Author Topic: My Rearwin Speedster (Read 9392 times)

Jim Fruit · « **on:** November 17, 2012, 05:45:05 PM »

Hi Guys:

I thought it might be time to show you my latest attempt at scale modeling. It is a 2" to the foot model of the Rearwin Speedster 6000. My model will be a copy of the original model 6000 (Ole No. 1 - actually No. 2, but that is another story). The original is owned by the great grandson of the original Mr. Rearwin. I was able to photograph the restored airplane at last year's EAA Airventure in Oshkosh.

The model is based upon the geometry (and airfoil) of an old Jack Stafford R/C model. I did this to assure a decent flying model after experiencing two poorly flying models at the last two Nats. I am using Jack's geometry, but I have made many revisions to his design to make the model more scale. Some of the revisions include:
1. Increased the wingspan to 60". The wing will be removable.
2. Lengthened the tail moments.
3.Reduced the size of the horizontal stab and elevators. I also used a molded balsa strip construction for these items due to all of the curves.
4. I also went to a solid rudder because I remember that this is usually the first item to break in a nose over.
5. Lengthened the nose. My three views showed the original Speedster with a slightly longer nose than the production models. This may be because the original used a different engine than the production models.
6. Lengthened the landing gear. Jack may have designed such a short gear to help prevent nose overs.
7. The model is going to be electric powered. The space behind the motor is a big plywood box. That box is to contain the batteries, an ESC and one of Clancy Arnold's control systems. The big gaping hole in one side of the box is for cooling air. That hole will be covered by aluminum louvers eventually. If you look closely at one of the pictures, you can see the aluminum louvers that I have fabricated for that purpose. And, yes, the original airplane had those louvers on only one side of the airplane. Cooling air will enter at the front of the nose where I have roughly marked the openings in black. All of the top radiused portion of that box will be removable, including the portion over the motor, batteries, controls and it will include the windshield of the airplane.

I am shooting for about five pounds. What you see in the pictures is currently just under three pounds. Enough for now.

Jim Fruit

Mike Keville · « **Reply #1 on:** November 17, 2012, 06:10:21 PM »

Now THERE'S a real classic! Keep us posted on the build, Jim.

Allen Goff · « **Reply #2 on:** November 18, 2012, 05:59:58 AM »

Nice job Jim, 60" span will be a good size for 5lbs. should fly great. Clancy's z-tronic system is a good choice too. keep the pics. coming.

Blessings
Allen

john e. holliday · « **Reply #3 on:** November 18, 2012, 01:36:35 PM »

That looks great so far. Love bare bone photos.

Mike Lauerman · « **Reply #4 on:** November 19, 2012, 09:30:47 AM »

Yes, great coverage so far...How will the wing be attached? Nice fit at the upper bulkhead/wing L.E. center, BTW.

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #5 on:** November 19, 2012, 10:29:54 AM »

Quote from: Mike Lauerman on November 19, 2012, 09:30:47 AM

Yes, great coverage so far...How will the wing be attached? Nice fit at the upper bulkhead/wing L.E. center, BTW.

Mike:

The wing will be mounted by the typical dowels through the front bulkhead/wing and two nylon bolts at the rear of the wing. The original Speedster had all glass above the cockpit. When it was restored, however, this area was closed up with an aluminum "bump" front to back of the wing. This will allow me to completely conceal these mounting devices with my own replica of this "bump". I am building this replica as it was restored because that is what I was able to photograph for documentation.

Jim Fruit

Mike Lauerman · « **Reply #6 on:** December 27, 2012, 05:38:31 PM »

Jim:
I agree wholeheartedly with the fidelity to the restoration version. Am very impressed with the aluminum louvers...they are a task even in Full Size!
This one really gets my juices going, as the Rearwin is a favorite... eclipsed by a true documented operation of a particular aircraft.

Mike Keville · « **Reply #7 on:** December 27, 2012, 07:07:28 PM »

Agreed ... a most ambitious build of a genuine classic. Can hardly wait to see the finished product. Please do keep us posted.

