Lou Andrews aeromaster bipe ..Any info ??
03-15-2013, 09:59 AM
#626
RE: Lou Andrews aeromaster bipe ..Any info ??
ORIGINAL: radfordc
They were bolted on with two bolts in the front and one in the rear. All three wood blocks pulled out cleanly. I installed dowels and rubber bands and flew it again today. The plane flys great but I need to install some wing struts....when I do a fast roll the bottom wing tip almost touches the top wing. That should be all this plane needs to be a steady flyer.
ORIGINAL: deanz406
Radford Well, consider yourself Very LUCKY- that could have been a disaster. Were ur wings bolt on, or rubber banded??.
Radford Well, consider yourself Very LUCKY- that could have been a disaster. Were ur wings bolt on, or rubber banded??.
03-15-2013, 11:48 AM
#627
RE: Lou Andrews aeromaster bipe ..Any info ??
ORIGINAL: radfordc
Yeah, something wrong for sure....I put 10 #64 rubber bands on the wing and it was still doing it. I guess I could keep adding bands until the wing collapses...or add a couple of struts.
ORIGINAL: aeomaster32
''when I do a fast roll the bottom wing tip almost touches the top wing. That should be all this plane needs to be a steady flyer.''
Something is wrong there. My rubber banded wings, without struts are put through violent snap and Lomslovic type tumbles. They remain firmly in place. Adding unnecessary struts is compromising performance and safety of the aircraft for appearance. Not a trade I would make. Why add drag when it isn't needed. No full size designer would do such a thing. Struts were a necessary evil for them.
Anything bolted, like the landing gear, has no give and can rip the bottom right out of the fuselage. I have seen it happen.
''when I do a fast roll the bottom wing tip almost touches the top wing. That should be all this plane needs to be a steady flyer.''
Something is wrong there. My rubber banded wings, without struts are put through violent snap and Lomslovic type tumbles. They remain firmly in place. Adding unnecessary struts is compromising performance and safety of the aircraft for appearance. Not a trade I would make. Why add drag when it isn't needed. No full size designer would do such a thing. Struts were a necessary evil for them.
Anything bolted, like the landing gear, has no give and can rip the bottom right out of the fuselage. I have seen it happen.
Yeah, something wrong for sure....I put 10 #64 rubber bands on the wing and it was still doing it. I guess I could keep adding bands until the wing collapses...or add a couple of struts.
03-15-2013, 02:04 PM
#628
RE: Lou Andrews aeromaster bipe ..Any info ??
ORIGINAL: RonMcCormick
Sounds like a broken spar, its bending outboard of the fuse!
ORIGINAL: radfordc
Yeah, something wrong for sure....I put 10 #64 rubber bands on the wing and it was still doing it. I guess I could keep adding bands until the wing collapses...or add a couple of struts.
ORIGINAL: aeomaster32
''when I do a fast roll the bottom wing tip almost touches the top wing. That should be all this plane needs to be a steady flyer.''
Something is wrong there. My rubber banded wings, without struts are put through violent snap and Lomslovic type tumbles. They remain firmly in place. Adding unnecessary struts is compromising performance and safety of the aircraft for appearance. Not a trade I would make. Why add drag when it isn't needed. No full size designer would do such a thing. Struts were a necessary evil for them.
Anything bolted, like the landing gear, has no give and can rip the bottom right out of the fuselage. I have seen it happen.
''when I do a fast roll the bottom wing tip almost touches the top wing. That should be all this plane needs to be a steady flyer.''
Something is wrong there. My rubber banded wings, without struts are put through violent snap and Lomslovic type tumbles. They remain firmly in place. Adding unnecessary struts is compromising performance and safety of the aircraft for appearance. Not a trade I would make. Why add drag when it isn't needed. No full size designer would do such a thing. Struts were a necessary evil for them.
Anything bolted, like the landing gear, has no give and can rip the bottom right out of the fuselage. I have seen it happen.
Yeah, something wrong for sure....I put 10 #64 rubber bands on the wing and it was still doing it. I guess I could keep adding bands until the wing collapses...or add a couple of struts.
03-15-2013, 03:39 PM
#629
Senior Member
RE: Lou Andrews aeromaster bipe ..Any info ??
ORIGINAL: PSBUN
Hi pd1 and HighPlains,
Thank you for the info, especially to build it light.
pd1, I have posted some more photos of the box that may help to work out when it was made. 1971 looks a good guess going by the box manufacturer on the bottom of the box. I will have a look at your build thread.
Thanks again
Peter
Hi pd1 and HighPlains,
Thank you for the info, especially to build it light.
pd1, I have posted some more photos of the box that may help to work out when it was made. 1971 looks a good guess going by the box manufacturer on the bottom of the box. I will have a look at your build thread.
Thanks again
Peter
That's one from 1971.
I forgot the address was left off the end of the box because we were moving.
03-25-2013, 05:31 PM
#631
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: East Rochester, NY
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Lou Andrews aeromaster bipe ..Any info ??
