Shark45 fuselage

Okay call me dumb if you all like, but having started building a Shark45 from a kit, I checked the bearer spacing that is set by the fuselage and guess what!!! it is as per plan set for an old KB45 at 33mm spacing and the engine I want to put in either ST45 or ST51 has a bearer spacing of 36mm okay so its only 3mm but on hardwood bearers that are only 10mm X 13mm (3/8 X 1/2)I really don't feel too inclined to shave the bearers at all I would hate to start the motor and have it tear the front of the fuselage off,what would you all do shave bearers or widen the fuselage???????? if I widen the fuselage I end up throwing the kit supplied pre-shaped blocks, formers and anything else that regulates the width etc., away.

Darn it knew I should have built this kit when I first got it years ago when I could have got an engine to fit the model

Also any good suggestions on a fuel tank for this model.

Would anyone know what an old KB45 used to weight so I can put wieght in the tail accordingly.

ARGHHHHHH so much difference between then and now WAAAAAA anyone got some tissues sniffle

>Okay call me dumb if you all like, but having started
>building a Shark45 from a kit, I checked the bearer spacing
>that is set by the fuselage and guess what!!! it is as per
>plan set for an old KB45 at 33mm spacing and the engine I
>want to put in either ST45 or ST51 has a bearer spacing of
>36mm okay so its only 3mm but on hardwood bearers that are
>only 10mm X 13mm (3/8 X 1/2)I really don't feel too inclined
>to shave the bearers at all I would hate to start the motor
>and have it tear the front of the fuselage off,what would
>you all do shave bearers or widen the fuselage???????? if I
>widen the fuselage I end up throwing the kit supplied
>pre-shaped blocks, formers and anything else that regulates
>the width etc., away.
>
>Darn it knew I should have built this kit when I first got
>it years ago when I could have got an engine to fit the
>model
>
>Also any good suggestions on a fuel tank for this model.
>
>Would anyone know what an old KB45 used to weight so I can
>put wieght in the tail accordingly.
>
>ARGHHHHHH so much difference between then and now WAAAAAA
>anyone got some tissues sniffle

You’re not dumb
I had the same issue on the Magnum I am doing with a Double Star 61 R.E.

So I opted to widen the formers, all of them, and then did a crutch set up to better the model

Now to answer your weight?? I have right here a Veco 45 with a Big Art tongue muffler and it weighs just under 12oz. and it too is approx. 36mm wide

Wanna buy a Veco 45 I have four although I only have one right now with a big Art muffler which has my house address glued to it.

For a picture reference go to this archived link

http://clstunt.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=printer_format&forum=DCForumID1&om=3111&omm=12

With only a 3 mm increase in width, I don't see any great structural problem suddenly occuring. Go ahead and shave them.

I am assuming this is the original Veco kit in which case replacing the formers with better wood will be a plus anyway. A modern engine is a real plus so I would say widen the fuselage.

Actually its a Jetco kit I got in 1985 and its been sitting waiting for me to build it ever since,

trouble is I got too tied up flying combat which means no time to build a nice model as constantly building models to as fodder ( to much carnage in combat )

OOPS, Jetco not Veco Dummy and I even have one.. DUH...

I recommend you use the original kit parts as templates and replace them with contest grade plywood and balsa. The original wood is usually the consistency of iron and very heavy. Additionally, it would be a good idea to replace the original engine mounts with a engine crutch assembly as well as replace the original control horns and hardware with modern equipment. You will be much happier with these changes.

I have seen two different Jetco kit plans. One depicts the K&B45 as you mention and the other shows a Supertigre 60 and different front end and cowl construction. Unfortunately, I no longer have the plans to measure, but perhaps someone else does.
Do whatever you have to do(new formers, bearers, etc.) to get a big engine in there and build in a tail weight box.
The Shark will likely come out very heavy from kit wood. The design weight with the 45 is something like 59 oz as I recall which,along with the area, etc. makesit a 60 sized airplane in my opinion. Considering the OKC wind, you definitely do not want to underpower it.
The modern ST 51 might doas would the V case 60. There is also a very sweet Rustler Merco 61, which formerly powered a Shark, available locally for a fair price last I heard. E mail me for details.
The RM 61 is heavier than the ST 60 but very, very powerful and reliable with modern construction.

>I recommend you use the original kit parts as templates and
>replace them with contest grade plywood and balsa. The
>original wood is usually the consistency of iron and very
>heavy. Additionally, it would be a good idea to replace the
>original engine mounts with a engine crutch assembly as well
>as replace the original control horns and hardware with
>modern equipment. You will be much happier with these
>changes.

I agree with Tom. I had a Jetco kit at one time (sold it). I built one from a combination of Jetco plans, RSM plans & some RSM parts. The Jetco kit had loads of places where they wanted you to laminate a half dozen little bits of wood together to construct a part (wingtips for two as I recall) that can easily be cut from one piece at maybe one third the weight. If you built it per kit plans I don't think you'll need much tail weight.

