on to during flight due to line tension. Heavier models penetrant the wind better compared to lighter models.

I try to keep my models under the 15 lb range

Fred

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #20 on:** October 02, 2013, 12:53:37 PM »

Quote from: Will Hinton on October 02, 2013, 09:53:08 AM

I think you're correct on the scale, and with yours, I thought it was really a good looking ship, but it did seem kind of small when I watched it in the air. To me, I think you are refining the selection process in a very astute manner and I see the possibility of real success for you in the future. Seriously, I do.

Thanks, Will. I was going to bring a great flying airplane to the NATS this year. But on the day I was to leave to go to Muncie, my Crohn's disease ripped me a new one. I was sick for a month. Hopefully everything will stabilize next year.

Quote from: Fred Cronenwett on October 02, 2013, 10:56:10 AM

After flying several small, medium and large models I have learned that bigger flies better.

The wing loading on a small model I keep in the 16-20 ounce per square foot, on medium models I try to stay within the 23-28 ounce per square foot.

My profile B-29 (13 lbs, 96" span) is over 30 ounces per square foot, but due to the size of the wing it's not a problem. On the larger models I can go to the 30-35 ounce per square foot without problems.

If you add a 1.5 ounce servo to a 2 lb model that is almost 5% of the total weight, add that same 1.5 ounce servo a 9 lbs model and that servo only represents 1% of the total weight. And the larger model can tolerate a heavier wing loading compared to the smaller model.

There does come a point where the model becomes too big to transport or hang on to during flight due to line tension. Heavier models penetrant the wind better compared to lighter models.

I try to keep my models under the 15 lb range

Fred

Fred:

I think that has been my most recent failure. The best flying scale model that I ever had was a 1/4 scale clipped wing Monocoupe at 14 pounds. That plane had great wind penetration at 2 pounds per sq. ft. I have tried to use the 2 pound logic throughout, but in the smaller planes, it put me into trouble.I believe that I should have been prorating the design weight based upon the total wing area (as you note). My most recent subject (Rearwin Speedster) checks in at 22 oz. per sq. ft and it flys great. I have yet to fly it in the wind, however.

Jim Fruit

Avaiojet · « **Reply #21 on:** October 02, 2013, 03:20:05 PM »

Jim,

Your retracts must be "nose wheel" retracts? Correct? Mains put in place sideways?

Charles

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #22 on:** October 02, 2013, 06:13:52 PM »

Quote from: Avaiojet on October 02, 2013, 03:20:05 PM

Jim,

Your retracts must be "nose wheel" retracts? Correct? Mains put in place sideways?

Charles

No, Charles, they are not nose wheel retracts. If one were to purchase the nose wheel type, they do not come fixed, but rather they are steerable. The strut on the units retract in line with the motor and gear drive. The units can be mounted in whatever position you desire. I have mounted them to retract towards the rear as do the real ones in the Bobcat.

JHF

Fred Cronenwett · « **Reply #23 on:** October 02, 2013, 07:53:56 PM »

One of the things I do before I start any project is run the numbers for various scales to see what the maximum weight is for a variety of wing spans. Notice that the wing loading goes up as the model gets bigger. the really large scales are out our size range but you can quickly narrow down what size you want to build.

Using a Twin Beech as an example there are the maximum weight of the desired model, note that the wing loading for these examples goes up as the model gets bigger

The model at 38" would have really small cowls and would have to be built at 1.6 lbs (16 ounces per sq foot)
The model at 52" would have to weigh 4.5 lbs which is possible but does not leave much margin for extra hardware (24 ounces per sq foot)
The model at 63" only adds 11" of wing span, yet you can weigh up to 7.8 lbs now (compared to 4.5 lbs) (28 ounces per sq foot)

The larger models are more difficult to handle but gain a lot in wing area and flying quality

Land softly,
Fred Cronenwett

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #24 on:** November 09, 2013, 08:17:25 PM »

Hi Guys:

Just an update to the status of the Bobcat.

