Carl Goldberg Extra 300, Hangar9 Cap 232, Great Planes Giles 202

When I got back from University and started working to pay back the loan, one of the first things I bought was an Extra 300 model that a club member was selling, with an OS 1.20 FS.

I had first flown one of these the previous summer for another member and I really liked how it flew.  Back then, 3D flying was only just starting and wasn't really a thing yet.  So, with this model, I did alot of inverted flight and outside maneuvers as well as learning rolling circles and knife-edge circuits.  I developed one maneuver that freaked people out that you don't see much.  In the middle of a turn from base onto final, at low altitude and with some speed, I would roll 180 degrees and continue the turn inverted, followed by a low inverted pass.  That was my favorite.  Everybody thinks the airplane is going to crash!

The 1.20 was eventually exchanged for the 0.90 in the Corsair and both airplanes were then more "scale like" in their vertical performance.  The Corsair was better, while the Extra was worse ( the real airplane doesn't have unlimited vertical ).

My dad crashed the Extra one day and decided to replace it with the Hangar 9 Cap 232, designed by Dave Patrick ( who also designed the Goldberg Extra 300 ), powered by a Zenoah G-23.

It weighed about 14 lbs and was decidedly underpowered.  Well, one day while dad was flying it, the battery became disconnected in a loop and the plane crashed, bending the crankshaft!  A club member straightened it at which point it was installed into a Hangar 9 PT-19.  So, I had no aerobatic airplane.

I had previously test flown a Midwest Giles 202 ( designed by Mike McConville ) for a club member and it was the most "true" airplane I had ever flown.  I loved it.

Great Planes had an ARF version and I decided to go with that.

I installed the Saito 1.80 and flew it for about two months before suffering an engine exhaust fire and then problems with the cowl fasteners.  Other problems with the Saito included the muffler pressure nipple coming loose and a broken valve spring ( right after takeoff! I was lucky to get the airplane back ).  It didn't fly as well as the Midwest version.  By this time, everybody was flying these scale aerobatic types and 3D style flying was taking over.  I decided to sell the Giles along with the engine ( the valve spring was replaced ) and a new replacement cowl.

Sterling Spitfire

The year was 1993.  I was finished high school and going to university ( aerospace engineering ) in the fall.  A club member had brought out this 30 year old Sterling Spitfire and I was to be the test pilot.  I was nervous as hell, because this was an old kit and had never flown.  It had a Super Tiger 56 engine with two glow plugs, if I recall correctly.  Well, it flew and quite nicely at that.  I remember how graceful and smooth it was.  The elevator fluttered such that it was invisible in flight, but control was not affected.  Upon landing, there was no evidence of any damage and the hinges were very strong!  So, we just flew it like that!  It was eventually modified with flaps and retracts, some right thrust was put into it and then it truly looked the part.  It made the most beautiful 3 point landings.  I went to university dreaming about Spitfires!

This airplane was designed by George Harris and was featured in the February 1962 issue of American Modeler.  To this day ( Feb 19, 2015 ), this airplane probably still has the most accurate outline and the best flying qualities of any other 60 size Spitfire ( I have flown both the Pica and Top Flite Gold Edition models ).  It need only be modified for flaps and retracts, if you can find a kit!  It had the same markings as the Monogram 1/48 plastic kit of the same vintage, which makes me wonder if George didn't use that kit to help him design the R/C version.

Plans are available from The Outerzone.

Blue Max and Midwest Hots

It must have been 1985 and my dad decided to build a plane that was featured in the February issue of Model Aviation, called the Blue Max II.

It was basically a 40 size version of Chuck Cunningham's Hooker design ( Oct 1981 RCM, plan 851 ) only it was designed by Jim Allen Jr.  I used it in a fun fly contest in the summer of 1986, I guess.  It was an easy plane to fly, quite aerobatic, but could also fly slow.  Even though I had only just got my wings a few months previous, I didn't have a problem flying this airplane and it was my first introduction to aerobatics.  Anyway, the event in question was the fastest circuit, where the airplane had to cross both boundaries of the field.  I won the event and the prize was a Midwest Hots kit ( designed by Dan Santich )!

It was built during the winter and the following summer, I was asked to fly a demonstration at the Thompson Products company picnic day.  This, I did, using the Hots.  There were pony rides and all kinds of people around.  Something like this wouldn't be considered safe today, I'm sure!  In any case, I flew out of the parking lot, avoiding the light standards on landing.  After about 8 flights, I finally hit the light standard on final approach and it couldn't have been more centered!  It sheared the muffler off the engine and damaged the wing root.  At this point, I remember saying, "Now you've seen all aspects of the hobby!".  Whenever I drive by that parking lot today, I wonder how I ever did such a thing!

