Looking for plans

Does anyone have plans out there for a C/L DC-7, I am looking to build something scale and a multi, seen pictures in old magazine.

Frank: If you do find something, it likely will be from a old Eureka (Japanese) kit. Take a close look at it, because their scale kits (that's what Eureka offered) are not strictly accurate.

Hi Currell. What did they change their name to? Wasn't it Aristo-Craft, or was that a different company? I haven't seen any kits for these on ebay. Back in 70-75 one of our club members had and flew a DC6. Once a day was all he could handle. Talk about line tension:P

These kits were sort of a "cottage industry" in Japan, and they were marketed in several names.....nifty gizmo's and intricate castings. They need a lot of fudging to be scale, however. The later kits (Staggerwing Beech, i.e.) seemed closer to scale.

George Gaydos flew a DC-6(?).....McCoy .29's inboard and .19's outboard, I believe.

See Ya

thanks for the info guys. I will keep looking

So far I can only find plans for a DC-2 and a DC-3. I'll keep checking.

So far the closest I have come is in the old John Pond Plans Book, now part of AMA. It is for a Kyosho Corporation DC-6B with a wing span of 71 inches for CL. You will have better luck finding a kit than waiting for AMA getting the plans available in your lifetime.

Well, it never fails. Ask for something on here and it shows up on ebay. Item # 3158 7301 70, DC6 plans for the Kyosho 72" control line model. Some cat going by the ebay moniker of; curlyshemp2003 has it up for bids. It is in the toys-hobbies,gas RC, freeflight/control line area of ebay. Hope this is of help.

If that is no good. Go to *bay and search under seller for skystone01.
You can search the on line shop....the guy has every plan you can think of.

I love these big multi-engine Jap mostly scale jobs.

I have the DC-6B kit, which is one of the real rare ones.

The plans are two sheets of literally blueprints, white lines on a blue background.

One sheet shows the top and side view of the fuselage and tail group.

The other shows the top and front view of the outboard wing.

No patterns, no assembly directions, no details for order of assembly.

Just the position of the main formers and ribs, stringers and spars in the final assembled form.

This airplane was designed so that the outboard foot or so of each wing can detach, presumably for transport to and from the field.

You haven't got much to go on to get the plane built if you get the plans. If the guy on ebay is also offering the patterns for the parts, that's enough to get a model built--assuming you are prepared to fab every part and devise a lot of your own structural and assembly details.

My plan when the time comes is to get out an accurate 3 view of the original airplane and use a projector to blow it up to the appropriate scale and then draw myself a parts layout to build an airframe closer to scale. I'd also re-engineer the wing to be one piece. I tend to think of these 'kits' as parts sets from which you really need to improvise the construction.

That said, I also like the simple charm of the genre. Am ready to leave the gear fixed down and have 4 K&B GreenHead .19's for power. The plan is to have four slightly different tanks sizes and let the power gradually diminish as the engines quit one at a time, outboard to inboard.

The wood is heavy as hell.

I think if you really wanted a nice performing airplane the best strategy would be to transfer the patterns to a DFX file and get some new parts laser cut and build, in essence, a new airplane along the lines of the originals.

There is a great paint scheme for the DC-6B, BTW--President Truman's personal transport "Independence".

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/trumanfile/bp/nytmspic.htm

--

Now, here is a question for the forum:

Everyone who ever build one of the bigger Eureka class multiengine jobs (DC-6, Connie, B-29, B-36) always makes note that the control line force was anywhere from intense to staggering. Some folks say that if you build the B-36, to plan on two guys in the center of the circle just to anchor the thing to one point on the planet.

Why not engineer control line pull?

Current stunt theory seems to say 'leave the rudder straight and let centrifigual force provide pull.

If a giant, multi engine ship has too much pull to be reasonable, why not build in an adjustment to the rudder and, starting from neutral, gradually put in left rudder little by little until a solid, but not excessive control force is achieved? I'm guessing a DC-6B trying to fly a 500 foot left hand skidded circle that was constrained to 70 foot lines might still provide a solid feel on the lines without stressing the entire control systems. There are tales of a B-36 simply pulling a U-Reely handle apart.

