Engines and kits and flying--OH My! NOW WHAT??

BTW, just had a conversation with Andy at TCI, and he tells me that he has sold the business to some "old c/l guys" out of Reno, and they should be ready for business by next week.

It would be nice if TCI works out, but I have had my doubts. I am just not sure there is enough business for a "Tower-hobbies of CL." I believe a lot of the reason Brodak works out is that they already had numerous businesses going that they could blend the CL line in with. Also, they stick to what can be done and do not do expensive labor-intensive stuff like custom laser kits. Starting up from scratch a "real" business (as opposed to cottage business) to supply this hobby must be very hard. There are not many people into CL now and the long term potential of it is poor.

FLOYD C

> I just ordered the Tatone test stand from Tower hobbies, so I
>can break in my Fox 15 (the baffle engine) ... Any recommendations
>for fuel? Slobbery short runs, a couple of minutes, and cool
>down between for about 1/2 hour total running, right?

The small Fox likes a high Nitro fuel mix. At least 10%, and even better 15%, with plenty of oil - at least half castor. No less than about 25% oil for break-in. Run it "wet" and rich for 2 1/2 to 3 minutes per run, except the last few seconds, during which you partially pinch off the fuel line to lean it out, speed it up, and get it hotter. Then, let it cool to "room" (garage?) temperature before running it again. A half hour of cool-down isn't something carved into a stone tablet.

Well, "pshaw", or maybe "shucks", you didn't mean cool it off a half hour, you meant that you thought that might be enough break-in.

A 15X would've been produced by Fox during their "very tight fit" period, and could take an hour on the bench, or less, but might take more than an hour. When you have ten three minute runs on it, lean it out and see if it will stay leaned out without getting too hot to touch in a couple of minutes. That's when you will know it's ready to use to fly with. Keep cycling it from hot to cold with more running until it handles leaning out without being fazed.

>What size model would you recommend for the Fox?

Jr. Streak is good, so is Jr. Lightning Streak.

>I also ordered a Brodak Baby Clown from Leonard. (not for the
>.15) Will the OK .049 pull it, or should I just buy a Norvel
>.061?
>
I've never liked OK Cubs, any size. I had several back when I was a kid, got rid of all. Can't recommend them for anything better than fishing sinkers.

On the other option, be sure that you read every microprinted line in the Norvel warranty terms. Those are weird. My son was not at all happy with Norvel's (poor) service under warranty. You just may be happier with today's (Estes) version of a Cox reed valve toy motor (anything smaller than .09 looks like a toy in my {? jaded ?} view).

Kiwi

**

.
Kiwi

Always start with an 8-4 on these little engines, too. Just a little overpropping makes them weak.

Streak Jr is my choice, Akromaster might be good, too, but I have no personal experience.

I had an 049, an 099, and I think a second, different looking 049 as well. I almost think that some of my rubber power FF stuff spun their props faster than the Cubs did! We could haul off and THROW a plane with a Cub in it like a javelin, and it would start to fly some, but soon dropped to the ground - the engines might as well have been balance weights for all the good they did as motors.

Kiwi

Kiwi: My experience was somewhat different. The first model I built was a Scientific "Little Devil" that I had "improved"-- rudder offset (more should be better, right?) which probably acted like an air brake, and I found some 1 or 1 1/4 inch fat tires with ribbed aluminum hubs, which I installed. (looked cool, you know. Weight penalty, what was that?) The landing gear came loose somewhere, and flopped around a bit, but it worked, so what the heck. Aerodynamics approached that of a 2x4, but the Cub.049 flew it, and it would r.o.g. It worked better after I discovered Cox "Racing Fuel". Every kid in the neighborhood learned to fly with that plane, as scabrous as it looked. Maybe I'll have similar luck with the ones I have. If not, I won't force it, I'll get a bigger engine.

of course I'm dizzy. Grown up men don't normally spin around in a circle for seven minutes . Do they?

I have Little Devil plans, plus about 60 other Scientific kits, if anyone wants them. Price is reasonable.

Decals too! Tons of decals for Scientifics! 100s, for 28 kits.

>Kiwi, I have sitting at my feet right this minute an Enterprise
>kit of the "Slick Trick". Small world or what??

> Since it has a 17 1/2 inch span and calls for .039 to .099
> engines, I gather it would be a real rocket with a good TD .049.
> Heck, an .020 TD would probably do the trick.

Funny thing about really old memories. I hadn't thought about that one in next best to forever, with far better planes having displaced it in the years since. I was about 11 years old when I built it, and it wasn't among those that survived long enough to be rebuilt, re-engineered, and re-engined in following years after I knew what I was doing. I either trashed it somehow, or swapped it (can't recall what I did with the Cub engines, either).

I have a vague recollection of a stringer-supported tissue covered turtle deck, and some sort of red white and blue paint scheme (the white stained to an ivory color by fuel proofer over the nitrate dope). I sort-of think that it was re-engined with some decent something, but what & when has faded out. That was almost 52 years ago now.