Photo Bobcat5 001 shows the status of the skinning of the bottom of the wing and the addition of the wires for the motor power, the landing gear and the ESC's. At this point, I have incorporated the shape and the mechanics of the flaps in the bottom skin. When I skin the top of the wings, I will sheet right over these flaps so that the top surface is as true as possible. I will cut them out completely when I cut out the ailerons.

Photo 5 003 is just me making a photographic record for future reference of the location of a block installed for backup for a removeable leadout. I did this because it will be hidden when I sheet the top of the wing. Somewhat of a non-plus photograph, except that it does show some of the wing structure.

Photo5 004 shows the top of the wing sheeted with the 3/32" balsa. Note that the flaps and ailerons do not show through yet. I will cut them all through when I am done shaping the wings. In this view, you can see the previously mention wiring protruding through the top of the wing. This wiring location will be within the body of the aircraft and will be cut and soldered to length. You probably can also see the control system that I installed for the flaps. I used a single servo with a "Y" shaped yoke to the control horns. Due to the dihedral and extreme forward sweep, I used a lucky box for control in each of the flaps.

Photo5 005 shows the bottom of the sheeted wing. The location and size of the flaps can be seen in this view. You can also see some of the odd geometry in the nacelle framework for the landing gear as was discussed in the previous post. In spite of this odd geometry, I can guarantee you that the firewalls are square with each other and the ground. Also visible in the photos is the wings best buddy ... a 2" block of foam. They will not be out of each other's site until I get the wing into the airplane and up off of the work table. Starting of the fuselage is next, most of the work in this model is in the wing anyway. Progress has been slower than I had hoped. Crohn's disease just won't leave me alone and the ambition comes at intervals.

Nuff for now.

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #25 on:** November 09, 2013, 08:22:31 PM »

Guys:

Sorry, I posted the wrong photo 004 above. Below is the proper photo 5 004.

Jim Fruit

john e. holliday · « **Reply #26 on:** November 10, 2013, 08:24:14 AM »

That is quite a project. Thanks for the pictures and the construction notes.

dale gleason · « **Reply #27 on:** November 11, 2013, 07:50:02 AM »

American Flyers had almost all the "Sky King" TV series, including the Nabisco ads, available on their website. I just now tried to locate them, but don't see them on the new American Flyers website. Maybe someone can find them again, they were great, especially so before Uncle Sky started flying a C-310 instead of the T-50.

"From out of the clear blue Western sky comes....", well, you know.

dg

Edit: "you tube" has a lot of the series, real easy to find. And, this T-50 is really going to be a wonderful ship, professionally done. Thanks for sharing,
dale gleason

Tom Niebuhr · « **Reply #28 on:** November 11, 2013, 12:37:32 PM »

Like so many of our vintage, I also grew up watching Kirby Grant with both his T-50 and Cessna 310. He was a hero that got us into Aviation. And we all loved Penny!

When I started at Parks College (St Louis U), we had an active private airport and two T-50s. One was used for maintenance classes, but the other one was flight worthy and was used for multi engine training.

I am looking forward to seeing this scale project completed, since many of us can relate to it.

I thing that the T-50 has it's own beauty.

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #29 on:** November 11, 2013, 02:13:10 PM »

One of the things that surprised me about this posting is how it sends a lot of us down memory lane. Unintended, but pleasing also. After the end of WW II, I saw two T 50's at the Canton,Il airport. (I think it was Canton, memory is not so good any more). They were flyable, but the thing that stuck in my mind is I could have bought both of them for $600 apiece! Might as well been a million dollars because I was only 10 years old at the time.

