C-124 Globemaster
12-16-2002, 02:18 AM
#51
Senior Member
My Feedback: (9)
C-124 Globemaster
JohnBuckner;Thanks for help! I thought it was a Northstar,very vivid paint job. This would make a scale job that no one else would have.I spent a lot of time working on C-45`s & always wanted to model one.Hate retracts!Found 3 views of a plane called a Barkley-Grow. Looks a lot like C-45(Beech 18),but it has fixed gear with pants.A little larger & in 1940 faster than Beech. May not live long enough to every thing modeled (who will !) . There coming for me now with that darn shirt that the arms tie in back. thanks, big max 1935
12-16-2002, 04:20 AM
#53
Senior Member
My Feedback: (9)
C-124 Globemaster
Vince: Thats just what they looked like. Seems they would be on radar and poof they were gone.C-130 Engines I hear, just idle & go,go,go. where C-133 engines were full control ? The plane that got me was the T-37, we didn`t use ear muffs back then , it took part of my hearing. I was just shutting down , when I saw your post. So now is the time. Sleep tight & don`t let the bed bugs bite. big max 1935
12-16-2002, 04:44 AM
#54
C-124 Globemaster
Max indeed a Northstar would make a truly unique project that you could have some fun with scale judges over. Another avenue to research is Canadair in your doc search as Iam not positive of the Canadian manufacturer but they were license built in Canada. I have seen photos over the years and there are some in my library but as usual, where to start.
I agree the Barkley- Grow would be another fun judge stumper. One that has always intriqued me was the Custer channel wing. It started life as the prototype Bauman Brigadier a contemperary of Smiths first Aero Commander and somewhat of a lookalike that never made the grade. When Custer acquired it large 'u'shaped channel wings were built with the nacelles in the middle and short coventional stub wings outboard probably never acheived certifacation due to the lack of cross shafting for the times it was flown below the stall speed of the stub wings. I love Judge stumpers
.
John
I agree the Barkley- Grow would be another fun judge stumper. One that has always intriqued me was the Custer channel wing. It started life as the prototype Bauman Brigadier a contemperary of Smiths first Aero Commander and somewhat of a lookalike that never made the grade. When Custer acquired it large 'u'shaped channel wings were built with the nacelles in the middle and short coventional stub wings outboard probably never acheived certifacation due to the lack of cross shafting for the times it was flown below the stall speed of the stub wings. I love Judge stumpers
.John
12-16-2002, 05:16 AM
#55
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Mary Esther, Florida, FL
Posts: 20,205
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes
on
13 Posts
C-124 Globemaster
John:
I remember the "Channel Wing," and have gotten funny looks when I talked about it. Memory says I saw it in Popular Science in 1948 or so. Was Ted Smith that early with the Aero Commander?
Think I saw my first Aero Commander about 1953 or 54. My first real in-flight was in an A-C, 1957. It had the Lycoming 320/340 engines, the left swallowed a valve about 50' AGL on final. It really didn't, but when the engine locked up it sure felt like we went into a 90 degree bank. Scary.
Max:
The Barkley-Grow sounds like a rework of the Avro Anson. Comment?
Another good Judge Stumper pointed out to me a few weeks ago (on RCU) would be the Champion Lancer. A twin engine conversion of the old Aeronca Champion, odd to the point that the front seat had a control column and wheel, the rear seat had a plain joy stick. Can't you hear the judges saying "No WAY!?"
Bob Banka has a photo pack.
Two wings or eight, has to be a twin or it doesn't rate!
Bill.
I remember the "Channel Wing," and have gotten funny looks when I talked about it. Memory says I saw it in Popular Science in 1948 or so. Was Ted Smith that early with the Aero Commander?
Think I saw my first Aero Commander about 1953 or 54. My first real in-flight was in an A-C, 1957. It had the Lycoming 320/340 engines, the left swallowed a valve about 50' AGL on final. It really didn't, but when the engine locked up it sure felt like we went into a 90 degree bank. Scary.
Max:
The Barkley-Grow sounds like a rework of the Avro Anson. Comment?
