Bob Palmer's radial cowl Thunderbird

I have written up the story of my adventures with this model and posted it on my site. Here's the link:
http://www.iroquois.free-online.co.uk/memoirs/tbird.htm
I would be interested in any information on the history of this model. In particular, why is it unknown outside of the UK.

Interesting reading! I remember the Bob Palmer's round cowl Thunderbird as I was a teenager in high school at the time he was flying it and had just built my first Veco Smoothie. Around 1960, I built the first version (upright engine) of the Veco Thunderbird. About a year later I built a Veco Chief for a flying buddy. We had lots of fun flying the big stunters from Veco using Fox .35's, Johnson .35's and McCoy Redhead .35's. Thanks for the good information on a great old airplane.........T.Durrill

Tom Dixon flew a 60 size version at the 88 Nats, it was a construction article in the May 89 Model Aviation.

For what it's worth, I have a set of blue prints for that plane, signed by Bob Palmer. No, they are not for sale. Didn't he also fly it in South Africa? Edited: Yep, it helps to read the story first.

Well, I dug out the plans and they are drawn based on information from you Dave!! They are drawn and traced by Alan Walker, July 91.
So, based on that fact, I can only assume you have a copy of these same plans.
In 1964 I finally built my Veco Thunderbird with the upright engine. I covered it with the then new Monocote, the stuff where the color was also the sticky type. The plane flew great, but the monocote would pickup a static charge and the discharge would come down the lines and zap me good through the wire sticking out the back of my EZ-Just handle. Standing on wet grass didn't help. I can not remember what I did with that plane and I know I didn't wreck it, which in itself is amazing.

, but the monocote would pickup a static charge and the
>discharge would come down the lines and zap me good through
>the wire sticking out the back of my EZ-Just handle.
>Standing on wet grass didn't help.

I have never heard of this phenomenon with $cote. Currell

Well, you have now. Remember, this was the first type of monocote. Also I neglected to say that as I was flying, the fog was rolling in and the plane was half in the fog and half out. I lived about three blocks from the Atlantic ocean in Newport, RI at the time. Nice unused park right across the street. The only other guy that used it would march up and down with his little black Scottie while he played his bagpipes.
Any way I put the plane into the grass right quick after the third jolt almost tore out my right elbow. Still hurts to just talk about it. I did love to hear the war pipes the commander was playing three times a week. No one ever complained about the noise either of us made.

Ty,

I have had the same problem with static electricity build up and discharge, also mostly encountered while flying Monokoted airplanes. In AAM's Stunt column which he then wrote, I read that Al Rabe had the same problem which he solved by wrapping his EZ-Just with copper serving wire soldered to the adjustment plate at the rear of the handle. This kept (keeps) the static from building up enough of a charge to jump the gap between the metal part(s) of the handle and the nearest part of the flyer's hand by allowing a constant, slow, unfelt discharge directly into the hand. I have done the same with both my EZ-Just and my Magnum handles since. No more zaps!

DISCLAIMER:

Hey, kids, if you try this at home, the consequences are on your head. Flying very near power lines or in thunderstorms is now an even worse idea!

Had the same thing happen while flying during a low cloud day (read...almost a fog but high enough not to loose sight of the aircraft), it was like holding a nine volt battery in my hand. Hit the dirt quick and decided to go home for supper!

Gentlemen,
Bob Palmer's T'Bird was NOT covered with Monocote either before or after the restoration.

Yes, I know that. It was covered with silk. I covered mine with monocote just to try out this new stuff. I only added that as a side and my short experience with the Veco Tbird, and as happens, others came in with their experiences with the stuff. In fact, monocote hadn't even been invened when Bob Palmer buildt and flew his Tbirds.

My first experience with it was about 1968. I give that date because it was just after I bought my first new car a 1968. Gordon Ingram a flyer with the Norfolk Aeromodelers showed up with a plane he did in monocote. He told me that is was a new product but had the flaw that you had to cover the open bays with silkspan first. It also did not take the compound curves very well from what I remember. I am sure they have had improvements in it since then.

Gents

Marvin Denny's version of the Hot Rock addresses the static question in a most elegant way.

After I finish this house, sell it and build another like the bride wants, have a nervous breakdown and recover, I might get the drawings finished that I promised Marvin for the handle that he has so generously explained to me.