Jim Fruit

MarcusCordeiro · « **Reply #30 on:** November 12, 2013, 03:16:53 AM »

Quote from: Jim Fruit on November 11, 2013, 02:13:10 PM

One of the things that surprised me about this posting is how it sends a lot of us down memory lane. Unintended, but pleasing also. After the end of WW II, I saw two T 50's at the Canton,Il airport. (I think it was Canton, memory is not so good any more). They were flyable, but the thing that stuck in my mind is I could have bought both of them for $600 apiece! Might as well been a million dollars because I was only 10 years old at the time.

Jim Fruit

Times sure have changed...

Amazing build. Congrats!!

Marcus

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #31 on:** December 14, 2013, 07:08:01 PM »

Hi guys:

Just a few more pictures of my progress with my Bobcat. Progress has been slow with the holidays and all. I know, excuses, excuses.

Photo 004 shows the preparation of the basic fuselage. My attempt with this rather large-ish airplane is to keep it light. The basic frame of the body is 3/32 balsa with reinforcing in the appropriate places. Then, as stated in a previous post, I decided to go with all sheeted surfaces for a better finish. The body as shown has the original aircraft's stringers in place, but they are 1/16" shallower to allow for the 1/16" sheeting that will be applied. This completed application can be seen in later photographs. The profile of these simulated fabric surfaces are a little hard to see in the photographs. The top of the fuselage, when it is applied, will have a more defined shape. Another benefit to this ridiculous 3/32" - stringer - 1/16" sort of construction is that I am also creating a mini box girder sort of construction for strength. The outer 1/16" will also be fiberglassed with epoxy mixed with 50% thinner and applied over fine fiberglass. The wings have already been glassed this way.

Photo 005 shows the body and wing while they are being epoxied together. In this view, one can see some of the body profile created by the false stringers a little bit better. One might ask why I am going to this bother. I think it is in reaction to a scratch built Mr. Mulligan that I have. In that model, I religiously duplicated the twenty-some round stringers in the rearward body. In one of my early flights, I had a nose-over. Smack! The tail hit the ground hard. Not a lot of damage, but the fabric covered stringers of the rear portion of the body were covered with spider-web cracks all over the body. This is my attempt to prevent such cracks in the finish. The top of the body will remain open until I have all of the inner workings completed. I intend to use an aluminum arrow shaft for a push rod. The bellcrank will install above the wing. Clancy Arnold's control system will be installed just ahead of that. The batteries (I have not decided if it will be one or two ) will be installed in the nose. All of this will be accessible by removing the cockpit glass. You might wonder why I did not attach the nose assembly at the same time that I did the rear portion of the fuse. The front had such a different structure (more stringers, more round, etc.) that it was an obvious break in the installation. The nose will be installed just as solidly, because it has to carry the weight of the batteries. The nose will also be different from the rest of the construction in that I think it will be a stringer/styrofoam/fiberglass fabrication. I have not decided as yet.

Photo 006 is a similar photograph, only from the opposite direction. The weight of the assembly as it is now is 2 pounds, 6 ounces. This is with the wing completely glassed, but not the body as yet. I am hoping for around 7 pounds complete.

Enough for now.

Jim Fruit

Allen Goff · « **Reply #32 on:** December 16, 2013, 06:26:25 AM »

Jim, nice looking aircraft can't wait to see it, 2014 Nats? I might have missed it somewhere in the posting, is this for Sport or F4B (Authentic scale)?
Missed you this past year hope all is well. Keep the pics. coming.

Blessings
Allen

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #33 on:** December 16, 2013, 10:14:22 AM »

Quote from: Allen Goff on December 16, 2013, 06:26:25 AM

Jim, nice looking aircraft can't wait to see it, 2014 Nats? I might have missed it somewhere in the posting, is this for Sport or F4B (Authentic scale)?
Missed you this past year hope all is well. Keep the pics. coming.

