Author Topic: My latest butcher job (AKA C45) (Read 2049 times)

Jim Fruit · « **on:** August 31, 2011, 04:38:53 PM »

Guys:

Enclosed are pictures of my C 45 at about a 30% stage. I thought that I would save time and not draw a complete set of plans for this project. B-i-i-i-g mistake. I am using a set of Paul Matt drawings for the geometry and I'm just drawing the parts directly on the wood for cut out. The only thing is, the wing is just about the most difficult wing that I have built. I originally was considering one of Bob Hunt's foam wings, but the geometry would not allow it. The bottom surface of the wing is an even dihedral from the body to the wing tip (after a flat portion under the body). The top of the wing is a different dihedral from the body to the engine nacelles, and then it increases in dihedral on it's way to the tip. Too many angles to be practical in foam. Add to this the fact that the landing gear need to be vertical to the ground, the real engine nacelles cant 4 degrees outward and I wanted the motors to have 2 degrees right thrust, and you have a geometry nightmare. You can probably see some of this effort in the photos in that the motors appear to be mounted to the left of center. This is because the firewalls are canted 2 degrees right thrust. I can guarantee you that the motors are at centerline at the point on the shaft where the propellers are.

In Matt's drawings, the wing and body have one reference line and the engine nacelles have another. Rather than have either one be the control line, I established a separate build line, which happened to be a body joint immediately above the rows of windows on the fuselage side. Then, to make it easier to build everything as square as possible and at the correct reference line, I drew the centerlines directly on my fire door work bench. I then glued the fuselage sides directly to my work bench over those lines. Now it stays in place while I do the measuring and level work necessary to accomplish all of the crazy geometry. As you can see from the pictures, I am building it up side down. I eventually will plank the wings with 3/32" balsa. I first have to incorporate power wires, signal wires and retract cables before planking.

Wish me luck, this one is more of a stinker than I thought it would be.

Jim Fruit

John Witt · « **Reply #1 on:** August 31, 2011, 07:41:59 PM »

I'm looking forward to following your build, Jim. The C-45/D-18 is one of my favorite planes, but is a difficult subject. I have the Paul Matt books and keep them near the dinner table for thumbing through and day-dreaming.

There is a beautiful yellow and white D-18 at the NASM that I've drooled over for years. I first saw that plane when the NASM had just opened and they had it parked on the first floor.

BTW, the Jenny's conversion to the dark side is complete, first flight in a couple of weeks.

John Witt

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #2 on:** August 31, 2011, 08:27:08 PM »

John:

The colors I have selected are white and day glow orange. I have found three subjects that are colored in that manner that are painted as if they were stationed at Pensacola NAS. For a while I had a tough time finding subjects. Then when I picked one of the three, there no less than five at the EAA Airventure. I have lots of pictures.

Jenny to the dark side? Are you talking R/C? Nooo!

JHF

wwwarbird · « **Reply #3 on:** August 31, 2011, 10:46:05 PM »

Very neat model Jim and cool subject, I'll have to keep an eye on this one.

What are those blue things hanging on the firewalls, some sort of building weights?

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #4 on:** September 01, 2011, 07:38:50 AM »

Funny.

I lost my flying buddy. So, I have had to go to all electric so that I could fly alone.

JHF

wwwarbird · « **Reply #5 on:** September 02, 2011, 10:02:01 PM »

Just razzin' ya with that one Jim. What about a stooge?

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #6 on:** September 03, 2011, 11:02:40 AM »

I know, Wayne, I truly thought that was funny.

I have never considered a stooge. I fly virtually all scale now, with taxi practicing, on all asphalt, etc. So I don't know if a stooge will work for my applications. To tell the truth, I avoided electrics until just recently. I just did not want to learn a new system after all of these years. But after about ten years of no activity due to no one to fly with, I realized that electrics just might be the answer. Now I wish that I had bothered to learn about electrics back then. The old "day late and dollar short" proves itself again.

Jim Fruit

wwwarbird · « **Reply #7 on:** September 03, 2011, 06:23:30 PM »

Sounds good Jim, keep us posted on the build!

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #8 on:** September 23, 2011, 08:35:06 PM »

Attached are some photos of my C 45 at the about 40% completion stage. Wow, about a month has passed since the last post and I have only gained about 10% (just a guess). This scale building is slow. Pictures 1 and 3 show some of the internal plumbing that has been installed. Power silicone wires (red and grey)run from the two motors, behind the leading edge, to the front of the body. These will be hard soldered to the ESC's. Disconnects are at the motors.

