Stickbuilder

Not to my knowledge. This is not a large model, and the wing design does not lend itself to slide apart builds. It could be done using bar stock aluminum and milling the joiners to a 2 degree diehedral angle. You'd need to imbed a matching set of C channel into the wings. Grub screw into the brace to lock into place. It'd be a PITA, but it could be done.

Bill, Waco Brother #1.

skylarkmk1

Prekin,

I do not know of any one that make a two piece wing kit. If you look close at the wing, it is in three sections, the center and 2 outer panels. To make a take apart wing you would need to make your own joiner pieces, either the tube type or the bar and channel type (as mentioned by Bill) for each joint and redesign the ribs to make your joiners work. As the wings are only 6' long as one piece units, why go through all that work. You need more space for the fuselage than the wings to transport or store.

mrdhud

My Feedback: (48)

Hello all
Everything came together Friday afternoon and we got the maiden flight in on the Barth Waco. I apologize to Bill & Chris for not letting you know in advance so you could be there it was Friday morning when I decision was made. A big thank you to Mason for building this bird and to David for flying her. Have a look see.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ID2Uo11cpuw&list=UU2JkaaZdvCdk2tWRIuT4rgQ

acerc

Very well done Dan, Mason, and David. That DLE 170 is more than enough to haul that beaut around. Nice flight and real nice landing.

swansons

My Feedback: (3)

After struggling with my Peter Barth 1/3 Waco ymf-5 kit for about a year I discovered this thread. Where were you guys when I needed you??
Seriously I would like to join the Waco brotherhood. How do I go about this?

mogman

Bill (stickbuilder) will see this and presto! you'll be a brother!

Cheers,
Dave.

Cougar429

My Feedback: (3)

Swansons, I think you just did.

Welcome.

What progress so far? Any pics available?


ACK! Just awoke to first snow on the vehicle so permanent winter not far behind now. Don't have skis big enough for the Waco and hope to do some freezing and flying this year.

swansons

My Feedback: (3)

I have all the construction just about completed with the exception of the cowl. This mounting has been a real challenge. I know Dr. Barth says he has left this to the experienced modelers but I guess that excluded me(65+yrs).
i am presently recovering from rotater cuff surgery so the pix and modeling will have to wait for a few months.
John S.

hopkimf

My Feedback: (56)

Swansons,

I'm just finishing my Barth 1/3 now. The cowl was a real PITA for me. I bought a very old kit. Blisters had to be glued on and filled. I hope later version has them molded in.Mine was very thin at rear so I put a two inch wide ring of fiberglass reinforcement all the way around on inside.

For mounting the cowl, I used four bolts at the cowl and made two double ended formed aluminum straps. I chose the vertical surfaces on each side of my engine mount wooden box to bolt the straps in place. Each strap has approximately four inches of flat length in the center for two bolt attachment to engine mount. .From the flat vertical surface, I formed the upper and lower ends of straps outward about 40 degrees or so, and put a short bend on the end to mate up with cowl. I also put slotted holes for the strap attachment to mount to make needed adjustment.

To properly locate to cowl in space, I made a temporary thin plywood fixture the same diameter as cowl ID. I located it about 6 inches ahead of firewall. It really helped in establishing the cowl location on diameter and fore-aft.and reduced my scrap/rework.

Sorry I don't have any photos handy.

Regards,

Mike Hopkins

Waco Brotherhood #132

swansons

My Feedback: (3)

Mike,
Thanks for the input on the cowl mounting. Unfortunately I don't have an engine mounting box on my model. I am using three heavy duty aluminum standoffs that bolt directly to the firewall and the Moki 215 mounting base with M5 hardware. My cowl is fairly sturdy and the valve cover blisters are molded on. I may have to try a different approach.
Thanks Again
John S.

nine o nine

My Feedback: (1)

