Bonner Smog Hog - 60 years later
06-07-2016, 11:53 AM
#77
I found out later that other Jennys had suffered the same fate for the same reason. Hal Debolt knew what he was doing with that ventral fin, but I sure wished he had put some warning on the plan not to omit it.
Some time in the late 50's or early 60's I was at an RCNC (Radio Control League of NC) Meet, and Harold Debolt was there. Several people needled Pappy to spin his Jenny, which he finally did. It spun very flat all the way to the ground. I recovered it undamaged, but he wouldn't try spinning it again. It was common knowledge that because they spun very flat, that often they were not damaged! I'm not sure if it had the dorsal fin, or if that was a later modification.
Some time in the late 50's or early 60's I was at an RCNC (Radio Control League of NC) Meet, and Harold Debolt was there. Several people needled Pappy to spin his Jenny, which he finally did. It spun very flat all the way to the ground. I recovered it undamaged, but he wouldn't try spinning it again. It was common knowledge that because they spun very flat, that often they were not damaged! I'm not sure if it had the dorsal fin, or if that was a later modification.
06-07-2016, 12:02 PM
#78
Well Dick,
one could say you were really determined, as most people would have tossed in the towel given your experiences.
I myself had similar hurdles, and had nobody to teach me how to build, cover, or work on radios, so it was trial and a lot of errors!
one could say you were really determined, as most people would have tossed in the towel given your experiences.
I myself had similar hurdles, and had nobody to teach me how to build, cover, or work on radios, so it was trial and a lot of errors!
06-08-2016, 05:24 AM
#79
Dick - great write up. It really gives a good sense of the hurdles one had to jump to overcome to fly in this time frame. I built one Mambo in 1967 and flew it twice without radio. I was still saving for a transmitter to go with the Ace K3kv kit that I had built. Since I never got the xmitter, the Mambo still lurks in my basement. I got sidetracked back into .35 powered CL for a couple of years until 1969 when I started building a Falcon 56. Much of the construction was on a board that I could slide under my bed while laying on the bed. Back then when I was grounded, I was not allowed to work on models.
Currently I am also sidetracked getting ready for a fun fly this weekend.
Currently I am also sidetracked getting ready for a fun fly this weekend.
06-08-2016, 08:41 AM
#80
Thank you all for your kind words. I'm feeling guilty about creating thread drift on HighPlains' Smog Hog thread. So this entry with start off with "Smog Hog" in the first sentence.
The Smog Hog is a great example of a smart design that was exactly appropriate for the state-of-the-art at the time. It might look like no more than a crude trainer today, but it was a first rate design when it was built.
Today we can just go out and buy a supremely reliable radio, servos, batteries, engines, and even a ready-built airframe. And then we can go out to an established flying field and find a seasoned pilot to test fly our new ship and teach us to be pilots ourselves.
In the 1950's building and flying an R/C model plane was like trying to learn how to juggle by starting out with 8 balls. Commons sense tells us that a juggler starts off just tossing one ball into the air until he can toss and catch it with absolute consistently. Then he adds another ball and juggles two. And then three, and so on. But with a radio controlled model you had to toss all the balls into the air the first time. And if one of your balls hit the ground, it broke !
If you place yourself in the year 1955 and try to think about getting started in R/C airplanes, consider his:
1. Nobody sold a complete radio "system". You could buy a transmitter and receiver as a "set", but it was necessary to source an actuator separately, figure out how to hook it up, and hope the receiver and actuator were electrically compatible. Hook it up ? Receivers didn't come with plugs on the ends of wires. You had to either solder wires directly from the receiver to the actuator or find some sort of a connector. Solder ? Who knew anything about soldering small electronic connections ? And who had a nice, little pencil soldering iron ? There were no manufacturers of the fine little connectors that we have today. A connector was usually adapted from some other application. Maybe you broke apart a small vacuum tube and used the base and socket as a connector.
2. What about an engine ? You needed something powerful enough to pull a heavy model into the air. The majority of "big" engines at that time were 35's. The best engines were usually meant for control line flying, so vibration wasn't much of a concern. But vibration was a very BIG concern when you were trying to fly a delicate radio and electromechanical actuator. It helped if you were an experienced control line flier or free flighter. At least with some prior experience you knew how to set a needle valve and diagnose operating problems.