Will Hinton · « **Reply #8 on:** December 31, 2012, 07:37:04 AM »

Doc is right, there's nothing nicer than bare bones pictures of a nice model like this. You are lookin' good, my friend! Keep'em coming! (Pleeeeeeze?)

wwwarbird · « **Reply #9 on:** January 02, 2013, 09:45:28 PM »

Any new pics Jim?

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #10 on:** January 03, 2013, 08:05:28 AM »

Quote from: wwwarbird on January 02, 2013, 09:45:28 PM

Any new pics Jim?

Not yet, but soon. I wanted to get some more detail done before I post the next batch. I sort of feel like I posted too many last year when I did the beech D18. It all takes space.

Jim Fruit

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #11 on:** January 04, 2013, 03:09:27 PM »

Hello all;

Attached are photos of the latest status of my 2" to the foot Rearwin Speedster 6000 M. A lot done but also a lot left to go.

Photo 001 is of the left frontal area:
This shows the installation of the aluminum ventilation louvers positioned as they are on the real airplane. These are functional on the model.
You also can see the brass washers that are glued frequently around the side panels. After gluing them on, I drilled out the areas inside of the washers. These are to replicate the dzus fasteners that are used to apply the panels on the real airplane. After painting the model, I will install small aluminum bars in those openings in a horizontal position to replicate a closed fastener.
This model is electric. All of the upper cowl, including the windshield, slides off to allow access to the motor and batteries.
Some of you might have seen my previous posts about my attempt pull a hot canopy for this model. This is a rather large canopy and I was dissatisfied with the appearance of stress marks in the pulled canopy. I think I was using too thin of a plastic material (.030"). So, I instead built a support frame out of aluminum tubing and just bent the same material in one direction only for all three panels. This is exactly how the real airplane windshield was done (hey, it was the early 1930's). Then I made an exterior frame of the same material and glued it in place. The odd color that you see on the frame is actually the interior color. Since the frame on the exterior of the original windshield was painted the same as the rest of the airplane (red/orange) and the frame on the interior was painted as the interior, I had to put the interior color on first (because that would show inside) and then I will apply the exterior color over that (wha

). This is probably all wasted effort since I am going to fly this plane in Sport Scale. The interior is not judged in Sport Scale, so I am not going to put much effort there.
The spinner that you see is going to be the flying spinner, not the static spinner.

Photo 002 is a view down the right side of the airplane.
There are no louvers on the right side of the engine compartment.
The dzus faster openings can be seen here also.
The body looks a little bit pinched because I still need to flesh out the area below the cockpit. After that, I will get into the details of the wing and the landing gear.

Photo 003 is a view from the rear.
This view shows my iteration of the tailwheel (while not complete yet).Two things caught my eye about this airplane. It has the sexiest windshield and tailwheel. And yes, the real tailwheel rides on a bolt going through flats on two steel tubes (hey, it was the early 1930's).

Photo 004 is a right side view of the model. Obviously, it is still lacking landing gear strut covers and wheel pants (oh, and an exhaust stack. That will be fun). I think it is far better looking than the Piper Cub, which was it's competition (hey,it was the early 1930's).

Jim Fruit

wwwarbird · « **Reply #12 on:** January 04, 2013, 10:06:56 PM »

Very nice Jim, thanks for the pics and info, interesting stuff.

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #13 on:** January 05, 2013, 01:17:30 PM »

Thanks, Wayne.

JHF

Allen Goff · « **Reply #14 on:** January 05, 2013, 09:47:04 PM »

Looken good Jim, will you have it ready for the Nats?

Blessings
Allen

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #15 on:** January 06, 2013, 07:47:17 AM »

Quote from: Allen Goff on January 05, 2013, 09:47:04 PM

Looken good Jim, will you have it ready for the Nats?

Blessings
Allen

That is the plan, Allen. Actually I hope to have it finished by April/May. Then I can get in some practice time before the Nats. All I build for any more is the Nats, wouldn't miss it for anything.

