Fuel tank for Veco Chief --OK Froom T-21C

LAST EDITED ON Nov-16-04 AT 06:51 PM (CST)
 
Does anyone know what the recommended fuel tank is for a classic Veco Chief??

duh ,, dumb question !! Of course, somebody knows.

I would appreciate knowing what the offical, authorzed tank was (and still is). Are any available ?? Is anything on the market?? I need three.

Thanks,
Paul Smith

A lot of the fuel tank size is dependent upon the engine you are using and the length of run you are seeking. But there are an ample number of choices in the market, not the least of which are those presently produced by Brodak that started life as Veco, then went to K&B, Fox, Taffender, and now Brodak.

In general, a 3 1/2 to 4 ounce size will work for most 35 size engines, a little smaller for smaller engines or shorter patterns, maybe something a little bigger if you go for something hog wild. We used 4 1/2 ounces with our modded 35 FP.

I would also recommend a uniflow version, although "back then" that wasn't an option. And if you can make it removeable and adjustable in height, that is also best.

Thanks,

I know the 3.5 to 4 ounce thing. I'm looking for a specific Veco, Darwin, Acme, Froom, or Perfect nomenclature so I can find the genuine articles.

I plan to use classic top & bottom stunt vents, so as not cheat the intent of the event.

The Perfect bellcrank, Testors' dope, and Ambroid are already in hand.

>Thanks,
>
>I know the 3.5 to 4 ounce thing. I'm looking for a specific
>Veco, Darwin, Acme, Froom, or Perfect nomenclature so I can
>find the genuine articles.
>
>I plan to use classic top & bottom stunt vents, so as not
>cheat the intent of the event.
>
>The Perfect bellcrank, Testors' dope, and Ambroid are
>already in hand.

If you want the genuine articles, then it would be the T-21 whatever. Veco or K&B would be the "real thing", although Fox, then Taffender, then Brodak produced the same thing. You also might want to use an appropriate size Acme if you can find one. But using a modern tank, even a uniflow vented one, would certainly not be considering cheating the intent of the event. The intent of the event is to fly classic and old time designs, but not necessarily using the materials (or engines) of the day.

For the Veco Chief, the recommended tank was a Veco T-21. This is a 2 in wide tank with capacity set by length. The T-21C was 3 in long and held 3 oz. The T-21D was 3.5 in long, and held 3.5 oz. Eric Rule at RSM now makes the GRW tanks and he can supply an equivalent. Brodak also makes similar size tanks, but theirs are slightly over the 2 inch width at the end plates.
Steve
The older I get, the better I used to fly!

>For the Veco Chief, the recommended tank was a Veco T-21.
>This is a 2 in wide tank with capacity set by length. The
>T-21C was 3 in long and held 3 oz. The T-21D was 3.5 in
>long, and held 3.5 oz. Eric Rule at RSM now makes the GRW
>tanks and he can supply an equivalent. Brodak also makes
>similar size tanks, but theirs are slightly over the 2 inch
>width at the end plates.
>Steve
>The older I get, the better I used to fly!

I thought the D was 4 ounces and the c was 3 1/2. Makes no difference, we go by ounce size now. On the Brodak tanks, I talked to John about that problem and the width has been corrected on the new tanks to where they are supposed to be 2 inch width on the end plates.

LAST EDITED ON Nov-16-04 AT 02:38 PM (CST)
 
Leonard,
The "D" was 3 1/2 ounces and was 3 1/2 inches long. The "E" was 4 inches long and held 4 ounces. There was an A, B, C, D, and an E. I have some of them still in the boxes. They correspond to the Brodak numbers BH - 537 to BH - 541 although he makes some longer now. I believe Steve is correct as to the extra width as I have had problems getting them in planes that were designed for a 2 inch tank. Good to hear that the problem has been corrected.

LAST EDITED ON Nov-16-04 AT 03:39 PM (CST)
 
My original henry engineering Chief plans show the tank as a FROOM #21-C, 3" which equals 3 ounces. As stated above, a T-21C is equal and inches do equal ounces. Larry;)

Thanks,

That's the answer I was looking for. Froom T-21C.

THE TANK IS OUT THERE.......... Mulder, X-Files.