Why not build in left rudder?

I have a beech c 45 kit from keosho. Complete except for wheels. Twin for 2 35 engines. asking $150.00 plus freight.

I do, too. Not for sale.

But the replay of "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World" is on these days on Turner Classic Movies.

I'm going to paint my model the same as the Twin Beech Frank Tallman flew through the hangar and the Coca-Cola billboard in the movie.

Thant will be very nice. I would love to see that.
regards:

Ty: Yes, it was Aristo-Craft. They only did a scant few of the models, however. I think one was a Staggerwing. I have sold a few. Interestingly, Walt Musciano did the drawings, as I recall. Currell

Aristocraft packaged a number of designs similar to but generally slightly higher in quality compared to the Eureka, et. al. products. I have an Aristo Craft P-38 and B-25 that are basically Eureka kits with slightly better plans.

There were a series of biplanes that seemed to be their own products, F3F, Staggerwing Beech and an F11C Goshawk at the least.

I'd love to get one of the Goshawk kits, just to build those wonderful tapered wings. The model was not much to write home about, pretty sparse. It's the least valuable of the series.

If anyone runs across one for sale let me know.

I have built the KYOSHO DC-6 and used os 15's for power. The plane weighed in at 7 pounds 5 oz.less the engines. It was a real chore to build and YES! you do have to remake alot of parts. The sheeting quality was really bad, so 99% of that went out the door. When it was done, I flew it 4 times with only one engine dying off during the flight (#3 eng). No noticeable flight reactions and I really think if I had lost both outboard engines, it still would pull your arms out of their sockets! I had help after 2 or 3 min. of flight as it really gets tough when the centrifugal force takes over. The rudder offset I had was 3/8" and don't think you need that much. I sold the plane to a guy at the field and loaded it into his pickup as I built the plane with single piece wing construction(never again). After that trip I built the Super Connie. This still hangs on the ceiling in my shop and to this day it has never flown. It weighs in at 7 3/4 pounds with no engines. As to your plan search, I do have another KYOSHO DC-6 that the plans could be copied if you're willing to spend the bucks for printing.

Hi Larry

Yes I would be intrested in paying for a copy of the plans
Let me know what it would cost you.

Good evening Frank. I have the kits in my collection up in Sparks Nevada at the new house. I just got back today from there! Wish I had known. I will go back in 3 to 4 weeks and pull the plans and get the copies made if you want to wait that long. I will need to know where you live as I noticed you have no info on the forum.

>I really think if
>I had lost both outboard engines, it still would pull your
>arms out of their sockets! I had help after 2 or 3 min. of
>flight as it really gets tough when the centrifugal force
>takes over. The rudder offset I had was 3/8" and don't
>think you need that much.

What if you had rudder offset to the inside of the circle?

Would not that reduce the line tension to managable levels?

>After that I built the Super Connie.
>It weighs in at 7 3/4 pounds with no engines.

How come the Connie turned out heavier?

Cy: The three bipe kits you mentioned are the ones I always see under the Aristo-Craft. I think I have sold one of each.

I'll keep an eye out for the rebranded Eureka ones. I didn't know that the bipes were original Aristo-Craft designs. Currell

>Cy: The three bipe kits you mentioned are the ones I always
>see under the Aristo-Craft. I think I have sold one of each.

I see the F3F and the Stag around once in a rare whole on ebay.

Never the Goshawk. Thanks for keeping an eye out.

>I'll keep an eye out for the rebranded Eureka ones. I didn't
>know that the bipes were original Aristo-Craft designs.

I don't either. In all the old Eureka ads you see the WWII era and later prop stuff and the early jet age stuff for dynajets and tiger jets. I never see the biplanes in any of the cottage industry brands.

And the biplanes were designed by Muciano and there is never a design attribution in the Eureka series kits.

So I'm surmising that Aristo-Craft took over the production of the cottage industry folks or part of it that supported Eureka, et. al., and got Muciano to design the bipes.

They are certainly all similar in style, the bipes just seem different by a little.

Bigger airplane and a whole lot more TAIL. Plus I used a lot of stringers on the fuselage instead of the sheeting. I will get the pictures out if I can find them. I don't have any way to put them on SSW, but mabe someone can.

