I got this kit as part of a package deal from somebody at last year's Brodak. 

I believe the kit sold for something like $7.95 back in 1949 or so.  It was not the work of Walter A. Musciano.  I think a virgin kit would probably bring something like $600 on the auction market.  Unfortunately, this specimen had been partly assembly, abandoned, lost some parts, and was in another box.

On the UP side, the high value parts; the body shells, cowl, landing gear, leading & trailing edges, and plans are there.  The old glue was easily dissolved with my best friend acetone.

This might not be good for any contest event, but it's quite an assembly challenge.

It says, "plan by J. T. H."  Of course, JTH may have only been the draftsman, not the designer.

The top and bottom shells alone weight 7.5 ounces and the metal cowl is another 1.4.  It only has 184 square inches of wing area, of which quite a bit is in the fuselage.  I'll try to hollow all I can, but it's won't be a stunter.

It's interesting that the plans omit the bellcrank, but show the leadouts.  This implies that came out during the Jim Walker patent war.

As the third picture shows, I've added a crutch so I have something stronger that balsa to connect the engine, tank, bellcrank, landing gear, and top hold-down.

The kit gave me a nice airfoil leading edge, but the TE is just a rectangle, which leaves me with a big sanding project.

I believe that is the same model that Chris McMillian restored for his Dad.

BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM

Nice plan with the crutch, Paul.
I found that the tank is the hard part, not much room behind the engine and pushing the bellcrank back. I put the leadouts termination just outside of the fuselage some distance behind the leadout guide. My dad's will never fly, but the idea was to have the lines pass through the leadout guide and then trail to the leadouts.
Good luck, it's a neat model.
Chris...  

Hi Paul,
I didn't reinstall the front spoke for the hold down, it was there originally but I closed up the hole and just never did reinstall it. I think you're right having two hold downs.
The blue C-model is a cool airplane, neat scheme. That'll look nice.
I feel the finish can be nice and not heavy, with this model the weight savings will come from hollowing the blocks!
Chris...

Hi Paul,
Yes, the model as manufactured is not too scale.

I shortened the cowling and reshaped the front of the fuselage from the top wing leading edge forward. My parents Beech was a D-17S and has the separate speed ring cowling much like Christine St. Ong's C-17L which you are going to replicate. The kit is more like a G-17S with the pressure cowling, straighter cowling to windshield lines as well as the wider chord fin and rudder. I did not build the long tapered bottom wing to fuselage fairings behind the wing that is not present on the kit, either.

The low stab was attached to the lower fuselage which was to keep the bellcrank/pushrod/elevator horn together when maintaining the original spark ignition engines. I think that's the reason for the split fuse, comparable to many designs of the era. It's kind of neat, being able to take the top off with the struts and stab staying on the bottom fuse half and bottom wings and the fin and top wing stay with the fuselage top. My Berkeley Bearcat is designed the same way.

I spent some time shaping the fuselage and even sanded stringer shapes into the rear fuselage area. The wings were attached so there was a bit of trouble working around them, but apart the fuselage halves could be tack glued and really worked over as there seems to be enough material to get a good shape leaning toward more accuracy.

G-17S profile below...and a C-17R, similar to Christine's airplane.

Chris...




 

Paul:

I fell in love with the Staggerwing when I saw my first real one over fifty years ago at a contest in Davenport, Iowa. The contest was held at an airport. I have taken many photos (no digitals) since at the EAA convention. I think that Jim Gorman's all yellow G-model is the best looking that I have seen. I have drawn my plans at a 1-1/2" to the foot scale. This would yield a 48" wingspan. I have framed up the fuselage, but I am stopped. There are two items: a) the pivot location for the retracts is in an extremely thin portion of the airfoil of the wings. Not too difficult in steel, but almost impossible in balsa and plywood; b) once retracted, the two wheels are extremely close to each other (almost touching) and the guts would have to be cut out of the crutch to make room. Again, this detail is probably nothing if one is working with steel or aluminum plate, but it is a real problem for modeling materials. Needless to say, I am building other models.

Jim Fruit

Paul:

If you have determined that it is a B model manufactured in 1936, it is a replica of one of the earliest of staggerwings. The early B17's had fixed gear. The subsequent B17L's had a pneumatic retract system. Later models went to an electric retract system that had a jack screw that went up into the side of the fuselage (another detail that has me a little agog about how to replicate it).