Hey guys,
Today a co-worker of mine gave me his original built aeromaster from back in the 70's it has a .60 OS FSR I think he was calling it a schnerl? It says OS FSR on the engine so i figured that's what it was. Anyways the plane has not been in the air in 30 years, I am going to have to probably strip the plane of the covering and start from there, its in rough shape. My question is this plane seems like a brick when I picked it up it had to be 20lbs. I did not get a chance to weigh it but it was heavy. Is this the way they were build back then or did my co worker go overboard with some sheeting? Any way I want to rebuild it and get it airworthy seems like they are great planes. I have only flown electric but this seems like a good way to get my feet wet in the fuel line of rc. He also gave me a andrews trainer plane with a OS .25 in it. That plane has also not been in the air in 30 years. Will post some when I get the chance. Thanks for the advice in advance I am going to need some help when it comes time to get it back together.
Matt
Today a co-worker of mine gave me his original built aeromaster from back in the 70's it has a .60 OS FSR I think he was calling it a schnerl? It says OS FSR on the engine so i figured that's what it was. Anyways the plane has not been in the air in 30 years, I am going to have to probably strip the plane of the covering and start from there, its in rough shape. My question is this plane seems like a brick when I picked it up it had to be 20lbs. I did not get a chance to weigh it but it was heavy. Is this the way they were build back then or did my co worker go overboard with some sheeting? Any way I want to rebuild it and get it airworthy seems like they are great planes. I have only flown electric but this seems like a good way to get my feet wet in the fuel line of rc. He also gave me a andrews trainer plane with a OS .25 in it. That plane has also not been in the air in 30 years. Will post some when I get the chance. Thanks for the advice in advance I am going to need some help when it comes time to get it back together.
Matt
03-25-2013, 07:01 PM
#632
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Maroochy River, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Lou Andrews aeromaster bipe ..Any info ??
Mine weigh between 6 and 7 pounds. You may find lighter wheels, batteries and servos help. You really should try to get it under 10 lbs if you don't want to compromise performance. Lighter covering is one way, and stay away from heavy paint. I suggest you take the time to read the information in this thread, as there is too much to keep repeating it.
10-09-2013, 03:15 AM
#633
Calling PD1, calling PD1!
Hey Paul, question for ya. I've finally gotten around to restoring an Aeromaster (original version at least 40 years old) that I picked up a few years ago, and on the Cabane struts there is a wire on the front and rear soldered (near the top of the Cabanes) on that ties the Cabanes together. Is this part of the normal build or did the original builder add these for additional strength? Also, being the wing is held on with rubber bands, where is the wing suppose to positioned on the Cabanes as the wing can be slid around at least 3/4" fore or aft. This would (to me) have an effect on the CG when first balanced. I'm guessing that the L/E of the wing center section would be even with the front wire, if this is the original configuration. I don't have a set of plans and pics on the net aren't very clear. Thanks for you valuable input Paul!
FB
Hey Paul, question for ya. I've finally gotten around to restoring an Aeromaster (original version at least 40 years old) that I picked up a few years ago, and on the Cabane struts there is a wire on the front and rear soldered (near the top of the Cabanes) on that ties the Cabanes together. Is this part of the normal build or did the original builder add these for additional strength? Also, being the wing is held on with rubber bands, where is the wing suppose to positioned on the Cabanes as the wing can be slid around at least 3/4" fore or aft. This would (to me) have an effect on the CG when first balanced. I'm guessing that the L/E of the wing center section would be even with the front wire, if this is the original configuration. I don't have a set of plans and pics on the net aren't very clear. Thanks for you valuable input Paul!
FB
Last edited by Free Bird; 10-09-2013 at 03:34 AM.
10-09-2013, 04:21 AM
#636
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Maroochy River, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is what the mount should look like. Don't forget the thin X wires front and back. Some people leave them out, but they help brace the top wing flexing the cabane.
10-09-2013, 04:37 AM
#637
Thanks for the replies guys!!
Aeromaster32, thanks for the pic, that's exactly what I was looking for! The X-wires are in place and making it difficult to access that area of the fuselage. Now, does the L/E of the top wing line up with the front cross wire? It would make sense to do so. LMK. Thanks!
Mike, thanks for that reminder, I forgot about them!
FB
Aeromaster32, thanks for the pic, that's exactly what I was looking for! The X-wires are in place and making it difficult to access that area of the fuselage. Now, does the L/E of the top wing line up with the front cross wire? It would make sense to do so. LMK. Thanks!
Mike, thanks for that reminder, I forgot about them!
FB
10-09-2013, 04:39 AM
#638
Senior Member
Calling PD1, calling PD1!