Jim Fruit

MarcusCordeiro · « **Reply #16 on:** January 06, 2013, 03:33:38 PM »

That's simply great work!!
Lovin' it

Keerp those pics coming!!

Marcus

Brad Jungheim · « **Reply #17 on:** January 27, 2013, 06:50:41 PM »

I got a good look at this plane Saturday morning. It looks better in person then it does in the photos!
Great job Jim.

Avaiojet · « **Reply #18 on:** January 27, 2013, 11:57:08 PM »

Jim,

As usual, really nice work!

Are you using a round bellcrank?

Charles

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #19 on:** January 28, 2013, 06:43:07 AM »

Quote from: Brad Jungheim on January 27, 2013, 06:50:41 PM

I got a good look at this plane Saturday morning. It looks better in person then it does in the photos!
Great job Jim.

Thanks, Brad. The check is in the mail.

JHF

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #20 on:** January 28, 2013, 12:08:18 PM »

Quote from: Avaiojet on January 27, 2013, 11:57:08 PM

Jim,

As usual, really nice work!

Are you using a round bellcrank?

Charles

Charles:

No, I have never used a round bellcrank in 70-some years. It is a Brodack 4" fiber bellcrank. Fiber because I need it to be non-conductive.

JHF

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #21 on:** February 11, 2013, 03:39:41 PM »

Guys:

I am actually seeking your collective opinions with this one. I am at the point of creating the leadout guide for the Speedster. Once I complete that, I can cover the wing and then - here comes the color.

From a lot of the postings, I see the suggestion that one should attempt at least a two degree sweep back in the leadouts. In the past, I always built the removable leadouts so that they run straight out from the bellcrank, no sweep back. This caused no particular problem, but I can envision the advantage to the sweep back. I calculated the sine of the two degree angle times the approximate 30" of one half of the wingspan and came up with a 1" sweep back. Do you feel that the sweep back should apply to the leading lead out or to both? I plan on making the leadout guide adjustable, although I never needed that feature in past scale planes.

Another sort of crazy thought, can the two leadouts be collected together into one leadout port, with the leadout port itself being 1" behind the centerline of the bellcrank? This might give me some advantages in that the two flying lines are connected together, electronically, at each end of the wires. I could feed the two flying wires through a single port much easier than through two separate ports.

Your comments would be appreciated.

Jim Fruit

Joshua Harel · « **Reply #22 on:** February 17, 2013, 05:28:12 AM »

Hi Jim

On the question of line rake angle, here is an advice I got from Keith Trostle while corresponding regarding this very issue:

"I should have explained what I meant by line rake angle. That angle from the horizontal CG position is to locate the center point position between the two leadout guides. Just as a matter of convention, on a scale model that distance between the two leadout guides can be in the neighborhood of 1 inch. (On my stunt ships, I want that spacing to be aroun 3/4 inch."

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #23 on:** February 17, 2013, 08:09:23 AM »

Quote from: Joshua Harel on February 17, 2013, 05:28:12 AM

Hi Jim

On the question of line rake angle, here is an advice I got from Keith Trostle while corresponding regarding this very issue:

"I should have explained what I meant by line rake angle. That angle from the horizontal CG position is to locate the center point position between the two leadout guides. Just as a matter of convention, on a scale model that distance between the two leadout guides can be in the neighborhood of 1 inch. (On my stunt ships, I want that spacing to be aroun 3/4 inch."

Thanks for the response, Joshua. I also have since had quite a back and forth with Keith. He is a great teacher. Turns out I have been rather blindly locating my guides for reasons other than what is important. Some of my planes it worked out, others not so well. Per Keith's tutelage, I have fabricated my guide so that it is 1-1/4" behind the CG, slightly below the thrust line and is adjustable. More importantly, Keith put me onto a system that allows me to have my flying lines connected (electronically) at the end and still put the separate lines through separate eyelets. The eyelets are not completely closed, but rather are 450 degree loops in the wire guide. The loops are open at the top, allowing me to introduce the individual flying lines to the loops before it is mounted on the plane. Turn the guide 90 degrees and the flying lines are fixed in the loops. Neat!