3. Build a model ? There weren't too many kits designed for R/C. So you usually had to adapt a cabin free flight model by beefing it up to carry the extra weight and adding a movable control surface. It was not uncommon to build your model and fly it free flight to get it trimmed before installing the radio. That way you sorted out construction problems, engine problems, and trimming with a much lighter model. And if you crashed the model doing those preliminaries, at least you still had your radio unscathed. And remember, if you crashed your creation, you probably damaged your expensive radio and certainly lost the plane. So it was a financial hit and a time invested hit all at the same time. Today it's easier to just buy a proven ARF and learn on it.
4. Flying skill: Not only was he launching an unproven, untrimmed model into the air, but the pilot was an unproven commodity himself. Skilled mentors were few and far between. And if you crashed your model, then whatever flying skills you had developed would deteriorate while building the next model. You may be getting a million dollar education, but it was coming a nickel at a time.
Considering the juggling act required to get an R/C model up and back down in one piece, the Smog Hog begins to look mighty attractive. It's really just a cleverly modified cabin free flight. It was large and roomy enough to carry the size and weight of the radio system. It flew pretty well on its own. It was tough enough to survive marginal landings often enough to permit the pilot to develop some flying skill. It protected its delicate innards from all but an outright crash. And yet it responded sufficiently to control inputs that it truly was "controlled".
Bravo Howard Bonner. You put it all together into one very smart package and made it work.
Dick
The Smog Hog is a great example of a smart design that was exactly appropriate for the state-of-the-art at the time. It might look like no more than a crude trainer today, but it was a first rate design when it was built.
Today we can just go out and buy a supremely reliable radio, servos, batteries, engines, and even a ready-built airframe. And then we can go out to an established flying field and find a seasoned pilot to test fly our new ship and teach us to be pilots ourselves.
In the 1950's building and flying an R/C model plane was like trying to learn how to juggle by starting out with 8 balls. Commons sense tells us that a juggler starts off just tossing one ball into the air until he can toss and catch it with absolute consistently. Then he adds another ball and juggles two. And then three, and so on. But with a radio controlled model you had to toss all the balls into the air the first time. And if one of your balls hit the ground, it broke !
If you place yourself in the year 1955 and try to think about getting started in R/C airplanes, consider his:
1. Nobody sold a complete radio "system". You could buy a transmitter and receiver as a "set", but it was necessary to source an actuator separately, figure out how to hook it up, and hope the receiver and actuator were electrically compatible. Hook it up ? Receivers didn't come with plugs on the ends of wires. You had to either solder wires directly from the receiver to the actuator or find some sort of a connector. Solder ? Who knew anything about soldering small electronic connections ? And who had a nice, little pencil soldering iron ? There were no manufacturers of the fine little connectors that we have today. A connector was usually adapted from some other application. Maybe you broke apart a small vacuum tube and used the base and socket as a connector.
2. What about an engine ? You needed something powerful enough to pull a heavy model into the air. The majority of "big" engines at that time were 35's. The best engines were usually meant for control line flying, so vibration wasn't much of a concern. But vibration was a very BIG concern when you were trying to fly a delicate radio and electromechanical actuator. It helped if you were an experienced control line flier or free flighter. At least with some prior experience you knew how to set a needle valve and diagnose operating problems.
3. Build a model ? There weren't too many kits designed for R/C. So you usually had to adapt a cabin free flight model by beefing it up to carry the extra weight and adding a movable control surface. It was not uncommon to build your model and fly it free flight to get it trimmed before installing the radio. That way you sorted out construction problems, engine problems, and trimming with a much lighter model. And if you crashed the model doing those preliminaries, at least you still had your radio unscathed. And remember, if you crashed your creation, you probably damaged your expensive radio and certainly lost the plane. So it was a financial hit and a time invested hit all at the same time. Today it's easier to just buy a proven ARF and learn on it.
4. Flying skill: Not only was he launching an unproven, untrimmed model into the air, but the pilot was an unproven commodity himself. Skilled mentors were few and far between. And if you crashed your model, then whatever flying skills you had developed would deteriorate while building the next model. You may be getting a million dollar education, but it was coming a nickel at a time.