Hey Paul, question for ya. I've finally gotten around to restoring an Aeromaster (original version at least 40 years old) that I picked up a few years ago, and on the Cabane struts there is a wire on the front and rear soldered (near the top of the Cabanes) on that ties the Cabanes together. Is this part of the normal build or did the original builder add these for additional strength? Also, being the wing is held on with rubber bands, where is the wing suppose to positioned on the Cabanes as the wing can be slid around at least 3/4" fore or aft. This would (to me) have an effect on the CG when first balanced. I'm guessing that the L/E of the wing center section would be even with the front wire, if this is the original configuration. I don't have a set of plans and pics on the net aren't very clear. Thanks for you valuable input Paul!
FB
Hey Paul, question for ya. I've finally gotten around to restoring an Aeromaster (original version at least 40 years old) that I picked up a few years ago, and on the Cabane struts there is a wire on the front and rear soldered (near the top of the Cabanes) on that ties the Cabanes together. Is this part of the normal build or did the original builder add these for additional strength? Also, being the wing is held on with rubber bands, where is the wing suppose to positioned on the Cabanes as the wing can be slid around at least 3/4" fore or aft. This would (to me) have an effect on the CG when first balanced. I'm guessing that the L/E of the wing center section would be even with the front wire, if this is the original configuration. I don't have a set of plans and pics on the net aren't very clear. Thanks for you valuable input Paul!
FB
Once the wing is on the cabanes the rubber bands keep it pretty well positioned in the same spot every time.
The wing should be positioned so the leading edge is just at those cross wires. If the leading edge is too far forward, then it would push on the hold down rubber bands.
Paul
10-09-2013, 04:43 AM
#639
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Maroochy River, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The back of the wing notch lines up with the rear wire. You should not have to worry about this because the construction of the cabane lines the wing up anyway, due to the rubber bands position being fixed
10-09-2013, 04:56 AM
#640
Aeromaster32, thanks for the response!
PD1, as mentioned, I have an original that was built 41 years ago! It's in outstanding shape for its age and deserves to be flown again, I even have a Blue Head ST 61 for it. The airframe really just needed to be stripped and refinished. Thanks for the wing info, it makes perfect sense. BTW - do you still have your P6E version that I saw at Octoberfest a few years ago?
FB
PD1, as mentioned, I have an original that was built 41 years ago! It's in outstanding shape for its age and deserves to be flown again, I even have a Blue Head ST 61 for it. The airframe really just needed to be stripped and refinished. Thanks for the wing info, it makes perfect sense. BTW - do you still have your P6E version that I saw at Octoberfest a few years ago?
FB
10-09-2013, 11:04 AM
#641
Senior Member
Aeromaster32, thanks for the response!
PD1, as mentioned, I have an original that was built 41 years ago! It's in outstanding shape for its age and deserves to be flown again, I even have a Blue Head ST 61 for it. The airframe really just needed to be stripped and refinished. Thanks for the wing info, it makes perfect sense. BTW - do you still have your P6E version that I saw at Octoberfest a few years ago?
FB
PD1, as mentioned, I have an original that was built 41 years ago! It's in outstanding shape for its age and deserves to be flown again, I even have a Blue Head ST 61 for it. The airframe really just needed to be stripped and refinished. Thanks for the wing info, it makes perfect sense. BTW - do you still have your P6E version that I saw at Octoberfest a few years ago?
FB
I built three Super Aeromasters for some of the guys in our club, now that that's done I will only be building for myself. I also have another kit on the shelf too, I'll be busy this winter.
Here's a couple of pictures of two that I didn't have to cover.
10-10-2013, 02:45 AM
#642
Nice builds as always Paul! I see that a couple of changes were made.
From your comment that you "still have most of it", I assume that you had an oops! Bummer! But at least you can rebuild.
FB
From your comment that you "still have most of it", I assume that you had an oops! Bummer! But at least you can rebuild.
FB
10-10-2013, 04:10 AM
#643
Senior Member
The green and black on the fuselage blended with the color of the trees and the Aeromaster disappeared.
Two choices, up or down. I chose poorly.
Most of the work is recovering, and I like to recover, at least with silk.
The other two in the picture are Super Aeromasters, at least now I can compare differences in the two kits accurately.
04-16-2014, 04:51 PM
#645
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ANYONE have the COG for the Aeromaster??? I have one from '72 with it's original OS FS60 that's gonna fly for the first time in well over 30 years this Fathers Day
Thanks VERY much!!!!
Thanks VERY much!!!!
04-16-2014, 05:59 PM
#646
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Milpitas,
CA
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which wing configuration do you have, swept wings or straight wings or a combo?
The plans show 3 CGs measured from the LE of the top wing.
#1 = 5"
#2 = 5 1/4"
#3 = 5 5/8"
One of the configurations had unequal wing spans of upper a lower. And, the other two had same wing spans and the lower wing varied from straight to tapered.
The plans show 3 CGs measured from the LE of the top wing.
#1 = 5"
#2 = 5 1/4"
#3 = 5 5/8"
One of the configurations had unequal wing spans of upper a lower. And, the other two had same wing spans and the lower wing varied from straight to tapered.
