Original Baby Clown Kit

I have a kit for an original PDQ Baby Clown in my stash. The box is destroyed, so it has no collector value. I would like to build it, but I remember the first one I built. I put a McCoy .098 on it and it was underpowered. I then put an OK .149 on it and it was still underpowered. The OK would catch fire when starting and one day it burned to the ground. I have a much better selection of engines today. Which do you suppose would work best?
TD .049, Fox .07, Queen bee .074, TD .09, Medallion 15, Fox 15 steel fin, Fox 15x?

There's no way a BABY Clown would be underpowered with either a Mac .098 or Cub .149. (Nose-heavy, yes...but underpowered? No.) Are you sure that wasn't a FLYING Clown?

In the '50s I flew Ringmaster Jr's (quite a bit larger than BABY Clowns) with Cub .14s, which hauled them around pretty well.

Mike Keville

>There's no way a BABY Clown would be underpowered with either
>a Mac .098 or Cub .149. (Nose-heavy, yes...but underpowered?
>No.) Are you sure that wasn't a FLYING Clown?
>
>In the '50s I flew Ringmaster Jr's (quite a bit larger than
>BABY Clowns) with Cub .14s, which hauled them around pretty
>well.
>
>Mike Keville
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PDQ Baby Clown
wingspan-22.5"
wing area-134 sq. in.
fuselage length-18"
weight-5.5oz. (supposedly)

Ron B.
F4Fguy

I have to agree with Uncle Mikey here but, of the choices given, I'd probably opt for the Medallion 15. Not because of power issues, but because it's not much heavier than the 09s and it's easier to handle than the others. I didn't consider the Foxes as I'd save them for the "Hurl".

On second consideration, the steel fin 15 is light, and probably has as much moxie as the average 09, so it would also be OK.

Ron B.

>I have a kit for an original PDQ Baby Clown in my stash. The
>box is destroyed, so it has no collector value. I would like
>to build it, but I remember the first one I built. I put a
>McCoy .098 on it and it was underpowered. I then put an OK
>.149 on it and it was still underpowered. The OK would catch
>fire when starting and one day it burned to the ground. I have
>a much better selection of engines today. Which do you suppose
>would work best?
>TD .049, Fox .07, Queen bee .074, TD .09, Medallion 15, Fox 15
>steel fin, Fox 15x?


Phil, In spite of anything the experts tell you the Fox 15 Rocket and 15X are perfectly good motors. Mine, and I have quite a few, will always start and run consistantly in about 3-4 flips which is quite good for a motor that size.
Saying that I used a 15X on my Clown and it is a lively performer with fairly fast lap times.
The TD 049,Fox 07 and definitely the Cox queen Bee are a definite no. The Medallion 15 is nice but plugs are hard to come by and a replacement head that uses regular plugs will disappoint you.
My choice if your Steel fin Fox 15 is in good running condition and you want decent lap times with the ability to get through the maneuvers, thats the motor.
Of course if you really have a Baby Clown then by all means use the TD 049, it will be thrilling.
Dennis

edit: Spelling and additional post

>. . . if you really have a Baby Clown then by all means use the TD 049, it will be thrilling.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To say the least!!!

Mike Keville [photo not recovered: shocked.gif]

Phil:

Saw your Post #5. Okay, it is in fact a 22.5 span "Baby". I still don't understand why the Mac .098 or Cub .14 wouldn't haul the earlier one unless it was a case of excessive weight or of using lines of excessive length and/or thickness. The original PDQ design was meant for .049s thru .074s, and was an excellent performer with an OK Cub .074 on 35-foot .008 lines.

It's doubtful that you'd be pleased with a .15 on a BABY Clown. Way too much power *and* weight up front.

Any of today's .049s should fly a BABY Clown just fine.

Mike Keville

This kit is a bit of a challange. It contained 6 very thin foreward doublers about 1/32" thick. no trace of glue. The bellcrank mount is missing, but that shouldn't present much of a problem. It had no planking, so I dug into my stack of balsa. I am almost out of 1/16" stock, so I used 3/32" for the center section planking. This thing has no provisions for leadout sweep. I'll have to do some surgery. Does anyone have a rudder for one of these things they can put on a scanner so I can get the rudder shape right? It says only "insert your control system" and nothing about size of the bellcrank. I'll have to measure the spacing between the holes on the ribs. I'd like to put a 3" crank in this one.

