Stuka Stunt Control Line Forum
Archive, 2000–2021 · recovered from the Internet Archive
Forums › Stuka Stunt Main Forum

Veco Squaw

Stuka Stunt Main Forum · 15 of 15 known posts recovered

Kurt · Nov 07, 2001 12:27 PM

#0 source
In the July/August 2001 issue of Stunt News on page 47 there was an article about the Veco Squaw. I liked the looks of the plane in the picture so I ordered a copy of the Squaw plans from Tom Dixon. The plans were drawn by Joe Wagner in 1987 if I remember correctly. The plans show the engine mounted inverted but the article in Stunt News shows the engine upright. Is the picture of the plane in Stunt News a modified Squaw? Was there an option of mounting the engine upright or inverted? Maybe it was a different version of the same plane in Stunt News than the plans I have. Also, the article mentions an OS 25FP as a potential powerplant. But at the size of the Squaw, I think an OS 15FP would probably be more appropriate for a modern engine.

Kurt

Kurt

The Kiwi · Nov 07, 2001 01:36 PM

#1 source
>In the July/August 2001 issue of Stunt News on page 47
>there was an article about the Veco Squaw. I ordered a
>copy of the Squaw plans from Tom Dixon. The plans were
>drawn by Joe Wagner in 1987 if I remember correctly.
> The plans show the engine mounted inverted but the
>article in Stunt News shows the engine upright.

The kits didn't come with plans, being supplied with assembly drawings instead. The two engine options were shown on Veco's plans for the Squaw II; there were two different kit designs of Squaws. The first one was quite obviously based on the Chief, with Palmer's input, but I believe the actual designer was Hi Johnson. It had an upright engine layout and a somewhat "short" nose.

>Maybe it was a different version of the same plane
>in Stunt News than the plans I have.

During 1952/1954, Joe Wagner updated all of the Veco kit designs and probably at that time, the inverted engine option became the primary suggestion on the plans.

>Also, the article mentions an OS 25FP as a potential
>powerplant. But at the size of the Squaw, I think an OS
>15FP would probably be more appropriate for a modern engine.
>
I'd suggest a .20 instead. The .15 would match to a Brave much better than to a Squaw. Incidentally, at some point that may be long enough ago for Classic Stunt, Wagner drew up sets of plans for a semi-modern Chief and a larger Squaw, with the "Big Squaw" having a 53" wingspan and about 500 square inches.


Kiwi

*

Bob Zambelli · Nov 07, 2001 03:49 PM

#2 source
I'm not positive who flew it but wasn't there a Veco Squaw at VSC in 1999? Or was it a Warrior? I think it had a Fox .35. Might have been Rene Berger.

Crapshoot · Nov 07, 2001 05:07 PM

#4 source
I believe Rene Berger had his Squaw with an inverted Fox 35 at the 1999 and 2000 VSC's. There should be a photo of it in the FTP archives at the PAMPA website.

Bill Sawyer · Nov 07, 2001 04:42 PM

#3 source
Back about 1968 or so I flew Squaw with a Fox 35 with a 10 x 6 Top Flite prop. The plane had one design problem that I remember as the doublers ended at the leading edge of the wing. That is where the motor mounts ended also and in addition the landing gear was there also. Because the bulkheads went through the doublers AND the side sheeting there was what I always felt was a weak spot at the leading edge of the wing. This proved to be true as the sides developed stress cracks after about 400 flights. Knowing what I experienced I would leave the side sheeting intact by not running the formers into it. I would also change the doublers to 1/16" ply and extend them to about 1/4 of the wing chord. I would still use the Fox 35 but I would use a smaller pitch prop to slow it down some.

Michaelb · Nov 07, 2001 06:53 PM

#5 source
I have a set of plans for the Sqauw I got from Joe Wagner. If I recall correctly, at least one plywood former has a crosspiece that you glue in one of two places for placing the motor mounts for either upright or inverted. I'd just cut the formers for whichever way I wanted and forget the crosspiece. About the time I got the plans, I talked to Joe and he said mentioned the stress cracks. Joe seemed to think that it had a lot to do with the landing gear(3/32 wire, I think) flexing outward. His thought was adding a wire crosspiece ala the Black Tiger. I do have to agree that 16th ply doublers should probably be used. Might just have to build a Squaw this winter. My Fox 29 needs a home. Either that or a first generation Tomahawk.