Hi John, My Waco has three 1/4" c/f tubes projecting straight out from the firewall. One on top and the other two 60 degrees on either side below. They are held by holes drilled in the firewall and epoxied in. They are 1/4" spaced from the inside diameter of the cowl and are long enough to project past the cylinders of the 215. Maple blocks are glued to the inside of the front of the cowl and the c/f tubes go through holes drilled in the blocks. I drilled and tapped the blocks to hold 8/32 socket head bolts used as set screws...they're inside the cowl so nothing shows from the outside and are reached with a ball end allen wrench. The setup is now 6 years old and are as rigid as new after hours of flight time. Mitch WB100

swansons

My Feedback: (3)

Mitch,
Thanks for the reply. I think that I understand how you mounted your cowl. I think that it will also work on mine. Do you happen to have any construction pictures, in particular of the CF rods in relation to the fuselage cowl ring? Do they penetrate the cowl ring or not?
John S.

nine o nine

My Feedback: (1)

Hi John, My plane is an AMR with a thick firewall into which I drilled to mount the c/f tubes into. Not sure if the Barth has a solid firewall rather than the ring. If the rear of your cowl has a ring and the c/f tubes could go through that would be ideal and still use the internal blocks up front as I use. Mitch. WB 100

hopkimf

My Feedback: (56)

Barth YMF 1/3 CG Question

Below is my data from model and Barth numbers from print.

[TABLE="width: 537"]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 7"]WACO YMF 1/3 CENTER OF GRAVITY MODEL DATA WITH LOWER WING LEVEL[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="colspan: 4"]REFERENCE LEADING EDGE TOP WING[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.00[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="colspan: 4"]TOP WING LE TO BOTTOM WING TE[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]29.38[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="colspan: 4"]CG BEHIND TOP WING LEADING EDGE[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]PERCENT[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]28%[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]DISTANCE[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]8.23[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]30%[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]8.81[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]32%[/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD="align: right"]9.40[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]34%[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]9.99[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]36%[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]10.58[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"]BARTH DATA[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="colspan: 6"]CG BEHIND TOP WING LEADING EDGE (MEAS. FROM PLAN)[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]PERCENT[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]31%[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD] MIN[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]9.06[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]38%[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]MAX[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]11.19[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

My question is what's right? I could buy the Barrh 31% but the 38% seems like too much. Appreciate any comments.

Since I don't have any balancer big enough to handle this beast, I plan to use a postal scale to weigh the front axles and tailwheel (with the plane lower wing level) and compute the actual CG. Once I do that and get the magic number for best CG location I can work the weight needed issue. I've heard they need a bunch in nose.

Thanks,
Mike Hopkins
Waco Brotherhood # 132

ctflyboy

My Feedback: (3)

to all
I'll be starting my 1/5th scale Waco, very soon and be posting a few pics along the way.
George
Waco Brotherhood #5

Cougar429

My Feedback: (3)

Is that 1/5 a Pica kit? If so, it will be a challenge, but the end result will be one beautiful flyer.

My only major change was to install servos in the bottom wing for each aileron.

mrdhud

My Feedback: (48)

George looking forward watching your build.

ctflyboy

My Feedback: (3)

Cougar 429,
Yes it is a 1/5th Pica kit, I had one 5 or 6 years ago built by a friend of mine,I got it from him in the "bare bones" state, and I finished it,then like a jerk I sold it,so now I got the happy task of doing everything,but you are right they are a beautiful flyer.
George
WACO Brotherhood # 5

WacoNut

Mike,
The WACO will fly with that big a difference in the balance. The farther AFT the balance of course the more pitch sensitive it is and it will want to balloon on landings.

If you have access to a crane you can use a Vanessa Rig to suspend the plane and set the balance. This is how I balanced my AMR and I had to put approx. 5 lbs bolted to the engine box to get it balanced. There is a lot of plane AFT of the CG on these things and the more detail you put adds to more nose weight. Do not worry about how much weight it takes these planes can handle the weight without any issues.

Later!!
Anthony

Stickbuilder

Dan, wish I'd been there. It's a keeper.

Bill, Waco Brother #1

Zor

Good morning Anthony,

I am not doubting your statement.
I am trying to figure why it is on this Waco model.