Jim Fruit

Jim Kraft · « **Reply #24 on:** March 02, 2013, 03:02:40 PM »

Very neat job Jim. The first Rearwin model called the Ken-Royce was produced in a garage in Salina Kansas just 20 miles from where I live. Shortly after they moved to the Fairfax airport in KC KS where the Rearwin Speedster was built. We have a couple of R/C models of the Speedster flying in our club. Very pretty airplane.

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #25 on:** March 02, 2013, 03:29:24 PM »

Quote from: Jim Kraft on March 02, 2013, 03:02:40 PM

Very neat job Jim. The first Rearwin model called the Ken-Royce was produced in a garage in Salina Kansas just 20 miles from where I live. Shortly after they moved to the Fairfax airport in KC KS where the Rearwin Speedster was built. We have a couple of R/C models of the Speedster flying in our club. Very pretty airplane.

Thanks Jim:

The Speedster that I have chosen to replicate is the second one built. As I understand it, the first Speedster was cannibalized to build this second one. It used the Menasco engine, etc., from the first. Speedsters that were produced for sale used a Cirrus engine, making this particular Speedster very unique, indeed. That is what I like to do, find very unusual airplanes to build a scale model of. I found the original at the EAA convention. The grandson of Mr. Rearwin owns the original, and he had just had it restored. I don't believe he flys the airplane himself, however.

My model is in the painting stage. The basic color is a red-orange. The color does not cover well, so it currently looks very splotchey. Given enough coats, I have confidence it will cover eventually.

Jim Fruit

Jim Kraft · « **Reply #26 on:** March 02, 2013, 03:40:05 PM »

Yes Jim. I think it will cover ok with more coats. I have been told for red or yellow to use a white undercoat. I think the red orange of the Speedster would come under that also. Be sure to let us see it when finished, and thanks for letting us in on it so far. It sure is going to be pretty, and should be a great flyer.

Bill Little · « **Reply #27 on:** March 02, 2013, 06:32:25 PM »

It's looking great Jim!

BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #28 on:** May 05, 2013, 01:42:39 PM »

Hi Guys:

My Speedster is close enough now to post some color shots.

Picture one is of the left quarter. The propeller shown is the scale propeller with sleeves and tightening nuts exposed as per the real Speedster. I still have some details to complete such as exposed control cables, pitot tube and maybe an instrument panel even though it is not to be judged during competition. All of the cowling above the simulated hing line, including the windshield, slides forward to reveal the electric motor, controls, and batteries. The weight, as shown, minus the flight batteries. is five pounds eight ounces. The flight batteries are 13 ounces.

Picture three is of the right quarter.

Picture four is down the right wing. Sort of a mistake to take a picture like this because it distorts the image so much. Believe me, the wing is straight. The wing area is 4.4 sq. ft.

Picture five is the left quarter again only a little lower.In this view, you can see my location (in the silver stripe) for the Maxx Products safety switch. I now wish I had done something more innovative or hidden for the safety switch. For example, like pulling the door handle out about 1/4" to a stop arms the control system. I felt it best to arm the controls by pulling on the switch rather than pressing it in. At least now if it is accidentally bumped, it will fail in the "off" position. The control system is Clancy Arnold's "U-Tronics" system.

Picture seven is the right rear quarter. This shows (albeit not very well) some of the details at the rear. This includes some hand made springs and chains at the tail wheel assembly and hand made turnbuckles at the flying braces. The rudder is made solid in anticipation of being stronger in case of a nose over. Consequently, I depicted the simulation of a fabric covered structure by air brushing the shadows that would result from such a structure. This helped me locate the graphics of "Rearwin Speedster - Kansas City" on the rudder.

