A bit of minor heresy, here...

Stuka Stunt Main Forum · 28 of 28 known posts recovered

greatcircle · Dec 09, 2003 09:00 AM

I've been studying the Brodak Smoothie kit plans, and wonder if it would disqualify it for any competition if I were to build it with the engine inverted? It lacks some elegance, sticking out of the top of the cowl like that, and besides, the pilot can't SEE!

Oh oh, colonel, look out the window--it's coming BACK!

Carl

Bill Little · Dec 09, 2003 09:05 AM

#1 source

I don't know about OTS, but for Classic the inverted engine is just fine. The Veco kit had this option. I still have mine which was built prior to 1963 and it originally had the inverted engine.
Bill <><

Dont worry about the mule going blind 'til you get the cart loaded!

Jim Pollock · Dec 09, 2003 09:50 AM

#2 source

Yes,

The Smoothie did have the inverted engine option in 1958 (Classic ear), that's when I built mine anyway. Keep it fairly light and it flys very well. I watched Tom Dixon fly his at Brodak's this year and it had a good corner too. I would try to keep it under 38 ounces.

Jim Pollock

dirtydan · Dec 09, 2003 03:24 PM

#3 source

I'm the last guy one should depend upon for answers to questions like this, but Don McClave is one of the first. And until some sort of home remodeling accident damaged the model abuilding, Don was converting a Brodak Smoothie kit to an inverted-motor installation. And planning to fly the resulting model in both OTS and Classic.

Dan

Currell · Dec 09, 2003 03:39 PM

#4 source

Veco Smoothie plans show it both ways, if memory serves. Currell

dirtydan · Dec 09, 2003 03:45 PM

#5 source

>Veco Smoothie plans show it both ways, if memory serves.
>Currell

Actually, I think not. When I built my first Smoothie a few years ago, McClave supplied two sets of plans and I believe one was from a published article, the other from a kit. With both sets of plans to hand, one did have both upright and inverted setups to look at, but not both versions on the same plan.

Will someone who actually knows of which Currell and I speak puhleeaasse step up the plate??!!

Dan

De · Dec 09, 2003 04:13 PM

#6 source

I sold a veco Smoothy kit on the 'bay a couple of years ago. I remember both upright and inverted engine installations being shown on the plans. I do not remember if the inverted engine was on the plan or on an additional piece of paper.

Someone else will know.

wcrane · Dec 09, 2003 04:43 PM

#7 source

Kay, when they get around to the feasability part, when someone powers one with an electric motor, are they gonna be disqualified?

From somewhere near Parkville, Mo.
William Crane
AMA 6733

Iskandar Taib · Dec 09, 2003 09:03 PM

#12 source

As long as you've got a dummy cylinder on the thing, it should be legal...

richardskits · Dec 09, 2003 05:03 PM

#8 source

I hope to help out here. The original Henry Engineering/Veco kits I have in my collection, show the variations of up right and inverted engine mounting not only on the plan itself, but the kit is die cut for this engine mounting with extra spacer on the plywood sheet.(landing gear mount/engine mount former F-2) The Veco Smoothie I mfg. has this plan and parts that allow this option. I really do not know if the pollywog wing version also has this option, as I do not have this kit in my collection. Nor do I make it. All of the Joe Wagner designs I have show this option on all plans of the larger models with the exception of the Hurricane, Little Thunderbird, Thunderbird #1 (upright engine) and the F-51 Mustang. The optional engine mounting goes all the way down to the Papoose. I don't think I missed any. If I did, I'll know in a hurry!

Larry Richards

Bill Little · Dec 09, 2003 06:57 PM

#10 source

>>Veco Smoothie plans show it both ways, if memory serves.
>>Currell
>
>
>Actually, I think not. >Will someone who actually knows of which Currell and I speak
>puhleeaasse step up the plate??!!
>
>Dan
>

Hi Dan,
If you read the first two replies to this thread (Jim Pollock and myself) you will see we did.
The Veco kit I had (still have the old nose pieces I saved after the rebuild) actually had the plywood formers die cut for either. Top holes for inverted and bottom holes for upright. Thrust line remained the same this way.
Bill <><

Dont worry about the mule going blind 'til you get the cart loaded!

Tim McTigue · Dec 09, 2003 08:39 PM

#11 source

"I would try to keep it under 38 ounces."

Easier said than done, LOL! Flies okay at 48 ounces, tho...

Tim

MAAC 65703

Jim Pollock · Dec 10, 2003 03:01 PM

#15 source

Tim,

Do a hard third corner of a triangle and watch it wave it's wings at you. Mine did that - mine was the same weight as yours. Dixon's I think was around 39 ounces and didn't waggle it's wings in a hard third corner.

Jim Pollock

Tim McTigue · Dec 12, 2003 04:16 PM

#20 source

Luckily, I don't think I'll ever come up against this. My days of doing a triangle are far enough in the future that I should be able to learn how to build and finish before then...

Tim

MAAC 65703

Ferocious · Dec 12, 2003 11:00 AM

#16 source

You should have no problem finishing a Brodak Smoothie down in the 38-40 oz. range, but the finish will have to be very light- maybe 6 coats of clear and color only on the fuse/rudder/trim. I did that on mine and it came in at 39 oz. with a B40. Plenty of power. I think a typical concours type finish is going to add another 5-6 ounces and get pretty heavy.