Zor

Flyrc67

Hello All:

I have been interested in this plane for some time and after researching the GP ARF, and several of the kits, I just purchased an original Platt Pica 1/6 scale kit this weekend. Hopefully, this now qualifies me to be eligible to become a member of the Waco Brotherhood.

i have just recently got involved with this hobby and am enjoying it immensely. I have only built one kit and assembled several ARFs, so I realize this kit will be a bit of a challenge, but I am hoping that with a little help from the brotherhood I will be able to get through it and enjoy this great looking plane. I have read through the 50 page manual several times and studied the plans, so I think I get most of what's involved with this build. I have also been reviewing some of this fantastic thread and am very impressed with the info, tips and amazing master class building going on. Just outstanding work!

I will be starting my build in January, and in trying to plan ahead I already have a few questions, so please bear with me if they seem pretty basic. I appreciate any help that you can offer.

Thanks, Joe

hopkimf

My Feedback: (56)

WacoNut,
Thanks for comments. I just found this video on U Tube. I's a pretty good demo of Vanessa Rig.. I may do that instead of weighing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afvfShdOuck

Regards,

Mike Hopkins

Waco # 132

WacoNut

Mike,
That method works great. A must do for a large heavy model.

Zor,
Take your favorite model that fly's great and add 6 ounces to the tail and hold on to the sticks. Let me know how it works out.

The more you move the CG AFT the more sensitive in Pitch. All aerobatic planes are set up with the CG 32-33% of the MAC or more. 28-30% will give you a nice steady predictable model. For some models we like to throw them around and have fun, others we want to fly scale and safe. I am sure Mike wants to stay on the safe side with his beautiful scale WACO.

Zor

WacoNut and readers,

The following written keeping in mind the readers less acquainted with flying models.

You are asking me ( suggesting ) that I do my own trial ( evaluation of the statement ).

You are not telling us your understanding or any reason(s) why an aft CG would result or do result in more sensitivity to the controls.

Let me mention that I do not think or have observed that an aft CG affects the roll or the yaw.
Its effect is mainly if not only on the pitch ( rotation around the lateral axis; wing tip to wing tip ).

Personally I balance my models so that at cruise speeds ( partial throttle ) I optimize the decalage angle so that it can cruise level ( constant altitude ) with the elevator in line with the stabilizer.

Below an attempt at reasoning the validity of the statement _ _ _ ( more aft CG, more sensitivity ).
As the CG is moved backward, some down elevator would be needed to fly level and likely trimmed in that down position.

Let us now look at two power contditions; full power and partial power.

With full power ( maximum speed ) less down elevator is needed than at partial power ( slower speed ).
With full power and higher speed less elevator deflection is needed as compared to partial power at lower speeds in order to obtain the same fast response.

I am assuming here that more sensitivity actually mean faster model response to the controls.
It can also be interpreted as less elevator deflection needed for equally fast response. I favor this as the meaning of higher sensitivity which is of course also affected by the speed at the moment of a control being applied.

Now we have to consider the five main aerodynamic forces _ _ _ weight, lift, thrust,drag and tail lift.
As the CG is moved backward the results on control sensitivity ( pitch attitude ) could ( would ) be different for a low wing versus a high wing or a biplane.

Would any of these different models still gain control sensitivity by moving their CG backward ?
We still have not explained what is really happening to either definition of sensitivity ( speed or rate of action or degrees of elevator rotation ).

We must remember here that we are talking about a specific model having fixed dimensions and the only thing we do is move some mass to move the CG; tail area and its moment arm are the same. If for any reason the model speed is changed the angle of attack will automatically adjust but that is not a control from the pilot. It is not a change of sensitivity.

To be a change of sensitivity it has to be for a specific flying speed either a faster model response or a smaller control deflection needed for the same response rate.

Enough for now _ _ _ I will pursue the thinking.
The CG limits specified ( when available from the manufacturer ) may well be based on different outlook from their staff experimentations ( if any ).

Hopefully we will read from more participants on this subject.

Zor