build light

When I built my Zig Zag I actually did think about hollowing it out some more as I had already been enlightened on the "keep'r light philosophy. I remember hefting the little log in my hand and thinking heck it don't weigh much o' nuthin' as it was.
I did try poking at it with a number 11 X-Acto and thinking I coulden't do much with it unless I had some more appropriate tools. Beeing very green then I could hardly think of much.
So I just left it alone and went about making the outside strong and nice looking.

Quote by George:
" I believe interest in these old planes comes from many of us building them as our first few models. I believe my favorite ones built as a kid were Little Devil and Little Mustang."

George I am sure you are right about that. It did not take me long to figure out they weren't the best flyers. After the engine quit it sure did not glide well. I have read where others say theirs dropped like a rock but I guess I was fortunate. No it did not glide well but I could always get it down safely. I think it would do a bout a lap and a half at best.

It wasn't long before I knew it need some more wing area. and the only mod I made to it was to add some area to the elevator to make it more effective. That made a huge difference!
Most every flight left me wanting a little more. More fuel tank, more wing, more lighness... Yet I flew the thing endlessly. I just loved my lil Zig Zag!

No not great flyers but good, faithful and soon, predictable flyers. I liked predictable. Made me feel very comfortable. Now I wish I could remember how many flights I actually got out of the little bugger

I could go on but this post is already long. More later!!!

Here is another pic I found on the web showing the "log" being referred to in this thread for those who need clarification.

Robert

Bass1

Wow, I'm getting a buzz just looking at that tube of Ambroid![sm=wink_smile.gif]

build light

Its been a while since I have had a tube of ambroid but I did love the smell of it! I remember the smell very well. I never got high from it tghat I was aware of but I have been known to have done things that destroyed brain cells! I wish I had some of them back now! I could actually use them!
Heh!

Robert

NorfolkSouthern

Thanks. I'm visiting the Blackhawk and Virginia sites now, and so far am liking what I see. They look simple to build, yet affordable and small in size too. The Fokker DR1 looks very interesting indeed, but I'm not quite sure I would really want to try that as a second plane after my Sig Buster!

NorfolkSouthern

build light

NorfolkSouthern, I am inclined to agree. However that tripe looks really cool and would take up little room on the shelf till you got your nerve up! It would also look great with a Cub on it with its red plastic tank! That is unless you went with another color and the DR-1 was known to be painted in many bright flashy colors, plus solid black and solid white.

I am going to have a tripe one day if not that one then one that was published in AAM. It was an article called Bipes and Tripes. None of those were scale but fun WWI lookalikes. Cartoon scale? Anyone remember these? I have that issue. There was also a follow up called Monsters and Monoplanes The monsters were twin .049 powered biplanes. I have that issue as well.

Robert

gcb

Any of the rest of you guys old enough to remember when they added oil of mustard the Ambroid so kids would not sniff it. Heck, modelers would only smell it if it was holding some balsa together.

Remember when the cap was an eyelet and we used the eyelet as a pushrod guide and the empty lead glue tube as wing tip weight?

Nostalgia is the stuff you CAN remember...sighhh!

George

gcb

Here are some OK Cub pics:
The first pic has the red tank .049A(lower left), an .049C(upper left), which is a A tank and a B engine, separated by an aluminum plate (never offered when Cubs were in producton), center=two .049B's from RTF's (note the glow head, instead of conventional plug, and the flywheel), right upper .049B from fifties, came in a Comet Sabre44 RTF, lower right new .049B.
The second pic shows two original old case OK Cubs. They have no size designation but they are .049's. The old one is from my Little Bipe back in the mid 1950's. The second one is new from **ay a few years ago.

George

lukesp

Robert/Build Light,

Here's my model of Walt's Aeronca Sedan. This was from a plan in his book Building and Flying Scale Model Aircraft. He has published several books over the years and in my eyes are worth collecting. Walt's enthusiasm leaps out of the pages and they usually have free plans included.

The beauty of building log models, for me at least, is the low expense, small amount of space required to store them and they can fill that need to build when you get the urge. I wish they held Musciano events in Australia, I would participate for sure.

Luke.

build light

lukesp, That is a really nice model! Thw "wire bracing" on the tail feathers really sets your plane apart.

I have never seen one of these books Walt published but it seems I need at least one of them. Probably more!

lukesp said:
"I wish they held Musciano events in Australia, I would participate for sure.

Luke. "

Who knows? One day if the event spreads properly, it could!

Robert

lukesp

Thanks Robert, the wing struts are for display only, I take them off for flight( which I haven't done yet, it's heavy and I think it might become damaged. Chicken.)

Another book of Walt's is The Model Plane Manual from the early fifties. No log plans but there is a pylon racer complete with instructions on making your own plyon etc. a profile or two, a scale CLer, several free flighters and a jet speed model. Very nostalgic stuff and Walt is old school of course, so the books are interesting for the earlier construction methods. Try a search at Amazons for Walter Musciano.

I intend to build another Aeronca for flying, leave off the struts and rigging and have fun with it. When the time is available that is, something I never have enough of.