I'm thinking of using the TD .09.

>I'm thinking of using the TD .09.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oooh-kaaaay. Let us know how that works out, alright?

Mike Keville

I have a lot of experience with Fox 049s, both the 1962 and 1964 version. The Fox 07, with a bit more power, would work well with a 22.5" span model, such as the Fox. The Steel Fin 15 or second gen monobloc Slant Plug Fox 15 would be a bit much for such a small model. The Flying Clown is the model for this engine.

The Cox 074 or TD 049 also would be good choices.

Currell

I have both a Baby Clown (Brodak Kit)24" span and a Flying Clown 28" span. I use a Medallion 049 APC 5.7-3 on the Baby Clown. On the Flying Clown, a Fox 15X (slant plug) 8.5-4 Rev-up. Both take 20% nitro, sometimes more for the 049. I've had good sucess with both aircraft.
Happy Landings

Admittedly, I was flying the Brodak kit of the Baby Clown, but it would do a competitive pattern with a .035 Paw diesel (the "55" model). 38ft of .008 line. 5 ounces.

Phil,
My brother built one several years ago and powered it with a Norvel .051. More than enough power on 42 ft .008 lines. His was a little heavy but still flew pretty well.
I flew the pattern with it several times (not a particularly pretty one). He has since given it to his grandson who is flying it in Colorado.
I have to agree with the popular concensus here and suggest that you'd be happiest with a modern .049-.051.
Anything bigger is unnecessary and likely to be too nose heavy, requiring excess tail weight.

I still need the pattern for the vertical stab. Does anyone out there have one they can put on a scanner so I can get the shape right?

>I still need the pattern for the vertical stab. Does anyone
>out there have one they can put on a scanner so I can get the
>shape right?

Hi Phil, Congratulations for finding an original PDQ Baby Clown kit.
I have one also, and I built mine but I substituted much of the original
balsa so mine would end up being more appropriate in strength and weight
for the MIlls .75cc engine. I still have the original two pieces
of 3/32" sheet balsa supplied for the fin/rudder. put together the
fin/rudder measures 3 7/8" long and 2 1/8" high you have to bevel the front
piece to match the sloping turtle deck. you can easily fake it from these
dimensions. Please don't try to get carried away by authenticity..this
is a paradoxical subject when it comes to PDQ kit regularity. when you
complete your Baby Clown you'll notice that the wing area is only about 122-123sq"s,
which is a bit smaller than the 134sq"s displayed
on the kit box. You also may notice that the PDQ's fuselage in no way resembles
the Brodak version. This means that no one takes the Baby Clown seriously
enough to disqualify the model for a misshaped fin! Please be conscious of the
wingloading of your finished model. I suggest the first choice
power plant to be used is the PAW .5cc deluxe because of the very small fuel
load required for OTS. My second choice for a stunt powerplant
would be the Cox Medallion .049 glow because it has an almost diesel like
power delivery. If you do decide to go with the PAW .5cc please email
me off the forum so I can help you with fuel choice. I wish you
abolutely the best of luck;

Tony

I don't have any small diesels, so that's out. From what I keep hearing, and what I see building this thing, I must have done something very wrong on my first one. I still think an .049 is too little. The picture on the box, what little is left of it, looks like an OK Cub. I would guess an .09. The stock mounts are sized for an .09. Maybe a TD is too much, maybe not. I could always use the Fox .07. It's getting close to decision time on the engine. The wing is done except for the leadout guides.

Just an educated guess, but I'd say the Norvel 051 was probably twice the power of a OK Cub .09...
Consider that...
Modern engines are a different kettle!

This is getting really weird. In the '50s we flew PDQ Baby Clowns with OK Cub .074s. Plenty of power. Thirty-five foot .008s, Powermist fuel and 6-4 Power Props and Tornado Plastikotes. Not sure what the problem is, unless the current kit version is an overweight slug.

Mike Keville

>I don't have any small diesels, so that's out. From what I
>keep hearing, and what I see building this thing, I must have
>done something very wrong on my first one. I still think an
>.049 is too little. The picture on the box, what little is
>left of it, looks like an OK Cub. I would guess an .09. The
>stock mounts are sized for an .09. Maybe a TD is too much,
>maybe not. I could always use the Fox .07. It's getting close
>to decision time on the engine. The wing is done except for
>the leadout guides.