> 16. "RE: Engines and kits and flying--OH My! NOW WHAT??"

> My first OK Cub was a kit for the .049B version. It ran well
> enough to get my kid sisters Baby Barnstormer that I built for
> her, into the air. Forget stunting it. In all fairness I
> started with the kit and kept all the parts (1954) so it was
> heavy. I also covered it with silk!!!! It was going to be mine,
> but when the red dope bled through the white and it turned
> pink, I gave it to my sister. No self respecting guy in the
> early fifties did anything with "pink" Eww, girls' colors!

One of the best-remembered Super Clowns I ever came across belonged to Chuck Sewell in 1964. It was a very garish pink color. Chuck was tight with money about some things and paint was one of those. Instead of buying a new color when he didn't have enough on hand, he often mixed two and didn't care what he got (I have his old pea-green Ringmaster wing in a rebuilt plane that I had a terrible time matching colors on!)

By 1955, some pinks were popular enough to show up on cars. Ford made a pink and black Crown Victoria that year. (I think that the Class of 1956 at TJHS here voted pink & black their favorite color combination.) In 1957, there was an Oldsmobile paint color that was bright pink. Chuck's Super Clown was a brighter shade yet.

Incidentally, I'd totally forgotten the existence of any Baby Barnstormer. It wasn't around long before Guillow's abandoned the glow power market?

Kiwi

**

.
Kiwi

I just finished my Brodak Baby Clown a few weeks ago and it came out to only 7.5 oz with engine and tank.
I modified the radial reed valve mount to a side beam mount for a Norvel BigMig .049. I am using 20% nitro on a APC 5.5 X 2.5 propeller in 42" X .008 line. I am using a Brodak 1.0 Oz wedge tank modified with a uniflow vent. There is 3 head gasket in the head.

I have not timed it, but I think I doing about a 4 sec. lap time. So I definitely would NOT put an Norvel .061 on this model.

I have another 1/2a stunter that is about 31" wing span and about 10.5 oz, and the Norvel .049 pulls it fine.

TIP:

DO NOT monocote this model. It is a sparless wing structure and if you use an iron on film you will never get is straight. If you do, you need to add a center spar simular to a Ringmaster. Also, the bellcrank mount in this design is not very good. You need to beef it up by make sure the plywood mount is firm glue directly to the spar by using shims. The Baby Clown was not design for a Norvel. If you not not using it in OTS, I suggest planking the middle section of the wing all the way to the first rib. If you are flying it in OTS, you can not change the outside appearance of the wing. Same going with the spar.

Don't over prop the Fox .15. Use a 8x4 or 7x6 max.

Good luck with them,
George

Great* and Aero*
The PDQ Baby Clown box photo shows an OK Cub .049 mounted on
the nose, I dont know if it was designed for the Cub.. but it's
possible that it was...
The Brodak Baby Cl is marginally too small for the Norvel .049
it's only 134sq" in wing area ..don't worry over the wing
construction too much for the Brodak kit...it only vaguely
resembles the actual PDQ Baby Clown anyway. The PDQ kit has got
the center section of the wing planking; not the weird chordwise
planking strips of the Brodak kit.the PDQ kit also has about
12 sq" less area too....nobody is going to call you on the
accuracy of the Brodak kit if you're concerned about OTS
competition....Tony

You may have to buy a dozen, though. Currell

The Norvel 061 is no trouble at all on that plane. You just fly it on a little longer lines. It is great. No problem to mount it. Just use a nylon mount to mount it to the plastic gear/engine mounts. Extend the balsa nose about 1/2." use a small metal tank.

Beefing up is not needed. It is plenty strong enough. FLOYD C

Well, I only bought the two that size. They did run, sort of, which is more than I can say about the Cub 099, which seldom would even start . . the odds weren't in my favor!

The K.

I fly a Musciano “Bullet” with my OK .049. It is a silk covered slab wing gem and anyone who saw it fly at the Musciano commemorative event will attest to the capability of the engine. It will do the entire AMA pattern and although the hourglass is a bit “iffy”, it’s still recognizable as such!

Regarding the OK engines, most of our best results have been with older models – many of the newer ones we’ve tried have been terrible.

I agree with your comment about the OK .099 being a bit of a wimp. It seems like the .074 actually made more power.

Bob Zambelli

> Isn't that construction method used
>to ensure better fuselage/wing alignment
>for builders with little or
>no building experience?
> George

YUP, that 's me! The easier the better.

Surely somebody must remember the '50's black trousers with PINK stitching and piping around the the pockets and along the outside seams? Also vice versa. Never could afford 'em. Levis at $4.95 were stretching my budget.

Bob Zamballi: Interested! You bet! Please email me details at [email protected] The home computer has a virus. Thanks C