The two retract servos are installed along with the cables that actuate the retracts. One of the servos does double duty in that it retracts the tail wheel also. It all works surprisingly well. Too bad I have to remove the landing gear in the future to complete the scale detail. I have to install the two flap servos yet. They will be much smaller than the retract servos due to the lighter load.

I had to skin the wings before I could start the flap mechanism. Picture 4 shows the model with the bottoms of the wings skinned. Picture 5 shows an upper wing skin prior to being placed. I am not breaking new ground here, I am sure that you all have used these methods. I create the wing skins by using 3" by 3/32" sheet. I go with that thickness allowing a removal of 1/32" by sanding to remove imperfections and leaving 1/16" thickness. I straighten the edges of the 3" sheet by sanding on the edge of my work bench. I then tape the straight edges together for wider sheets or irregular shapes and then bend the tape by folding the balsa sheets together. Then a small amount of carpenters glue is applied to that open joint and then the joint is closed back together. Some glue will squeeze out, but you can wipe off the excess with your finger. I weight that joint so that It will stay flat while curing. Then, once the fabricated sheet is fitted to fit it's position, I wet the side that is to be exposed (one side only). That causes the fabricated sheet to curl away from the wetted side as seen on picture 5. Depending upon the amount of wetting and the amount of time that passes before the sheet is glued down, the real task may become being able to get the sheet down tightly enough with tape and pins. Picture 7 shows the sheet after it has been applied and trimmed. Now I have to apply the 1/2" leading edge, the trailing edge flaps and ailerons and the wing tips.

That is enough for now. I hope I have not bored you too much.

Jim Fruit

john e. holliday · « **Reply #9 on:** September 24, 2011, 08:27:52 AM »

This is looking great.

Clancy Arnold · « **Reply #10 on:** September 24, 2011, 08:27:09 PM »

Jim
Looking good!
Looks like another keeper.
Clancy

wwwarbird · « **Reply #11 on:** September 27, 2011, 09:23:15 PM »

Quote from: Ty Marcucci on September 25, 2011, 11:01:46 AM

Not at all boring. Second only to watching naked ladies cavorting across my screen, I love to see model planes during their constuction phase.

HA!

Don Hutchinson AMA5402 · « **Reply #12 on:** October 03, 2011, 09:35:52 AM »

If you paint it in Navy colors would it not then be an SNB??
Don

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #13 on:** October 03, 2011, 10:34:45 AM »

Quote from: Don Hutchinson AMA5402 on October 03, 2011, 09:35:52 AM

If you paint it in Navy colors would it not then be an SNB??
Don

Don:
The services had many designations, depending on service. Many were were used for navigation training, some for bombardier training, etc. For the bombardier training, they put a bulbous clear lexan nose on the plane that absolutely ruined its looks. The model that I have selected to do was used for navigational training, it's designation was a C45J navigator.

When I was considering doing this subject, I had a heck of a time finding photographs for detail. I did find a C45J in the Naval Air Museum in Pensacola, Florida. I went down there to take photographs, only to find that they had hung it 20 feet in the air in one of their buildings. I took a lot of pictures of the bottom of the airplane. Then I got lucky and found another (tail number 9585) that had been restored, is painted the same way and is in in flying condition (and is for sale). Five other C45's and D18's showed up at EAA's Airventure this year also, so I have a ton of detail shots. The subject I have selected is painted the Navy training colors used in the 50's and 60's. That is, white with day-glow orange nose, wing tips and tail.

I have selected to do 585 in particular because I have several runway shots of the airplane that will satisfy the static book requirements of scale judging. I got blindly lucky in selecting 585 because, upon blowing up the photographs, I notice that the restorer of the original aircraft had removed all of the main and tail wheel landing gear doors. That means one less function for me to worry about in the "retract gear" sequence.

I am sorry, you pose a question about numeric designation and I rattle on about my life's history.

Jim Fruit

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #14 on:** October 03, 2011, 10:46:10 AM »

Speaking of a day late and a dollar short, and forgive me for mentioning this after it's too late to help:

Couldn't you do the wing with four pieces of foam? One piece on each side out to the nacelle, then one piece for the outboard panel?

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #15 on:** October 03, 2011, 12:13:56 PM »

Quote from: Tim Wescott on October 03, 2011, 10:46:10 AM

Speaking of a day late and a dollar short, and forgive me for mentioning this after it's too late to help:

Couldn't you do the wing with four pieces of foam? One piece on each side out to the nacelle, then one piece for the outboard panel?