Hi Paul. I used the equivalnt Brodak, 4 oz tank. But my control horns, bellcrank, engine, wheels, and prop are all Veco. Only the paint is not era correct, Brodaks. I followed the gray tone photo in a 1949 Air Trails advertisement and got the correct colors on line here. I plan to fly it in OTS and Classic too.

LAST EDITED ON Nov-17-04 AT 12:22 PM (CST)
 
I'm looking at the "Tom Dixon" plans. It looks like the front end is simply two plys of 1/8" balsa (no plywood). Is this possible??? Just glue hardwood engine rails to balsa ??? Unheard of, at least by me.

No top view on the plan. It's OK, I can use my imagination.

That's the way many of the OTS planes were built - no plywood except maybe for the bellcrank mount. Despite your quest for "authenticity", I'd strongly urge you to use lite-ply doublers.

This is NOT "cheating". The OTS rules specifically allow beefing up the original structure; you're just not supposed to change airfoil, outlines, moments, or L/G location.

>That's the way many of the OTS planes were built - no
>plywood except maybe for the bellcrank mount. Despite your
>quest for "authenticity", I'd strongly urge you to use
>lite-ply doublers.
>
>This is NOT "cheating". The OTS rules specifically allow
>beefing up the original structure; you're just not supposed
>to change airfoil, outlines, moments, or L/G location.

I am agreeing on using some kind of harder doubler here since the motor mount to balsa joint is only as strong as the balsa. Rather than using 1/8 inch Lite Ply (made of soft wood) for the doublers, I would suggest 1/32 Birch. Birch plywood is roughly twice as heavy as the equivilent Lite Ply, but much stronger is shear and crush resistance. Using 1/16 Birch instead of 1/8 inch Lite Ply in a profile nose gives the same weight but much better crush resistance and about equal shear strength. In the full fuselage plane you are building the 1/32 Birch adds half the weight of the Lite Ply, yet gives the shear strength you need to support the motor mounts. This is what Matt uses even on his 65 Pipe ships. In fact, for this plane 1/64 might even be adequate.

Don't feel bad about improving internal construction methods. People were still learning "back then" and there was a lot of innovation going on, just as there is today.

Hi Paul. That was/is typical of the early Veco planes. Also the Tom Dixon plans are not accurate as to the 1949 Chief, the pollywog airfoil version. I have the kit and laid the parts over the plans and they are not the same. The sub rudder is not on the plans, the ribs are not pollywog, and other subtle differences, such as rudder height. The Barnstormer also had balsa doublers. Engines and the technology in the late 40's and early 50's wasn't the same as later, obvioulsy.

>Hi Paul. I used the equivalnt Brodak, 4 oz tank.

I just browsed the Brodak web site. He's sure got a ton of tanks. It's not like taking the plane down to the hobby shop and test-fitting. Do you recall his "brodak number" ?? There are typical sketches, but not dimensions.

>>Hi Paul. I used the equivalnt Brodak, 4 oz tank.
>
>I just browsed the Brodak web site. He's sure got a ton of
>tanks. It's not like taking the plane down to the hobby
>shop and test-fitting. Do you recall his "brodak number" ??
>There are typical sketches, but not dimensions.

If you are wanting the 3 1/2 inch/3 1/2 ounce, 2 inch wide, standard vent tank, the number is BH-540.

Thanks,

Using 1/32" birch in lieu of 1/8" balsa was my thinking also. Just wanted to hear a second opinion.

I don't see much future in maple mounts glued direct to balsa.

Maybe old timers with Testors' glue and dope didn't see much need for a future.

Just for your info, the Veco Hurricane and Little thunderbird have 1/16" ply for doublers.

>Thanks,
>
>Using 1/32" birch in lieu of 1/8" balsa was my thinking
>also. Just wanted to hear a second opinion.
>
>I don't see much future in maple mounts glued direct to
>balsa.
>
>Maybe old timers with Testors' glue and dope didn't see much
>need for a future.

In response to this and previous posts. We didn't know any better back then. I still have my first Thunderbird. The covering has shredded from age.DOC

LAST EDITED ON Nov-19-04 AT 10:16 AM (CST)
 
Hi John, I'll bet the motor mounts are still intact too, even glued to balsa??? My Chief has at least 70 flights on it and the mounts are still in good shape after 16 years. Curious about yours. Larry