Plans for the Blue Max II are available from the AMA plans service ( 00465 ).
The Hots is featured in Model Airplane News ( April 1984 )

Sig 1/6 clipped wing Cub and Citabria

Originally a Chuck Hollinger design ( Jan 1955 Air Trails ), I received a kit for Christmas ( 1987 ) or my birthday ( 1988 ), can't remember which.  I do remember sitting in class, reading model airplane magazines.  One of the planes that I really wanted, was not the Cub, but the Sig Citabria.  In any case, I tried to get the shop teacher to let me build the kit as my wood working project.  He had flown a real Cub, but he didn't go for it.  So, instead, I built a flight box.  Throughout high school, I flew this Cub.  It would fly for 45 minutes on a tank of fuel.  One day, I was doing touch and gos.  There was a senior club member who was waiting for the channel ( we used 72 Mhz back then ), unbeknownst to me.  Well, I guess he got frustrated and decided to "shoot me down" as I turned on to base ( this was the same guy that used to drive me to the meetings before I had a driver's licence and also one of the instructors who awarded me my wings! ).  The plane went out of control and spun into a heavily wooded area.  This other member had a big grin on his face when he said, "you finally lost one, eh?".  The Cub was found hanging in a tree, only lightly damaged, mostly to the wing.  So, it was rebuilt with a full span wing and sold to another club member.

Others witnessed the event and I guess word got back to Don Prentice, who must have felt sorry for me, because he gave me a Sig Citabria that he had built 20 years before, the same year I was born!
I proceeded to fly the Citabria for a few years and it doubled as a float plane.  It had a Webra 61 blackhead for an engine.

I don't have any photos of the model, but it was cream coloured, not unlike this one,

  It was originally designed by Maxey Hester with a symmetrical wing ( as pictured above ).  Then, they redesigned it with the proper NACA 4412 airfoil because of stall characteristics ( so they said ).

The irony here is that the airplane pictured on the box ( N9020L ) was actually a Decathlon ( Bellanca 8KCAB ) with a symmetrical wing! ( NACA 1412, not quite symmetrical, but close enough! ).

The real airplane crashed on Feb 18, 1971 and the pilot was killed.  Sig finally settled on the scheme we see today.

This plane did beautiful flat spins, with a little opposite aileron.  It took a good 3 turns to recover after centering the controls!  Well, one day, one of the wing struts let go and the wing folded just after takeoff, going into the first ( gentle ) turn.  Of course, Don witnessed the incident!  The engine went into another float plane ( a modified Bud Barkley Cessna 152 trainer ), which crashed when the elevator linkage failed.  The engine/firewall detached and sank to the bottom of the lake at Chippawa Creek Conservation Area, where the club used to have the float fly events.

Sig Komander

What is there to say about the Sig Komander?  I guess it came on the scene around 1974, just after the Kadet Mk.1.  It was supposed to be an aileron trainer, whereas the Kadet was 3 channel, but eventually had an aileron version as well.  Once the Kadet Mk.II came out with ailerons, the Komander was called an "Intermediate" trainer.  I remember in the early '90s, I had only been instructing for maybe 3 years or so and nobody wanted to teach a particular student with a Komander.  They all cautioned him that it really wasn't a trainer and he should try something slower.  He insisted and so I volunteered to be his instructor.  This airplane really grew on me and helped me to develop a flying technique and method of teaching that I have used ever since.  That student got his wings with only one minor landing incident ( the plane was back out the next day ).  That was the only Komander I have ever seen and unfortunately, it has now been discontinued and is an endangered species.  I'm on a mission to find a kit and document the design, so it may be re-created by anyone with an interest.  Claude McCullough really designed a great looking sport model, with unique but attractive lines and proportions.

So far, I've collected the instructions for the Mk.1 and Mk.II, as well as the partial plan for the Mk.II, which shows the full fuselage top view and the side view, only to the back of the wing.  There are some full size templates in the instruction booklet.  I have confirmed that the airfoil was a NACA 2414 with +0.5 deg incidence.  1 degree of washout was built into the foam cores ( the trailing edge was up 1/8" at the wingtip ).  The stabilizer was set to 0 incidence.  Dihedral is 2-1/4" under each wing tip ( approximately 4 degrees ).

For the Mk.1, the CG was 2" from the LE at the tip to start, moving back to about 2-1/2" for deliberate snap rolls and spins.  Recommended control movements were 1/2" for rudder, 3/8" for elevator and 1/8" to 3/16" for ailerons.