That is pretty much it. Except for the previously mentioned details, I will not be doing much more for this model. I am going to be remodeling my model workshop area soon, so I don't want to be in the middle of any projects during that time.

Jim Fruit

john e. holliday · « **Reply #29 on:** May 05, 2013, 02:33:11 PM »

If it flies as well as it looks, you have a winner.

Chris McMillin · « **Reply #30 on:** May 05, 2013, 05:29:45 PM »

It looks fabulous, Jim.
What is your flight test and practice plan? That'll be the winner's difference for the Nats.
Chris...

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #31 on:** May 05, 2013, 06:32:05 PM »

Quote from: Chris McMillin on May 05, 2013, 05:29:45 PM

It looks fabulous, Jim.
What is your flight test and practice plan? That'll be the winner's difference for the Nats.
Chris...

Chris:

I have the months of May and June, along with a scale contest in Wisconsin June 9. it was my intent all along to finish the plane in April, allowing two months for practice. As I mentioned before, I still have work to do, but it is details. Those should not affect any practice time. A day apiece should allow for those completions.

I do have to admit that I have in the past damaged a new plane two weeks before the Nats. That experience gives me some concerns about practicing now, but I will have to do it. On a positive note, I found out today that the model will fit in the back of my Prius without breaking down. The model is made to take apart.

JHF

Will Hinton · « **Reply #32 on:** May 05, 2013, 07:34:19 PM »

That is one fabulous looking ship!

Avaiojet · « **Reply #33 on:** May 05, 2013, 08:47:45 PM »

Quote from: Will Hinton on May 05, 2013, 07:34:19 PM

That is one fabulous looking ship!

WOW!

I'll say!

Charles

MarcusCordeiro · « **Reply #34 on:** May 06, 2013, 11:15:39 AM »

Outstanding!!

Marcus

Mark Scarborough · « **Reply #35 on:** May 06, 2013, 04:00:10 PM »

very nice,

afml · « **Reply #36 on:** May 06, 2013, 04:41:42 PM »

AWESOME JOB!
Congrats Jim!

A winner fer sure!

"Tight lines!"

Wes

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #37 on:** May 09, 2013, 06:01:47 PM »

Thanks for all of the kind words guys.

Jim Fruit

wwwarbird · « **Reply #38 on:** May 09, 2013, 09:44:31 PM »

Looks great Jim, another masterpiece.

Avaiojet · « **Reply #39 on:** May 10, 2013, 04:09:41 PM »

Jim,

Really nice!

I wish you could get in tighter on your shots, I just noticed the detail in the left running light.

Be interesting to know more about the construction of detail like that?

Kudos!!

Charles

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #40 on:** May 10, 2013, 04:50:04 PM »

Charles:

My attempt in this case was to get pictures of the entire model for posting here. No extreme closeups. Consequently some detail will be lost, like the functioning aluminum louvers on the left side of the cowl, the dzus fasteners for attaching the cowl and the springs and chains for steadying the tail wheel. I get the detail shots when I am photographing the real airplane for inclusion into a static judging booklet. The running lights are just 1/4" turned dowels, rounded on the front, tapered on the back. You noticed the left running light, but I am surprised that you did not notice that there was no running light on the rudder. I built the entire airplane using 3-1/2 by 5 prints of the detail photographs. I thought it was odd that I did not see a white light on the rudder. Just yesterday, I blew up the photographs to 8-1/2 by 11 and bingo!, there it was. It is already on the model, but it was a little harder because I had edged the rudder with stainless steel music wire for durability. I don't know how I missed it, just getting old I guess.

JHF

Avaiojet · « **Reply #41 on:** May 10, 2013, 06:26:17 PM »

Jim,

I for one would like to see close ups.

Are you planning on that?

Really, really nice job!!

