Bob Palmer's Original '52 Smoothie OTS/VSC Legal?

Does anyone know if the Dixon plans are any more or less close to the original Smoothie than the plans published by Air Trails?

I have both a Dumas version of the Veco kit and a third party cut up kit with it's own set of plans to work from. Or I have enough balsa to build my own sets of ribs if I need to.

I'd like to whip up a Smoothie for VSC this March in Tucson.

What are the opinions of the gang here on what Smoothie, if any is legal to fly at VCS, and in what catagory?

And does anyone have any experience on which is the better flier? Legend has it that Palmer designed one wing, with a laminar airfoil, build it, VECO kitted it, he designed another wing without the high point aft that performed better, asked VECO to use that wing, but they had already tooled up for the first. Or some such tale to the effect that the VECO kits are not what Palmer thought was the best Smoothie. Are the '92 Dixon plans that airplane/wing?

Just to complicate an already elaborate post (and give you guys plenty of rag to chew) I also have plans for a thing called the Smoother, which is a Tom Dixon design that looks mostly like a Smoothie, but has airfoils and proportions much closer to a Nobler. Would that be a better airplane to build for VSC than a Smoothie? On one hand it might fly better, but it might be less in the spirit of the contest.

Eagerly awaiting debate....

Steve

Definitely build the Brodak version. It is the one that Bob wanted Veco to produce but they didn't because Bob was busy and couldn't keep his finger on what Veco was doing. There is a story about this in Stunt News sometime back. In answer to the question about legality for OTS and Classic. "The Smoothie is legal for both, and has been flown in PAMPA Classes as well."

I have a soft spot in my heart for the Smoothie, it was my first competitive aerobatic airplane and I won my very 1st trophy flying one in 1958.

As for the Smoother, this is a Dixon design that was designed and built as a combination of ideas. I don't know that it is better. Just different.

Leonard Neumann

LAST EDITED ON Oct-30-01 AT 12:36 PM (CDT)

>Are you sure about it being OTS legal?

Yup.

>I didn't think so. Correct me if I am wrong.
>
The published version meets even Miske's stringent requirements. Published in August, 1952.

>As for the Smoother, this is a Dixon design that was
>designed and built as a combination of ideas. I
>don't know that it is better. Just different.
>
But the Smoother itself is not even within the VSC definition of "Classic" (published in MA, March,1985). FWIW, there was a "better" Tom Dixon rework of a Palmer design, called the Phoenix, based on the T-Bird and without as many of Dixon's changes/ updating, so that I think the wing itself is still so close to the same in outline and airfoil as the original that it will meet the VSC rules for the Thunderbird.

One of the complaints against the T-Bird, all early versions, had to do with the complexity of the tips. Dixon simplified that aspect of the wing, and if a builder uses the original fuselage outline and moments, he would be within the rules.
>
>
The Kiwi

As to the Smoother, didn't this come out in 1968, or do I have this date wrong, too?

(Bad day for memory. Gotta take some "think" pills.)

Leonard Neumann

That date isn't in the file I created for stunt designs. I think it was probably released in mid-1953.

>By PAMPA rules I guess it would, then, be OTS legal, too, even
>if produced later?
>
I don't have a copy of the PAMPA OTS Rules here by the computer; shoot, I'm not sure where I might have put that!

>As to the Smoother, didn't this come out in 1968, or
>do I have this date wrong, too?
>
>(Bad day for memory. Gotta take some "think" pills.)
>
There was once a really horrible, and somewhat anti-racial, old joke about those pills, you know . . 'nuff said.

According to that file of dates I have, the Smoother was a 1985 item . .

The K.

My understanding is that all versions that Bob experiemented with were designed and flown before 31 Dec 1952. That would make them Old Time legal - at least by PAMPA standards anyway.

I have a set of the Dixon "Smoothie" plans, but they are across town in my storage unit at present time.

This was the first restoration I ever did, over 10 years ago. As do many swap stunters, it was missing the cowl, the rudder, and of course you have to recover everything. I didn't at that time have a good picture of the rudder, so I guessed the look. Didn't know it was in the "P-51 Mustang" style, so to this day it has an incorrect, ogive-curved looking one on. I had to glass the nose in, since it was nearly rubber from all of the running and attendant fuel soaking. It is good now. Also couldn't get a blind nut on correctly, so I simply used a long wood screw, set in epoxy in the maple mount. It is tighter than any 4-40 setup, and is easily removeable, too.

I have another one that come from an estate sale. All this one needed was a cowl, and, like the first one, has the upright engine option. It was drilled out for a Veco .35, apparently, based on the "Veco" decal on the fuse. The only thing that fit it was a Stallion K & B, so that's what is in it. It likes to run in a rich two.

A third one I found hanging in some dude's garage, and hasn't been completely restored yet. This one has an inverted setup, and , interestingly, came with a 70s Fox 40 Stunt, the one with the manly lug spacing. It could be a tad nose heavy, but should be a capable windy weather flyer.

A flying buddy has a fourth one, with a Fox .35, as I recall.

They are such beautiful planes, especially if painted and trimmed to show off the lines. Same for Palmer's T-Bird "1", the upright job. The "II" is not, in my opinion, as sharp looking, although it flies well.

I'm thinking now that the custom kit contents, used to generate a plane that matches the Air-Trails plans externally and either itself or Dixon's plans internally will render me an OTS legal Smoothie that I can put a Johnson .32 in and enjoy myself to the extent of my ability to fly.

All of this without going out and buying a brand new kit.

If any of you had a stock, unmolested Dumas/VECO kit in good condition, would you:

A) Keep it unmolested as a kit as an investment
B) Build it as an VCS entry
C) Use the parts for templates and build a clone (molesting it)
D) Sell it on eBay and buy a Brodak Smoothie

Inquiring minds want to know.

You don't have to buy the Brodak kit. He sells his plans seperatly for those who like to scratch build their airplanes. I think it's probably two rolls of plans and about $15.00. I would definitely build Bob's version that Brodak kits. Bob thought that it was a much better performer than either the published version or the Veco kitted version. You can also buy a copy of the instruction booklet separatly if you want guided instructions on how to put the parts you cut out together!

Check it out!