SERCEFLYER

OK, I know the usual comments about how Guillow's kits make bad rubber burner flyers. But what about free flight with Cox Pee Wee .02 power? The insert claims that the Fairchild and Arrow "make excellent flyers with the Cox .02 Pee Wee."

The 24" J-3 Piper Cub instructions say to use a 4.5 X 2.5 prop, while the Fairchild instructions call for a 5.5 X 3 prop. You're supposed to mount the prop backwards on the Piper.

Do any of you have any experiences with this? It seems like the models would be over-powered with a .02. How do you tame the Pee Wee down a bit? Should I not believe the Guillow's claims about what great flyers they make?

Thanks

BMatthews

In my experience with 020's and planes built as light as the Fairchild I'd say it would be overpowered unto destruction unless you happen onto the correct trim by luck right off the bat.

To give you a yardstick to measure the PeeWee by I flew a few models with one back in the 70's. One was a PAAload class model of 36 inch span and 5 oz AUW. The weight being the minimum for the class. It flew upwards at a fair clip and a 60 degree nose up angle. The other model was a 30 inch span 8 to 10oz rudder only model. It was overpowered and I was undertrained on RO at the time so it too met a sad fate on it's first flight. If the darn engine had not been so strong the model may have done well.

You can slow down the PeeWee. A 6x3 prop will probably do the job nicely. I think it would still be too much for the Fairchild. Not just because of the weight but also the lack of strong structure in that design. It's actuallly very nicely done for rubber power but not really designed for power.

A purpose designed model for power would be much better IMHO.

ajcoholic

My Feedback: (10)

I built allmost all the Guillow kits during my childhood...

I flew a few with a peewee 020, with the stock 4.5" prop indeed mounted on backwards... and yes, they flew quite well! My favourite was a small Biplane, I think it was an SE5 , that I did up in green tissue.

The plane looked small but it flew great, wide climbing circles.... untill it flew into the side of a barn!

I know one was the piper low wing, and one was a cessna high wing.. cant remember the kit series, but they were all fairly small planes.

AJC

SERCEFLYER

Any tips on running a big prop (6 X 3) on the Pee Wee? Should I use a different fuel? And, should I run things rich to keep the engine from sagging?

Andrew, did you beef up your models at all, or just build as directed in instructions?

ajcoholic

My Feedback: (10)

built as per plans...

Guillow planes are allready OVERBUILT!!

I have run top flight 5.5-2.5 props on my peewee's but nothing larger - cant say what a 6" would do...

AJC

dgliderguy

Hi, George!!

Howzitgoin? Hope you're getting stoked about your Guillow's Bellanca Cruisemaster project.

I flew the Guillow's Aeronca Champ (24") with a Pee Wee and a wood 4.5x2.5 prop as a free-flight, back in my junior years. Prop mounted frontways. It flew extremely well! The PeeWee is not too much power for it. Long flights with many circles under power, and a long, long turning glide. A beautiful sight.

I also flew a PeeWee on a Sterling J-3 Cub (30", for rubber-power), which also flew really well. My Guillow's Fairchild has an electric motor in the nose, and I fly it free-flight on two 50mah cells. Fun!

Don Baile

Keester

Hi, Back in the 70s me and my Dad made a Neuport [biplane] and a Fokker tri plane by Guillows with PeeWee 020s. They were free flight. We only had to turn the Neuports prop over The Fokker took all it could. We used timers that pinched off fuel to control flight times. The biggest of all for these scale planes was to glide test them extensivley [hand tossed, no power] to set trims and balance. Experience taught us that, [so much time to build to crash] They eventually flew wonderful!! Awsome to see in the air turning in large circles and gliding down. A lot of work to make these scale planes perform. What fun, good luck!
Keester

P.S. Been wanting to build some soon with electric R/C......Not enough time.

SERCEFLYER

Don,

Did you run your Pee Wee's all out, or did you go rich to tame the engine a bit? And, do you remember if the Guillows models needed significant down thrust and/or right thrust?

Thanks

Keester

Hi, It seemed no matter how rich we set them [if they would run] they would lean out in flight. If we leaned them out they almost always died after gaining some speed and altitude. And I know there was down thrust [quite a bit] But I cant remember right thrust angle. [too long ago] I also remember the .020s being really stubborn. and would never run the same twice. I think it was fuel related though because I have since ran one of our old ones on new 1/2A fuel and it ran perfect. Gofigure. I think fuels have come a long way since the 70s.
Good luck
Keester

dgliderguy

George,

I ran my Pee Wee flat out. Must have gotten lucky, because it always ran great, and always ran the last drop of fuel out of the tank. I could count on close to 100 seconds per full tank run. Not much downthrust, maybe a couple of degrees, and no right thrust.

I fly my little two-channel 30" TF Cessna with a Pee Wee .020 now, and at 5.5 oz, it is a great powerplant for that model. Makes me want to do the Aeronca again, this time as an R/C model.

Don.