Charles

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #42 on:** September 02, 2013, 08:23:39 AM »

Hi guys:

I just had to tell you this one! I attended the Treetown club contest yesterday. After static judging, it became time to do the flying. Charlie Bauer flew his planes and then it was my turn. I carried my Rearwin Speedster and control box/handle to the circle and immediately got my butt chewed by the judges for not having not have an assistant to hold the plane once it was armed (it is electric). I have three arming switches with the last one at the handle (but that is another conversation). The real story here is that I performed a take off and was one lap into the ten level laps when, ping!, the down line let go from the handle. The plane turned immediately up, but did not loop. I was only doing about 1/3 to 1/2 throttle for the level laps, and the result was that the plane continued around the circle, literally hanging on the prop. So now I had a plane on the end of the lines with literally no control due to only one connected line. Have you ever had that feeling? The no control was not literally true, however. Remember, this plane is electric. I still had throttle control. The line popped while the plane was approaching the western part of the circle. The wind was blowing from the north. I was able to use Clancy Arnold's control system to bring the engine speed down slowly such that when the plane came into the wind it was literally hovering. I lightly touched the tail wheel down and then the main wheels. The plane rolled about six inches and there was no damage! Electrics forever!

Autopsy: it was totally my fault. I had used a Brodak handle and a Circuit City project box to build the handle. To provided electrical isolation between the flying lines, I had removed the adjusting bar from the Brodak handle. I then ground the threads off of the two bolts and drilled holes in those bolts to attach the flying lines to. This provided the electrical isolation that I needed. However, after many NATS pull tests and many practice flights, the remaining metal must have fatigued and it let go. I have to get better at this.

Jim Fruit

john e. holliday · « **Reply #43 on:** September 02, 2013, 09:27:54 AM »

I am glad it is still in one piece. Was you the only one without a person to hold for your plane while you went to the handle?

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #44 on:** September 02, 2013, 10:30:04 AM »

Quote from: john e. holliday on September 02, 2013, 09:27:54 AM

I am glad it is still in one piece. Was you the only one without a person to hold for your plane while you went to the handle?

Yes, John, I was the only one. I also was the only all-electric entry. There were offers by the other contestants to help, but I told them that I could handle it. It actually is the method that I use to practice with the plane. I can fly by myself at the nearby school ground or I can drive about 60 miles one way to fly with club members. Consequently I designed the airplane with three on/off switches. The first is a safety switch between the battery and the ESC. I plug that in first. Second, the pulling of the door handle out about 1/4" arms the on board control electronics. I arm that second. Finally, a switch at the flight box on the control handle arms the entire system. Nothing can happen until I arm the switch at the control handle. There is an audible "beep" when I arm that switch so that I know all is ready. I then control all of the flight functions from potentiometers contained in that box at the handle.

I am aware of the rule that is forthcoming (it currently is not included in the scale rules). I believe that some of the stunt boys have set their planes up with a timer to start and stop the motor at preset times in their planes. I use the potentiometers for this purpose. I can envision where some stunt ships were set up with the timer to start a certain amount of time after connecting the battery to the ESC, giving the pilot time to get to the handle. Apparently PAMPA has said something like "no, don't do that, hang on to the plane". Now that I think about, the potentiometers are the fourth means of control in my system. Nothing happens until I get through the initiation of all four safety devices. I am not sure that we have thought this safety issue completely through as yet

JHF

Bill Little · « **Reply #45 on:** September 02, 2013, 11:34:08 AM »

Hi Jim,

I am happy for you that the model suffered no damage! Get that weak link in the handle/lines solved and have fun in scale! Awesome looking model.

BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM

Fred Cronenwett · « **Reply #46 on:** September 02, 2013, 12:24:14 PM »

I use a shorting plug with my electric RV-4 to arm the system. Batteries are installed in the fuselage then put the wing back on. When you are ready to fly, turn on the 2.4 Ghz transmitter, install the shorting plug and the airplane is armed. At the Nats this year I had someone hold the model until I was I at the handle and ready to go.

Glad to hear the model survived....always scary when that happens.