Dale · Nov 07, 2001 07:04 PM

#6 source
The original Squaw,which is Old Time legal, only showed the upright engine.The second version showed both ways,but is only Classic legal.I built seven Squaws in my younger days with varying degrees of success and I have one framed and ready to cover right now that I hope will be the best yet,since I supposedly know what I'm doing now.I'm building the original version so that it hopefully can be used in OTS and Classic.I'm going to use a Fox35,which is what my uncle used back in the 50's,but I do have an old 1st version Fox25 that I might try to use.
I'm not sure what kind of control set-up Tom shows on his plans(it's probably the correct one to use),but be sure to set it up slow or it will be jumpy.I think he told me to use a 2/3 to 1 flap to elevator ratio,and you'll probably need to use a hole in the bellcrank 7/16 to 1/2in. from the pivot for the pushrod,on a 3in. bellcrank.I think mine goes from 1/2" at the BC to 1 1/4" on the flap horn,then 1" on the flap horn to 3/4" on the elevator.
Dale

Dale Barry

Kurt · Nov 08, 2001 12:23 AM

#7 source
I sent an e-mail to Joe Wagner but he never answered it or I have the wrong address for him. I wanted to purchase the Squaw plans from him but Tom Dixons plans are nice too, good price also. I would like to get a copy of the first version, the upright engine or is it pretty much the same airplane as the second version.

Kurt

gcb · Nov 08, 2001 06:55 AM

#8 source
I just received a SMALLnet this morning. Joe Wagner usually writes it, with Randy Randolph as a backup. These guys founded SMALLnet.
Apparently, Joe has re-entered the Aerospace industry to head a special project. He is starting to get back into his modeling activities again though, so if you sent him an e-mail I would suggest resending it. He said he had to get rid of a LOT of spam. Some legitimate messages may have also been inadvertantly erased.
Geez, you got me to dust off my old Squaw plans too. So many planes, so little time.
I think a Veco .19 would be appropriate for mine.
George

Kurt · Nov 08, 2001 10:11 AM

#9 source
I have a Veco .19 myself. It is a brand new one that I bought from K & B before they went out of buisness and RJL bought them. Would that engine be suitable for the Squaw? It seems somewhat heavy compared to the OS .20FP that I have, also no muffler. Is the Veco .19 similar in power to the OS .20? Would you use a 2 or 2.5 oz tank for it? The e-mail address for Joe Wagner that I have is: [email protected]. Is that correct?

Kurt

The Kiwi · Nov 08, 2001 02:29 PM

#10 source
>Would that (Veco 19) be suitable for the Squaw? It
>seems somewhat heavy compared to the OS .20FP that I
>have, also no muffler.

Actually, when both are set up for C/L, the Veco is 6.25 Ounces and the OS FP 20 is 6.4 Ounces.

>Is the Veco .19 similar in power to the OS .20?

The examples of each that I've owned have been about evenly matched, although on the larger props used for stunt I think the FP has the edge. For top speed performance on high nitro fuels, the Veco might rev up just a little higher and outrun the FP by a small margin.


K.

*

T.Durrill · Nov 08, 2001 04:48 PM

#11 source
Question: Anybody ever use a K&B Torpedo .29 Greenhead on a Veco Squaw? Would this be about the right power lever for this plane?......Thanks.....T.Durrill

T.Durrill

gcb · Nov 08, 2001 05:25 PM

#12 source
Joe Wagner's email address listed on SMALLnet is [email protected], but he may have more than one address.
George

Dale · Nov 08, 2001 07:29 PM

#13 source
Kurt,
I just compared the two Squaws(I have both kits)and there is a good bit of difference.Just taking a quick look, the airfoil of the wing is very different,the original had a thinner wing.The body on version 2 has a little more side area and the rudder is a little shorter and more squared off.The original shows a wingspan of 39 1/4" and #2 shows 38",I guess all-in-all they are totally different.
Dale

Dale Barry

Curt Contrata · Nov 08, 2001 08:46 PM

#14 source
"The kits didn't come with plans, being supplied with assembly drawings instead."

The assembly drawings included with the Squaw and the Chief are indeed plans, and are the best examples I have ever seen. Not only are the isometric drawings and instructions extrmely well done, they are better than full sized drawings in the typical style. So well drawn were these plans in fact, that a Veco Squaw was the first model airplane my father decided to build and learn to fly on. Without going on for too long about the plans, if you can appreciate well done graphic presentations, you must one day look over a set of Squaw or Chief plans.

Curt

PS: My first Stunt Trophy was in 1970, flying a Veco Squaw with a Fox 35 - I still have that very plane on my wall.