Another good Judge Stumper pointed out to me a few weeks ago (on RCU) would be the Champion Lancer. A twin engine conversion of the old Aeronca Champion, odd to the point that the front seat had a control column and wheel, the rear seat had a plain joy stick. Can't you hear the judges saying "No WAY!?"
Bob Banka has a photo pack.
Two wings or eight, has to be a twin or it doesn't rate!
Bill.
12-16-2002, 03:52 PM
#56
Senior Member
My Feedback: (9)
C-124 Globemaster
John & Bill; The B-G was all metal, think Anson had alot of fabric & retracts ? B-G had 400 hp Wasp Jr. I do remember Channel-wing, too radical for public. My 1940 book shows Akron (Funk),American,
Cunningham-Hall (bi-plane),Dart,Fleetwings(stainless,shot-welded),Harlow,Howard,Kellett,Laird,Meyers,Pasped, Phillips,Porterfield,Rearwin,Rose,Spartan,Swallow,& Welch.These and your big names were all built in that year. These all have 3 views + all specs. I go from 1923 to 1956 with these mags. Scale modelers dream. The planes are mostly all gone. Sad .By for now ,Max
.
....
Cunningham-Hall (bi-plane),Dart,Fleetwings(stainless,shot-welded),Harlow,Howard,Kellett,Laird,Meyers,Pasped, Phillips,Porterfield,Rearwin,Rose,Spartan,Swallow,& Welch.These and your big names were all built in that year. These all have 3 views + all specs. I go from 1923 to 1956 with these mags. Scale modelers dream. The planes are mostly all gone. Sad .By for now ,Max
.
....
12-16-2002, 06:50 PM
#57
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Pembroke pines, FL
Posts: 558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Multi's
Bill,Max....Didn't the Hawker Seafury with the Bristol Centaurus engine also have those "Sleeve" type valve arrangement?......Aero Commander one of the "loudest" light aircraft out there ......Now speak of just plain bad for the ears ...those Rolls-Royce Dart engines...bad-bad-bad.....they were on the F-27 and F-227 but I believe they also were on the Viscount.......Bill......
12-16-2002, 07:47 PM
#58
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Mary Esther, Florida, FL
Posts: 20,205
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes
on
13 Posts
C-124 Globemaster
Bill/WB1:
That's affirm on the Centaurus and sleeve valves. If I'm not mistaken all the Bristol radials after 1935 or so were sleeve valved. They went that way to decrease the diameter of the engines. By eliminating the valve rocker gear and enclosures they had a healthy reduction in frontal area for a given size engine without adding more cylinder banks at the same displacement.
The Hawker Tempest also had a sleeve valve engine, think it was the Napier "Sabre," with an H-16 cylinder layout - effectively two flat eights, one above the other with the cranks geared together. That engine required a full-time plumber for all the oil pipes.
And there's one of the big sleeve valve problems. Lubrication. With the fit necessary for sealing conflicting with the fit needed for lubrication, oil consumption was high. Then add heat transfer through the cylinder sleeve to the finned muff on the outside, makes you wonder how they managed to get any time on the engine before a failure.
These same considerations make me skeptical about the RCV engines, no matter what RCV says it's still a sleeve valve with all the same problems. And by putting the valve portion on a nubbin beyond the cylinder section they don't have the reduction in height. Then when you bolt the prop to the end of the sleeve?
Twin engines with valves, sleeve. No thanks, I'll just leave.
Bill.
That's affirm on the Centaurus and sleeve valves. If I'm not mistaken all the Bristol radials after 1935 or so were sleeve valved. They went that way to decrease the diameter of the engines. By eliminating the valve rocker gear and enclosures they had a healthy reduction in frontal area for a given size engine without adding more cylinder banks at the same displacement.
The Hawker Tempest also had a sleeve valve engine, think it was the Napier "Sabre," with an H-16 cylinder layout - effectively two flat eights, one above the other with the cranks geared together. That engine required a full-time plumber for all the oil pipes.
And there's one of the big sleeve valve problems. Lubrication. With the fit necessary for sealing conflicting with the fit needed for lubrication, oil consumption was high. Then add heat transfer through the cylinder sleeve to the finned muff on the outside, makes you wonder how they managed to get any time on the engine before a failure.