I use a similar arming plug like this one to arm the system on the RV-4, until that is plugged in the system is dead. With 2.4 Ghz just make sure the transmitter is turned on first, then arm the model. Then when you are done, dis-arm the model first, and then turn the transmitter off. I use the BEC portion from the speed control to feed power to the receiver. My B-29 does not have a shorting plug since the batteries are external. Once you plug the #4 battery to the ESC the system is armed. When the flight is done, the #4 battery is unplugged and the system is dead.

http://www.hobby-lobby.com/armsafe_kit_10_guage_1037031_prd1.htm?pSearchQueryId=4471371

Pick the proper gauge wire for your purposes, they have 10, 12 and 14 gauge.

Glad to hear everything is ok,
Fred

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #47 on:** September 02, 2013, 01:59:33 PM »

Quote from: Fred Cronenwett on September 02, 2013, 12:24:14 PM

I use a shorting plug with my electric RV-4 to arm the system. Batteries are installed in the fuselage then put the wing back on. When you are ready to fly, turn on the 2.4 Ghz transmitter, install the shorting plug and the airplane is armed. At the Nats this year I had someone hold the model until I was I at the handle and ready to go.

Glad to hear the model survived....always scary when that happens.

I use a similar arming plug like this one to arm the system on the RV-4, until that is plugged in the system is dead. With 2.4 Ghz just make sure the transmitter is turned on first, then arm the model. Then when you are done, dis-arm the model first, and then turn the transmitter off. I use the BEC portion from the speed control to feed power to the receiver. My B-29 does not have a shorting plug since the batteries are external. Once you plug the #4 battery to the ESC the system is armed. When the flight is done, the #4 battery is unplugged and the system is dead.

http://www.hobby-lobby.com/armsafe_kit_10_guage_1037031_prd1.htm?pSearchQueryId=4471371

Pick the proper gauge wire for your purposes, they have 10, 12 and 14 gauge.

Glad to hear everything is ok,
Fred

Thanks, Fred. I believe the answer will be to simply use someone to hold to satisfy the proposed rule. This is even though it is electronically impossible for my airplane to move or start unless I tell it to do so from the handle. No one even needs to be near the airplane. However, I have always stated "just tell me the rules and I will comply". If such a rule is incorporated, I believe even your B-29 will require someone to hold it.

The arming plug that you show is similar to the one I use between the battery and the ESC. I have a stock of the proper gauge wires. I use silicone wire for flexibility.

JHF

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #48 on:** September 02, 2013, 06:11:15 PM »

Quote from: Fred Cronenwett Batteries are installed in the fuselage then put the wing back on.
Fred
[/quote

Fred:

When you enclose the batteries by placing the wing, do you fly more than one flight sequence or do you change batteries each time?

Jim Fruit

Fred Cronenwett · « **Reply #49 on:** September 02, 2013, 07:31:58 PM »

I can only get one flight per charge of the batteries. Because the batteries are inside the fuselage, I would keep the wing off and then put the wing on and then fly right away before I had the shorting plug. I wanted to be able to install the batteries, install the wing without having the system armed ready to go. By putting shorting plug I was able to install the batteries, get the airplane fully assembled and then maybe an hour later, install the shorting plug and arm the system.

After the flight was over then I could take out the shorting plug and did not have to rush to get the batteries out of the fuselage since the system was not armed.

The shorting plug simply disconnected one of the wires that went to the battery was you well know. Gave me some security that the batteries were not being drained and the system was not armed.

Fred

Clancy Arnold · « **Reply #50 on:** September 02, 2013, 09:24:00 PM »

Jim
Congratulations on your Second Place finish at the Tree Town Contest in CL Sport Scale!

When Jim and I both left the contest they were to mail out score sheets to us. The wife and I found a good restaurant "Mothers" about three miles from the field. After lunch the wife and I went back to the field and I picked up my score sheets. I was glad to hear that Jim had finished in Second Place in Sport Scale with the Rearwin Speedster, another Jim Fruit museum quality model. Static Score was 98 from both judges.

