Veco Chief and Dixon "first version" Chief

I bought a set of Tom Dixon "first version" Chief plans. Recently, I got a hold of a Veco Dumas box with is set of instructions and a few spare parts. There is BIG variance in rib design.

The rib on the Dixon plan looks better to me. The kit rib ( the balsa one ) looks almost symetrical ( front to back ). It appears to me that the kit intended the builder to push square balsa through round holes for the rear spars.

Any thoughts??? Both legal for old time stunt ??

Hi Paul. You are correct on the secondary spars for the Veco Chief. You have ribs with 1/8 holes and spars of 1/8 Sq. That is how Veco did them. Not only the Chief, but the Smoothie and several other Veco designs. The second version I beleive has the Joe Wagner rib design, or non-polywog rib. It too has the 1/8 holes and the 1/8 Sq. spars.

Hi Paul,
The Dixon "first version" is the "pollywog" rib and is OTS legal.
The Dumas "Veco" Cheif is a later version with the different ribs, and is not OTS legal, only Clasic eligible.
Bill <><

Now we're getting somewhere.

I notice that the Veco kit offers both upright and inverted engine options, as well as several canopy schemes. Are thesee also OT-legal???

>Now we're getting somewhere.
>
>I notice that the Veco kit offers both upright and inverted
>engine options, as well as several canopy schemes. Are
>thesee also OT-legal???

IIRC, the first version Veco (Henry Eng.) kit had a couple of "canopy" variants shown on the plans, also. Someone here should be able to scan or copy them. Veco/Dumas plans were not full size, only schematics so to speak: assembly diagrams.

Can't speak to the inverted engine option. A few of the later Veco kits (which Dumas bought out) had the option of either upright or inverted. At least the ones that were shown as upright. The later Veco Smoothie kit had this option, as well as the second version Chief.

Veco did redesign some of their kits: Chief, Tomahawk, are two I know of.

Bill <><

The original Henry Engineering Chief kit had an upright uncowled engine much like the Warrior and Brave. The kit bulkheads were wide to fit the O&R 60, but showed how to narrow the nose to fit smaller engines. The smallest shown on the plans is a rear rotor McCoy 19. The narrow fuselage with the option for inverted engines came with the later versions. I have a set of the Dixon plans and a kit for the original. I believe the Dixon plans show an OTS legal version, but there is a version with a 2 1/4 wide nose section that would also be legal.
Steve
The older I get, the better I used to fly!

The Brave,Squaw,&chief where all redesigned
The Smoothie was Kitted and produced while Bob was away with unapproved changes.
The first chief had the funny airfoil to accomodate a flat, money
saving trailing edge. No scientific reason, just economics
Wait till you try to cover that sucker.Mike pratt said he had to glue
the covering to the wing as he covered it ,to keep it from pulling away when it srunk during drying

When I was a 12 or 13 year old kid in NJ, I built the first version Chief. We sprayed the silk span with water in a Windex bottle, while the silkspan was laying on newspaper, then applied it wet so we could stretch it tight. We put a bead of glue on all the ribs, as we thought it was "important" to have the covering follow the pollywog rib shape. Mine was powered with a Fox 35, and flew very well, indeed.
Good luck
Dave G. in NJ

Bill,
With the numerous variations of both the Nobler and the Chief, plus others, that are legal for OTS, Classic, or neither, the question is, "How does the poor judge know all this?" Maybe we need a rethink here.

Hi Dave,
I have had that question all along. Even asked it here before.
Classic is sort of a "fun" event around here, at least at the local level, and everyone is pretty much on the "Honor System".
And no, the judges don't always know all the dimensions, etc., of these planes.
I just try and have some fun and build the planes I think are cool. I think you know what I mean.
Thanks,
Bill <><

The OTS legal version is the 1949 version, polywog airfoil , sub rudder, which is not on the Dixon plans and the Dixon plans has a different rudder. I have the kit and the Dixon plans. They are not, repeat, not the same model. The original has a isometric type set of instructions, not plans, and shows only one version for the twin cockpits. It shows four engine installations: O&R .60, McCoy .29 rear intake, McCoy .19 rear intake, O&R .23. The really weird thing is the fuselage is NOT parallel with the thrust lines and actually has a forward down slope front to rear the entire length. It says below "The Chief" logo, dessigned by Howard "hi" Johnson and Bob "Smoothie" Palmer.
As to the polywog airfoil, I asked Bob Palmer about is at VSC13 and in a few quiet words he said, "Gil Henry was a cheap skate and wanted to use up some wood he had on hand and not buy pre cut trailing edge stock".
These "plans" are drawn by Cedric E. Galloway. Anybody know of him?

I would hope that, given the declining state of control line, judges would not be too zealous about disallowing models.

I stated flying in the late 50's. From that period onward, I seldom saw anybody who built any model exactly to the kit or followed the plans. Everybody changed things. I built 6 Flite Streaks, 14 Combat Cats, and at least 20 Voodoos. As far as I'm conerned, they were all Flite Streaks, Combat Cats, and Voodccs, but no two were quite the same.

I'm sure the great designers of the 40's were no different. I'm building a couple Chiefs now. I'm using the polywog ribs, but I don't really care if the covering sticks to the ribs or not.