These same considerations make me skeptical about the RCV engines, no matter what RCV says it's still a sleeve valve with all the same problems. And by putting the valve portion on a nubbin beyond the cylinder section they don't have the reduction in height. Then when you bolt the prop to the end of the sleeve?
Twin engines with valves, sleeve. No thanks, I'll just leave.
Bill.
12-19-2002, 12:18 AM
#59
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Kitchener, ON, CANADA
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C-124 Globemaster
The Tempest was actually made with 2 different sleeve valve engines.
One was the same Centaurus that would later power the Sea Fury (53 L, 18 cylinder, ~2400HP).
The other was the Napier Saber, a 37 L, 24 cyclinder monster that was really pretty close to 4 in-line sixes coupled to a common output gear. Somehow, they got this contraption to redline at 4000 RPM.
If you want to learn more, and hear this motor, as well as see clips of Tempests in flight, you can visit The Hawker Tempest Page .
This is an amazing web site with a host of resources for both the full scale and the model Tempest enthusiast.
Ron Daniels
One was the same Centaurus that would later power the Sea Fury (53 L, 18 cylinder, ~2400HP).
The other was the Napier Saber, a 37 L, 24 cyclinder monster that was really pretty close to 4 in-line sixes coupled to a common output gear. Somehow, they got this contraption to redline at 4000 RPM.
If you want to learn more, and hear this motor, as well as see clips of Tempests in flight, you can visit The Hawker Tempest Page .
This is an amazing web site with a host of resources for both the full scale and the model Tempest enthusiast.
Ron Daniels
12-19-2002, 12:47 AM
#60
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Mary Esther, Florida, FL
Posts: 20,205
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes
on
13 Posts
C-124 Globemaster
Ron:
More proof of the fallibility of memory - I remembered the Sabre as 16 cylinder, referring to the Tempest page you posted I see it was indeed 24 cylinders. But you will note nothing contradicts my comments about how much of a bear it was to make run.
And welcome to the thread.
What an engine was the Sabre! but it looked good on paper.
Bill.
More proof of the fallibility of memory - I remembered the Sabre as 16 cylinder, referring to the Tempest page you posted I see it was indeed 24 cylinders. But you will note nothing contradicts my comments about how much of a bear it was to make run.
And welcome to the thread.
What an engine was the Sabre! but it looked good on paper.
Bill.
12-19-2002, 12:54 AM
#61
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Kitchener, ON, CANADA
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C-124 Globemaster
I don't know if it even looked good on paper!
If you look at a cutaway, it has such an incredibly high number of moving parts and sub-systems, it is a wonder it ever ran, let alone actually made power.
Ron
If you look at a cutaway, it has such an incredibly high number of moving parts and sub-systems, it is a wonder it ever ran, let alone actually made power.
Ron
12-19-2002, 03:20 AM
#62
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Mary Esther, Florida, FL
Posts: 20,205
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes
on
13 Posts
C-124 Globemaster
Ron:
So maybe it didn't look all that great, but the papers sure were interesting to look at. Those sleeves didn't just turn, they went up and down also. And paper does rhyme (almost) with Sabre, and that made my couplet. Sorry.
As mentioned earlier, RCV (British) is using a sleeve valve in their engines, they don't call it that, but that's what it is. They are the only sleeve valve engines on the market that I know of.
HPI (USA, MECOA) makes a four stroke using a rotary valve, a disc in the cylinder head, but the good old poppet valve is still the champion of the market.
The poppet valve works very well, it's reliable, and when it wears in service a quick adjustment is all that is needed.
Rotary valve adjustment requires reshimming at the least, but more commonly a cylinder head overhaul.
When your sleeve valve stops sealing properly it's engine time.
In my opinion, and the opinions of thousands of engineers, there is at this moment in time no valid reason to use any method of flow control other than our old friend, the poppet valve.
Sorry about the running off at the mouth (keyboard) but I have rather strong feelings on this. (I can hear the gasps of wonder at such a profound, and unneeded, statement)
The Twin's friend is good old poppet, many have tried, but nothing can toppit. (Sorry)
Bill.
Originally posted by Ron Daniels
I don't know if it even looked good on paper!
