Go Back  RCU Forums > Radios, Batteries, Clubhouse and more > Control Lines
Reload this Page >

So what was your first control line plane, and what was the year, and age that you...

Notices
Control Lines For all you fly-by-wire fanatics!

So what was your first control line plane, and what was the year, and age that you...

Old 07-15-2021, 10:48 AM
  #201  
LouisB
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Heidelberg, SOUTH AFRICA
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

My first at age 11 was a Testors Cosmic Wind, powered by a McCoy .049. I got it at Western Holding Mine's (where my dad was working) Christmas party. Dankie Pa!
Flew like a dog as we where in excess of 1500m above AMSL but it lasted through a lot of crashes. This was followed by the obligatory PT-19 and thereafter a balsa home-built with a DIY pine profile fuselage and a left-over donated balsa wing from a smashed kit. It flew the best of them all. Fond memories and today I'm a Sunday RC flyer.
Old 07-15-2021, 11:07 AM
  #202  
Propworn
My Feedback: (3)
 
Propworn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,376
Received 22 Likes on 19 Posts
Default

Heck it was so long ago I believe it was a pterodactyl with a rope tied to each leg.
Old 07-15-2021, 12:00 PM
  #203  
GallopingGhostler
 
GallopingGhostler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Clovis, NM
Posts: 2,235
Received 60 Likes on 47 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Propworn View Post
Heck it was so long ago I believe it was a pterodactyl with a rope tied to each leg.
But that was beast powered flight hang glider style provided the pterodactyl didn't eat you. The neanderthals before us (a few still post here) flew a Dynajet pulse jet powered rock. (You know what they say, with enough power even a rock can fly. )
Old 07-15-2021, 03:30 PM
  #204  
Propworn
My Feedback: (3)
 
Propworn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,376
Received 22 Likes on 19 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by GallopingGhostler View Post
But that was beast powered flight hang glider style provided the pterodactyl didn't eat you. The neanderthals before us (a few still post here) flew a Dynajet pulse jet powered rock. (You know what they say, with enough power even a rock can fly. )
Hey as long as you didn't do a wing over and he didn't get a good look at you, you were golden. LOL
Old 07-19-2021, 06:04 PM
  #205  
subarubrat
My Feedback: (1)
 
subarubrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Remington, VA
Posts: 705
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

Some great historical pics in this thread! My first was a PT-19, failed big time with it. I bought a Testors P-51 with allowance money and taught myself in the front yard with great success. Those Testors Fly'em planes with the record for instructions were slightly smaller than the Cox models but way cheaper and you got something that had the same or better detail and scale appearance. I have more of those in the collection than Cox CL planes today and I think they never get the credit they deserve for being such a great starting point for the era.
Old 12-22-2021, 10:14 AM
  #206  
Hye Flyer
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2021
Posts: 46
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
Default

I believe my first CL plane was the Cox PT19 and that was probably 1974 when I was around 10 years old. My second plane was a Cox P-40 a year later. During this time, my father and I(mostly he) built a large PT19 with a Fox 25 which I destroyed several times and by 1977, only the engine remains… which now sits in a up-scaled Gullows P-40 (originally an .049 sized model) that I scratch-built by enlarging the plans and using lots of tape. LOL.
Old 12-22-2021, 08:38 PM
  #207  
50+AirYears
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Irmo, SC OH
Posts: 1,647
Received 6 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

While I started flying and building about 1948 with AJ, Comet, Guillow, Strombecker, Cleveland, and such gliders, rubber FF and display models, (Still have a 74 glider, a Walker interceptor folding wing cat glider, an AJ Firebaby with a Cub .049, even a Strombecker F-94 solid) my first FLYING CL was an Enterprise P-51 D with an OK Cub .099. That was about 1958, when I was in 7th grade. Kind of funny, I still have the engine, and not too long ago I got a copy of the original Enterprise plans. Maybe an interesting sidelight, a few years ago, I built a Sterling Mini Fledgling, Aileron-Elevator using that engine, 7-4 prop. Performance was marginal, so I installed a Cox Black Widow .049 with a 5 1/2-4 prop. Turned a low and slow plane into a fast and aerobatic machine!
That P-51 was a couple hundred planes ago. BTW, I never abandoned any form of flight, including pushing plastic models through a tub of water. I just added newer varieties as I grew up. Well, added, yes, but my wife would disagree about growing up.
Old 12-23-2021, 07:49 AM
  #208  
GallopingGhostler
 