Two thoughts here...well, maybe three

Since the bottom of the engine is rounded, all you need to do is knock the top edges off of the engine bearers a bit to get the engine to fit between. That was probably done with the original engine anyway. I have done that a lot in the past, as there are a lot of now classic designs that were originally made for Foxes.

Don't put tail weight in the plane until you know how much to put in. That will depend on wood weights, paint, and how you want to trim the plane. Just add a simple weight box in the tail section and add weight only when and if you need it. (The frustrating part is when you put a tail weight box in the plane and then end up needing nose weight. Got it too heavy back here, did we now?)

Replace any kit wood that is too heavy with lighter stuff. Your plane will love you for it and make the tail weight box practical.

Good point Len

>Okay call me dumb if you all like, but having started
>building a Shark45 from a kit, I checked the bearer spacing
>that is set by the fuselage and guess what!!! it is as per
>plan set for an old KB45 at 33mm spacing and the engine I
>want to put in either ST45 or ST51 has a bearer spacing of
>36mm okay so its only 3mm but on hardwood bearers that are
>only 10mm X 13mm (3/8 X 1/2)I really don't feel too inclined
>to shave the bearers at all I would hate to start the motor
>and have it tear the front of the fuselage off,what would
>you all do shave bearers or widen the fuselage????????

As Leonard points out, you on;y need to shave the "mounting face" side of the mounts, since the crankcase curves away. If you put a 3/32 aluminum plate on top of the mount, and under the engine lugs (which you should do in any case) you'll have to shave even less.

>Also any good suggestions on a fuel tank for this model.
>
>Would anyone know what an old KB45 used to weight so I can
>put wieght in the tail accordingly.

No way to tell how much to put in, since the weight of the wood and paint are *far* more significant than the engine. I also would be surprised if the K&B was significantly lighter than the ST51 - maybe an ounce or so, or "in the noise" of the likely airframe weight variation. I very seriously doubt that you will need tail weight if you use the Jetco kit wood!! You might end up wishing you had a Saito 72 just for the balance. Jetco kits, as a general rule, came out heavy, and heavy means tailheavy.

3mm is just over an 1/8 inch right? I am not familiar with how this kit builds but if it is similar to other kits you could just make new formers that hold the engine bearers and make them 3mm wider between the beares. Leave the rest alone. You are talking an extra 1/16" wider in the forward portion of the fuse on each side of the center line. Most wont ever notice if you dont tell them. The preshaped blocks wont line up as well but it will be close enough to just shape it in with a long sanding block. If it were me and 3mm was the distance needed I would consider doig this.

Another alternative, if the kit contents and box are in good shape, is to put it for sale on eBay. RSM makes a kit of the same version of the SHARK 45, and they are now laser cut, so are accurate, and the wood and hardware will be considerably better quality than Jetco provided. Lew McFarland flew a 10% enlarged version with a ST G.21 .46, and plans are available, I think from Tom Dixon.

Over the past few years, we have had as many as three Shark 45's at the NW CL Regionals, at Albany, OR. Two had ST .60's, Nils Norling's and Bruce Hunt's. The third, Pat Johnston's, was powered by a Stuka Stunt Works Magnum XL .53. Pat did the CAD plans for the RSM kit. Both Nils and Bruce started with early RSM kits (pre-laser) and found the parts didn't fit well. Pat's was scratch built, and weighed 54 oz (maybe 52?) when wake turbulence took it from him. <sniff>

While a ST G.51 would be a good powerplant for the Shark 45, I would prefer to see that slim nose preserved as close as possible to the original, and the Magnum XL .53/ASP .53 appears to be a bit smaller. I have both Magnum XL .53 and ASP .53 (identical engines, from the same factory), and a ST G.51, so could make dimensional comparisons if you are really interested. Regarding the G.45 you have, our man Joe Dill had one of these, and I asked if it was a good stunt engine. He indicated that it was a screamer, and he was going to use it for a Navy Carrier model of some sort.
Steve

Re K & B 45 weight...I have two, both converted from RC to CL, so they have an aluminum venturi inserted...

They are 8 ounces. I would assume the dead stock CL versions are a fraction more.

Don't know what a ST .51 weighs. I do have a .60 Small Case lying around, though, and I could check it if you wish. Or, maybe I do have a .51. Can't remember. Did sell some '90s style ones, but they are completely different, and heavier.

Re the Greenhead .45s. These are manly, rough motors, so be warned. Buttery smooth OS FP .40s, they are not. Think a Fox Stunt shakes? A Greenhead .45 makes Don Knotts appear as if he is on Prozak. This is despite the rotary counterbalance stuck on the back. I can only shudder to think if Brodbeck (spelling?) & Co had neglected this part.

Back in the early '60s, yeah, they were impressive. But, today, an FP or LA OS 40 makes them appear as from the Ford Model T days, power wise and smoothness wise, and every-other-kind-of-wise.

Loud mothers, too. Pray that the neighbors are hearing impaired, but, come to think of it, they soon will be, as will you.

But the engines have a certain charm, as does Roseanne, or Hillary...I had one on a Scratch profile, and lived to tell the tale.

Currell (would you say that again?) P.