If you look at a cutaway, it has such an incredibly high number of moving parts and sub-systems, it is a wonder it ever ran, let alone actually made power.
Ron
I don't know if it even looked good on paper!
If you look at a cutaway, it has such an incredibly high number of moving parts and sub-systems, it is a wonder it ever ran, let alone actually made power.
Ron
As mentioned earlier, RCV (British) is using a sleeve valve in their engines, they don't call it that, but that's what it is. They are the only sleeve valve engines on the market that I know of.
HPI (USA, MECOA) makes a four stroke using a rotary valve, a disc in the cylinder head, but the good old poppet valve is still the champion of the market.
The poppet valve works very well, it's reliable, and when it wears in service a quick adjustment is all that is needed.
Rotary valve adjustment requires reshimming at the least, but more commonly a cylinder head overhaul.
When your sleeve valve stops sealing properly it's engine time.
In my opinion, and the opinions of thousands of engineers, there is at this moment in time no valid reason to use any method of flow control other than our old friend, the poppet valve.
Sorry about the running off at the mouth (keyboard) but I have rather strong feelings on this. (I can hear the gasps of wonder at such a profound, and unneeded, statement)
The Twin's friend is good old poppet, many have tried, but nothing can toppit. (Sorry)
Bill.
12-19-2002, 05:44 AM
#63
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Kitchener, ON, CANADA
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C-124 Globemaster
I just can't wait for the day when technology will allow the poppet valves to be controlled electronically, rather than by camshaft.
An engineer can then call out for the duration, lift and opening and closing rates that are optimal for any RPM/load combination, rather than living with a (or in the case of Variable timing and lift engines - two) setting that compromises based on mechanical constraints such as the ability of the follower to follow the cam, and the limitations of closing speed (Hook's law for a spring and a weight).
Imagine the improvemnts to fuel economy, emmissions, and sound level that can be gained at that time.
Ron Daniels
An engineer can then call out for the duration, lift and opening and closing rates that are optimal for any RPM/load combination, rather than living with a (or in the case of Variable timing and lift engines - two) setting that compromises based on mechanical constraints such as the ability of the follower to follow the cam, and the limitations of closing speed (Hook's law for a spring and a weight).
Imagine the improvemnts to fuel economy, emmissions, and sound level that can be gained at that time.
Ron Daniels
12-19-2002, 06:15 AM
#64
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Mary Esther, Florida, FL
Posts: 20,205
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes
on
13 Posts
C-124 Globemaster
Ron:
Before Cummins dropped the PTg systems for full electronic fuel control they had an infinite variable valve timing on the 855ci engines, between limits.
Solenoid valve operation exists, there are engines running. Due to current limits, they're still small engines, and still in testing. But we will be afflicted with them later, if not sooner.
I say afflicted, because with the somewhat limited systems we already have service and repair is getting very expensive. The days of doing your own service are rapidly disappearing.
For you this may be a non-issue, always buying new, and considering the Jones' car next door, never keep one more than a year or two.
How about that poor working stiff who thinks he's in hog heaven when he buys a 5 year old used car? And then the mass air sensor shorts and pops the engine ECU, which then sends full battery voltage to the TPS and MAP sensors. He has stretched himself for the payments to start with, and now he has another $3000 to pay.
If he had a pre-computer car he could fix it himself.
My car is a Mercedes-Benz 500SE AMG. It has full MECHANICAL injection, (Bosch K-Jet) and I have all the tools to maintain and repair it. The only electronic engine control is an RPM sensor to kill the fuel pump if the engine quits. The car has served very well for 22 years, I expect it to last at least another ten or fifteen, I will not replace it until I absolutely have to, and then I'll search diligently for another with no more complexity than this one.
Computers are wonderful tools, the current machinery is an entirely different world from what I started with as a freshman at VPI. But I still don't want them in my car.
Enough ranting.
Put your twin on the computer, get rid of your tutor.
Bill.
Before Cummins dropped the PTg systems for full electronic fuel control they had an infinite variable valve timing on the 855ci engines, between limits.
Solenoid valve operation exists, there are engines running. Due to current limits, they're still small engines, and still in testing. But we will be afflicted with them later, if not sooner.
