RE: Lou Andrews aeromaster bipe ..Any info ??  
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Tower Hobbies
Enter up to 4 keywords or Tower stock numbers
Logged in as Guest



Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
       

All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> Vintage & Antique RC >> RE: Lou Andrews aeromaster bipe ..Any info ??
Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   next >   >>  

Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Lou Andrews aeromaster bipe ..Any info ?? - 12/3/2006 2:03:26 PM   
pd1


 

Posts: 105
Joined: 11/24/2006
From: noydb, MA, USA
Status: offline 		It warms me to read that there are so many people out here that still like the Aeromaster, I'm sure that would have made Lou very happy.

All airplane kits are a exercise in compromise, and manufacturing.

The Aeromaster can be considered the jewel at Aamco, but it didn't bring in the money.

Tipically a run of H-Rays would be 1100,S-rays 500, Aeromasters 500. The H &S rays would be done and out the door first,bringing back needed money. The Aeromasters would get finished in the next two to three weeks. By that time we sere starting on the next group, usually Trainermasters,2000 of them.

The best plane we had was also one of the worst sellers, the Sportmaster.
Ernie Huber modified an Aeromaster fuselage to accept a new wing. The plane flew great, and in Ernie's hands it was outstanding, everybody wanted one.
Lou took extra time to make the plane "right" for the average pilot.
The plane grew to accomodate the older radio equipment that was still widely used,then prototypes were built then production. The production plane flew great, with wheels, floats, or retracts.
Sales were not good.

The Trainermaster came out next, the sales were phenominal.
I don't remember but I don't think 1000 Sportmasters were made. It was a great plane, no one wanted it.

When the Aeromaster sales started slowing Lou asked if anyone had any idea to freshen up the design.
Thats when the new wing were added, sales picked up but with all the manufactuing costs involved with the plane,more new designs were needed to keep cash flowing in.

It's been over 35 years since I built or flew an Aeromaster, I would like to get a set of planes and update the design. With new laser cutting the plane could be made a lot lighter.
How about a 4 1/2 pound Aeromaster with a 60, and looking essentially the same?

< Message edited by pd1 -- 12/3/2006 2:06:02 PM >

(in reply to wayjer66)
       Post #: 51

RE: Lou Andrews aeromaster bipe ..Any info ?? - 12/3/2006 2:45:35 PM   
HighPlains


 

Posts: 2640
Joined: 3/2/2003
From: Over da rainbow, KS, USA
Status: offline 		pd1,
Interesting back story. Also helps explain why GP doesn't kit these designs today, since there are so few that build.

I've had 3 Trainermasters (1 currently), and one Aeromaster currently. I've also managed to aquire kits for the future construction of more Aeromasters, Sportmasters, and Trainermasters. One of each is framed up presently down in the shop.

So far, my all time favorite (36 years of flying R/C) has been the Trainermaster. The last TM weighed 4 1/2 lbs when first finished, and flys so well that people always want to know where they can get one. It is powered by an Irvine .36 (light engine).

I don't know if an Aeromaster could be built at 4 1/2 lbs., but hope to be proven wrong. Somewhere in the low 5 lb. range would really perform with a Jett BSE .76L that only weighs 15 oz.

_____________________________

In politics if you want anything said, ask a man. If you want anything done, ask a woman - Margaret Thatcher

(in reply to pd1)
       Post #: 52

RE: Lou Andrews aeromaster bipe ..Any info ?? - 12/3/2006 7:09:17 PM   
pd1


 

Posts: 105
Joined: 11/24/2006
From: noydb, MA, USA
Status: offline 		HighPlains,
The wood we used was all firmer heavy balsa. It die cut cleaner, and was easier to work with.
With new laser cutting,a lot of weight could be saved just in the wood alone.The wing sheeting width could also be reduced some, the new lighter radio equipment would also contribute.
There are many things on the design that were to make the airplane builable and repeatable,This could be done with laser cuts with lighter wood.
I think it could be done, but who really knows?

