Hi Boy building question

I just got a set of plans for a Hi Boy that states that the inboard wing is 2" longer than the outboard and references a construction article, which I don't have. My question is, what is the best way to build it this way? If I cut both rib sets the same and just leave off the last rib on the outboard wing then the tip cords are different which will look strange(?) If I use the same root and tip templates but cut one less rib for the outboard wings, then the taper is different wich would look even stranger. Does anyone know how the original was built? Would it hurt the flight characteristics to just make both the same length? Plans show a Fox 19 - would an LA 25 be a bit much? WIng looks about the same area as a Skyray 35.

cheers,
Ken

LAST EDITED ON May-04-06 AT 10:53 PM (CST)
 
If you're referring to the high-wing by Bob Palmer and Ted Goyet, plans and construction article are on the "Old-Time" and "Classic" CD by Tom Wilk; in the Classic section. It'll be the best $10 you ever spent. As he says in the warning label, "Time wasted perusing the contents of this CD are NOT the responsibility of the author".

Published in August, 1954 M.A.N.

Tom's email is: [email protected] He also has a website, but I can't seem to find it just now. Tom has about 25 CDs covering all facets of Modeling.

Ken,

You must have a much more discriminating eye than I, when it comes to the chord or taper differences.

What I would do is add the extra rib when (?whilst?) cutting the inboard stack. (Root and tip ribs remain as per outboard.) A taper difference of a fraction of a degree is less than I can readily perceive. Does that make me de facto blind in any legal sense (I could use the added tax deduction...)

Ta...

=

LAST EDITED ON May-04-06 AT 11:29 PM (CST)
 
Thank you both for the tips. I found his web site http://www.cpinternet.com/~tawilk36 and ordered the CD. Will follow Lou's advice on building the wing. Again, thanks. This forum is awesome!

cheers,
Ken

Hi Ken,
Do build the longer inside panel. Sandwich an extra rib between the root and tip ribs when cutting. This was my preference. Alternately, you could cut an extra rib (smaller).
Either way I'll defy you to spot any real difference in the taper or root chord.
My Hi-Boy was powered with a Glochief 35, so an LA25 won't be too much.
The Hi-Boy does lean in a little upright, but as it's not a highly competitive design I wouldn't worry about that.
regards
Dave

Funny, I thought a hi boy was built from a fenderless '32 ford ragtop with full dress mercury flathead.....

Phil Coopy AMA609

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."

LAST EDITED ON May-05-06 AT 11:14 AM (CST)
 
Ken,

Your name is not in the PAMPA manual, so let me know your address and I will send you a copy of the Hi Boy article Autographed by Bob Palmer!

The original Hi Boy had a side mounted engine in apple cheeks. But the plans show the inverted engine,

I am building mine with the side mounted engine, but the difficulties due to thrust line location, vs. structure, make it very difficult to build, and it is obvious why the plans have the inverted engine. I imagine they built it with backplate mounts similar to the Bob's Mars or possibly with short mounts similar to Bob's original Pow Wow. You can get a look at these in the Pampa Classic Era book.

The article says to make 11 ribs for the inboard wing and 10 ribs for the outboard wing. Using the same rib spacing, this will result in the 2" shorter outboard wing.

Gary Tultz says that his flies great, but suggests that you make an adjustable tab out of the end of the outboard flap, and it compensates well for the poor verticle CG.

Maybe Gary can jump in here.

Good luck!

www.blueskymodels.net

Tom is right, I tweeked the flaps on mine and used very lightweight wheels on mine to try to counter the low C/G and with an old Enya 15 turning a 9-5 prop I thought it could do a competitive pattern. You should use a light engine.Any of the new 15s running high rpm-low pitch should be fine. My plane weighs 26 oz. and flys on 58 foot lines. I should refinish it someday and play with it again,its a fun plane. Electric would fix the C/G problem.

Hi Tom,
Thanks for offering a copy of the article. I'd really appreciate it. I'll send you an email with my mailing address. As for engines, would an LA 15 be OK with a 9x4 prop?

Thanks again,
Ken Deboy

Ken,

Regarding Prop & engine combo.. Gary Tultz has the experience with the Hi Boy.. Mine is started, but is at the mercy of other priorities at this time. I will be using a FP.25, so mine might have to be tamed down a bit.

I will get the article to you

Ken, Yes, if it's liight enough the LA.15 and 9-4 should be good, and you can use .012 lines. If I ever redo mine, thats what I'll use.

The article says to leave the tip rib off the outboard wing.
Bare

Barry,

The article DOES NOT say to leave the tip rib off the out board rib.

IT says: "Take 11 pieces of 3/32 sheet balsa wood .......Now stack the balsa........You are ready to carve half of the wing ribs.......Remember, for the right wing, use only 10 pieces, for the right wing is 2 in, shorter."

While there is is small difference in your statement, the result in using 10 pieces for the outboard wing is that the tip section will be the same for both wings, and the wing tips will be the same measurements.

I built a Hi-Boy with OS25 FPS. Photos were sent to Bob Palmer in Tucson, and he replied with a nice letter about this plane. Ted Goyet insisted the bellcrank and leadouts should be in the wing. Bob correctly theorized that the leadouts up so high would make the plane fly inboard wing down while upright, and inboard wing up when inverted. But Goyet insisted on keeping the leadouts inside the wing. Palmer wanted the bellcrank in the center of the fuselage with a line guide at the inboard wing tip.

So the 2" wing offset is supposed to hold the inboard wing up. Normally, a 2" offset is too much. But in this case there is a good reason. A lot of tip weight also helps to smooth everything out.