I say afflicted, because with the somewhat limited systems we already have service and repair is getting very expensive. The days of doing your own service are rapidly disappearing.
For you this may be a non-issue, always buying new, and considering the Jones' car next door, never keep one more than a year or two.
How about that poor working stiff who thinks he's in hog heaven when he buys a 5 year old used car? And then the mass air sensor shorts and pops the engine ECU, which then sends full battery voltage to the TPS and MAP sensors. He has stretched himself for the payments to start with, and now he has another $3000 to pay.
If he had a pre-computer car he could fix it himself.
My car is a Mercedes-Benz 500SE AMG. It has full MECHANICAL injection, (Bosch K-Jet) and I have all the tools to maintain and repair it. The only electronic engine control is an RPM sensor to kill the fuel pump if the engine quits. The car has served very well for 22 years, I expect it to last at least another ten or fifteen, I will not replace it until I absolutely have to, and then I'll search diligently for another with no more complexity than this one.
Computers are wonderful tools, the current machinery is an entirely different world from what I started with as a freshman at VPI. But I still don't want them in my car.
Enough ranting.
Put your twin on the computer, get rid of your tutor.
Bill.
12-30-2002, 05:25 AM
#65
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Kitchener, ON, CANADA
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C-124 Globemaster
Hi Bill,
I had an 1989 GMC pick up truck. At 190 000 km (about 125000 miles), it did not start one day. It turned over fine, it just didn't seem to be firing.
So I took off the air cleaner and immediately noticed no smell of gas. (I had a friend who said, "If it gets gas and it gets spark, it will fire. It may not run worth *&^%, but it will fire!")
I "primed" the throttle body by pouring a bit of glow fuel down it and turned it over. It fired and ran rough for a few seconds.
I took out the injector (one screw), and un-plugged it. With the ignition in the "run" position, I got 5 volts DC to the injector.
I had my wife crank it with the injector out. Fuel came into the throttle body, and the engine ran very roughly, as would be expected.
I went to my local Canadian Tire (Mechanical Mecca, here in Canada), and purchased a new injector for $150 CDN ($100 US).
I plugged it in, pushed it into place and tightened the one screw. I sold the truck after another 60 000 miles, without ever having a starting problem again.
No $500 carbueretor re-build, no gaskets, no seals, no float adjusments, no needle setting, no points, automatic compensation for different grades of fuel. When I raced dirt bikes in the early 80's, the one thing on the motorcycle that never gave me a single problem was the electronic ignition. I've been a believer ever since.
Just don't ask me about my current truck, and the 11 trips to the dealer to clear a "check engine" light that was leading the mechanic astray by giving him codes for the symptoms, rather than the route cause of the problem.........
BTW, anything MERCEDES makes runs forever.
I had an 1989 GMC pick up truck. At 190 000 km (about 125000 miles), it did not start one day. It turned over fine, it just didn't seem to be firing.
So I took off the air cleaner and immediately noticed no smell of gas. (I had a friend who said, "If it gets gas and it gets spark, it will fire. It may not run worth *&^%, but it will fire!")
I "primed" the throttle body by pouring a bit of glow fuel down it and turned it over. It fired and ran rough for a few seconds.
I took out the injector (one screw), and un-plugged it. With the ignition in the "run" position, I got 5 volts DC to the injector.
I had my wife crank it with the injector out. Fuel came into the throttle body, and the engine ran very roughly, as would be expected.
I went to my local Canadian Tire (Mechanical Mecca, here in Canada), and purchased a new injector for $150 CDN ($100 US).
I plugged it in, pushed it into place and tightened the one screw. I sold the truck after another 60 000 miles, without ever having a starting problem again.
No $500 carbueretor re-build, no gaskets, no seals, no float adjusments, no needle setting, no points, automatic compensation for different grades of fuel. When I raced dirt bikes in the early 80's, the one thing on the motorcycle that never gave me a single problem was the electronic ignition. I've been a believer ever since.
Just don't ask me about my current truck, and the 11 trips to the dealer to clear a "check engine" light that was leading the mechanic astray by giving him codes for the symptoms, rather than the route cause of the problem.........
BTW, anything MERCEDES makes runs forever.