Blessings
Allen

Thanks, Allen. I will attempt to make it for the 2014 Nats. But if I don't make it, I have a nice flying model in my Rearwin Speedster that is complete and ready for the Nats. It scored 98 static in its first contest, so it would be a good one to bring. I would like to bring the Bobcat to this Nats, because it has more opportunity for flight points (virtually without flying). However, it has a lot of glass area that makes the entire interior available for viewing. Maybe I should slow down and complete the interior and make it F4B. But, if not, it will be Sport.

Sorry I missed the last Nats, but my Crohn's disease decided to hit me just before the Nats and I had to cancel out. Terribly sick.

Jim Fruit

Avaiojet · « **Reply #34 on:** December 17, 2013, 06:20:24 AM »

Jim,

It's always nice to view your work progress. And you do excellent work!

Seeing a different style of building/construction is refreshing.

Scale model building is a bit different and your model airplane subjects, which you choose to build, are always special.

You did a great job with your Beech and I'll be watching this fine Bobcat develope also.

Like TV, you do have a highly rated show!

Thanks for Posting and sharing your efforts!

Charles

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #35 on:** December 17, 2013, 07:59:44 AM »

Quote from: Avaiojet on December 17, 2013, 06:20:24 AM

Jim,

It's always nice to view your work progress. And you do excellent work!

Seeing a different style of building/construction is refreshing.

Scale model building is a bit different and your model airplane subjects, which you choose to build, are always special.

You did a great job with your Beech and I'll be watching this fine Bobcat develope also.

Like TV, you do have a highly rated show!

Thanks for Posting and sharing your efforts!

Charles

Thanks for the kind comments, Charles.

I do try to find unusual subjects to build. I don't know about the "highly rated show", however. There does not seem to be much interest in the postings. I suppose that is because we scale builders are a dying breed and few in numbers. Oh well, I enjoy it.

JHF

Avaiojet · « **Reply #36 on:** December 17, 2013, 10:58:11 AM »

Quote from: Jim Fruit on December 17, 2013, 07:59:44 AM

Thanks for the kind comments, Charles.

I do try to find unusual subjects to build. I don't know about the "highly rated show", however. There does not seem to be much interest in the postings. I suppose that is because we scale builders are a dying breed and few in numbers. Oh well, I enjoy it.JHF

Jim,

Scale building or just building and construction that may be nontraditional could well be a dying.

Scale is certainly my interest or semi-scale. Unconventional also! One of the reasons I'm drawn to your builds.

I have to mention, your abilities aren't limited to balsa wood only. So there's much to learn from your builds. Kudos to you for that!

As far as Post and replies? I believe the number of hits, rather than replies, can tell a story. Maybe not if the hits counter isn't correct.

My ridiculous Loser to Mig-3 build has 45,000 hits and change, but few replies. Go figure?

Hey, guys like you and I are going to build our models if there's absolutely no interest in them at all.

The hobby is here, simple as that, and you choose the area or areas you find enjoyable or have fun with.

I believe we both enjoy what we have interest in and elect to build.

Looking for more info on your progress.

Great work so far!!

Charles

Will Hinton · « **Reply #37 on:** December 17, 2013, 11:19:07 AM »

Hi Jim,
I agree with Charles concerning the number of hits verses the number of replies as to whether there's much interest or not. As I watch your builds, and the builds of others, I'm keeping the threads in mind and always come to those first when I first log back on to stunthanger.
Keep up the interesting work!
Will

MarcusCordeiro · « **Reply #38 on:** December 18, 2013, 11:15:40 AM »

I'm watching... I'm lovin' it!!

Marcus

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #39 on:** January 21, 2014, 01:11:33 PM »

Hi Guys:

Just a few more pictures of the progress (or lack thereof) on my Bobcat. My damn Crohn's has been knocking me down with regularity this winter, so progress has been a little on the slow side. Kinda hard to stay enthused. All of the pictures this time are of the construction of the nose bowl.