Tim:
I considered that. It actually would be five pieces of foam. The portion in the body would be what I call "flat", but airfoiled shape. Then the two pieces from the body to the engine nacelles would be with differing dihedral. Then the pieces from the nacelles to the wing tip are the same dihedral on the bottom but different on the top. Add to that the fact that the three center pieces were going to be only 4" each in length and I was concerned that it might be rather weak (too many joints).

It is framed up now anyway. One wing is complete with sheeted surface and leading edge and the fabric covered flying surfaces are framed. Starting to look like and airplane and not just a balsa box.

Jim Fruit

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #16 on:** October 03, 2011, 01:10:31 PM »

Framed up, and probably looking good -- if you've made progress since the 23rd could you post some pictures?

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #17 on:** October 03, 2011, 04:12:40 PM »

Quote from: Tim Wescott on October 03, 2011, 01:10:31 PM

Framed up, and probably looking good -- if you've made progress since the 23rd could you post some pictures?

Tim:
Not much to show, too short of a time period. 001 shows the left wing sort of "fleshed out" (leading edge, wing tip, and flying surfaces in place). 002 shows the addition of the flaps servo (the small one). 003 shows the flap in the take off position. I still have to figure out how the single servo will connect to the independent flaps in a very short distance (1/2" +/-).

JHF

Allen Goff · « **Reply #18 on:** October 04, 2011, 08:14:39 AM »

Looken pretty good Jim. Do you think it will be done for the "Nats" next year? Keep the photo's coming.

Blessings
Allen

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #19 on:** October 04, 2011, 11:02:12 AM »

Quote from: Allen Goff on October 04, 2011, 08:14:39 AM

Looken pretty good Jim. Do you think it will be done for the "Nats" next year? Keep the photo's coming.

Blessings
Allen

Allen:

That is the plan, Allen. I started it immediately after this year's Nats. I hope to have it framed up before the end of this year. That should leave me plenty of time to apply the finish before spring. I have always considered that a plane ready for finish is about 50% complete. Since my Super Solution did so poorly at this year's Nats, I needed a new plane. Those blasted soft Dave Brown wheels would not let the Solution taxi. I could hog it off the ground, but it would not taxi. Basically, that is why I gave it to the EAA museum.

JHF

Avaiojet · « **Reply #20 on:** October 26, 2011, 01:56:56 PM »

Jim,

When I get a chance I'll read all the Thread.

Wish this was gas.

CB

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #21 on:** October 26, 2011, 06:19:00 PM »

CB:

There is a reason that this one is not gas. I lost my flying buddy about ten years ago and there was a long hiatus with no activity because I could not fly alone. I had avoided electrics because I really did not want to learn a new phase of the hobby. I finally realized that electrics would allow me to fly by myself. I tried it and am now going completely electric. This C-45 probably could not be done in gas at the scale I have chosen (1" = 1', 48" wingspan). I don't think there would have been room for fuel tanks andretracts in the cowlings. As it is, it is the proverbial 10 pounds in a 5 pound bag.

JHF

Fred Cronenwett · « **Reply #22 on:** October 26, 2011, 08:03:19 PM »

I agree with your decision to go electric.

After flying glow power for all these years I have now flown 3 models with brushless electric power and am now considering projects that I never would have considered with glow power. My RV-4 flies with an E-32 electric power and the lack of holes for a muffler in the cowl is very nice.

I will be converting the E-Flite AT-6 ARF for Control Line Fun scale and what I found interesting is that the ARF is designed for electric and you would have to modify the kit to put a glow engine in the model.

A british designer has Short Sunderland plans and does not recommend glow power for the model and only recommends electric power, 10 years ago you had to modify kits from glow to electric, now some kits and plans have to be modified from electric to glow power, the tables have turned.

Once you fly electric it's hard to build another glow powered model. I have two projects for next year that will be electric.

Fred C.

John Rist · « **Reply #23 on:** October 27, 2011, 08:20:33 AM »

I have just gotten into electric scale. The lack of nitro to destroy your finish in-itself is reason to convert to electric scale. I love it! By the way do you plan to use Clancy multichannel controll? looking forward to more build photos.

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #24 on:** October 27, 2011, 09:49:04 AM »

Quote from: John Rist on October 27, 2011, 08:20:33 AM

I have just gotten into electric scale. The lack of nitro to destroy your finish in-itself is reason to convert to electric scale. I love it! By the way do you plan to use Clancy multichannel controll? looking forward to more build photos.