GallopingGhostler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Clovis, NM
Posts: 2,235
Received 60 Likes on 47 Posts
Default

It was around 1963 that I built my first airplane while in 3rd grade, a plastic static display Douglas DC-3. Before then, I must have had at least a half dozen balsa RTF gliders, they must have been around $0.10 US each. In 4th grade, I put together an all sheet balsa rubber powered Stinson Sentinel printed in colour, probably Top Flite, followed by stick and tissue Scientific Cessna 180. My first CL kit was a Scientific 18" wingspan built up Grumman F6F Hellcat with clear plastic upper turtle deck, by Walt Musciano. I think I received it for my 11th birthday. Came with a Cox .020 Pee Wee. It was my first experience with silkspan covering for the wing. I never flew it.

Christmas I think 1965, I received a Cox RTF Spitfire with .049 Silver Bee engine. It resembled a Golden Bee but with plain aluminum extended tank but with Babe Bee double fuel nipple back. I was scared to fly it. Typical child-father failure, scared as the dickens (funny, people don't read his books any more), did only a half loop with it stalling and flopping to the ground. (The plane was very heavy). Fortunately it didn't break being over grass. Father had zero CL experience. Never flew it again.

Had better luck with rubber power. By the time I was 13, had already built Comet 15" Ryan SC, Bellanca Jr., Curtiss Robin, Porterfield 65, 12" Spad and Fokker DVII biplanes, 18" P-51 A or B Mustang, 32" Ed Lidgard Sparky, plus a dozen plastic display models, WW1 & 2. Best flying was the P-51.
Old 02-25-2022, 08:30 AM
  #209  
Dragnfly53
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 14
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by mtrain View Post
As I have said in another forum my first control line plane was a Cox Stuka.

It was in 1975, our last Christmas as a family before mom, and dad got divorced.

I was around 11 years old then, and had just recently flown my cousins Testor Flying Tiger. The Tiger was really fun, but a bit smaller than the Cox Stuka.

I wasn't adept enough back then to start, and fly the plane myself, so since my dad left I had to wait until that rare day that he would come over to start the engine.

Well about a year later he finally got around to it. I was so nervous, that when the plane was finally started/running there was a small crowd of kids gathered around.

I flew the Stuka one revolution before it started flying at an arch, then into the ground.

Then it was retired the closet, and finally lost to time.

Now I have another Stuka even with the original box to relive that day again.

So tell me what was your first plane, the year you got it, how old were you, and what was the story behind it..........thanks.
In 1976 I was 13, first CL was the cox super sport with .049, flew like a brick, all plastic and 1 day it hit the side of the raised wood porch deck and snapped the nose off. The wind did it...Next was a baby ringmaster. Flat balsa wing with the same cox .049. Flew great and lasted a couple years. The Flying Fool bipe was next, 1978ish with McCoy .29. That was the fun till i flew the top wing off 1 day.
Old 02-25-2022, 10:00 AM
  #210  
GallopingGhostler
 
GallopingGhostler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Clovis, NM
Posts: 2,235
Received 60 Likes on 47 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Dragnfly53 View Post
In 1976 I was 13, first CL was the cox super sport with .049, flew like a brick, all plastic and 1 day it hit the side of the raised wood porch deck and snapped the nose off. The wind did it...Next was a baby ringmaster. Flat balsa wing with the same cox .049. Flew great and lasted a couple years. The Flying Fool bipe was next, 1978ish with McCoy .29. That was the fun till i flew the top wing off 1 day.
Your experience mirrors mine. similar happened to my Cox Spitfire RTF as an 11-12 YO. Later, I found that a simple 20" wingspan Sterling Beginner's Fokker E-III Eindecker solid balsa profile job was much more sturdy, enduring many crashes during the learning experience with very little repair required, finally wore out the aluminum control horn for the elevator before I gave it away.

