Well, everyone is sort of correct in their earlier assumptions, but not totally correct. The new semi-kit is based upon four different sources of information. It comes closest in general arrangement to that of the M.A.N. plan, which can be ordered today, but not totally there too. I also used a plan from Sweden, one from Poland, and the noted MK plan. The whole aircraft looks to be an evolution over a period. I think the M.A.N. plan was a collection of "Good" points placed on to paper. I have my doubts as to how certain things were built considering the technology then.

There were problems with each plan. The one from Poland actually had very little useable information on it, but it did have some critical dimensions. The angle at which the anihedral Hoz-stab set at was different on all plans, but on the Polish one is cited 9 degrees and in way or another on each plan that seemed correct. It matched one side of one plan but not the other side etc.

I used the M.A.N. plan as the basis for curves even though it had lottsa problems. May be my copy of it but first thing I noticed after grabbing the measuring stick was there appeared no way you were going to stuff big of a wing into the assigned slot. It was too big in chord by about 3/8 inch. Am used to adjusting things after doing a few dozen plans for old time models, and maybe expected a bit more out of this.

With the chord for the wing being too big to fit the fuselage slot, it meant the bulkheads inside the fuselage had to be moved a bit forward and towards the rear for the wing to fit tightly. The Polish plan was also helpful in that it mentioned the chord, and the number of ribs and their spacing for the wood wing version (including the tailfeathers too). And as with many of us, we all seem to have one or two of the airfoil programs on the home computer. The cited airfoils on each plan flat did not look anything like which was on any one of the A/C I had seen. I found one cited in an older Prettner project, and tried it. That matched. Apparently once you like an airfoil, it sticks with you then. The Polish plan was helpfull in citing a one degree of incidence too, for that wasn't mentioned on the MAN plan, but sure showed up on every plan.

The MK plan showed the sides pretty good, how to measure them etc, but there in big ink note on each plan about swinging the engine direction to fit offset. Those plans pretty well ignored this feature, I had to make up and cut out a left and right side in balsa for to get the proper noted sidethrust. On each plan was an obscure implication, "Oh, didn't we tell you.... Well after you try and fly it, just add in a bunch of washers and then..." Well, not on my models, for is easier to angle sand off some excess material on the table than once built. Is even easier for the laser to cut off that extra 1/16 inch on each side.

On the MAN plan the nose gear somehow got shorter by 1/2 inch as it retracted. No actual brand for the gear was noted, but the Supra by Indy Models was pretty popular then. I only have a main wing set, but cannot see any way to that the gear reach could shorten up by 1/2 in in retracting. I thus had to move things around in order for the noted Hobbico unit to fit and keep same wheelbase.

The Swedish plan said whose retracts to use, but those were no longer available. You could get them via Asia, but only with purchasing a kit. Many-many hobby shops have the very popular (and cheap) Hobbico units. The resemble the old original ones too. You just need to own a wire bending pliers to get the proper angles then. Even as such I expanded on the wheelbase just so the nose would stay down tight. See radio note below. I used a elderly FMA type of servo for the retracts.

Other funny situation was each plan showed the main landing gear to retract flush with wing surface. Not on my old Supra gear. For when the gear is extended, the tires are supposed to touch 90 degrees to the surface. I did this by bending the wires a few degrees, and thus let them go in a bit diagonal when retracted. Takes longer to think how to solve such than to accomplish.

Another simple revision was in that the MAN plan cited to use 5/16" balsa for the rudder. That must be readily available, like in my junk box someplace, or at the store. Nope. Instead, I built the rudder of thin plywood with laminated balsa.

Another easy to obtain slab of wood is the 9/16" balsa as used on the wing tips and rudder leading edge. Yeah, Like I know exactly where I can put my hands on some. I made the thickness out of laminated balsa instead. Then to save weight in the rear (and obtain a more favorable C.G.), the remainder of the fin was made up from laser cut ribs and sheeting.

One of my plans cited an O.P.S. 10ccm glow engine but according to written accounts, the original supposedly had a Webra 10ccm Speed engine. These today when found in OK shape are more expensive than ordering the model from Asia. I have two Webras. One near useless as it is with near zero compression and takes 1/2 day to start up. Then a standard one (now with a bent crankshaft). My test A/C still has it mounted in with all the dirt from a crash in 2006. I am not into hotty aircraft anymore, for once an A/C flies vertical, it goes out of my sight into the glare of the sun. The used Webra easily made the Curare go vertical. So as a revison I set up the new plan up for a very common GMS 2000 glow engine, or a late model Webra 10ccm.

There is some 1/4 aircraft plywood cited on each plan. I originally built the parts from laminated 1/8 inch plywood, as there wasn't but one chunk of 1/4 inch here in 2006, and most everything involved in plywood went in to Back-order around May. It was on the boat someplace in the Atlantic, due to arrive....? After examination of pieces after the 100 MPH crash, none of the substituted material failed. This seems a bit heavy to me, and perhaps 3/16" or lighter could have been used. Save a few grams here too.

Using modern light weight radio gear and servos I had found creates an imbalance for C.G. then. This A/C was designed for a German built Simplot radio of 1970's vintage and everything in the fuselage is spread out to accomodate such. To get a good C.G. balance I have to push everything to the front firewall, and use extra heavy batteries to boot. That new lightweight gear may be reliable, but it unwittingly causes some C.G. problems too.

The M.A.N. plan cited a fuel tank capacity. The other plans just indicated the general vicinity of where to install one. I found a used Kraft, and thinking back that was popular in the middle 1970's. Least got a size and outline now. Then found a DuBro and it is a bit stubbier, but actually fit better.

There isn't anything within N.A. which can be readily obtained even close to fitting the diameters of the tires. As expediency, I use treaded DuBro tires on mine.



As of today, am off again working on an Atlas now. This plan doesn't have too many descrepancies in it, 'cept for the usual wing chord versus fuselage fit, but have become accustomed to that.

'sides that it is easier too.

Wm.