I've got one. Very nice. More comfortable than the hot rock and no zaps either. Of course it ain't rained or even clouded up here for several years it seems.

An interesting read Dave, from a different perspective from what I had been told about that trip way back when.

When working with Bob Palmer as I was drawing the plans for the Brodak Smoothie, Bob touched onmany aspects of that particular trip.

One of the items that sticks in my mind was his descriptionof the reception he got when he made that first flight.

Of course all this is from my admittedly not so perfect memory, but, as I remember Bob's comments, it went something like this.

When he brought the plane out, most of the pilots there were takenby it's size compared to what was being flown for stut ships there at the time.

Apparently no one had seen a plane that large, comparitivly, flying with an engine that small. When he fired it up, and launched it in a 4 stroke, the people there were sure it was either, never going to get airborne, crash, or never be able to do the stunts.

He mentioned more about why he left the plane there, but for the life of me, I can't recall what the reason was.

He did mention that it was a good flying plane. he never mentioned whether or not it was a re-build from an earlier version or not.

I do have in my collection of plans a set that shows not only the original upright version, but also the nose section for the round cowl version as well. Might these be the plans youwere associated with?

John,
Those must be the plans by Alan Walker that I helped to produce. Thank you for your input which tends to confirm what I was told by Pete Fisher.
All,
So I'm standing in the middle of this field with the air charged with static and I'm holding two 60 foot lightning conductors in my right hand. If I get zapped it's the covering on the model that's responsible. I'll keep that in mind.

>So I'm standing in the middle of this field with the air
>charged with static and I'm holding two 60 foot lightning
>conductors in my right hand. If I get zapped it's the
>covering on the model that's responsible. I'll keep that in
>mind.

Dave,

The way you generate static electricity is by rubbing things together. Rubbing air against a slick plastic model airplane is one way to do it. This mechanism requires *dry* air, or the moisture will allow the charge to leak back off the model and not discharge to the pilot/ground. Nothing particularly special about $onokote in that regard, and I have heard about folks getting zapped flying models with doped finishes too.

Full scale airplanes trail sharp points to bleed off static charges I believe. In principle sticking a needle into the wingtip of the model or the back of the rudder might help discharge any buildup of static charge. Not great for safety though (Ouch, stuck myself!).

But you raise another, valid point: there are large potential differences above the earth's surface due to the earth's electrostatic field. Back in the 1970's Maynard Hill published his findings using the earth's static field to operate an electrostatic autopilot device. It worked by detecting the difference in potential between the wing tips of the model to stabilize it in roll. Dip a wing and a potential difference is developed between the wing tips. This voltage was taken as an input to a feedback circuit which generated a corrective movement of the RC servo. It worked perfectly. It could also be used to stabilize pitch by mounting sensors on the nose/tail of the model. But in order to get it to work, Hill had to mount small radioactive sources to the wing tips, nose, and tail to allow the static charge generated by the motion of the model through the air to be conducted off the model (he used antistatic pads made for phonograph record "dust bugs". Apparently they used to contain small radium dots for static discharge). So models do charge up in flight due to their friction with the air. Hill claimed that we don't get zapped by the potential differences above the earth (about 300 Volts difference between our head and our feet, IIRC) because there is no free charge available to conduct. If there were, the currents generated would short out the static field. If free charge can be generated in a cloud, then it can be conducted back to the ground. Lightening is the extreme example. I suppose that it might be possible to encounter small pockets of available charge at low altitude, and discharge them with our flying lines too. Obviously, flying when there is lightening in the area is a really *bad* idea!

Bottom line is that there are two potential (sorry for the pun) mechanisms which could cause static discharge through the lines to the pilot: friction generated static charge on the model, and the discharge of free charge present in the atmosphere near the ground. I don't know how likely the second mechanism is, but for sure the frictional generation of static charge on the airplane as it passes through the air does happen.

I enjoy your web site BTW -- insider information from a fascinating period in modeling history.

Hi John. It sounds like we have a copy of the same plans. Also I believe in a back issue of Stunt News, Bob Palmer mentioned that he and another employee of Henry Engineering used to get planes off the "production line" and build them several at a time in jigs. This helped keep them true and fly better for contests. Makes me wonder if the Thunder Bird in GB is one of those?
As to static on plastic covering, it will pick up lint, hair and small pieces of paper off the floor. Just like a comb passed over wool. Dry wool, not on the sheep.