Scientific 1/2a s

Hello there!

Looking for a source of drawings and/or plans for 3 scientific models.

Stuntmaster
SuperStuntmaster
Zig-Zag

Drooled over these model kits as a poor kid in Macon, Ga. in the late 50s and early 60s. Would like to scratch build a few of these for myself and the neices and nephew to enjoy.

Would be leaning toward a fuse of laminated pieces instead of solid carved. These models were beautiful to me.

Thank you in advance for your help.

Littlefly

'I fly smallfry!'

Currell will undoubtly be checking in and he is the man to talk to. An expert on all things relating to Scientific Models, and has the plans and decals for almost all of them.
Dennis

I've purchased a few engines and decals/plans from Currell and nothing but honesty/quality and quick shipping.

Thanks for the kind words.

I have all three of those, plus about 70 other Scientific plans. Note that they are copies. Plans are $4 each, and you get a list of available plans and decals with your order. Decals are $3 per sheet, and I have about two dozen different types. Currell

Hollow logs are easy to build. You need not laminate. Cut out your block, cut into from fore to aft, hollow both half logs, glue back together.

Well, my carving symmetry ain't fer crap. I think I could keep it straight and symmetrical if I make 2 of each slice, scroll sawn to rough shape. Material availability plays here too, as blocks that large are hard to come by in my little berg. Sheet wood I have. Might even do one up multi-grain and clear dope it!

littlefly
"I fly smallfry!"

Dennis:

1. Get your (light) block.

2. Trace the fuse outline on the side. Use a roller ball point pen.

3. Trace the (tapered) plan view outline on the top.

4. Cut the side out with, maybe, a Dremel table saw.

5. Same thing for the top.

You now have a square log of sorts. Not hollow yet.

6. Sand the outside to your general shape.

7. Cut in half from fore to aft. Firewall to tailwheel.

8. Hollow the daylights out of both , making them "canoes". You can use little hand gouging tools, or an attachment on your Dremel drill, or even use rough sandpaper. Or all three.

9. Glue back together. Just use Sig or Ambroid as a weight saver.

10. Fine sand the outside to what you want it to look like, ready for paint.

I have been able to get two ME-109 Scientific fuselages in at 8 grams, using this technique. This is one of the minimalist Scientific fuse designs, with a small cross section, just like Willi Messerschmidt intended on the real thing. This is in an unpainted state, but with firewall attached. This figure is something you can shoot for in a typical 1/2 A Hollow Log.

You are now a graduate of Hollow Log University, Walt Musciano presiding...

Currell,

What source do you use for light balsa blocks? Do you order them?

>Hollow logs are easy to build. You need not laminate. Cut
>out your block, cut into from fore to aft, hollow both half
>logs, glue back together.
>
>Currell

This brings us to a topic I've been wanting to find out about: Machine tooling for the (re)production of the hollow log fuselages.

I've been meaning to ask:

1) How were the original kit fuselages produced?

2) What happened to the tools/machines used?

3) Could the old tools be resurrected to produce new fuselages?

4) Could modern tooling be set up to produce new fuselages?

5) How many different types of fuselage blocks were there originally?

The reason for my interest is obvious. If fuselage blanks of decent quality could be produced again, there would be a lot of demand IMHO, and a lot more of these fun little critters would get built. I missed them, and would love to build some. But carving big blocks of wood is just not my thing (no time) and that's a job for a machine.

Note too, that getting fresh decals made is trivial if good copies of the original art are available.

I know that Black Hawk Models (Larry the Red Baron) is making his fuselages using a router and some jigs. But his production capacity is limited.

I see the situation as similar to that for Free Flight rubber propellers. For a long time, you simply had to carve you own. But then somebody found the old machines used to carve prop blanks from balsa and began producing excellent carved blanks (to your specifications if you wanted) that made it easy to reproduce Old Timer type rubber props. And modern types too. Thus Superior Props became a major supplier of good quality props to the FF rubber community. This makes it much easier for non experts to get into the game, and I feel has made for a significant increase in participation.