Considering the juggling act required to get an R/C model up and back down in one piece, the Smog Hog begins to look mighty attractive. It's really just a cleverly modified cabin free flight. It was large and roomy enough to carry the size and weight of the radio system. It flew pretty well on its own. It was tough enough to survive marginal landings often enough to permit the pilot to develop some flying skill. It protected its delicate innards from all but an outright crash. And yet it responded sufficiently to control inputs that it truly was "controlled".
Bravo Howard Bonner. You put it all together into one very smart package and made it work.
Dick
Last edited by otrcman; 06-08-2016 at 08:45 AM.
06-08-2016, 01:17 PM
#82
There was one complete radio set sold in 1955 (and before) - the Schmidt 5 channel resonant reed system. Here's a link to view one. Check out the MAN Dec 1953 ad for it. Frank Schmidt's system included his own self neutralizing, trim, and engine servos. I don't have the engine servo so used a DeBolt to complete the set. Only a few advertisements ever appeared for this radio and only a few short mentions in the model magazines, so it's probable that few modelers knew about it and a good chance not many were sold.
http://www.vintagercfiles.com/Schmidt.html
Tom
http://www.vintagercfiles.com/Schmidt.html
Tom
06-08-2016, 02:50 PM
#83
Tom,
Thanks for posting the info on the Schmidt radio set. What a fabulous offering for that time period ! I'll bet it was super expensive.
Dick
Thanks for posting the info on the Schmidt radio set. What a fabulous offering for that time period ! I'll bet it was super expensive.
Dick
Last edited by otrcman; 06-08-2016 at 02:52 PM.
06-08-2016, 06:04 PM
#86
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Clifton,
NJ
Posts: 1,859
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I contacted Tony Stillman at AMA to see if he had any info on the 1956 NATS rules.
Unfortunately, the earliest info they have goes back to the mid 90's.
I then emailed Bob Noll at VRCS to see if they had any documents that go back to the 50's and, again, he didn't have any info.
On the VRCS website they have the rules for their competition, so I guess that's all we can do.
Jon
Unfortunately, the earliest info they have goes back to the mid 90's.
I then emailed Bob Noll at VRCS to see if they had any documents that go back to the 50's and, again, he didn't have any info.
On the VRCS website they have the rules for their competition, so I guess that's all we can do.
Jon
06-08-2016, 06:37 PM
#87
Apparently, from these articles I found in July 1956 Air Trails and April 1961 MAN, health reasons were a factor for the Schmidt's short lifespan. Of course, by 1956, the competition would have been a factor as well.
Tom
Tom
06-08-2016, 07:26 PM
#88
I found a biographical essay on the web written by a man named John Dixon. Mr. Dixon was a contemporary of Frank Schmidt and had first-hand experience with the Schmidt 5 channel radio. He relates in his essay that the radio worked well except that the transmitter tone generator was sensitive to battery voltage, requiring close monitoring and frequent adjustment. This is probably another case where the designer had conceived a wonderful system, but the available hardware of the day wasn't quite up to the needs of the design. R/C history is replete with this frustration.
You can read the full essay, including his story of the Schmidt 5, at:
http://rccd.org/Documents/John%20Dix...0of%20RCCD.pdf
Dick
You can read the full essay, including his story of the Schmidt 5, at:
http://rccd.org/Documents/John%20Dix...0of%20RCCD.pdf
Dick
06-08-2016, 10:46 PM
#89
Hello all...as Tom (tommav) knows, I also have a Schmitt system as a result of inheriting the R/C estate of one of my old flyin buddies.
I finally logged in again and saw a couple of PM's from Tom that are a couple months old...thanks Tom.
After reading the above info, now I know why this seems to be a rather rare system...
Mine belonged to a WWII vet (Naval Aviator) who flew OS2U Kingfishers, (amongst others occasionally) and after the war, he got heavily involved in the model airplane hobby.
His Schmitt was installed, for a while, in a low wing "Liberty 15" airplane...IIRC kitted by Ecktronics?
Bob...don't want to babble on too much here...but I couldn't resist adding my 2 cents when I saw the Schmitt mentioned again.
I finally logged in again and saw a couple of PM's from Tom that are a couple months old...thanks Tom.
After reading the above info, now I know why this seems to be a rather rare system...
Mine belonged to a WWII vet (Naval Aviator) who flew OS2U Kingfishers, (amongst others occasionally) and after the war, he got heavily involved in the model airplane hobby.