Picture 001 is of the rear of the nose bowl before attachment to the main body. As noted previously, this portion of the original airplane is constructed differently than the box-like shape of the rest of the airplane. For this reason, I constructed this nose bowl of formers and stringers and Styrofoam, as opposed to the box-girder approach to the rest of the model. The Styrofoam will be shaped and fiberglassed to represent the free form areas of aluminum on the original airplane. The manufacturers used formed aluminum for shape where stringers and formers would not give the desired shape. The stringered areas will be covered with silk and then again with fine fiberglass. This will be the only "open framing" areas on the model. This nose bowl will be attached to the balance of the model with epoxy and fiberglass, extending to about midpoint of the bottom of the wing. It should be plenty strong. This bowl will also have to carry the batteries.

Picture 002 is of the front of the nose bowl before attachment and fiberglassing.

Picture 004 shows the bowl, glassed and mounted to the rest of the model. Looks more like an airplane now. It still does not have it's lovable snubby look as yet. But once the windshield and cockpit top are constructed, one will see just how short the nose is. The windshield and cockpit top will be totally removable in one piece, allowing access to the batteries and all of the internal mechanisms. If you look closely, you can see the former outlines under the glass and how I shaped the Styrofoam prior to glassing.

Enough for now.

Jim Fruit

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #40 on:** January 21, 2014, 01:30:03 PM »

Not sure why the attachments did not go through. Here they are.

Jim Fruit

Allen Goff · « **Reply #41 on:** January 21, 2014, 01:44:48 PM »

Jim, I really like what I'm seeing, you do good work. Can't wait to see the final product. Keep us informed.
C/L scale is growing.

Blessings
Allen

Mike Lauerman · « **Reply #42 on:** January 21, 2014, 02:45:40 PM »

I agree with Charles and Will...There is more interest in scale than we think. I believe most of the viewers are 'astounded' with some of the process, and reticent to comment.

Oh, and SCALE is the place I also jump to when signing on to Stunt Hanger!

Thanks, guys...and KEEP GOING!

john e. holliday · « **Reply #43 on:** January 21, 2014, 03:25:03 PM »

Please guys, if I posted to every time I get on this forum and every thread I look at, just think where the number would be on my number of posts. I do love the builds of all kinds of our model control line air craft. Lots of racing construction pictures on the Barton site. It even has some free flight models under construction. Guess the wife is right when she says I spend too much time on the forum. Keep the great pictures coming even tho I don't respond to all of them.

Mike Keville · « **Reply #44 on:** January 21, 2014, 08:32:40 PM »

Quote from: john e. holliday on January 21, 2014, 03:25:03 PM

Please guys, if I posted to every time I get on this forum and every thread I look at....

===========================================================
Well, the thing is....you DO.

MarcusCordeiro · « **Reply #45 on:** January 24, 2014, 01:00:55 PM »

Wow!!!

That is some nice building!!!

Marcus

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #46 on:** February 16, 2014, 05:32:56 PM »

Hi Guys:

I thought I would post a few pictures that showed a better explanation of what I meant in a previous post about "box girder" construction. I intended to show the type of construction by showing pictures from the beginning to the end of the construction of the top of the fuselage. Unfortunately, I did something that lost the first picture, showing the open-top fuselage. This is unfortunate because I wanted to show my control system. I can at least describe it. The push rod is unsupported and is an aluminum arrow shaft. The bellcrank is a 4" Brodak phenolic unit cut down to 3-1/2". The bellcrank has a steel ball bolted and epoxied in place. This is mated to a hard plastic socket that is connected to the arrow shaft by penetration of the shaft with a right angle bend in the music wire, all held in place by a hardwood dowel epoxied into place. The same sort of connection is done at the back of the arrow shaft, connecting a brass clevis to a 4" Brodak steel control horn. I had to bush the brass clevis to the steel control horn with a piece of aluminum tubing. I am not enough of a metallurgist to know if I need to worry about dissimilar metal with that one. In any case, I believe I can say that this is my first control system with absolutely zero slop.