>Bigger airplane and a whole lot more TAIL. Plus I used a lot
>of stringers on the fuselage instead of the sheeting. I
>will get the pictures out if I can find them. I don't have
>any way to put them on SSW, but mabe someone can.

I'm assuming you are talking about why the Connie turned out heavier than the DC-6.

I've got a scanner (the means) and the motive to post your photos on the board.

All I need is the opportunity.

Rudder offset could be really tricky if you go to inside offset. I would think that straight would be a safer way to go. Either way you go, centrifugal force will always be present as long as you don't turn the plane into the circle. At the cost and work in one of these big babies, I don't think you would want to risk it.

>Rudder offset could be really tricky if you go to inside
>offset. I would think that straight would be a safer way to
>go. Either way you go, centrifugal force will always be
>present as long as you don't turn the plane into the circle.

As I pointed out earlier, I would start with straight on an adjustable rudder and very gradually dial in left rudder over a series of flights until I could get the thing up in the air going full tilt and have nice solid but reasonable control line pressures.

> At the cost and work in one of these big babies, I don't
>think you would want to risk it.

With the cost and work, I don't want to risk losing it to a control line system failure. I read recently of a guy who build the B-36 and lost it on the first flight when the pull on the control lines tore the lines out of a U-Reely he was using.

Does not seem sensible to have enormous control line pull if you can moderate it by skidding the airplane into the circle a bit.

I always laugh when I see the tiny little bellcrank they put in the B-36 kit.

>Rudder offset could be really tricky if you go to inside
>offset. I would think that straight would be a safer way to
>go. Either way you go, centrifugal force will always be
>present as long as you don't turn the plane into the circle.
> At the cost and work in one of these big babies, I don't
>think you would want to risk it.

As Larry mentions, you would want to go slow on this. But the Rabe rudder is a good example of using the rudder turned in. This can be set up to give good outboard "kick" on outside turns where the tension normally decreases and a slight inboard "kick" on inside turns where the tension increases. So, yes, it has been done. And, yes, it can be done. You do not have to live with tension. You can decrease it to zero and have a good flying airplane (straight and level). But you need some tension to allow use of the controls. And it is nice to have a little up wind when flying in windy conditions.

A little.

I am currently in the process of building an 84 1/2 inch span B-29. The old Eureka kit. I have already built one and liked it so well that I am going to build this second one. The first had four Enya 19s with individual tanks all of the same size (2 oz). I started the inboard engine first and the outboard last. No problem on fuel management. The engines were not throttled. (wide open from the get-go) First flight was with the CG as indicated on the plans and with 5/8th inch rudder offset. It did pull enough that I needed another guy holding me by the belt after a couple of laps. Second flight took rudder offset to 1/4th inch, still uncomfortable to fly. Third flight took enough weight out of the nose (plans called out for 2 pounds) to move the CG back 1/2 inch and took out another 1/8th inch of rudder. Plane flew well enough that it was very managable with two hands on the handle. Later flights resulted in removing all engine out thrust on the two inboard engines and taking about half of the out thrust out of the two outboard engines. and last trim adjustments were to the line sweep, moving it forward a considerable amount. I was finally able to fly the plane with one hand and if the wind got up I merely climbed it going down wind and dove it going into the wind. I probably had less than 200 flights on it when I sold it to the Air Force base hobby shop at Amarillo AFB.
The one I am working on now will be powered by OS engines. Probably 15s or 20s and DEFINITELY THROTTLED.

> I am currently in the process of building an 84 1/2 inch
> span B-29. The old Eureka kit. ...
> I probably had less than 200 flights on it when I
> sold it to the Air Force base hobby shop at Amarillo AFB.
> The one I am working on now will be powered by OS engines.
> Probably 15s or 20s and DEFINITELY THROTTLED.
>
> Bigiron

Wow. That was a great post for me to read.

I have two Lockheed Constellations and one DC-6B in the kit stash.

I'm thinking of one of them with 4 K&B Greenhead Torpedo .19's without throttle just to recreate the nostalgia of the originals.