Many of the hollow log and built up Scientific's were a joy to build growing up, sort of stand way off scale 18" built up Grumman F6F Hellcat, Liĺ Devil, 12" Little Bipe, ME-109 Messerschmidt, P-51 Sizzlin' Liz, 20" Dumas Mooney? (resembled a twin rudder Erco Ercoupe), 27" Tom-Tom II, 18" Grumman F4F Wildcat profile of my own design, 16" Goldberg Little Toot profile bipe, etc.

Then a 38" Sterling profile F-51 with McCoy Red Head .19, 30" Sterling profile junior Ringmaster with OS Max .15FP-S, on to a 42" Sterling profile Ringmaster with McCoy Red Head .35.
Old 02-25-2022, 12:37 PM
  #211  
Clean
 
Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Parkville, MO
Posts: 1,433
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Ya, sounds like my brothers P-51 experience. He was 3 years older and so much more capable, intelligent and gifted athletically then my silly 5 year old rear end. After his figure 9 from launch we took turns flying my PT-19. Wasn't his fault, most of those scalish Cox planes were nearly un-flyable but the PT-19 was level flight flyable and little extra.
Old 03-03-2022, 12:33 PM
  #212  
scoeroo
My Feedback: (9)
 
scoeroo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Home PA
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

OOOhhhhhhh....... the memories
Christmas present Cox F4-U Corsair in the cox box with a big battery , a plastic sheet for a run way (what a joke that was) a leaky can of cox fuel that we figure was 50% nitro , a crappy little nylon handle and nylon line , flew it till the engine fell out , was held together with rubber bands & 5 min Araldite epoxy
I then joined the Phoenix Scale Model Society , we flew at the local school off the concrete cricket pitch
Engine then went in an all balsa taipan trainer , I painted that thing every month a different scheme , it weighted a ton until the day I did a wing-over and it fell strait down and turned it's self in to a kit
Next I learnt to build from scratch a profile model , a sundancer I think the plan was named , built up wing for stunt flying
Next was a flyte-streak with conversion to aileron , this had a 2.5cc rear exhaust Taipan (all Australian motor made in Tamworth NSW) that screamed like a banshee ran on 30% nitro , it was quick ! & I still have the motor in my collection
Now days it's Q500's and Jets , and some good mates to fly with
Old 03-05-2022, 09:44 AM
  #213  
H5606
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: TN
Posts: 908
Received 37 Likes on 36 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Clean View Post
Ya, sounds like my brothers P-51 experience. He was 3 years older and so much more capable, intelligent and gifted athletically then my silly 5 year old rear end. After his figure 9 from launch we took turns flying my PT-19. Wasn't his fault, most of those scalish Cox planes were nearly un-flyable but the PT-19 was level flight flyable and little extra.
It makes no difference how capable, intelligent, and gifted he was - it clearly wasn't the airplane's fault - no airplane should be able to survive a figure 9 impact with the ground.

All the scale Cox airplanes were absolutely flyable and flew well in experienced hands. The problem is many of them were a rank beginner's introduction to control line and got the bad rap because nobody without prior experience possessed the innate ability to fly successfully right off the bat.

Fixing broken plastic is best accomplished - not by repair - but with replacement of broken parts. Most kids couldn't afford to wait 6-8 weeks for replacement parts from the Cox factory. This is why most ended up in the trash can after a single unsuccessful attempt at flight due to lack of necessary skills.

Old 03-05-2022, 12:29 PM
  #214  
elmshoot
My Feedback: (6)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Nashville, IN,
Posts: 1,695
Received 30 Likes on 26 Posts
Default

I was able to use the woodburning pen to melt the plastic and rebond several broken parts. I think on the PT-19 I replace the pegs that you rubberbanded the wing on the fuse with.
Parts were expensive and took a long time to arrive Hobbyshops usually didn't stock replacement parts either.
Sparky
Old 03-05-2022, 01:09 PM
  #215  
GallopingGhostler
 
GallopingGhostler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Clovis, NM
Posts: 2,235
Received 60 Likes on 47 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by H5606 View Post
It makes no difference how capable, intelligent, and gifted he was - it clearly wasn't the airplane's fault - no airplane should be able to survive a figure 9 impact with the ground.
Thanks for posting, I can share a little of my experiences with some reconnoitering.

