SMALLnet post451

I was heartbroken to learn of Randy's untimely death. He was such a dynamic yet gracious person. I feel very fortunate that we were all able to have supper together last year at Little Rock.

This year won't be the same, but I do know that Randy would be more than a little upset if people didn't turn out for the event and have their usual good time.

Was very sad to hear of Randy passing. He designed more of the type of planes that I like than anyone else.

I have two .049 Cox engines from Kustom Kraftsmanship that I would like to sell. One is new in the pack, never opened. The other has been run for about 10 flights. These engines were customized by Joe Klause for flying Texaco duration.

Has anyone a set of plans for Andy Clancy's "Stagger Bee" that I could buy or have copied ?

Like yourself I'm still in a stunned state by the loss of Randy. I find myself still expecting to see his name in my inbox in the mornings. When it doesn't appear, the reminder starts my day off on the wrong foot...

I used your success with big props on the Cox Pee Wee engine as an example in a thread on the 1/2A forum. Now my curiosity has gotten to the point that I find I must ask you what modifications, props (as I recall you used a 6x3 ?) fuel or other 'adjustments' you found necessary to induce the little bugger to accept such treatment.

I can't begin to tell you how happy I was to see the re-emergence of SMALLnet. From comments contained therein I'm hardly alone.

P.S.: I've sat down several times to write a remembrance of Randy, only each time to find myself at a loss for words.

...Here's a condensation of my reply to Tom:

You're right ! I feel just the same way as you do about Randy's demise. But I know that he wouldn't want you, or me, or ANY of the SMALLsters, to sit around moping because he's not answering our e-mail any more...

Flying with Pee Wee power is an art form. To begin with, I have no experience at all with Pee Wees made after the original Cox sellout (to Leisure Dynamics). Every one of my own Pee Wees was manufactured when Roy was in charge of the company, and Dale Kirn was in charge of QC.

Also: none of the Pee Wees I fly with are stock. I alter the backplate to minimize obstruction to the inlet air. That includes discarding the screen, cutting away the sharp-edged "lip" where the screen was, and radiusing the bottom edge of the "external opening".

I can't document the exact performance gains from these changes. But I do know that although it's easy enough to scale down the dimensions of a model engine, it's impossible to alter the density and viscosity of the fuel and air (yes, air HAS viscosity!)...

That's why I take pains to insure minimal obstruction to the inlet air. Anything that interferes with the inflow HAS to have an adverse effect on performance and dependability.

Another change I make is to re-do the tank vents. I never did like Cox tank vents, and changed them on the reedvalve Coxes I fly with. My Pee Wees are all of the metal tank back variety with two nipples alongside the NV. I nip off the nipples with sharp wire cutters; then cautiously hand-drill #48 (.076) holes radially (using a pin vise) through the nipple locations.

After that, I tap the new holes #3-48. Cautiously -- using a pin vise for that too, to minimize the chance of tapping the holes oversize from accidentally misaligning the tap.

Next I use 3/32" OD "refrigeration tubing" (hard copper) to make new vents. Usually I cut these around 3/4" long overall. I thread one end about 1/8" long. That would be 5 or 6 full turns. (I hold the die still and rotate the tube -- again using a pin vise.) I purposely keep the threaded length short, because I need to use the imperfect threads at the top like pipe threads: to bind in the backplate's tapped holes and prevent loosening.

After THAT, I once more use the pin vise, this time to bend the vents slightly forward -- after they're installed in the backplate, of course. That's to provide positive "ram air" pressure to the tank. (The stock Cox straight up-and-down vents can cause a slight vacuum within the tank, from the "spraygun nozzle effect" of the slipstream whizzing by.)

... One further problem I've often had with Cox reedvalvers is air leakage down the needle threads. I tried several ways of fixing that, and some of them worked. But I was never happy with my fixes. Sometimes they worked and sometimes not. However, last week I got a letter from a fellow who seems to have found a CURE for Cox NV air leakage.

He applies "pipe compound" (white lead) to the needle before screwing it into place. I never thought of that!

Now for propellers! There's the BIG variable. The prop has to be tailored to the model. And that takes experimentation.

I've used Pee Wees on a half-dozen free flights and four R/C models in recent years, and each plane performed best with a different prop !

I was lucky a few decades back -- in buying out a defunct hobby shop, I acquired a bunch of 7-2 props; the good old Tornado Plasticote type. These are hard, dense, and torsionally rigid -- and provide ample flywheel effect. I find that quality to be important in getting reliable performance from small engines.

My 1960 half-size Miss America (42" span) flew just fine with a stock Tornado 7-2 on its Pee Wee. In fact, that model was a tad overpowered. I had to work a while with thrust adjustments to stop that plane from looping.

My 165-squin all-balsa Starling (I used to fly that at SMALL meets a dozen years ago) baffled me for a while in choosing an optimum prop. I even tried a couple of one-bladers. But to my amazement, the best propeller for that little rudder-only, 14-ounce R/C plane turned out to be a plain nylon Top Flite 6-3.

Bob Langelius has done considerable flying with .020's (much of that with the Infant replicas he had made in Russia a few years ago). Bob told me recently that he found the Graupner grey 5-2 to be just about perfect for .020 engines -- including the Pee Wee. But that was for small-sized free flight...