Hi Phil, why do you think an .049 is too little? I'm very curious
about your reason. Thanks again;

Tony

>Hi Phil, why do you think an .049 is too little? I'm very
>curious
>about your reason. Thanks again;
>
>Tony
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is due to my impressions from the first one I built, a LONG time ago. I know I flew it on dacron lines meant for an .09 or .049 twins. I have no idea what the CG was. The cub .149 was on its last legs.

>>Hi Phil, why do you think an .049 is too little? I'm
>very
>>curious
>>about your reason. Thanks again;
>>
>>Tony
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>This is due to my impressions from the first one I built, a
>LONG time ago. I know I flew it on dacron lines meant for an
>.09 or .049 twins. I have no idea what the CG was. The cub
>.149 was on its last legs.

Hi Phil, I understand now, why you you came to that conlusion. In those
days, most C/L kits had higher power loadings to match their smaller
wing area. It took many years for wing area to grow per same engine
displacement. In the early fifties, 100sq"s was the norm for an .049.

Now 230-250sq"s is normal for strong .049s and if you're considering a
hyper .049 like a Cyclon or a Fora, better start looking at 320-340sq"s
for a stunt model. Like most other modelers in the 1950's, I built small
1/2a's for the Baby Spitfires,Allyn Fury,Spacebug jr and sr and various
Cubs. I even built and flew a Dmeco All American Stunt Trainer with
a Cub .099. it was a small(100+ sq's) profile...and I had a lot of fun
with it. I guess that was around 1952 or 1953.
The truth is, if you
want to duplicate your 1950's experience, then go to ebay or ask on
the SS classified section and pick up a runner .098-.099 and enjoy.
I gotta tell you, I found another Dmeco AA Stunt Trainer kit and a great
runner Cub .099...and I'm gonna build and fly that combo again, on 35'x.008"
lines like the first one.
Tony

I tried to fly my Baby Clown the first time with an OK Cub .049, would hardly pull it off the ground. I switched to the Cub .099 and it seemed to be a good match at that point. I suppose a .14 or .15 would be at the other end of the power spectrum. I Thank You.

Sorry people, no one has told me how to get rid of the box where the old picture was.
Hope this works for you, the vertical fins length is just shy of 1 3/4" and is 2 1/4" high. The rudder is 2 1/4" long and is 2" high.
Good luck.... Ben
[photo not recovered: 22194.jpg]


[photo not recovered: 22213.jpg]

Attachment #1, (jpg file)
Attachment #2, (jpg file)

Hmmm not good eh. Thank god for laser cutting.

Warren Leadbeatter
Control Line Models
Port Stephens - Australia
Ph: 0439-754-474
MAAA: AUS-14782

Many thanks. That is a typical example of PDQ die crushing. I can print this and make the right size fin. I'll be ready for it soon.

Next question, who is selling the Pylon .008 lines these days?

Take your pick

www.sshobbies.com
http://www.rsmdistribution.com/index-2.htm
www.brodak.com


Warren Leadbeatter
Control Line Models
Port Stephens - Australia
Ph: 0439-754-474
MAAA: AUS-14782

Engine selection has been made. For better or worse, i'm going with the TD .09. If it proves too much, you all can tell me "i told you so".

Digging into my line stash, I found a new SIG kit for .008" X 35'lines. I probably will need longer lines, but since I have these, I will most likely try these. They have to work better than dacron.

>Digging into my line stash, I found a new SIG kit for
>.008" X 35'lines. I probably will need longer lines, but
>since I have these, I will most likely try these. They have to
>work better than dacron.

OMIGOD Phil...I told you so! Yes they'll work better than the dacron
lines. I think with the .09 you can..and should use(per AMA regs.) .012" dia lines.
However .012"x 52' are readily available. Have lotsa fun ;
Tony

Baby Clown + TD .09 + 35' lines = superb trainer for those planning to fly CL Speed.

As noted above, might consider .012s per AMA reg's.

Mike Keville

I have .012 X 52" too, but I have always used these to fly .15/.19 sized models.