Now for the shocker. I had entered my 1914 Jeannin Stahltaube and after the ten laps I started loosing elevator control do to the control cables having stretched. This gave me a wide neutral zone on the elevator. When I did an unplanned touch and go I lost the right wheel ending my day. My static scores were 98 and 97 for an official static score of 97.5. 1/2 point behind Jim on the ground. Then we both had trouble in flight and we ended with identical flight scores so I finished in Third Place.

Congratulations Jim. To show how surprised I was to get Third Place I forgot to ask who WON!

After I had problems with my original used OS FS91 engine in the Taube at the 2011 and 2012 NATS Jim gave me a NIB OS FS91 engine that runs perfect. Engine problems solved. So I run an engine from Jim and he uses U/Tronics Controls from me.
Clancy

john e. holliday · « **Reply #51 on:** September 03, 2013, 11:03:47 AM »

You guys need to team up.

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #52 on:** September 03, 2013, 06:09:42 PM »

Quote from: john e. holliday on September 03, 2013, 11:03:47 AM

You guys need to team up.

There is an event called Team Scale, but Clancy and I would not be able to determine who would have to fly.

JHF

Clancy Arnold · « **Reply #53 on:** September 03, 2013, 09:07:05 PM »

Doc, Jim
That would be an easy decision, it would be Jim! Reason, my Parkinsons. My Taube was porpoising Sunday. Was it caused by a tail heavy model or my medical problem?
It never did that before Sunday! I will check to see if the CG has changed.
Clancy

Clancy Arnold · « **Reply #54 on:** September 07, 2013, 08:36:38 PM »

I received this information from Jim Renkar.
OK Here are the standings

Sport Scale
1 Charlie Bauer
2 Jim Fruit
3 Clancy Arnold
4 Jeff Jenson
5 Jim Jenson

Profile Scale
1 Pete Bauer
2 Jeff Jenson
3 Charlie Bauer
4 Jim Jenson

I did not receive any information on the 1/2 A Scale event results.
Clancy

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #55 on:** July 13, 2014, 05:07:48 PM »

Guys:

One last thing about my Rearwin Speedster. The old girl did it. That is, High Static at this years Nats. 98 out of a possible 100 points. And that was with some very stiff competition. There is something to be said for a simple, detailed airplane.

Jim Fruit

Wayne J. Buran · « **Reply #56 on:** July 13, 2014, 06:08:14 PM »

Jim, well done.
Wayne

john e. holliday · « **Reply #57 on:** July 14, 2014, 02:06:09 PM »

That is great news. Hopefully the flying went well with it.

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #58 on:** July 14, 2014, 06:36:10 PM »

Quote from: john e. holliday on July 14, 2014, 02:06:09 PM

That is great news. Hopefully the flying went well with it.

Doc:

The posted results are listed elsewhere here by Fred Cronenwett. I sort of shot myself in the foot when it came to flying. The plane flew well, but I posted only 77 points. I did not feel well on the Saturday that we flew, so I advised the judges that I would not be doing the high flight maneuver. I get dizzy anyway when I do that maneuver, and I did not want to wind up on the pavement. That cost me a maximum of 10 points. That did not worry me too much because we had a chance to do three more flights to attempt a better score, maybe even try some high flight. But, as it worked out, AMA shut us down for the afternoon flying due to approaching storms. The same thing was forecast on Sunday, so we never flew again. I finished third. Second place beat me by 1/2 point. First place (John Brodak) beat me by 12 points. I don't think I could have caught him if we flew any more.

JHF

john e. holliday · « **Reply #59 on:** July 15, 2014, 12:16:54 PM »

That was bad that Mother Nature or AMA turned the NATS on you guys. I have just caught up on the NATS News on the AMA site. Scale has to be one of the hardest events to fly. Had the pleasure of watching scale competition at Brodaks.

Bill Little · « **Reply #60 on:** July 16, 2014, 02:03:32 PM »

Hi Jim,

Congratulations on your third place finish! You're right, there is a lot to say for a simple well detailed model.

Bill