Imagine being able to buy a "short kit" containing a pre-carved fuselage and decal sheet. Or a full kit. Or just being able to buy fuselages, decals and plans piecewise. I'd buy some!

Sounds like a way for Currell to finance his retirement.

The hobby pays for the hobby, and the old car habit, right now, anyway.

And, when I hang them up, maybe a bit more.

Making $ on kits can be tough, though. Lots of labor. It's easier to haunt the swaps, garage sales, attics, estate sales (regrettably).

http://www.f1d.biz/

This is the URL of a Tim Goldstein fine purveyor of indoor balsa. He had some very light blocks 4-5 lb that had grain that was to crooked for sheet production. I cant remember what I paid for the 4 that I got but it was fair as I recall.

Thanks Steve, I will check with him for some light balsa blocks.

>Thanks Steve, I will check with him for some light balsa
>blocks.

Using 4 lb balsa block for a "hollow log" 1/2A fuse *HAS* to be a felony. Or it should be...

Good point Brett, what was I thinking!

>The hobby pays for the hobby, and the old car habit, right
>now, anyway.
>
>And, when I hang them up, maybe a bit more.
>
>Making $ on kits can be tough, though. Lots of labor. It's
>easier to haunt the swaps, garage sales, attics, estate
>sales (regrettably).
>
>Currell

How's that '57 T-bird?
On the fuselages: Why do you use a once piece block and then split it in half after carving? Might it not be easier to tack glue two blocks together (like two left/right halves) and then do that? Gives you a centerline to work from too. I think Walt used to do this on some of his designs, at least that is what I understood from reading the old articles.

J

While on the Scientific 'log' fuselage subject, the one thing I always disliked about these log designs was the "too narrow" fuselages to match the "too wide" firewalls? My question is this: "Is it legal to either widen the fuselage to match the firewall, or vice verse ... in other words, can you narrow the firewall to match the fuselage?" I think I use to cut the firewalls down to size in order to match the fuselages when I was a kid ..... I thought the "too wide" firewalls were simply a manufacturing defect back then ..... sometimes ignorance IS bliss!?

I recently had that firewall issue with a couple of "Little Bipes". I left mine overhanging.
The fuselages are built of vertical soft sheet balsa laminations. I cut a bunch of profiles and cut out a hollow space in some before gluing. After fuselage assembly I cut the top view and belt sanded to approximate shape. Next step was to do final hollowing and final shaping by hand. I routed the firewall by hand to make the landing gear wire flat with the front of the firewall and epoxied in place. I remember the gear putting a lot of stress on the engine during "rough landings" in the 1950's.
I tried to post some pictures but for some reason can't post pictures on this forum. Something in my software setup, I guess.
My wife "captured" my Spitzy .045 powered one for display. I get to fly the other one.

Seems GCB did his Bipes the way I was thinking of doing my 'log' projects. Seems like it would cut down on the hand carving.
Also thought of moving the bellcrank assy back a wing bay so that the pushrod goes inside of the fuse. Should be enough room; just leave an oblong slot in the fuse rear and ply double the elevator joiner. Just my thought on it; I'm not contesting these builds, they are for the kids and my own enjoyment.

littlefly
"I fly smallfry!"

injun: Hold on a minute. A lot of the Scientific Hollow Logs had firewalls that indeed were flush with the Log. True, they look better that way, and of course you always can sand off the models that have the excess. Babe Bees, Foxes, etc still will fit.

Although I don't have full-size plans to compare, I always thought that Scientific had a few basic fuselages and the main difference between the kits was the plans.
My Little Bipe plans are the updated ones that show the Babe Bee (which I have in the second one). The firewall shown on the plans is rounded on the sides rather than flat like the fuselage side. My guess is that that firewall is shared with other kits, perhaps ones that use a sheetmetal cowl. I opted to keep the firewall authentic, as I think most were built.
Currell, I think we had a brief discussion about the firewall on the Little Bipe before I started and the kit has the oversize firewall.
As a kid building these "hollow logs" I did not stand too close to the sandpaper ... mostly just smoothing the mill marks off.
I also don't remember doing additional hollowing.