The Mk.2 was different, with a recommended CG of 1-3/4" to start, moving back to 2-1/4" for full aerobatics.  The control throws were recommended as 7/16" for elevator, 5/16" for aileron and 5/8" for rudder.

The main differences between the Mk.I and Mk.II were in the fuselage structure.  In the original model, the firewall was two pieces of 1/8" ply laminated together.  The fuselage top and bottom were 3/32" balsa ( also the sides? ).  In the Mk.II, the fuselage sides, top and bottom are 1/8" balsa, while forward fuselage bottom is 1/8" ply and the firewall is two pieces of 3/32" ply.  The forward fuselage is doubled inside with 1/8" ply, as opposed to 1/4" balsa in the Mk.I.  With the Mk.I, the wing was bolted on with either 1 or 2 dowels or rubber bands, while the Mk.II is bolted on with two forward dowel pins.  The Mk.II used easy hinges for the control surfaces, whereas the Mk.I used nylon ( poly hinges ).  The metal landing gear straps were replaced with nylon in the Mk.II.

Other details of the design include landing gear covers made from 0.030" plastic, 3/4" triangle stock to reinforce the firewall and tail surfaces ( fin and stab ) made from 1/4" balsa sheet.  The rudder has an 8.5 degree forward rake to it, with the hinge line measuring exactly 7-1/4".  The stabilizer spans 22" and is made up of two sheets glued together.  The forward sheet is tapered to a chord of 5-1/4" at the fuselage.  The elevator and rudder are made of 1/4" x 2" elevator/aileron stock.

The airplane was flown with a 0.40, 0.45 and 0.50 sized engines.  Anything greater than a 0.50, they recommended installing a spar in the foam wing.  The instructions show the installation of a Fox 0.45.  There was no right or down thrust built in.

Bill of Materials

Replacement foam wings from Eureka Aircraft ( part# W790 )
Cowl from Fiberglass Specialties ( part# SK-23 )
Canopy from Park Flyer Plastics

1/16 x 3 x 36 ( 14 ) balsa wing sheeting ( SIGB143 )
1/4 x 3/4 x 36 ( 2 ) balsa leading edge ( SIGB034 )
1/4 x 1/2 x 36 ( 2 ) balsa trailing edge ( SIGB033 )
1/4 x 1 x 36 ( 2 ) aileron stock ( SIGB441 )
1 x 1-1/4" x 8 ( 2 ) balsa block wing tips, available as 1" x 3" x 12" ( 1 ) block ( SIGB307 )
1/4 x 2" x 36" elevator and rudder ( SIGB443 )
1/8" x 12" x 12" lite ply hatch parts and fuselage bottom ( SIGPW064 )
3/32" x 12" x 12" plywood fuselage formers ( SIGPW010 )

3" main wheels ( 2 )
2-1/4" nose wheel ( 1 )
Nose Gear ( SIGSH603 )
3/8 x 3/4 x 6" ( 2 ) landing gear blocks, 5/32" groove ( SIGSH125 )
Landing gear retaining straps ( SIGSH131 )
2-1/4" spinner ( Goldberg )
Sullivan 10 oz RST fuel tank ( S428 )
Sig Poly Hinges ( SIGSH543 ) or Easy hinges ( SIGSH710 )
Strip Aileron Horn Set ( SIGSH594 )

Top Flite Sea Fury

This "Gold Edition" kit came on the market around 2001.  At least, that's the copyright date on the instruction manual.  A year or two later, I bought a kit.  It is modeled after an airplane ( WM483 ) that was sold to Iraq.  It would eventually find itself back in the USA, where it was restored and flown in 1993.  In 1998-99, it flew in the Reno air races, with Canadian markings and the race number 74, presumably representing the 74 Sea Furies that served in the Royal Canadian Navy.  From 2000, it wore the number 117.

The Top Flite kit was designed by Mike Cross and is about 1/7 scale, with a wingspan of 66".  It was discontinued by Top Flite sometime around 2012, as far as I know.  I bought a Saito 1.80 for it, as well as the Century Jet scale gear.  Since the Corsair was about 12 lbs, I figured this one would be 13-14 or so.  They never come out as light as specified on the box ( 10-12 lbs )!  The real Sea Fury had a power loading of 5 lbs per horsepower and I wanted the same with the model.  The Saito was rated at 2.8 hp.  Top Flite recommends a 1.20 FS, which would give scale like vertical performance for a 'light' model.  As it turned out, I needed the 1.80 for a Great Planes Giles 202 that I bought to replace a Hangar-9 Cap 232.  I'm now looking for an RCV 130 CD for the Sea Fury.  How scale is this Sea Fury?