John:

The cleanliness, the no losing of an engine at the wrong time, there are many reasons to go electric. Not that I have anything against gas, I flew it for over 50 years. It is just that electric opened many options for me. I think it is THE only way to do multi-engines.

Yes, I am using Clancy' system. It is the system that I pulled out of my Super Solution when I donated it to the EAA museum. I am currently using it on my table to set ranges of motion for retracts, flaps, and of course, throttles. I am no electronics expert, but Clancy has talked me through setting up the systems. Clancy's stuff is great.

I will be posting some more photos soon. I want to complete the wiring first. I have the nose cone fiberglassed, it doesn't look so much like a balsa box any more.

Jim Fruit

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #25 on:** October 29, 2011, 06:00:27 PM »

Guys:

This is my latest post on the construction of my C-45. Below are some attached photos of the progress.

Photo 002 shows how I started the shaping of the nose bowl. I cut crutches to the shape of the bowl both horizontal and vertical. After gluing those together, I glued bulkheads in place at approximately 1" centers. Then, in between the bulkheads, I glued styrofoam fillers with carpenter's glue. I prefer those glues because they sand better than epoxy or polyiscocyanurate. After all was dry, I carved and sanded the foam to create the appropriate nose bowl shape.

Photo 006 shows the shaped bowl after I applied two layers of 2 ounce fiberglass and polyester resin. I created a joint about the mid point of the nose bowl. I did that so that the nose tip is removable for access to the more remote electronics. I hollowed the larger part of the bowl and left the styro in the smaller part. Once I had that completed, I felt more comfortable with completing the somewhat buried wiring.

Photo 003 shows the interior wiring from below the airplane. I see a lot of pictures where the guys have arranged their wiring so neatly. How in the world do they do that?

Photo 004 shows more of the same from a slightly different angle. The twisted mess of wires more towards the rear of the airplane all has to be shortened. These all attach to Clancy's control system. His decoder will be the farthest thing back in the space where the top hatch will open from above.

Photo 005 is looking at the same space, only from above the airplane. You actually are looking at where the battery will sit. There will be a platform for that purpose. I will have to see how the plane balances before I locate it however. You can also see how I created the flaps control. It was sort of fun in that not only was there dihedral to deal with, but the flaps also swept forward. Don't worry, it works well. The square brass blocks actually slide on the horizontal bars as the flaps move. I have tested all of the functions with the battery in the plane, Clancy's decoder laying on the table, and using my current slide pot handle to create the motion. Those little motors really scream!

Photo 006 is a view to show the cosmetics completed to date. I think I will see more progress now that most of the interior wiring is done. The bottom of the plane is primarily flat with some rounding more towards the tail. The top is rounded at the edges, I intend to do it in the same manner as the nose bowl. I will also do the nacelles the same way. The current weight with all of the components in place is 45 ounces. I am hoping for about 5 pounds complete.

Enough for now. More in a month or two.

Jim Fruit

wwwarbird · « **Reply #26 on:** October 29, 2011, 08:04:55 PM »

Looking really good!

Will Hinton · « **Reply #27 on:** October 30, 2011, 01:58:27 PM »

I really love watching builds of ships I'm going to get to watch at the nats!! Come on guys, how about a few more of us doing this?

This rascal is looking absolutely super!

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #28 on:** October 30, 2011, 03:29:07 PM »

Thanks, Will.

JHF

Avaiojet · « **Reply #29 on:** October 30, 2011, 07:30:20 PM »

Jim,

Real nice work. same aircraft as the Beech 18. Correct?

Your flaps and ailerons, fabrick covered?

I've had plans for that model for years. Your build is inspiring me.

CB

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #30 on:** October 30, 2011, 08:45:36 PM »

Quote from: Avaiojet on October 30, 2011, 07:30:20 PM

Jim,

Real nice work. same aircraft as the Beech 18. Correct?

Your flaps and ailerons, fabrick covered?

I've had plans for that model for years. Your build is inspiring me.

CB

CB:

Yes, the original aircraft is the Beech D-18. The Navy used it for navigation training and designated it the C-45J.

The flaps, ailerons and eventually the elevator and rudders are going to be fabric covered. That is the way the real plane was and I think it looks more correct to build as the original. The balance of the airplane was aluminum.