It is true that there were some basic fuselage designs that were used in more than one kit. Jim Dodson in South Carolina is an expert on this; I haven't researched it. But there are plenty of unique ones, too.

Routing wise, Scientific did a good job of getting rid of balsa, except in the tail section. You can hand remove a lot of material there. And, of course, select a lighter block in the first place.

Unless you are going for an ultralight fuselage, such as for Musciano Speed, don't remove too much material where the wing glues onto the fuse.

More: I use 2-56 blind nuts for the motors, but also have used 3-48.

One weak spot is the glue joint between the firewall and the balsa. That "big" mass of 1/2A motor can shear it off in a crash. Either triple glue with conventional cement, use epoxy, or mount your blind mounting nuts on the balsa inside side of your fuse.

Re Little Bipe: No less than four advertised spans: 12, 14, 15 and 16 inch! Walt says he doesn't remember that many, and it was ad copy error or something! The tiniest Log is the Waco Cabin, with an 11.75" upper wing.

>injun: Hold on a minute. A lot of the Scientific Hollow Logs had firewalls that indeed were flush with the Log. Currell<

Currell,
Can you name a few? Of all my several dozen plans, and perhaps eight or so kits, I have yet to see one ..... every single one I have seen (original kits, or plan copies) have the oversize firewall? THANKS.

Injun:

Smooth firewalls (non exhaustive list). Some have cowls, some not, and the cowled ones are marked with a C:

Army Racer C

F7U Cutlass C

Piper Tri Pacer C

Stuntmaster (how could you have missed this one?)

Both Spirit of St Louis Kits (18 and 26" spans) C

Red Devil

F-94 Starfire C

Little Devil

Thunderbird C

Combat Master C

More...Models like the Golden Hawk have the firewall sticking out just a little. You barely notice.

Sticking out a moderate amount are the cowled B-66, and the uncowled Ford Flivver.

Sticking out a whole lot are the cowled AT-6 and Zero.

>Stuntmaster (how could you have missed this one?<

Easy if you've never seen the plan? The firewall sticks way out on the "Super Stunt Master" though. However I do have the Army Racer and the Cutlass plans ... I reckon I simply flat overlooked the flush-to-sides firewalls on these two. My memory is not nearly as sharp as when I was young, it's the old age decaying gray matter syndrome I guess? I also have the Piper Tri-Pacer kit, but it is still sealed NIB and I've never opened it yet ..... I probably will tear into it now!
Thanks for the list, I never dreamed there were that many 1/2A Scientific designs without the over-size firewalls? THANKS much!

BTW, What designs did you use for your speed events? Do you reckon the Army Racer would be competitive in the speed event if all else (power plants, props, etc. ) was equal? Also what prop do you use for the speed events? THANKS.

Injun: Army Racer may be a reasonable choice, although none have shown up at the Musciano Meet, at least TTBOMK. It has an enclosed cowl, plastic in the original kit. Of course, if you are building from scratch, you could carve a pretty slick cowl, which would cut some drag. It has an exposed cockpit and pilot, which would cause some drag, however.

The issues you want to look at closely are fuselage cross section and wing area, primarily. And no parasite drag, like models that have struts to the wings, like a Ryan PT-16, or a Stitts Playboy. I have exclusively used the ME-109, having built one from a kit and two from scratch.

Dan Banjock has successfully used the Red Devil.

Other good choices:

Combat Master

Atomic

Little Mustang

Lucky Racer, although this is the single Log "lost" kit/plan. From the picture and the stated wing area (64 squares, which is a bit large; the ME-109 is 45), you could come up with something that is close enough.

P-40

Red Flash, even though it is a high wing

I think someone is going to have some fun with a Twin Mustang, but remember that this is a Proto Speed (12 laps) event. You need to get off the ground in a hurry, and I don't see the F-82, even with two Foxes howling, doing this.