On to the pictures. Picture No. 1 shows the application of 3/32" balsa sheet to the top of the flat portion of the body. I designed this flat portion to be just under the start of the curved portion on top of the body. This created a work platform and also became in essence the bottom "flange" of my beam. I am using white glue at this point.

Picture No. 2 shows the installation of the members that will create the shape of the top of the fuselage. They are 3/32" short of full height to allow for the installation of 3/32" thickness sheeting on top of the. In keeping with the "beam" logic, these members will be the "web" of my beam. Since the real airplane was fabric covered over stringers, these members will also create the fabric look.

Picture No. 3 shows the results. 3/32" sheeting has been applied by gluing to the web members. The installation complies with the fabric shape of the real airplane. The shape might be a little hard to see because my workshop is so bright, I have 25watts per square foot. The top sheeting is in essence the top "web" of my beam. I used 3/32" sheeting on the top to allow for sanding the heck out of it, maybe resulting in a 1/16" thickness. All of the resulting shape will now be covered by light weight fiberglass applied with Z-Poxy resin mixed 50/50 with thinner. The wing has already been covered this way. One might ask why go to this effort. My plan is to build not only strong but light. The plane as you see it weighs just under four pounds. I am shooting for about seven. That will give me about 1.6 pounds per square foot. As for strength, our bridges and highways use this type of construction all of the time.

Next, the nacelles.

Jim Fruit

MarcusCordeiro · « **Reply #47 on:** February 18, 2014, 04:15:18 PM »

Marcus

Bill Little · « **Reply #48 on:** February 18, 2014, 08:32:25 PM »

Hi Jim,

About all I can say is that the workmanship looks outstanding! I think (but know little about the Scale Event) that the larger model is the way to go. Always much easier to fly (up to a point I guess! LOL!!).

I am REALLY looking forward to seeing the finished product, but don't rush it.

Thanks for the look into the process so far.

Bill

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #49 on:** May 29, 2014, 06:44:00 PM »

Hi guys:

Just one picture this time. The picture shows the nacelles in place on top of the wing. This portion of the nacelles will be glassed in place and the styrofoam left in place. The lower nacelles and cowlings will be removable and hollowed out to allow access to the landing gear and motors.

The picture shows the model as it was on March 1st. I have not touched it since. I took my wife to the ER that night because she seemed to have lost her memory. They determined that her calcium level was too high, causing that effect

I was afraid that I might not get her back and spent virtually all of the next three months at her hospital bedside just to give her support. Thank God for all of the specialists and the young physical therapists. They have brought her back to where she seems stronger than before. She had literally forgotten how to walk in the process. She will not be able to come to contests as she did before. She lost that ability about fifteen years ago. She did enjoy that as well as I, but no more. I guess we just cannot stop the aging process.

Mike Keville · « **Reply #50 on:** May 29, 2014, 07:51:59 PM »

Your priorities are in good order, Jim. Take care of her, for she's more important than any model airplane. We're all getting older, and never know what may strike us down.

Will Hinton · « **Reply #51 on:** May 30, 2014, 06:54:51 AM »

Amen to what Mike said. My dear lady has just come through two years of hell on earth with back surgery and breast cancer. She's well on her way to total mend thanks to God, and the fact that I've not burned more than two gallons of fuel in three years means nothing compared to her health and presence! We don't need these toy airplanes, but we do need our life companions and they need us. God set it up that way on purpose. (Sorry, didn't mean to preach.)

john e. holliday · « **Reply #52 on:** May 30, 2014, 09:04:55 AM »

Yes, family comes first. Hope your wife will get better. What is bad is when you hear your wife's youngest sister is in the hospital not expected to live. She had been in there for almost two weeks and getting worse. The wife told me to go to the annual contest and have fun. Hard to have fun when you get a text the sister passed on the Sunday morning. So I headed home as soon as I could. Tomorrow is the memorial service at her Church.

Anyway Jim take care of that wife of yours.