Rustler · Dec 09, 2003 06:21 PM

#9 source

When I was a teenager, I passed on a few models because they had upright engines and looked SO unscale. Nowadays I find myself deliberately choosing upright engined models or building them thus, purely to display the (hopefully classic or correct) engine and bring back all that nostalgia for times past. Fellow engine nutters will understand.

Ian R.

jobellcrank · Dec 09, 2003 09:14 PM

#13 source

LAST EDITED ON Dec-09-03 AT 09:19 PM (CST)

I might be able to shed a little light, though not the solution to this question.

The version of the Smoothie that qualifies for OT is the one that was published in Air Trails magazine in '52. It does not show the inverted engine on the plans. The Brodak version is also OK for OT, under PAMPA rules, even though it has a different airfoil. This is based on the evidence given by Bob Palmer himself. But again, there is only the upright engine shown.

When Veco kitted the design, their plans show both the upright and inverted engines. If the kit was released prior to the cutoff date, then either engine mount would be considered legal for OT. There's no question about the design for Classic, either would be legal.

So, does anyone know the date the Veco Smoothie kit was released?

If the date is close enough, the case may be made that the model existed prior to the cutoff, which would qualify it for OT under PAMPA rules.

I'm wondering why everything is spinning around?

John Miller

Ty Marcucci · Dec 10, 2003 01:07 AM

#14 source

I have heard the owner of Veco was tight with his loot, and now I believe it. In every single issue of the 1952 MAN and FM, not one advertisement for Henry Engineering nor for Veco.
I built a Veco Smoothie in 1970, with an inverted engine as per the plans. I just check my scrap book and there it is. The only mod I made was to the canopy. I made it look more like a P51D. It matched the empanage which is more P51 than anything else. Bright yellow with black checkerboard. Fox .35.

Currell · Dec 12, 2003 11:16 AM

#17 source

Dan: Step 17 on both the Veco and Dumas Smoothie plans show both an upright and inverted engine installation.

Veco 29 or 31, naturally.

Currell

Ty Marcucci · Dec 12, 2003 03:48 PM

#18 source

I found an advertisement for the Henry Engineering Veco Smoothie in the November 1952 Air Trails, 3/4 page, on page 57. It has an inverted engine. The ad states: Wing span 52"; wing area 501 sq in. including flaps; Engine .29 to .35; Finished weight approx. 32 ounces. Designed by veteran Veco designer Bob Smoothie Palmer. Their words not mine.

So, it is OTS legal, with flaps, engine inverted as per a Nov 1952 AT advertisment.

jobellcrank · Dec 12, 2003 08:03 PM

#21 source

Settles the question in my mind. Thanks Ty for looking it up.

I'm wondering why everything is spinning around?

John Miller

Ty Marcucci · Dec 12, 2003 11:33 PM

#22 source

Hi John. Looking up stuff like this has become a hobby within a hobby when it's too cold out in the garage to build. Got to do more mountains on my SP layout anyhow.

iroquois · Dec 13, 2003 02:55 AM

#23 source

When Bob weighed his models, did they have an engine in them?

Dave Day
Website: http://www.iroquois.free-online.co.uk

Ty Marcucci · Dec 13, 2003 06:29 PM

#24 source

One can only assume he did, but since he is still with us, it might be a good question to ask him. Then again, those Veco .29 engines were not light.
Do you have access to the Thunderbird left in Great Britain? What kind of wood did he use? That may be the key to it's light weight. But if I recall, my Smoothie was not all that big. The T-Bird was bigger or so it seemed at the time.

iroquois · Dec 17, 2003 07:03 AM

#27 source

The T'Bird left in Britain was built from a kit and used kit wood. It weighed 43 ounces on my scale, not the advertised 36 ounces. If you removed the engine, 36 might be right, hence my question.

Dave Day
Website: http://www.iroquois.free-online.co.uk

Ty Marcucci · Dec 12, 2003 04:13 PM

#19 source

In the February 1952 issue of Air Trails, in the "Western Roundup" section, there is a photo of Bob Palmer holding his new Smoothie. It has AMA 19488 on the wing, upright engine (Veco .29)with no cowling, 52" span, 32" length, silk on wing, tail, hollowed fuselage.

jrhoades · Dec 16, 2003 01:50 AM

#25 source

I believe I can offer some insight as to when the inverted engine Smoothie was in existence. I was living in Burbank during 1952 and in the hobby shop where I went to get replacement wings and props for my Firebaby they had Bob Palmer's Mars and his inverted engine Smoothie. My recollection is that it was the same model that was shown on the kit box. When plans or kit first showed the inverted engine I can't say but the inverted engine Smoothie certainly existed in 1952. We moved to Salt Lake City at the end of 52 so I am positive of the year. The Mars was the one in the MAN article. Both the Mars and Smoothie were the prettiest stunt models I'd ever seen.

Jim Rhoades

c.maikis · Dec 16, 2003 07:22 AM

#26 source

Not an answer to the original question; just a comment on flying. My Smoothie is very heavy ( 41 oz ), partly because it was built as take apart model. Engine OS 35 S, Top Flite 10 X 6. I never did much work on trimming. I ended up with slightly more flap than elevator deflection.
At Tucson 96 they let me fly this airplane in Oldtime and Classic. Regards, claus