Bax

My Feedback: (11)

I also built several of the "Logs" in the 60's. Built a "Ford Flivver", a "Golden Hawk", a "Little Devil", and the "Aircoupe". What I hated about most of them was that when the engine ran out of fuel, the model lost speed quickly and went right in. Good thing they were light and slow enough to sustain no damage. We'd shoot some glow fuel across the engine to remove the dirt, refuel, fire it up, and go flying again and again. I also built a Scientific Stuntmaster and their profile P-63. One of my good friends had a Zig-Zag.

We'd fly them until we'd put them into the ground enough times that we couldn't fix them any more, and then be airplane-less until we'd saved for the next model. The kits were a few dollars, the Cox Babe Bee .049 was $2.98, and a dollar or so more would buy glue and dope. We never filled the grain of the wood. A few coats of clear to seal the wood, a few coats of color to make it look good, and go fly! Great fun for elementary and junior high schoolers!

build light

Yes most of them, especially the solid winged ones could have used a few more square inches of wing area to help them "home" after the fuel was spent. It took a while to get it right but I did get my Zig Zag to land on its wheels almost every single time My profile P-40 with the 21" built up wing did so much better when it ran dry even though I did almost everything possible (Not on purpose) to make it way to heavy. If I had finished that one like I should it would really have been something!

The light weight and sturdy design really helped a great deal with the overall durability.

Robert

gcb

I usually fly over grass. The wheels just make it do a better bounce and flip in my case.

I had forgotten about the "Little Devil". I think I painted mine red...back in the day.

These "hollowed logs" have gained so much popularity in the last couple of years that soon we may have to call them "HALLOWED logs"

George

NorfolkSouthern

Thinking a little further, the tripe actually looks affordable enough to where I may be inclined to fly it after building. The O.K. Cubs seem fairly obtainable and priced reasonably. I bet it would look fabulous with a Grish Tornado prop too!

NorfolkSouthern

HighPlains

My Feedback: (1)

I built the little Mustang when I was in the fifth grade. I powered it with a Cox RR-1, so it flew pretty well when the engine was running. Flying sessions usually ended after 3-5 flights when a landing arrival would knock off the firewall and engine. Back home to squirt another glob of Testor's glue and wait for another day.

build light

Heh! those were the days! When you only had one plane and one good knok ended the days flying

I had no idea about epoxy at the time. I too had to squirt on some Ambroid glue and wait for it overnight.

Robert

proptop

My Feedback: (8)

I had the King Pin, Bird Dog, and Red Tiger P-40
The King Pin was powered by a Wen Mac .049 that came out of their P-26...wish I still had that one![8D].

build light

Proptop, check with Blackhawk models. I believe the Kingpin kit is in thier future. They already carry a decent selection of these old kits and more are in the works!

In the meantime there might be something they are currantly producing that might be worth a try!
I have my eye on the Thunderbird biplane!
For now they are updating the Zig Zag and I can hardly wait!!!

Robert

mole2000

I flew thw stuntmaster and the zigzag ..built em around 1960..had a ball..they were hard to break..I sure tried hard enough..love that Ambroid!!!!!!

PipeMajor

My Feedback: (1)

Yup. I had the ME-109 which I built when I was 12 years old. Flew it in an open sided warehouse type building. Cox Babe Bee for power.

build light

Quote by mole21401:
"had a ball..they were hard to break..I sure tried hard enough..love that Ambroid!!!!!! "

Heh! Yes indeedy! If you did a good job of building them, they took quite the beating. After doing a number of figure nines into the sometimes rather hard ground (Sometimes springy after lots of rain...) and sloppy wingovers that were just too sloppy I realised that the best props were the Top Flite white nylons and that I had built a nearly indestructable machine. I swallow now thinking about it... Too the abuse My Golden Bee had to endure along with it. I still have this motor. I ruined the cylinder early in its life with a screwdriver and wound up with a dual port Black Widow which I still have. I guess that makes it a Golden Widow!

Yes the Ambroid was an integral part of the strength of the model. That and the very dense balsa supplied by Scientific.

PipeMajor, The Me109 was one I wanted to have eventually. I still may before it is over with.

Did anyone have the BEL-AIR? This one was unusual in that it was the only model made by Scientific that had a solid balsa wing that had been hollowed like the fuselage( so I am told).
Though it was the only model they made this way, It seems there were a ton of them made. I have seen them for auction.

Robert

littlefly

Seems I remember that 'eyelet' being on a lead TESTORS tube. Sure spread a lot of it building Streaks and Hornets, though.

littlefly

vauxhall

Has anyone posted this link to Walt Musciano's book yet? http://www.modelairplanekit.net/
Well worth a visit.........John

gcb

Actually, the screw-in eyelet was used on most cements at that time...Ambroid, Aerogloss, Comet, Testors, Duco, SIG, etc. I don't remember who was first with the plastic top, but it seemed when one changed, most changed. My guess is that the molded plastic was cheaper.

I remember that before I paid attention to the instructions and learned to "double cement" a joint, my joints were surrounded by bubbles and were not as strong. Remember big bubble fillets?

George

build light

Quote by John:
"Has anyone posted this link to Walt Musciano's book yet? http://www.modelairplanekit.net/
Well worth a visit.........John"

Actually I had started a thread for the Musciano bookhere:

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_5403054/tm.htm

Robert