12-30-2002, 07:00 AM
#66
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Mary Esther, Florida, FL
Posts: 20,205
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes
on
13 Posts
C-124 Globemaster
Ron:
In my post #64 about the electronic engine controls. Sorry to say, I have become so inured to electronic ignition I didn't even consider that as an engine control system, but of course it is. And I had to replace the ignition ECU on the Merc about a year ago. A new Bosch box was a little over $1000. Got a rebuilt exchange for about $450. Was still an "Ouch."
I also got a slug of "Gasohol," the K-Jet system hoses don't like any alcohol. I am still replacing hoses that the alky damaged. At least the replacements aren't damaged by alcohol.
The eco-freaks, and Archer Daniels Midland, are pushing hard for alcohol fuels. Being a model flyer you have seen first hand the fuel rates for alcohol as opposed to gasoline. Roughly, it takes two gallons of alc to equal one gallon of gas. Yet they say the alcohol is more "Fuel efficient." ADM and the eco-freaks are practicing the "Big Lie" method; repeat it often enough and the dumb s***s will believe it. Democrats and liberals use the same system.
Better get off it. Has nothing to do with the thread. Sorry, moderator, I'll do better.
The more you use gasohol, the more fuel you must haul.
Bill.
In my post #64 about the electronic engine controls. Sorry to say, I have become so inured to electronic ignition I didn't even consider that as an engine control system, but of course it is. And I had to replace the ignition ECU on the Merc about a year ago. A new Bosch box was a little over $1000. Got a rebuilt exchange for about $450. Was still an "Ouch."
I also got a slug of "Gasohol," the K-Jet system hoses don't like any alcohol. I am still replacing hoses that the alky damaged. At least the replacements aren't damaged by alcohol.
The eco-freaks, and Archer Daniels Midland, are pushing hard for alcohol fuels. Being a model flyer you have seen first hand the fuel rates for alcohol as opposed to gasoline. Roughly, it takes two gallons of alc to equal one gallon of gas. Yet they say the alcohol is more "Fuel efficient." ADM and the eco-freaks are practicing the "Big Lie" method; repeat it often enough and the dumb s***s will believe it. Democrats and liberals use the same system.
Better get off it. Has nothing to do with the thread. Sorry, moderator, I'll do better.
The more you use gasohol, the more fuel you must haul.
Bill.
01-16-2003, 03:23 AM
#67
Ah, Memories!
My father used to be flight engineer on C-54's and flew for MATS out of Brookly (SP?) AFB in Mobile, Alabama in the mid 50's.
I also remember seeing those beautiful C-124's doing touch and goes at Dover AFB in the late 50's...gonna build one of those - 'one of these days'....
I took some pics of the one they have at WPAFB Museum last year - that plane has character, which IMHO, is missing on todays planes
Jerry (AKA AF Brat)
I also remember seeing those beautiful C-124's doing touch and goes at Dover AFB in the late 50's...gonna build one of those - 'one of these days'....
I took some pics of the one they have at WPAFB Museum last year - that plane has character, which IMHO, is missing on todays planes
Jerry (AKA AF Brat)
06-23-2004, 09:19 AM
#69
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (122)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seaford,
DE
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: C-124 Globemaster
[&o]Wow...this "thread" has threaded its way to Jupiter and has finally returned to earth orbit.
In answer to your question about plans...the answer is yes. Sometime after posting the original thread, a local modeler dug a kit (Japanese) out of his attic. There was a fragment of a Japanese newspaper in the box used for packing dated 1964. It is basically the same kit that mine was made from, but this was built for control line. My model has rudder, elevator, ailerons, flaps and brakes...whether or not my model was modified from the control line version, I couldn't tell you. The plans were in the box and showed their age. I had copies made from it and stored those away.
If you wish, I could get copies made and send them to you. I have no idea what they want to reproduce them nor what postage would be.
There is another option...I am willing to sell both my model plus the unboxed control line kit. I have become deeply involved in giant scale warbirds and have more projects going than time and circumstances will ever allow to be completed.
My model has been stripped of its covering so that balsa sheeting could be repaired, etc. I would love to see this beautiful model put in the hands of someone who is willing to restore it. I would build the crate to send it...wherever. I will provide pics and we can discuss costs or possible swaps (thru regular RCU channels.)