Also, the Hi-Boy is OTS elegible, based on a signed copy of my plans from Bob Palmer. The plane was published later, but it flew prior to 1953. Anyone wishing to authenticate the dates can contact me or Keith Trostle. So, if this plane is to be OTS-legal, you can't change anything! -- even if you think it will fly better.

LAST EDITED ON May-09-06 AT 02:19 AM (CST)
 
Floyd,

How did the OS.25FP work out. Did you feel it was over powered? The "Hi Boy" that I have started will be using the same engine.

I'll send you a copy of my M.A.N. article autographed by Bob, I would be glad to pay for a copy of your autographed plans.

This authentication by Bob is very interesting for OTS. I know that my old club (GSCB) might not allow it, but I think they have been more relaxed on this lately too. My good friend John Miske would still insist on the publication date, I am sure.

Perhaps Uncle Mikey and Keith can jump in on this.

There are several other designs that are really OTS technology...example the Debolt "Continental". This airplane was flown prior to the OTS cutoff, I think.

Bob also told me that he wanted the leadouts to be lower.

Did you, by any chance, discuss with Bob, the original "Hi Boy" side mounted engine installation shown in the article pictures? This would probably help a little with the verticle CG. But it is much harder to build.

Gary Tultz's suggestion using the last few inches of the outboard flap as an adjustable should help also. In discussiing the airplane with Gary, he agrees that the 2 inch shorter outboard wing also helps.

All in all the "Hi Boy" is a very interesting design study.

I had know Hal DeBolt since 1956 when I first met him at a RC contest in Endicott NY. I was new at rc and he gave me many good ideas for my DeBolt trainer. The last time I saw him was at his RC field near Bradington Fl. about five years ago.At that time we talked about old time and the cut off date. He told me his control line models all came well before 1953.Production dates had noting to do with design dates.I have a much earlier letter from him telling me about the AAsr and how the wing folded as it was only 1/16 sheet and had only 2 inches of offset.His second one had 3 inches off offset and used 3/32 balsa and was powered with a Fox .29. If you look on the original plans it says a 50 inch wing bit the plans build out to 51 inches.His plane had much smaller wing tips than the plans show.He brought all his controline planes that had been built for kit pictures to the same contest the next year to show them off and they were all 20 pointers.His planes were very streamline nothing like the kits showed. His AAsr was almost like a bullet in the front and had wheel pants on it.The green one I won the KO with many years ago was a exact copy of it right down to the wheel pants.His had the shorter nose also.
Ed

>the AAsr and how the wing folded as it was only 1/16 sheet
>and had only 2 inches of offset.His second one had 3 inches
>off offset and used 3/32 balsa and was powered with a Fox
>.29. If you look on the original plans it says a 50 inch
>wing bit the plans build out to 51 inches.His plane had much
>smaller wing tips than the plans show.He brought all his
>controline planes that had been built for kit pictures to
>the same contest the next year to show them off and they
>were all 20 pointers.His planes were very streamline nothing
>like the kits showed. His AAsr was almost like a bullet in
>the front and had wheel pants on it.The green one I won the

Interestingly, that would mean that an AAS with a 50" wing and two inch offset would be legal under PAMPA OTS rules. The only AAS I ever built was a bit of a challenge to get to behave properly, especially on the ground. Yes, I know, some people have - and I consider them very skilled...

Any chance you might still have the original letter outlining this?

V/r

LAST EDITED ON May-09-06 AT 04:03 PM (CST)
 
Ed,

I hope that someone might have pictures of Hal's airplanes from that day. That picture would be a treasure for all of us.

I had heard that he had wheel pants on his Stunt Wagon, so I am not surprised to hear about the same for his All American Sr.

Personally, I like wheel pants on stunters. Most look unfinished without them.

I don't know how much the '52 "kitted or published" requirement can be relaxed, since there is a burdan of proof involved, but there certainly are some valid cases for it.

>
>I don't know how much the '52 "kitted or published"
>requirement can be relaxed, since there is a burdan of proof
>involved, but there certainly are some valid cases for it.

Tom;

The PAMPA OTS rules are a bit more relaxed than the GSCB's. Some of the ships that are allowed by PAMPA rules would not be by GSCB. Bottom line is that if a ship was built prior to 1 January 1953, by PAMPA OTS rules it is eligable - whether the original plans exist or not. A picture or letter from the designer/builder would certainly clear up the burden of proof for a CD or ED running OTS under PAMPA rules.

V/r

LAST EDITED ON May-10-06 AT 11:14 AM (CST)
 
Bob,

I am very much aware that PAMPA has been more relaxed on the subject than GSCB.

My mind has changed some over the years. I think that there would only be a limited number of airplanes that would become eligible, that are not eligible now per GSCB, so why not let them fly.

I joined the GSCB the second year of their existance. I don't know if you know it, but I was one of the contestants at the Very First OTS contest in Oct.1970. (3rd place behind Bob Hunt and John D'Ottavio) I still have the trophy.

I also CD'd the first OTS contest to be held anywhere else, the following summer (1971) at Buder Park, St Louis. John Davis won that one.

Although I have been in Texas for over 10 years, I am certain that even GSCB is allowing the "Victory" and the "Jamison Special". So, the precident is there, at least for non-kitted airplanes. So with reasonable proof the "Hi Boy" could be eligible.

I think that if there is proof about kitted airplanes that's OK too. Certainly, the Debolt designs like the "Continental" could be included in OTS also.

Thanks