There was a quote on kit boxes, I think it may have been Comet, that balsa flies better (too lazy to look up ). In my experiences, the half-A balsa jobs, particularly the sheet balsa profiles were able to survive figure-9s with minimal damage if flown over grass. (Grass is more forgiving than asphalt, Portland concrete, gravel or dirt. ) As simple as they are, finished, they are considerably lighter than plastic planes. Balsa flexes, and the lighter weight doesn't have as much momentum when it hits the terra-firma. I had at least a dozen crashes on my Sterling Beginner's Eindecker with Cox .049 Babe Bee engine before the fuselage split. Most of the time, I'd straighten the music wire landing gear, flush out dirt from the engine with fuel, replace broken prop and try again. Repaired the split at home with then common balsa cement (Ambroid, Sigment, Comet or Testor fuelproof, Duco household cement), dry and set for 2 days, was ready to fly again.

Originally Posted by H5606 View Post
All the scale Cox airplanes were absolutely flyable and flew well in experienced hands. The problem is many of them were a rank beginner's introduction to control line and got the bad rap because nobody without prior experience possessed the innate ability to fly successfully right off the bat.
Yes, they would fly, and there were various demo's to show that, however, where we lived, to watch those would have been a pipe dream (too far away only for vacation trip). Engine had to run at its peak to overcome the weight. One basically needed high nitro content fuel (contest variety). Because of the extra cost of this fuel, I chose a middle of the line fuel (like 15% nitro instead of 30+% nitro. Sometimes hobby shops did not always stock the extra high nitro fuel, because larger aircraft with larger displacement engines didn't need it. Being limited on cash, the cheaper fuel oft won out. ) In the hands of the "experts", for show, they would most likely have been very selective to use top engines, fuel, glow heads and props. As they say, even a brick can fly control line with enough power. It is all in the name of a sale ($$$).

However, as training planes, they were too fragile for the rank starter. In high school I had a one shot flight with another, a Cox .049 L-4 Grasshopper. (One summer in the early 1970's, I with my non-flyer high school buddies after work from a poultry farm helped me to take off. With a 15 mph trade wind blowing at a beach park in Hawaii, they rarely have a calm day like those on east or west coast of the US, I made the classic half circle with that high lift wing. In 10 seconds, I had a crash scene with parts scattered everywhere suitable for an NTSB investigation. Those highly undercambered wings are high lift, and compared with other CL aircraft with symmetrical airfoil, they lift into the wind and fall with the wind, increasing difficulty for the learning curve. You simply couldn't keep the arm steady for a successful lap.

Some time back I read a historic review article but can't remember the source that described the pitfalls of the plastic RTF's. (During the day, modeling magazines had to build up their advertisers, especially full page corporate contributors so they would continue to advertise, hence negative press was avoided). It concluded that these readily available plastic planes probably did more to discourage continuing control line flying than anything else by their non-recoverable, discouraging one-shot destructive flights.

Once one tried a larger aircraft like a 42" span Sterling Ringmaster with a .19 to .35 engine flown on 50 to 60 feet lines found that it was easier to control, handled wind much better, and with a slower lap speed of 4.5 to 5 seconds, didn't get near as dizzy. This is in comparison to half-A requiring shorter lines of 25 to 35 feet with 2.5 to 3.5 seconds a lap. After a minute and a half to two and a half minutes of flight, I was definitely dizzy for the next couple minutes.

Originally Posted by H5606 View Post
Fixing broken plastic is best accomplished - not by repair - but with replacement of broken parts. Most kids couldn't afford to wait 6-8 weeks for replacement parts from the Cox factory. This is why most ended up in the trash can after a single unsuccessful attempt at flight due to lack of necessary skills.
It depended on the repair required. Sometimes, it was the price of the parts that made one better off just to chuck it, salvage the engine and wheels, and buy another when on sale.

I repaired a shattered wing on my brother's Wen-Mac Corsair (all chrome, was a pretty thing even with all the other parts like wheels and cockpit bottom area molded from red plastic) using plastic glue, I used tin snips, cut an empty food can and 2-56 bolts to splice shattered wing together. I bought a tent sale Cox P-51A or B (turtle deck version) back around 1970 (when I got my driver license) from a department store (Gem?) for I think $1.50. It had wing, fuselage with engine and tail, but missing the moveable elevator and portion of fuselage bottom covering from back of the wing to tail.