The Trainermaster was the best selling and most produced model, that's probably why there are still a few around after 30 years.
Glad you like them
Paul

(in reply to HighPlains)
       Post #: 53

RE: Lou Andrews aeromaster bipe ..Any info ?? - 12/3/2006 7:27:30 PM   
sigk



Posts: 166
Joined: 7/15/2003
From: Reykjavik, ICELAND
Status: offline 		pd1
Thank you very much for sharing the history of the good old Aeromaster.
I have had three through the years and it is still one of my all time favorite. I have been thinking about building another one and would like to ask you if there ever was a version with short wings, 48" but both swept back ?
I once heard about an Aeromaster with wings like that but maybe that was just someone experimenting with his own plane.
Mine was the Great Planes version and they showed 3 wing configurations.


_____________________________

Sig

(in reply to pd1)
       Post #: 54

RE: Lou Andrews aeromaster bipe ..Any info ?? - 12/3/2006 8:00:08 PM   
wayjer66


 

Posts: 11
Joined: 10/24/2003
From: Durango, CO, USA
Status: offline 		PD1 and High Plains

With the decreased weight and lighter materials don't you think you would give up the very reason the Aeromaster was so great? Durablility, flew very well in windy conditions and had very scale like aerobatics? Sure it would be faster and unlimited vertical would be possible, but that is not what we all remember about this great plane. Maybe the Aeromaster has become such a beloved icon of our sport, it is difficult think of it changed to ARF dimensions.

_____________________________

Tower to 747...you have traffic at 10 o'clock...
747 to tower...give us another hint, we have digital watches!

(in reply to sigk)
       Post #: 55

RE: Lou Andrews aeromaster bipe ..Any info ?? - 12/3/2006 8:18:06 PM   
HighPlains


 

Posts: 2640
Joined: 3/2/2003
From: Over da rainbow, KS, USA
Status: offline 		I've got a 7#+ version I'm flying now. But I'm now living at 3000 feet where it get a bit hot in the summer, so a high powered light weight version would not be done for high speed flight, but rather for low speed in your face acro at 1/2 throttle or less. One of the possible side effects of having started with control line airplanes on 60 foot lines. Plus, I would use two elevator servos and put in 4 ailerons for a special effort airplane, so weight savings in the engine and airframe would be very important.

Personally, I always thought the balsa quality of AAMCO kits was quite good, compared to others of the era. But perhaps another 1/2 lb could be shaved away with careful selection of wood. I know from the number of times that I have crashed Trainermasters, that the fuselage is one of the strongest ever designed for the weight. Sometimes starting a tail slide from 30 feet off the deck is not the best thing to do.

_____________________________

In politics if you want anything said, ask a man. If you want anything done, ask a woman - Margaret Thatcher

(in reply to wayjer66)
       Post #: 56

RE: Lou Andrews aeromaster bipe ..Any info ?? - 12/3/2006 10:11:33 PM   
pd1


 

Posts: 105
Joined: 11/24/2006
From: noydb, MA, USA
Status: offline 		Yes the Aeromaster was durable, the reason it flew so well, wind or not was the wing placement.
Lou was a master in setting incidence angles. The fact that it was very hard to screw up the cabane assemble gave everybody a fighting chance at getting a good flying plane.

Durable/ strength, how much is strong enough? I did have a few lighter weight Aero and Spormasters. I removed a lot of wood for one off demo planes. They were durable enough in regular use, they just weren't as strong as stock going straight in. But the stock ones could be broken as well.

It's probably better not to hit the ground so hard.

For absolut strength, the S-ray and H-Ray, I witnessed many drilled straight down, sometimes it took more than one person to pull it out, minor damage, usually the motor mount plates, and a few repairs and back flying again.
We said on many occaions, the only way we could find them is the nosegear kept it from going all the way in.

high plains,
The larger double swept wing version originally had 4 ailerons, look at the photo close. It made a tremendous difference in roll rate. Also sealing the air gap on the ailerons has a great effect.
I'll see if I can dig up some pictures of other 4 aileron setups.

Here's some pictures, if you look closely you might be able to see the linkage connecting the upper ailerons to the lower ailerons. 4 ailerons, 1 servo.