H. A. Thomas recommended Graupner props to me long ago. H. A. had NEVER given me bad advice, so I bought some Graupners immediately -- and have been happily using them ever since on a wide variety of engine sizes. But -- so far -- not on Pee Wees.

For fuel I use 25% nitro Byron, with all-castor lube, and add 2 more fluid ounces of castor to that: Coxes NEED ample castor oil to protect the con rod ball socket. [JW]

Our experiences with Pee Wees seems quite similar. Picky little beggars 'til you find their heart's desire; and then they 'percolate' very cheerily.

Yours is some very good information ! I've always had misgivings about the squared-off Cox tank vents. I never formalized my discomfort to the point of being able to verbalize it, but your analysis hits the button in my mind.

Bob told me about the Graupner props too when I bought one of the Infant 'seconds' from him in Maumelle several years ago. I bought some 5-2's, but have not yet tried them. I will rectify that post haste.

FWIW, seems like I ran the Infant successfully shortly after getting it from Bob, but a recent attempt produced no joy. Next plan is to alter a Pee Wee starter spring to function on the Infant, since the impression I got was that it merely needed a more vigorous spin to go -- as it never failed to fire when flipped.

Gotta check for air/fuel leaks in the induction system first, of course. Just another thing to add to my ever-lengthening 'to do' list.

I can handle the Pee Wee induction improvements you listed with no problem. I even have the right size copper tubing to hand.

Fuel: I long ago switched to all-castor fuel for small engines as a result of your sage advice, and have never had cause for regret. Though I may have been adding a 'skosh' too much castor to my fuel. No fire-going-out problems -- just a very messy residue to clean. That's cheap insurance IMO.

This past Saturday the son and I had our weekly (at least we try to have one each week) fun fly here in Longview, Texas. He had his Dumas Aeronca C3 ready to trim, and I had a few to fly too, including my old Sig Mr Mulligan and a couple of CLG models.

My son's Dumas C3 flew fairly well, and he is going to make some minor thrust adjustments; afterwards that plane should put in some real pretty flights.

Boy, that trusty old Sig Mr Mulligan put on another really good show. It is powered with 2 loops of 1/4 inch Super Sport, and on this day was using an 8" plastic prop. Putting in about 7 or 8 ounces of winding torque, that ship climbs out quite steeply, and probably gets up to 100 - 150 feet. And for a round-engine scale cabin model, its glide is not bad. I got 3 or 4 good flights with it.

This is quite an old Sig kit, but is one that I think is great, and is still for sale in the Hobby Shops. If you like rubber power scale but have never tried one, I think you should. The Mr Mulligan gives you some challenge in the building process, but the most fun is in the flying -- and it is one tough little model.

Two CLGs I had brought to the field were both flown. The first, a Campbell Custom Kit "Straight Up", did just that. The launch went almost vertical and then turned out into a nice flat slow glide. The field here just isn't big enough for this glider, but it flew beautifully.

The second was an original design named "Grandpa Special". It has an 18" wingspan and a fuselage that is probably 22" long. This one is launched at about a 60 degree angle up, and probably a 60 degree bank angle to the right. It turns out real nice at the top and has a flat glide but a bit faster than the Straight Up.

Overall we had a good day of flying and look forward to the next one. SURE HOPE THE WEATHER IS GOOD NEXT WEEKEND!

I think Joe got it exactly right in his evaluation of why both my Phantom P-30s would not run off one timer. He also shed some light on a maddening problem I'd had with capacitors.

Just before I started fooling with the P-30s, I had designed a stressed-paper CL for Popular Science. (May, 1947) This plane used a late-model sub-piston transfer port Atom .097. (In those days "sub-piston" referred to the Atom's two-part piston that separated to admit a fresh charge at the bottom of the stroke.)

Well, the plane (it used ordinary manila file-folder stock over supporting bulkheads and wing ribs as its main construction material) was quite successful -- when the engine kept running. I could not keep capacitors in the thing. In those days I had a big stock of paper "condensers," I'd bought from Olson, or some such supplier. These were rated, I think, at maybe 50 volts, and failed regularly.

Now the Atom had a very nice little timer with a lot of snap. I discovered that by adding a 3rd pencell, it would kick right off without using a booster for starting, the way everybody else did.

So maybe it was inductive kick that was disabling my capacitors. At any rate, I added a note to the article that if one had ignition problems the "condenser" was the place to look first. After I switched to molded plastic capacitors the trouble vanished.

Incidentally, I ran the Atom on cigarette lighter fluid and 70SAE oil. Worked great. Later I converted the Atom to compression-ignition -- adjusted by screwing the cylinder in and out of the crankcase. Ran beautifully on ether and castor. No damage to the case, but the castor (not the ether,) ruined the old-time dope.

Speaking of ignition variables, I traded for a twin plug Super Tigre and was told it ran great on glow, but one had to apply current to both plugs when starting to get the maximum revs. If it was started on just one glow plug, the dead-heading plug would not warm up to the same operating temperature -- or so I was told. Haven't tried it yet.

SMALLnet Posting post451