His Schmitt was installed, for a while, in a low wing "Liberty 15" airplane...IIRC kitted by Ecktronics?
Bob...don't want to babble on too much here...but I couldn't resist adding my 2 cents when I saw the Schmitt mentioned again.
06-09-2016, 02:12 PM
#90
What an interesting time period in RC, the 5 channel resonance reed era, from 1949 through 1956. Ed Rockwood, Frank Schmidt, John Dixon (BRAMCO designer for Richard Branstner), and Frank Hover (CG) all produced radio components or a complete systems. Were there others?
Rockwood in his 1949 article talks about military drones that used tuned circuits, each with a tube amplifier. He knew that he was somewhat limited in frequency bandwidth, and had to keep to a single octave in the audio range, but getting to a working resonance reed filter over an audio coil is inspired. From that point on the designers worked on making the radio link better, the tone generator more stable, and smaller and lighter airborne units. The CG unit used a tube and two transistors, while it appears that earlier receivers used three tubes. What surprised me is this covered a span of at least 7 years, but changes started happening much faster with 8 channel simultaneous, 10 &12 channel, relay-less airborne packs over just a 5 year period. Add another couple of years and reeds were done.
Rockwood in his 1949 article talks about military drones that used tuned circuits, each with a tube amplifier. He knew that he was somewhat limited in frequency bandwidth, and had to keep to a single octave in the audio range, but getting to a working resonance reed filter over an audio coil is inspired. From that point on the designers worked on making the radio link better, the tone generator more stable, and smaller and lighter airborne units. The CG unit used a tube and two transistors, while it appears that earlier receivers used three tubes. What surprised me is this covered a span of at least 7 years, but changes started happening much faster with 8 channel simultaneous, 10 &12 channel, relay-less airborne packs over just a 5 year period. Add another couple of years and reeds were done.
06-09-2016, 03:04 PM
#91
HighPlains, Please forgive me for editing your quote above, but I just wanted to comment on one item.
Yes, reeds were technically done by the early 1960's. But there were still plenty of reed sets in use for quite a few more years. By the time the first proportional radios began to appear on the market, reeds were finally becoming highly reliable and (I suspect) finally profitable for the manufacturers. Jaymen could probably elaborate on this, but my understanding is that most of the manufacturers had only recently reached the point where they enjoyed a good reputation for reliability and had more people working on production than they did in repair and prototyping. Thus they were reluctant to get back onto the product development merry-go-round.
Ditto for the users. I know that by 1964 I was just beginning to enjoy a trustworthy reed system and actually getting more than my usual 13 flights per airplane. The grief quotient was going down and I was finally really learning to fly. There was no way that I wanted to spend another bundle of money on something new and unproven. Leave that to the big name fliers! Add to that the decreasing cost of reed sets (new and used) and it was difficult to justify a big new purchase.
My first proportional came in late 1967, and I wasn't the last holdout on the field. My Bonner 4RS might be considered a Third Generation proportional. The prices were coming down significantly, prompted I suspect by the $300 PCS 5.
Even the 4RS had some teething problems. The dawn of my absolutely bullet proof radio years began a Kraft 7 channel, purchased in about 1975. After Kraft faded from the scene, Cliff Weirick sold me on the Sanwa / Airtronics brand and I've been flying them with great success ever since.
Dick
Yes, reeds were technically done by the early 1960's. But there were still plenty of reed sets in use for quite a few more years. By the time the first proportional radios began to appear on the market, reeds were finally becoming highly reliable and (I suspect) finally profitable for the manufacturers. Jaymen could probably elaborate on this, but my understanding is that most of the manufacturers had only recently reached the point where they enjoyed a good reputation for reliability and had more people working on production than they did in repair and prototyping. Thus they were reluctant to get back onto the product development merry-go-round.
Ditto for the users. I know that by 1964 I was just beginning to enjoy a trustworthy reed system and actually getting more than my usual 13 flights per airplane. The grief quotient was going down and I was finally really learning to fly. There was no way that I wanted to spend another bundle of money on something new and unproven. Leave that to the big name fliers! Add to that the decreasing cost of reed sets (new and used) and it was difficult to justify a big new purchase.