Willis Nye drawings appeared in Jan/Feb 1963 issues of Model Airplane News.

Also, some CG data for the real airplane, from the Air Ministry Publication.

The model uses the Selig S8036 airfoil at the root and the S8037 at the tip, with +1 incidence.  The stab is at 0, while the engine has 2 deg right and 2 deg down thrust.  Here's a stupid question...

Why not use scale incidence angles and set the down thrust to 0.5 degree ?  The wing is still +1 to the stabilizer.

The model CG is 4 to 4-5/8" back from the leading edge at the center, with 4-3/8 being the recommended starting point.

Control Throws for the Real Airplane

I plan on using "scale" control throws, so aileron high rate is revised to 5/8" up, 3/4" down ( this is probably the only airplane I've seen that has more down travel than up! ).  Elevator would be 7/8" up and 7/16" down, rudder is 1-7/8" left and right.  I would set aileron low rates to 60% to give a realistic rate of roll, given the 'faster than scale' airspeed.  Likewise, the turning/looping circle is going to be much smaller than scale, so the elevator low rate will be set to 35-40%.  The real airplane only had ground adjustable aileron trim tabs.  There were four flap positions, UP, TAKEOFF, MAX LIFT and DOWN ( corresponding to 80 degrees! ).

The test flight will check trim effectiveness, stability, slow flight and stalling and will go something like this,

1.  Takeoff at full throttle, flaps up, holding about 1/3 up elevator.  The airplane will be climbed at a shallow angle to gain speed for maneuvering.  If the elevator is not in trim and I have to hold a lot of "up", the gear will be retracted.  On the other hand, if it wants to climb excessively, I will not retract the gear until the elevator is trimmed.  This is because the nose will probably pitch up further due to lack of drag and slight aft movement of the CG.

2.  The airplane leveled off and trimmed at 2/3 throttle, followed immediately by a "clean" stall test.  Effect of landing gear on trim, followed by flaps.  Then, a stall test in the landing configuration.  This is not so much to see how the plane behaves, but to see how much elevator is 'useful' before a stall occurs.  This way, if a quick landing needs to be made, I will know not to exceed the critical angle, since about 1/3 of the useful elevator throw is held during the approach to control the speed and the rest is used in the flare and hold off.  In the real airplane, full flaps were not to be used in a power off landing because the drag and sink rate were very high.

3.  The airplane cleaned up and flying at about 3/4 throttle, the rates switched to low.  A couple of 'scale' aileron rolls and a 'big' loop ( the low elevator rate should not allow a loop any smaller than scale ).  Also, the low elevator rate should avoid the possibility of a stall/snap while maneuvering.  Switch back to high rates for landing.

Planned colour scheme is the same as this guy ( Royal Netherlands )!  I know, being Canadian, I should do a Canadian scheme, but they're boring!  Besides, I like the "sky type S" colour better than the "light grey" that the Canadians used.

Royal B-25

It was the summer of 1993 and I was working part time in a hobby shop, before going to university in the fall.  A guy came into the shop wanting to sell this B-25, with OS 48 FS ( I'm a sucker for scale models and 4-strokes ), so I bought it.  I was flying the Corsair and a Sig Citabria at the time, so this would be a new adventure in multi-engine flying.  The test flight was successful, but could have easily gone bad.  During the flight, one engine stopped.  It was only because of being the only airplane in the air that I noticed a change in the sound.  There was absolutely no change in trim, no tendency to roll at all.  A close visual inspection was required to tell which engine had stopped.  The landing was uneventful, but during the post flight inspection, one of the solder joints had failed and so only one aileron was working.  As well, one flap was close to failure.  Still, that B-25 gave no indication that anything was awry.  The reason being that the engines had significant side thrust.  The left engine was 1 deg of left thrust, while the right engine was about 5 degrees of right thrust.  On top of that, each vertical stabilizer was toed in about 4 degrees.  Still, an engine failure at low speed was dangerous.  It was rebuilt at least once.  I liked the aluminum cowls.  The airplane weighed in about 14 lbs ( the plans say 8-9 ) and with the engines rated for 0.8 hp, it had a realistic power loading.

This was a flight after a rebuild, I believe, probably summer of 1994 at Virgil

Years later, around 2007, I taught a 78 year old to fly.  His favorite airplane was the B-25.  I wish I still had this model as I would have let him fly it on a buddy box.  During that winter, he passed away from complications due to pneumonia, I think it was.  I have the plans, so maybe I'll build another one.  It will be modified to be more true to scale.  From what I understand, the plastic and cowls are still available from Fiberglass Specialties and possibly elsewhere.