One of the previous contributors to this thread mentioned seeing the Globemasters flying over Dover AFB. I have been to Dover's air museum. They have what looks like this same model on display. Anyone interested can email [email protected]
Regards. Jerry
In answer to your question about plans...the answer is yes. Sometime after posting the original thread, a local modeler dug a kit (Japanese) out of his attic. There was a fragment of a Japanese newspaper in the box used for packing dated 1964. It is basically the same kit that mine was made from, but this was built for control line. My model has rudder, elevator, ailerons, flaps and brakes...whether or not my model was modified from the control line version, I couldn't tell you. The plans were in the box and showed their age. I had copies made from it and stored those away.
If you wish, I could get copies made and send them to you. I have no idea what they want to reproduce them nor what postage would be.
There is another option...I am willing to sell both my model plus the unboxed control line kit. I have become deeply involved in giant scale warbirds and have more projects going than time and circumstances will ever allow to be completed.
My model has been stripped of its covering so that balsa sheeting could be repaired, etc. I would love to see this beautiful model put in the hands of someone who is willing to restore it. I would build the crate to send it...wherever. I will provide pics and we can discuss costs or possible swaps (thru regular RCU channels.)
One of the previous contributors to this thread mentioned seeing the Globemasters flying over Dover AFB. I have been to Dover's air museum. They have what looks like this same model on display. Anyone interested can email [email protected]
Regards. Jerry
06-23-2004, 06:33 PM
#70
My Feedback: (164)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Davis,
CA
Posts: 4,243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: C-124 Globemaster
Hi Jerry:
I had that same kit. I did sell it and kept a set of the plans. I have them on file and we are going to enlarge them to about 120". That is one of my future building projects if you know what I mean
Dave
I had that same kit. I did sell it and kept a set of the plans. I have them on file and we are going to enlarge them to about 120". That is one of my future building projects if you know what I mean
Dave
06-23-2004, 06:46 PM
#71
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (122)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seaford,
DE
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: C-124 Globemaster
That sounds like a worthy project. If you're going to start from scratch, might as well make it big enough to really impress the populace! Good luck... Jerry
06-23-2004, 07:18 PM
#72
My Feedback: (164)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Davis,
CA
Posts: 4,243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: C-124 Globemaster
Thanks Jerry:
true story, when we use to live at Travis AFB in Ca. My dad use to fly with the 98th 135's and 52's. He had brought home a inner tube from a C-124. Needless to say we blew it up and put it in the back yard. Well all the neighbor kids would come over and jump on it. Well one fine afternoon we decided to launch some people.
I was first on the list. I stood back and started my run. As I hit the tube everyone else hit the tube at the same time. I was launched so hi I could see my dog looking at me form the front yard. ( I cleared the roof ).
Thank god when I landed I hit flat as a board and knocked all the wind out of me. And scared the crap out of my family.
Dave
true story, when we use to live at Travis AFB in Ca. My dad use to fly with the 98th 135's and 52's. He had brought home a inner tube from a C-124. Needless to say we blew it up and put it in the back yard. Well all the neighbor kids would come over and jump on it. Well one fine afternoon we decided to launch some people.
I was first on the list. I stood back and started my run. As I hit the tube everyone else hit the tube at the same time. I was launched so hi I could see my dog looking at me form the front yard. ( I cleared the roof ).
Thank god when I landed I hit flat as a board and knocked all the wind out of me. And scared the crap out of my family.
Dave
06-23-2004, 07:50 PM
#73
My Feedback: (13)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Urbandale,
IA
Posts: 1,058
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: C-124 Globemaster
Look at posting # 9..have pic of one I built...was a U-control model..wing was redesigned for R-C...rest of the story is in the posting...I believe that if you enlarge it to 120", probably would be the best way to go...best to check the incidence on the stab and wing...something I didn't do..let me know if you do enlarge the plans................
06-24-2004, 12:07 AM
#75
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (122)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seaford,
DE
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: C-124 Globemaster
Dave, I think that's one of the funniest "air tales" I ever heard...especially since it's easy to visualize...glad you landed right side up! Jerry