Putting mufflers on the things is a break with reality that demolishes the spirit of the event.

In reply to your question "who was Cedric Galloway?", Cedric was a prolific modeler and pilot of the 1930s, 1940s. One model that Cedric told me he was most proud of was the control line scale model of his Great Lakes 2T-1A, plus he flew rubber powered models and gas free flight ships. I'll attempt to attach a photo of Cedirc and his full size Great Lake 2T-1A, this photo was taken at Austin, Minn.,May 1935.

Thanks Ken. When I see his name, I picture a guy whose roots are from the Norse and Scots. Big with a flowing beard and mustache and a Viking helmet and horns.

Nope, quite the opposite, Cedric was a very nice and clean cut gentleman, clean shaven, etc., sorry about the screw up on the photo, I'll try again.

Well, it appears as tho the photo is not going to transfer again, must be the loose nut on the keyboard.

Ken Wilson "A Ukie Lifer!!!"
Evansville, IN

Well both versions of the Chief fly very well with a slight edge going to the later version. However, if you are interested in OTS then the first version is your only option if you want to fly a Chief. The polywog airfoil is kind of tricky to get silk or silkspan to stay attached to the ribs. After the usual three coats of dope to the bare framework I brushed on two coats of thinned Sigment glue (with dope thinner) to the top of each wing rib. Then I applied the covering dry to the wing along all the outside edges with dope. I then brushed the thinned Sigment through the covering onto the top of each wing rib. If needed, rub the glue through the covering with your finger so it is firmly attached to the top of each rib. Allow this to dry overnight then shrink the covering in the normal manner. Apply 3 or 4 coats of low shrink clear dope to the covering while trying to keep as much of the dope off the top of the wing ribs as you can. DO NOT USE RETARDER in the clear dope on this type of wing. The covering material on my Chief popped loose when I sprayed a sealer coat of clear that was mixed with 50% retarder.

Personally, I would trim the ribs (so as not to change the airfoil) and add 1/16” x 1/4 cap strips to each rib. This would provide a larger surface on each rib to attach the covering material.

I have Chief plans directly from Joe Wagner who did the re-design from the polywog airfoil. If I remember correctly, Joe said he did these in 1951, and I think the plans reflect it. Never could understand why it was not OTS legal.
Could it be that Veco had enough kits done and did not make the kit change until after 1952?
I also have Squaw plans...same situation.
Oh well, sigh.

> I have Chief plans directly from Joe Wagner who did the
>re-design from the polywog airfoil. If I remember correctly,
>Joe said he did these in 1951, and I think the plans reflect
>it. Never could understand why it was not OTS legal.
> Could it be that Veco had enough kits done and did not make
>the kit change until after 1952?
>

Just to thicken the plot a little, I have a set of Chief plans (CAD by Pat Johnston) that Bob Palmer marked up. The intent was to reflect the ORIGINAL, e.g. the first scratch built Chief's Bob made. These do not, repeat, do not have the pollywog wing. Bob said that this was a change that Hi Johnson made when the Chief design went into production.

So, by PAMPA OTS rules, you could build one without the pollywog airfoil and still be PAMPA OTS compliant.

V/r

Bob was not too happy working for Gil Henry. Just ask him at the next VSC or Brodaks Fly In. He is a man of few words, but he gets the point across. I have a great photo of him and Dale Kirn. They look like two fighter pilots "hand flying".

Do most people build the upright or inverted engine? I have one of the Larry Richard kits and he supplies the Henry plans that show both engine options and some tail and canopy options. The Richard's kit is classic legal...correct?

I'm still flying my CHIEF 1 from a Dixon kit. Sarted with an Enya 35, then a Fox 35. Now it has a Brodak 40, which is the best of the 3.

I also noticed that, while wing, engine and stab were all in-line, they did not align with the top edge of fuselage sides! I cut my own fuselage sides and made everything zero-zero with top of the fuselage (before adding the top blocks).

Being an old free flight guy, covering the reverse curve in the airfoil was no problem. I think I used thinned SIG-MENT to coat the ribs. Then the covering was applied wet and clear dope through the paper which softened the SIGMENT enough to hold.

Floyd, see my post #8. The fuselage in the first version to be kitted had a slope to the top and did not parallel the thrust lines. I sure would like to hear the story as to why.

Ty: I'm sure the Dixon kit fuselage sides were accurate. I simply didn't like the idea. Anyway, the Chief 1 is the best OTS plane I have ( and I have many others, like Venus, Hi-Boy, Ringmonster, Small Fry, Kan-Doo, Taurus, Wildman 60, Tethered Trainer).

Bob Palmer signed my Chief 1 wing. I neglected to ask him about the "cranked" fuselage. But I will next VSC, if he is there.

>Do most people build the upright or inverted engine? I have
>one of the Larry Richard kits and he supplies the Henry
>plans that show both engine options and some tail and canopy
>options. The Richard's kit is classic legal...correct?

Larry's is an accurate reproduction of the Veco kit which is classic legal, but not OTS legal. Virtually all of this version that I have seen have had the inverted engine with a spinner. Nice looking, great flying old airplane. Larry's kits are vastly better than Veco's for light wood and good fits.

Steve
The older I get, the better I used to fly!