If you have plans, you have a big leg up. I decided to do this one rather smallish (48" w.s., 1" to the foot scale). It turns out that size is rather small for incorporation of all of the functions. I decided that, rather than draw a complete set of plans, I would just incorporate the information from a set of Paul Matt 3-views that I had directly onto the balsa. It has worked OK but one of the surprises that I ran into was that the wings have no less than six dihedral breaks (4 on top and 2 on the bottom) in the wing surfaces. In spite of this, the trailing edges were straight. The net result of this was that this was one of the toughest wing builds that I ever experienced. I don't know for sure, but I can imagine that some plans providers might simplify the wing by making it a single dihedral slope, root to tip. It would simplify the construction, but it would not be scale. I know, picky, picky.

JHF

John Rist · « **Reply #31 on:** October 31, 2011, 06:13:32 PM »

The original aircraft is the Beech D-18. The Navy used it for navigation training and designated it the C-45J.

This brought to mind a story my Dad told me about the C-45J. My father was a German immigrant that came to this country after WW I. At the start of WW II he was working at the Jax Naval Air base, Jax Florida. During the war he was not able to serve the US because he was born in Germany. After the war was over he was allowed to join the Navil Reserve at Jax. As you may well expect their was lots of Navy Reserve pilots on the base. They mainly flew East Coast patrols.

Any way this brings us to the story. Pop loved to fly so he would go out with the Navy pilots during weekend reserve meetings. On this particle flight they were coming back in a C-45J. Shortly after landing one of the engines broke a motor mount and sagged. Being a shop supervisor he and the crew rolled the aircraft into the hanger and inspected it. They also inspected all of the motor mounts on the C-45Js on base. They found numerous cracked motor mounts.

At this point in time they called in the Beech engineers to see what was going on. Pop and the engineer was going over the plane when the engineer spotted a hole in the floor with a hinged basket mounted in the hole. A string lead from the basket to the pilot’s seat. Beech engineer asked Pop what is this? Pop explained that it was a practice bomb bay. They would go out over the ocean, drop a dye marker. Some one would lay in the floor of the C-45J and load 5-lb. practice bombs into rack. The pilot would then dive bomb the dye marker by aiming the noise of the Beech at the target and pulling the string to flip the basket releasing the bomb.

The Beech engineer said, “ DON’T DO THAT ANYMORE” and went home.

Pop is long gone and I was around 10 when I heard the story making the story 60 years old. Pop could have made it up but I doubt it!

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #32 on:** October 31, 2011, 07:58:15 PM »

John:

So great to hear that bit of history about your Pop and the airplane. It is so believable because they were so young then. Can't you just envision a bunch of teens and 20 year olds coming up with that sort of mischief? Actually, I was envisioning the whole process while reading your story. There are two hatches in the bottom of the airplane that access directly to the interior. It was common for the crew to open these hatches for ventilation during the warm months. My detail photos show the plane on the runway with both of these hatches open.

Jim Fruit

Avaiojet · « **Reply #33 on:** November 05, 2011, 08:08:08 PM »

Jim,

Been doing a bit of reviewing. I have many photos of the Beech 18.

I have not yet seen one with fabric control surfaces?

How did you come buy that for your model?

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #34 on:** November 05, 2011, 09:22:30 PM »

Quote from: Avaiojet on November 05, 2011, 08:08:08 PM

Jim,

Been doing a bit of reviewing. I have many photos of the Beech 18.

I have not yet seen one with fabric control surfaces?

How did you come buy that for your model?

CB:

At the EAA Airventure in Oshkosh this year I did see a restored Canadian Air Force C45 with aluminum covered flaps. I suppose they did that to make the flaps more rigid. They do take a severe load. All of the balance of the moving surfaces of that airplane were fabric covered. The plane was polished aluminum. The fabric covered areas were painted silver.

I am not modeling that subject, however. I am doing a replication of a restored U S Navy C45J, tail number 9585. All of my photographs that I will use in my documentation booklet will be of 9585 and it shows all fabric covered movable surfaces. I am also using Paul Matt drawings for the required three-views for my documentation booklet. He depicted all movable surfaces as fabric covered and, in fact, shows the rib spacing for all of those surfaces. His three-views includes the note "All movable flying surfaces fabric covered". This is why I have selected to do those surfaces per the documentation that I have.

There may have been some restorations in which the restorers might have applied aluminum surfacing to those surfaces (such as the Canadian plane above). This also shows why it is important to have documentation for the specific airplane that you want to replicate. To build a favorite first and then try to find specific documentation later can often be chancy. Particularly with military airplanes where they were often modified after manufacture. A good share of the fun of scale building can be the research that it takes to obtain the required documentation for a specific airplane. I took a two-week vacation this spring to the gulf coast to take pictures of a restored C45J (and catch a few casinos on the way).