AMA's plan service has several plans for staggerwings of all types. Most, however, appear to be just copies of kit plans. If you are really serious, what you need to find are the detailed drawings by William Wylam. They are done in 1/4" scale, so they are easily scaled up. He covered the details of all models, beginning with the B model. His drawings are extremely detailed. I bought a set about 40 years ago from, I believe, Model Airplane News. My set is very old, so I am afraid it would not copy very well. Maybe you could try to Google William Wylam and see what you get.

Jim Fruit

SN 102 is a 1936 C-17B.
The only fixed gear airplanes were the 17R's of which there were 2, and A-17F and A-17FS one each.
The B-17 was the first fully retractable airplane and the C was a little more refined especially in that the landing gear slide tubes were angled to 45 degrees from the B's vertical. The D,E,F, and post war G were all wider and longer in the fuselage and had standardized systems and brakes, ventilation, etc.

The letter preceding the model number 17 is the airframe version, the letter after the model 17 number is the engine designator, S for Pratt&Whitney, R for Wright 975, F for R-1820, B for Jacobs 275, etc.

My brother in law's B-17R is a 1935, SN 38.
Dad's SN 4687 was a 1943 UC-43 built for the Army and redirected to the Navy as a GB-2. Surplussed in 1946 it became a standard D-17S.
Chris... 

I am sorry, Chris. Wikipedia said that the A's and B17B's and B17E's were fixed gear. They go on to say that the B17L was the first retractable unit. I have to learn not to trust the internet as the gospel. I am too gullible. It is a little scary, because I am using photos from the internet as documentation for my C45J.

Jim Fruit

Nice work, looking like its getting there.
Dan

Thanks, Dennis.  I'm sneaking up on final assembly.  This unexpected bad weather temporarily side tracked me into yard work.  We are being cheated out of a month of building season.  Furthermore, this Friday is our final night of indoor flying at Heritage School in Sterling Heights.

Looking very nice, Paul.  Which scale paint scheme did you settle on?

Bill

Paul, this Beechcraft is really looking awesome.   I guess you knew CL went out of Beech field many years ago.   Now fly south of town at a dedicated control  line field.   

Paul:

From your last picture from above, it appears that the crowd must be way down. 10-12 years ago, it was so crowded that one could barely walk down the aisles. For that reason, I quit taking the wife in her wheel chair. She enjoyed the show, but it was impossible to navigate. Wasn't fair to the other participants either.

Jim Fruit

Toledo.

I always go on Friday to miss the crowds.  It seemed the same to me.

2005 - Show $7, park $3, gas from Detroit $16 - Total  = $26.
2012 - Show $10, park $10, gas $32 - new total = $52.

Maybe they've exceeded the tipping point.  They can afford a 30% loss of admission units.
Myself, I drive for a group of three and averaged-down the gas & parking.

Not that I'm a big boat guy, but the workmanship is great.  You can really paint 'em up when they don't need to fly.  The hydroplanes have real turbo-shaft engines.  What? Five grand?  I'd like see to see run.

I'm gradually honing in on final assembly.  At this point the bottom fillet has been laminated and sanded to shape.  No science here, just hand work.

I am tying to be scientific about aligning the top wing in all six axiis.  Not so easy.  The interplane struts are glued to the bottom and slip fit to the top wing.  There will be a dedicated leadout guide farther outboard. 

I know.  This is like opening up a 60-year-old bottle of wine.  Most people just collect the kits and try to sell them at profit.

One thing that comes to mind is that I started CL in 1958, but none of the 1952 "old timers" were still flying.  Everybody had upgraded to the newest stuff.  I think they just slapped kits together with Testors glue & paint and were happy to get a flight or two.  I'm trying to make this more durable and also throttled so it can compete in today's events. 

According to some, this might be the last 3-line piston engine scale plane ever built.

However, I've come into possession of a Cleveland Boeing P-26, so anything is possible.

Thanks.

I can really use some painting masks.  Otherwise I don't have a way to do the white lettering.  I'll get to work on what I need.  It looks like four "Beechcrafts", two N-numbers and two number 62's.

Thank you Avaiojet, the masks are in hand.

This is the final set of pre paint pix.  I get so used to working natural wood, I sometimes don't like to paint over it. The first coat will unmask the defects that need to be sanded out.

This is like one of those motorcycle and car building shows on TV. I'm trying to get this done for The Brodak without compromising quality too much.

One big difference in stunt & scale: in stunt you can fiddle the color scheme for easy masking. In scale you have to make it match the documents.