I made a new elevator out of balsa, used a small half-A control horn, then mounted it with over and under crinoline hinges AKA Keith Laumer style. I made a new fuselage bottom with 1/16" sheet balsa glued in place. Finished the balsa parts with sanding sealer, clear dope then olive drab colored dope. Back then as a 16 YO, I felt proud restoring it without the cost of factory replacement parts. It fell victim to much of my stuff disappearing when I joined Uncle Sam's scouting troop before college.
Old 03-06-2022, 02:24 PM
  #216  
H5606
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: TN
Posts: 908
Received 37 Likes on 36 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by GallopingGhostler View Post
Thanks for posting, I can share a little of my experiences with some reconnoitering.

In my experiences, the half-A balsa jobs, particularly the sheet balsa profiles were able to survive figure-9s with minimal damage if flown over grass. Grass is more forgiving than asphalt, Portland concrete, gravel or dirt. )
We have obvious disagreements and our experiences place us at opposite ends of the spectrum with respect to the performance of Cox plastic RTF offerings of the period.

My most active period flying C/L was the decade between '71 and '81 flying nothing but .049s and a few .020s. The figure 9 is evidence of a common beginner error and over-control; my brand-new (probably 1970), Cox PT-19 actually survived a maiden flight at the hands of the next door neighbor's father that was an experienced R/C'er. He had his wrist full up upon launch. Apparently, he got some down in as it climbed straight up in a dramatic fashion to a most beautiful arcing, wing-over straight down to impact the grassy field with blue and yellow parts scattering in explosive fashion to my horror. Surprise! No Damage! Airplane was back together again in short order with new rubber bands but didn't fly again until a C/L world champ visiting the local R/C field offered to take the PT-19 up for a spin and really showed what it looked like to do multiple straight and level laps to fly out a tankful of fuel. It would be some period of months and a move back to the States before I attempted my first control line flight.

My PT-19 survived many impacts with the ground enough so to develop the skills necessary to continue moving through many other C/L offerings Cox created.

Yes, they would fly, and there were various demo's to show that, however, where we lived, to watch those would have been a pipe dream (too far away only for vacation trip). Engine had to run at its peak to overcome the weight. One basically needed high nitro content fuel (contest variety). Because of the extra cost of this fuel, I chose a middle of the line fuel (like 15% nitro instead of 30+% nitro. Sometimes hobby shops did not always stock the extra high nitro fuel, because larger aircraft with larger displacement engines didn't need it. Being limited on cash, the cheaper fuel oft won out. ) In the hands of the "experts", for show, they would most likely have been very selective to use top engines, fuel, glow heads and props. As they say, even a brick can fly control line with enough power. It is all in the name of a sale ($$$).
I'm not an expert and got no help from others; if you're talking about Tomorrowland Cox demos at Disneyland, I didn't even know they existed. I learned it all on my own - for the most part enlisting the aid of neighborhood kids to launch or else, launching solo using the anchoring device to the 'up' end of the bellcrank. The elevation where I flew was roughly 270 ft above sea level and I don't think you were much different in Hawaii so density/altitude shouldn't have been a factor - I used mostly the cheaper, Cox brand fuel in the blue or red/white cans and needled engines to max screaming level in nothing but completely stock airplanes as they came out of the box. That means standard glowheads, nylon props, dacron lines, and Cox handles using the outer holes. Once flying skills were established, site selection was critical to success in flying all the other plastic models - meaning a smooth level unobstructed runway surface with all 360 degrees available for take-offs and landings - the asphalt basketball court and playground area of a local elementary school was just right after a circular, FOD walk to clear off twigs and acorns. If by "brick" you mean overweight and under-powered, I never saw this trait in those I flew which included the red/white/blue Miss America P-51, black Stuka, blue Corsair, red Fokker Triplane, lt. gray Spitfire, Messerschmitt Stunter, trike-geared, Crusader Stunter, Art Scholl Pitts (.020 on half-length lines) and those I witnessed - the purple Super Sports and red/yellow Rivets formula 1's. As a matter of fact, a fellow Cox flyer and I used to intentionally set the needle blubbering rich as a challenge to see who could stay aloft over the longest distance "flying on the wing" at minimum controllable airspeed.

Your usage of lower content nitro fuels (15% versus 25%) may even have been a contributing factor in overall performance that lead to the negative sentiment toward the Cox plastic RTF's - once again, not the airplane's fault.