My first proportional came in late 1967, and I wasn't the last holdout on the field. My Bonner 4RS might be considered a Third Generation proportional. The prices were coming down significantly, prompted I suspect by the $300 PCS 5.
Even the 4RS had some teething problems. The dawn of my absolutely bullet proof radio years began a Kraft 7 channel, purchased in about 1975. After Kraft faded from the scene, Cliff Weirick sold me on the Sanwa / Airtronics brand and I've been flying them with great success ever since.
Dick
06-16-2016, 11:53 AM
#92
How true Dick, your comments are right on.
The old technology always is at it's fullest performance and maturity right before it gets discontinued. The bugs are worked out, the assembly process streamlined, the parts supplies are readily available and therefore at the lowest price. In addition, everyone gets used to and familiar with the technology so plenty of support is available at the hobby shop and club level.
Problems always are the worst with a new technology, and the profit margins are low at first, until the bugs are worked out and users begin to trust it, then prices come down. Look at the first Spektrum radios: They dropped out and glitched, crashed a lot of planes, as they were not able to handle large voltage fluctuations at the receiver due to the motor/speed control demands on the battery. Guys were using a separate receiver battery to cope with this until JR/Spektrum came up with a fix. In the mean time they put out a CYA notice that the radios were for small indoor and parkflyers only.
One can go back in time and recall the problems with the first superhets, then the first analog propo, then digital propo, then the first FM, and PCM radios. All of these had the typical teething problems.
There is a reason I fly my irreplaceable Hobie Hawk with an AM radio on 53MHz: It's a reliable system that has no computer or microprocessor that can glitch and lock up, causing the plane to dive straight into the water below the cliffs.
Bonner made his biggest profits on his Duramite, and Transmite servos, while the Digimite systems barely eked out a profit.
The old technology always is at it's fullest performance and maturity right before it gets discontinued. The bugs are worked out, the assembly process streamlined, the parts supplies are readily available and therefore at the lowest price. In addition, everyone gets used to and familiar with the technology so plenty of support is available at the hobby shop and club level.
Problems always are the worst with a new technology, and the profit margins are low at first, until the bugs are worked out and users begin to trust it, then prices come down. Look at the first Spektrum radios: They dropped out and glitched, crashed a lot of planes, as they were not able to handle large voltage fluctuations at the receiver due to the motor/speed control demands on the battery. Guys were using a separate receiver battery to cope with this until JR/Spektrum came up with a fix. In the mean time they put out a CYA notice that the radios were for small indoor and parkflyers only.
One can go back in time and recall the problems with the first superhets, then the first analog propo, then digital propo, then the first FM, and PCM radios. All of these had the typical teething problems.
There is a reason I fly my irreplaceable Hobie Hawk with an AM radio on 53MHz: It's a reliable system that has no computer or microprocessor that can glitch and lock up, causing the plane to dive straight into the water below the cliffs.
Bonner made his biggest profits on his Duramite, and Transmite servos, while the Digimite systems barely eked out a profit.
06-16-2016, 11:57 AM
#93
[QUOTE=HighPlains;12223029]What an interesting time period in RC, the 5 channel resonance reed era, from 1949 through 1956. Ed Rockwood, Frank Schmidt, John Dixon (BRAMCO designer for Richard Branstner), and Frank Hover (CG) all produced radio components or a complete systems. Were there others?
Yeah, there was Orbit, and Citizenship, Babcock and Min-X reed equipment if memory serves me correctly.
Yeah, there was Orbit, and Citizenship, Babcock and Min-X reed equipment if memory serves me correctly.
06-17-2016, 10:39 AM
#94
Jay - there were quite few reed radio manufacturers, but were there more than the three that made 5 channel reed sets?
Dick - I wonder what year the last new reed sets were offered?
I found a photo good enough to make out Howard Bonner's FCC call sign - K60PM, which is on both sides of his vertical stabilizer. I'm guessing his AMA number is on the wing stripes.
Dick - I wonder what year the last new reed sets were offered?
I found a photo good enough to make out Howard Bonner's FCC call sign - K60PM, which is on both sides of his vertical stabilizer. I'm guessing his AMA number is on the wing stripes.
06-17-2016, 11:21 AM
#95
My Feedback: (2)
Jay - there were quite few reed radio manufacturers, but were there more than the three that made 5 channel reed sets?
Dick - I wonder what year the last new reed sets were offered?