Attachments
Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize 		Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize 		Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize


< Message edited by pd1 -- 12/4/2006 3:45:08 PM >

(in reply to HighPlains)
       Post #: 57

RE: Lou Andrews aeromaster bipe ..Any info ?? - 12/4/2006 3:41:03 PM   
pd1


 

Posts: 105
Joined: 11/24/2006
From: noydb, MA, USA
Status: offline 		SIG, The original Aeromaster had the short wings, the longer wings were an effort to slow the plane down and carry old heavy equipment. My dad was still useing old reed equipment and the lenghtening of the wings his attempt to get more lift.
With todays lightweight equipment I don't see any reason why you couldn't have both wings short.
Good luck
Paul

(in reply to sigk)
       Post #: 58

RE: Lou Andrews aeromaster bipe ..Any info ?? - 12/4/2006 6:19:21 PM   
sigk



Posts: 166
Joined: 7/15/2003
From: Reykjavik, ICELAND
Status: offline 		pd1
My first two that I built had the long swept back wings because I like the Aeromaster best that way. Then I build the short wing version and I find it a little easier to fly when the wind picks up. I have a Great Planes kit I have been saving and I'm planning to build it with both wings short and swept back. ( A wing )
Thanks for sharing the pictures. Here is a picture of my Aeromaster.

Attachments
Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize 		Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize


_____________________________

Sig

(in reply to pd1)
       Post #: 59

RE: Lou Andrews aeromaster bipe ..Any info ?? - 12/4/2006 10:47:09 PM   
APIA


 

Posts: 302
Joined: 8/27/2004
From: Roanoke, TX, USA
Status: offline 		I have an Aeromaster with both wings swept and both 48". I saved this airplane from the dumpster (all it needs is covering and some TLC. I plan to cover it with the old rag and dope (SIG) and I just modified the top wing to include ailerons. I am glad that we have an expert , pd1, amongst us and I now feel assured that my modification will enhance this wonderful flying airplane...

(in reply to sigk)
       Post #: 60

RE: Lou Andrews aeromaster bipe ..Any info ?? - 12/4/2006 11:16:56 PM   
pd1


 

Posts: 105
Joined: 11/24/2006
From: noydb, MA, USA
Status: offline 		sigk, Your Aeromaster looks great. If you want to increase the roll rate, unhook the aileron to horn keeper, lift the aileron as high as possible and put some tape between the aileron and wing. You will see a noticable difference in roll. Oh, reattach the keeper.
Paul

< Message edited by pd1 -- 12/4/2006 11:19:19 PM >

(in reply to sigk)
       Post #: 61

RE: Lou Andrews aeromaster bipe ..Any info ?? - 12/4/2006 11:20:35 PM   
pd1


 

Posts: 105
Joined: 11/24/2006
From: noydb, MA, USA
Status: offline 		APIA, are you planning to go with dual servos, or a single servo?

(in reply to APIA)
       Post #: 62

RE: Lou Andrews aeromaster bipe ..Any info ?? - 12/4/2006 11:35:28 PM   
wayjer66


 

Posts: 11
Joined: 10/24/2003
From: Durango, CO, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pd1

Yes the Aeromaster was durable, the reason it flew so well, wind or not was the wing placement.
Lou was a master in setting incidence angles. The fact that it was very hard to screw up the cabane assemble gave everybody a fighting chance at getting a good flying plane.

Durable/ strength, how much is strong enough? I did have a few lighter weight Aero and Spormasters. I removed a lot of wood for one off demo planes. They were durable enough in regular use, they just weren't as strong as stock going straight in. But the stock ones could be broken as well.

It's probably better not to hit the ground so hard.

For absolut strength, the S-ray and H-Ray, I witnessed many drilled straight down, sometimes it took more than one person to pull it out, minor damage, usually the motor mount plates, and a few repairs and back flying again.
We said on many occaions, the only way we could find them is the nosegear kept it from going all the way in.

high plains,
The larger double swept wing version originally had 4 ailerons, look at the photo close. It made a tremendous difference in roll rate. Also sealing the air gap on the ailerons has a great effect.
I'll see if I can dig up some pictures of other 4 aileron setups.

Here's some pictures, if you look closely you might be able to see the linkage connecting the upper ailerons to the lower ailerons. 4 ailerons, 1 servo.
quote:

quote:



_____________________________

Tower to 747...you have traffic at 10 o'clock...
747 to tower...give us another hint, we have digital watches!

(in reply to pd1)