I can't speak for the Cub, Super Cub, P-40 Warhawk, Skyraider, Trojan, Helldiver, Texan, and more recent ones like the Backdraft, Apache (autogyro), Slipstream and more... but I'm sure they all were capable of perfectly decent flight in experienced hands even box-stock.

In high school I had a one shot flight with another, a Cox .049 L-4 Grasshopper. (One summer in the early 1970's, I with my non-flyer high school buddies after work from a poultry farm helped me to take off. With a 15 mph trade wind blowing at a beach park in Hawaii, they rarely have a calm day like those on east or west coast of the US, I made the classic half circle with that high lift wing. In 10 seconds, I had a crash scene with parts scattered everywhere suitable for an NTSB investigation.
Cox airplane bashing again - as mentioned in a previous reply, I can only see this experience here as the typical one and done, preconceived notion of placing blame on the product in spite of flying in way too harsh conditions; I always flew in calm conditions on the 360 degree unobstructed asphalt surface and never lost line tension - sounds like slack lines were the cause of the crash and nothing else. Once flying skills and knowing one's limits are established, crashing shouldn't happen.

This post is not to be taken personally - just wanted to set the record straight that Cox RTF plastic-fantastics flew so much better than most perceived due to many beginner's misconceptions.
Old 03-07-2022, 06:25 AM
  #217  
elmshoot
My Feedback: (6)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Nashville, IN,
Posts: 1,695
Received 30 Likes on 26 Posts
Default

The COX line of planes, other than the PT-19 were not suitable for rank beginners with no additional assistance to have any reasonable level of success.
The fact that COX included fuel that was marginal in performance for the engines wasn't helpful either.
Higher Nitro fuel was a big part of the success formula. Missile Mist was my preferred fuel of choice and sometimes I got some Fox 40-40 that made the engines perform much better.
All of the things you mention for success were not automatically known. You needed someone to tell you or learn from trial and error.
Sparky
The following 2 users liked this post by elmshoot:
Flicker (04-01-2022), GallopingGhostler (03-07-2022)
Old 03-08-2022, 03:53 PM
  #218  
H5606
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: TN
Posts: 908
Received 37 Likes on 36 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by elmshoot View Post
The COX line of planes, other than the PT-19 were not suitable for rank beginners with no additional assistance to have any reasonable level of success.
Agreed.

The fact that COX included fuel that was marginal in performance for the engines wasn't helpful either.
Out of the more than half-dozen Cox airplanes I had, the only one that came with a starter kit including fuel was the blue Corsair and it was a small amount at that - a shortened can roughly 2" tall held in the cardboard box insert that I'm guessing to have been around 1/4 pint. I probably pried out the red, plastic filter spout and poured the contents into one of my pint cans. IIRC, it was labeled with the typical blue can label and I don't see why it wouldn't have been the standard fuel of 25% nitro. I never had any need for Cox racing fuel.

I do remember the Testor's Fly 'Ems (P-51, Me-109, P-40, and Zero) models sold in blister packages were all equipped with a small glass bottle of fuel but I don't know what % nitro they used. There was some local conjecture that although these were more scale-like than their Cox counterparts, they had some inferior traits that made Cox products the better choice.

I was able to use the woodburning pen to melt the plastic and rebond several broken parts. I think on the PT-19 I replace the pegs that you rubberbanded the wing on the fuse with.
Including pictures here of what came about after revision of the PT-19 over the years; at some point, they added the protrusions to the fuselage to give an alternative means for rubber-banding the wing to fuse saddle.


Circles showing alternative rubber band anchors for wing attachment; original means for attachment are rubber bands running from wing pegs at LE and TE in the fuselage's wing saddle troughs -


Rubber bands from fuselage anchor points run under wing to sandwich wing against fuse saddles -
Old 03-08-2022, 06:16 PM
  #219  
Tom Nied
 
Tom Nied's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Carol Stream, IL
Posts: 2,213
Received 13 Likes on 12 Posts
Default

I learned how to fly on Cox Pt-19. Wouldn't it be a kick if it was again released. Maybe larger, a lighter material. I blew the chance when Horizon released a RC Pt-19. A nice plan might be the answer.