I have 4 K&B VECO .19 R/C engines for another, where I plan to use the J-Roberts three wire system to throttle the engines.

The only tales I have heard usually talk about a few spectacular but difficult flights with excess line pull and then an early retirement.

Are you building the outer wing panels as slidable detachable units the way they are designed for the B-36 and DC-6B or are you building a one piece wing?

How much of the original wood did you use and how much did you replace?

Exciting to hear of some one getting a viable flier out of one of the series...

Cy, I have some 8mm movie film of that plane flying. That one had "one piece wing". The new one will have removable outer panels.
First one had kit wood (all parts and components were kit). The new one will have NO Kit components OR kit wood. I really liked flying that plane. I intend to find a better way to get the outer panels on and off than what the plans call for. Haven't decided on that yet. So far I have reengineered the plans and made templates for all the parts and cut all parts except for the horizontal stab and elevators.
My shop got really messed up for the last few years and so I couldn't work on it. But!! I now have it almost ready for heavy duty modling work.
Got to build a couple of stunters, but should be able to work around them on the 29.

Cy I have the plans for the B-36 along with a sheet of all the major parts traced off the kit parts. I believe the span was something like 110 inches!!!

Hi Cy,
All this talk of the Eureka, etc., series has got my interest back up in finishing my B-25.
I know we talked about some plastic cowls for this one, still available?
I am going to need the clear canopies, too. Most of the ones in my kit are ruined.
Thanks!
Bill <><

I have a home made super sturdy vacuform box and a heavy duty shop vac.

I also have some white poly-something sheets that look like they would make great cowling and wheel pant material. Thinner than the cowls in my Sig Acrobat, for instance, but thick enough to stand up and hold shape well.

I'll need to get a hotplate and build some forms in order to get into the business of pulling anything.

I had thought that I might just shine up the cowlings in my B-25 kit and place them in the center of the box, shored up inside with some balsa to keep them circular and just pull the plastic down over them and make a cowling that was the thickness of the plastic larger than the originals and just run with that.

As for the clear cockpit parts, that's always an issue with these old kits.

I'm figuring to use my B-36 plexi as the basis for pouring a plaster mold etc and getting some clear and practicing to find out how to replicate the canopy exactly.

So yes, I'm in a good position to generate a few parts to help some fellow builders out, but I'm not the professional at it that Bill Sawyer is and there will be a learning curve on technique.

I'll have to learn sometime.

Let me know your thoughts.

bigiron13 do you have plans for this plane? if so could i get a copy?
thanks brad smith

Brad I think I have an extra set. When I copied the original kit plans, they were so old and brittle that they fell apart when I unfolded them and I had to tape them together. I will go see and get back to you later.
There are two or three sheets.

Bigiron

Yes, I do have one set, Two pages. I do not have a sheet with the parts drawn off on it though, and I doubt that the plane can be built without a copt of the parts. I can probably get the templates out and trace around them.

bigiron i would be interested in a set of planes and parts traceing let me know how much you want you can email me at bradshimflyer@aol thanks again brad smith

Brad, I am now tracing all parts from the templates.

Bigiron. I will contact you via E-Mail.
Mine is

[email protected]

I thought you would like to see this one to get you started. This was my Stafford C/L scale world team entry in 1988. It had 4 OS 25's for power, full digital control, throttle, rotating gun turret, fowler flaps, and retracts. Weight 14.22 pounds. This was a beast to fly. My elbow would go to sleep because I had to fly it with my right hand as I had to use the digital control to operate all the options with my left hand. As soon as I got to flying speed I would throttle back just to make my elbow feel ok. This was a wild flier. Steve Ashby, Jeff Perez and my self competed at both the 1982 and 1988 C/L SCALE W/C. This was my 1988 model. We came in second that year. The model is in a hobby shop in Cedar Rapids Iowa.

GREAT thread, guys. I hung on every word, with 'both hands'!
I love twins, but 4 or 6 would be ultimate.
The 'neutral' rudder idea falls in there, recollecting rudder adjustment 'in' on our Teamrace planes, up to 3 degrees! (unheard of at the time)
Picked up lotsa speed, 'free lunch'?