Jim Fruit

Avaiojet · « **Reply #35 on:** November 06, 2011, 03:31:24 PM »

Jim,

Did some more digging. you are correct. All production aircraft had fabric covered control surfaces.

What will you do about rivet detail? How far will you take it?

Did you know about the tri-gear tri-rudder Beech 45?

CB

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #36 on:** November 06, 2011, 05:15:07 PM »

Quote from: Avaiojet on November 06, 2011, 03:31:24 PM

Jim,

Did some more digging. you are correct. All production aircraft had fabric covered control surfaces.

What will you do about rivet detail? How far will you take it?

Did you know about the tri-gear tri-rudder Beech 45?

CB

CB:

At the scale I have chosen (1" to the foot) the size of the rivets in model form are so small that I believe they would be inneffective. Most of the rivets on the actual plane are small to start with (3/16" or so). A 3/16" rivet in a 1" scale would be less that two hundredths of an inch in diameter. Not only would that be almost impossible to replicate, but as you know, the real airplane is just fraught with raised rivets. I am afraid that the effort of trying to put so many small rivets on the model just might ruin the effort to finish the model. All of my documentation photos are taken at a distance such that the whole airplane is viewable from many different angles. The basic airplane is painted white. In none of the documentation photos are any of the rivets even noticeable. I have used rivets on some of my larger scale models. My Super Solution that went to the EAA museum was built at 2-1/2" to the foot. It had rivets (the white glue method), nuts, bolts, etc. I might experiment with some pencil work simulation on a test board, but I have my doubts.

A tricycle Beech? Yuckey! However, those are just the unusual sorts that I like to model (if I can find enough detail).

JHF

Avaiojet · « **Reply #37 on:** November 06, 2011, 06:19:18 PM »

Jim,

I'd like to see photos of some of your scale models, if it wouldn't be to much trouble.

You're correct about the size of the rivets.

Here's that Beech 18. Something I have interest in.

CB

wwwarbird · « **Reply #38 on:** November 06, 2011, 07:27:25 PM »

What is kind of odd, and this is only my opinion, is how the standard Twin Beech is one of the best and most classic looking planes of all time, but at the same time the trike converted version is one of the homeliest. Just something I've always noticed.

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #39 on:** November 06, 2011, 07:34:30 PM »

Quote from: Avaiojet on November 06, 2011, 06:19:18 PM

Jim,

I'd like to see photos of some of your scale models, if it wouldn't be to much trouble.

You're correct about the size of the rivets.

Here's that Beech 18. Something I have interest in.

CB

CB:

I have only a couple (post digital camera, that is) that I can post. The first three pictures are my Luscombe Phantom. It is approximately 60", about 700 sq. in., about 5 pounds. It is electric. It is almost too light. On my first attempt at a flight, I taxied slowly around into the wind and the plane jumped about four feet into the air. Four feet in the air and zero air speed. I fought with it for about another half lap and tried to set it down. The end result was some damage to a too light landing gear and nothing to the rest of the plane. The bit of a droop-eared look in the photographs is because I had not tightened the wings. They are removable for transport.

The next set of three photos are of my Laird Super Solution. It is approx. 52", about 600 sq. in. and about 9 pounds. It also is electric but I had designed it initially with a .90 four stroke for power. The model scored very well in static in FAI F4B, but would not taxi worth a crap, so I donated it to the EAA museum where the original plane is housed.

I have others that were pre-digital camera (no pictures downloaded to the computer). I have a clipped wing Monocoupe that took third at the NATS about 12/13 years ago, a Mr. Mulligan, a B-25, an Eindecker, a Heinkel 219 night fighter (profile) and a bunch of other junk. I have been building for over 60 years, but only have been seriously pursuing the NATS for the last three years since I retired. I truly am amazed at how much junk I have collected.

JHF

Avaiojet · « **Reply #40 on:** November 06, 2011, 08:04:38 PM »

Jim,

Really nice! Good work and kudos!

There's a few things I'd like to talk about, not immediately, but eventually.

Those great scale props. I'm guessing static only?

And your technique for finishing windshields with frames and paint. Excellent.

Possibly in private emails.

I have a Beech 18/45 on the way. And no, I won't build the one with three rudders. Although that conversion would be of some interest, especially with the tri-gear. One would think all the added features would effect the gross weight and lower the useful carrying capacity, especially on full tanks? Don't know anything as to why the conversion? Big money and permission from the FAA, is needed. So there's reasons.

Anyone know the reasons? Guesses?

CB