Old 03-09-2022, 11:27 AM
  #220  
elmshoot
My Feedback: (6)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Nashville, IN,
Posts: 1,695
Received 30 Likes on 26 Posts
Default

I recall the fuel supplied in the box was low nitro like 10-15% not the 25-30% required to get good performance. I did like the starter kit they included especially the Battery holder for the two D size dry cell batteries. I did fly my planes with any fuel I could get my hands on. Back then I would taste a drop of fuel. You could taste the difference as the nitro would burn a little more. The more the burn the more the nitro.
Tom I remember seeing the updated PT-19 with the added rubber band attach points.
Also as an aside, I have a FOX .35 anniversary edition. It hates Nitro! 5% Nitro and 30% oil is where it will run. Its the same fuel I had from running in my duckted fan engines.

Sparky
The following users liked this post:
GallopingGhostler (03-12-2022)
Old 03-12-2022, 03:34 PM
  #221  
GallopingGhostler
 
GallopingGhostler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Clovis, NM
Posts: 2,235
Received 60 Likes on 47 Posts
Default

In Cox Engine Forums there is discussion and plans for a PT-19 in colored corroplast that is modeled after the Cox RTF. From what they say, it flies similarly to the now hard to obtain Cox one. Looks wise, seems to be a reasonable facsimile. I have never built one, so can't comment. BTW, it is a decent forum to join, if you are into Cox planes, cars and engines.

I don't have experience with the Fox .35, my .35's are a combination of Testor McCoy Red Heads. They don't mind running 15% (actually 12%, because I add a pint of Castor to the gallon of RC mix to give me 25% oil). But then I am at 4,300 ft. elevation. Not long ago I bought a couple K&B .35 Stallions, but haven't tried them yet.
Old 03-12-2022, 08:23 PM
  #222  
50+AirYears
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Irmo, SC OH
Posts: 1,647
Received 6 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

At one USAF base where I was stationed, commercial fuel was not often found at the BX, so, we obtained a 55 gal barrel of methanol, a couple 5 gallon cans of medicinal quality castor, and mixed up TLAR batches of something approximating the FAI 25/75 glow fuel. With about a half can of lighter fluid added per gallon, even a Cox Pee Wee powered Pitts Special flew on 15' lines. Fox .35s were about as powerful as their K&B or Johnson counterparts. Over all, I've flown quite a few different Cox CL RTFs. Never had much luck with any others.
The following users liked this post:
GallopingGhostler (03-21-2022)
Old 03-15-2022, 09:07 PM
  #223  
gottabeme
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Melb. Fl.
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Oh the good ole days. Looks like many of us started out in circa 1960's flying a Cox PT-19 then worked our way up to building and flying combat planes
like the 'LiL Satan. My first club was called the "Finger Crackers" for rather obvious reasons. I blame it on that purple power 'Missle Mist' fuel and my old
Fox 35. loved every minute. Still have and covet my first place combat trophy from 1969.
Still flying my 1960 Topflite Orion pattern plane and a few Goldbergs Life is all about making memories.

Enjoy making them folks
Old 03-21-2022, 03:39 AM
  #224  
rgburrill
 
rgburrill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Dallas, Tx CT
Posts: 2,780
Received 71 Likes on 65 Posts
Default

My first was a Piper Cub. It was Christmas 1962 or 1963. I was 16 or 17. My last was a Piper Cub I got for my stepson Christmas 1990. He never wanted to fly it so I did. I had learned how to tune the engine because I had been flying RC for several years then.
Old 03-21-2022, 09:17 AM
  #225  
GallopingGhostler
 
GallopingGhostler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Clovis, NM
Posts: 2,235
Received 60 Likes on 47 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by rgburrill View Post
My first was a Piper Cub. It was Christmas 1962 or 1963. I was 16 or 17. My last was a Piper Cub I got for my stepson Christmas 1990. He never wanted to fly it so I did. I had learned how to tune the engine because I had been flying RC for several years then.
Interesting how that works out. Back in the late 1990's, I wanted to teach my then 14 YO son how to fly CL, but he had difficulty with getting extremely dizzy, more than most other kids, so that ended that. However, he enjoyed RC cars. I find it interesting how it seems many kids these days have lost their interest in model airplanes overall.

May be quadcopter control line might be the way to go?

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.