I found a photo good enough to make out Howard Bonner's FCC call sign - K60PM, which is on both sides of his vertical stabilizer. I'm guessing his AMA number is on the wing stripes.
Dick - I wonder what year the last new reed sets were offered?
I found a photo good enough to make out Howard Bonner's FCC call sign - K60PM, which is on both sides of his vertical stabilizer. I'm guessing his AMA number is on the wing stripes.
I (Royal Electronics) was still building the F&M reed sets in early 1970. Most customers were commercial by then.
The first reed set I saw was Hal Debolt flying a Bramco reed system at the Hobo meet (Syracuse, NY.) in 1957. Walt Good was also there flying the WAG Dual. I was so impressed with Walt's flying I immediately built a WAG Dual but never flew it, I kept wearing out the Mighty Midget servo motors testing before I could get it in a plane.
06-18-2016, 07:43 AM
#96
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Rock Hill,
SC
Posts: 514
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
================================================== ===
I (Royal Electronics) was still building the F&M reed sets in early 1970. Most customers were commercial by then.
The first reed set I saw was Hal Debolt flying a Bramco reed system at the Hobo meet (Syracuse, NY.) in 1957. Walt Good was also there flying the WAG Dual. I was so impressed with Walt's flying I immediately built a WAG Dual but never flew it, I kept wearing out the Mighty Midget servo motors testing before I could get it in a plane.
I (Royal Electronics) was still building the F&M reed sets in early 1970. Most customers were commercial by then.
The first reed set I saw was Hal Debolt flying a Bramco reed system at the Hobo meet (Syracuse, NY.) in 1957. Walt Good was also there flying the WAG Dual. I was so impressed with Walt's flying I immediately built a WAG Dual but never flew it, I kept wearing out the Mighty Midget servo motors testing before I could get it in a plane.
Russ Farris
06-18-2016, 07:57 AM
#97
My Feedback: (2)
Russ,
I don't remember who the customers were, too long ago. I think we were the last producing reed radios, Orbit, Kraft and World Engines were probably all proportional by then. We were also selling kits and factory assembled Royal Classic proportional radios in 1968, 69.
I don't remember who the customers were, too long ago. I think we were the last producing reed radios, Orbit, Kraft and World Engines were probably all proportional by then. We were also selling kits and factory assembled Royal Classic proportional radios in 1968, 69.
06-19-2016, 10:08 AM
#98
I discovered today a bit more about the radio system. The original company was known as ECE manufactured in Albuquerque, New Mexico around 1954. I have no idea what "ECE" stood for, and I can only assume that it was Frank Hoover that ran this. They sold a single channel transmitter (model T-11) along with a receiver on 27.255 MC.
Later they offered another single channel in what they called the T-15 case. They also had a three channel reed set, again in the T-15 case, plus you could convert the transmitter from single to three. It was this same case that the 5 channel and 8 channel transmitters were built into. A modular design!
At some point, the ECE became CG, and much later F&M. I think Jaymen has mentioned in the past that CG was after a son named Charlie, and F&M was for Frank and Mary.
Later they offered another single channel in what they called the T-15 case. They also had a three channel reed set, again in the T-15 case, plus you could convert the transmitter from single to three. It was this same case that the 5 channel and 8 channel transmitters were built into. A modular design!
At some point, the ECE became CG, and much later F&M. I think Jaymen has mentioned in the past that CG was after a son named Charlie, and F&M was for Frank and Mary.
Last edited by HighPlains; 06-19-2016 at 10:18 AM.
06-22-2016, 07:56 PM
#99
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Rock Hill,
SC
Posts: 514
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HighPlains - I've enjoyed your posts and the advice I've had from you for the last ten years. I think this is a tremendous project!
Here's more info on the ECE systems from the RC Hall of Fame.
Russ Farris
http://www.radiocontrolhalloffame.or...ery/index.html
Here's more info on the ECE systems from the RC Hall of Fame.
Russ Farris
http://www.radiocontrolhalloffame.or...ery/index.html
06-22-2016, 10:03 PM
#100
Thanks Russ, I've started building the horizontal stabilizer which is quite different compared to today's methods. Not difficult, but time consuming with lots of parts to fit. Plus I am building with either model cement or carpenter's wood glue. No instant glues in 1956.