The prop of choice, at least for me hands down, is the APC 4.5-4. This year, however, I am going to experiment some.

Ask me my opinion on Stunt, although I will never do well here...

BLACK HAWK

Anyone wanting more info on Black Hawk Models I will be glad to send out a free catalog. I am currently working with Walt Musciano on several of his designs. Someone said that I use a router in my kits, I do NOT but Scientific did. I am offering 22 kits and have more planed. I also am offering a Whip Control model, you can fly it anywhere. You may contact me at:
[email protected] and include your address for a catalog.

The Original plans were copywriten and are owned by the son of John Frisoli who says that he will prosacute if anyone copies, uses, or sells them without his permission.

"The Original plans were copywriten and are owned by the son of John Frisoli who says that he will prosacute if anyone copies, uses, or sells them without his permission."

I wish him a lotta luck...

Jake

Are you sure of this? I think I remember reading that John Frisoli, Jr. accepted an award on behalf of his father at one of the annual Walt Musciano meets.

Lets hear more about this.

LAST EDITED ON Apr-25-04 AT 08:28 PM (CDT)
 
>The Original plans were copywriten and are owned by the son
>of John Frisoli who says that he will prosacute if anyone
>copies, uses, or sells them without his permission.

So if I build a model from the plans, I get prosecuted? What criminal charge do you imagine bringing?

BLACK HAWK

I am sorry that I said anything, I did not mean to cause up roar. You can use Scientific plans any way that you want to as long as you do not turn a profit from them and if you do it lays under the french fry rule: "Only the big ones get the ketchup." Selling a few is a so what, making a business out of it COULD be trouble. I sold over 400 kits last year and if I had used the original plans I might be paying for there use. By the way the designs are public domain. My Info came from Walt Musciano. I hope that this takes care of the matter.
Larry

John Frisoli Jr did indeed accept the award at the '02 Musciano Meet. I chatted with him that day, and I saw no evidence that he was worried at all about any copyright issues regarding his dad's old plans. In fact, Mr Frisoli has his own company now, and he was kind enough to present each contestant a goodie bag full of hobby knives, fasteners, and all sorts of neat stuff. I can't say for sure, but I believe hs is focused on his present business, and not on the past

John struck me as a great guy. He shared with us a lot of tidbits about the old Scientific days, making the kits, economic issues, popular kits, etc.

I think those old Scietific plans are in the public domain, anyway.

>John struck me as a great guy. He shared with us a lot of tidbits about the old Scientific days, making the kits, economic issues, popular kits, etc.<

I'd love to hear some of this! Such as, what were the best sellers, worst sellers, total duds, toughest vs. best times economically, etc?

One of the best selling kits was the Stuntmaster. The Kingpin (not a Log at all) also did well.

Anything P-51-ish or Mustang. That is why there are about a half dozen 1/2A Mustangs from Scientific.

The Twin Mustang did poorly, because kids couldn't afford two motors.

Something with Piper in the name...

Flying Tigers. P-40. There are about three or so kits.

Sabre this or that. A magic aviation name from the '50s.

>One of the best selling kits was the Stuntmaster. The
>Kingpin (not a Log at all) also did well.
>
>Anything P-51-ish or Mustang. That is why there are about a
>half dozen 1/2A Mustangs from Scientific.
>
>The Twin Mustang did poorly, because kids couldn't afford
>two motors.
>
>Something with Piper in the name...
>
>Flying Tigers. P-40. There are about three or so kits.
>
>Sabre this or that. A magic aviation name from the '50s.
>
>Currell

Some of these (kits) are very rare today as they sold so poorly that they only made maybe one run. Walt's very first "log" design for Scientific was "Little Mercury" and it stayed from beginning to end of the whole line. I have never built a Kingpin, but I have seen one a neighborhood kid built many years ago that was doped in metallic maroon that was ugly as a mud fence yet still flew pretty decent- that may explain why the kit sold well.

Jake