Nitro2Burn

Hi,
Has anyone got any info I could use on the Rivets? I am getting into large scale air racing here in Australia and the Rivets would suit the Formula 1 class perfectly. However there doesn't seem to be much out there for it, I have gathered a bit of info and have managed to order a 45" plan of one that at this point I am going to enlarge to 85"(40%). Am yet to decide if I go for a built up or build a plug for a friend to make a mould from but see how I go.
If anyone has built one around this size or has more scale detail I may be able to use that would be great.
thanks

vicman

My Feedback: (10)

Back in the F1 days Dave Latcha and Dan Kane had some fiberglass fuse kits. Having talked with both of them in the last year or so niether has any kits and very little information left. Matney models has a smaller QM15 kit developed by Dave still available.

ARUP

Here ya go!

js3

My Feedback: (3)

I have three views if you need them.

HighPlains

My Feedback: (1)

Is that the Joe Foster design from 1967?

Nitro2Burn

Thanks very much, I will have to see if I can't find out what size the moulds are/were. I have checked out the Matney models one and am keen to grab one eventually as I have a worked cox conquest I can whack in it to have a bit of sport fun with it.

Nitro2Burn

Great view of the cockpit, thanks. It has a lot more straighter edges than the other F1 planes it is lined up against but curves didn't necessarily mean faster as the Rivets often proved.

Nitro2Burn

Yes it is. It's coming from Cartsens and is plan CF109, have you built it?

HighPlains

My Feedback: (1)

I've had the plans for it for a couple of years, but have not built it. Foster won the '67 Nats with it, then it was presented in Flying Models the next year. Following that, a glass and foam version was done by a couple of guys in Northern California, one of which was my old pylon racing buddy and mentor Jim Kelly. They were sold by K and K Industries, but often one or two would be sold into an area and then get splashed by the locals. So they got out of the kit business after a few years.

At that particular point in time, F1 models were much more scale than in the later years. Although the scale was about 2 5/8" to the foot, some deviation was made primarily in width of the fuselage. While the rules had a 7 " height, only 3.5" was required for the width. Converted to full size, this would have been a fuselage height of 32" which is realistic, but a width of only 16" or a bit thin for an adult male.

Here is the cover shot:

Nitro2Burn

JS3- How detailed are the 3-views, like are they good enought to blow up for accurate measurements? If so then yes please.

Highplains- Love the cover shot, the rules here maintain the model is to be a scale representation of the real version. I am off to check out the other aircraft in this catagory in a few eeks to see what I'm up against but I do know the hangar 9 sundowner and seagull nemesis nxt are allowed. This said I'm more of the path less taken kind of bloke which is why I love the Rivets, T-tail designed aircraft that you don't see alot of around the traps.

I'm figuring that the real one at the cockpit would have been around 20 to 24" wide which makes for a pretty wide fuse at around 8-9.6 inches. Once I check out the rest of the competition I will know how scale I need to be, though I would love to get it close to right if I can. Never know it may even make a plane worth "kitting" one day.

The next thing I will need to work out once I'm past the fuse is the wing section best for racing and whether or not to go for built up or foam core. I imagine I will be going for a reasonably thin wing design but need to keep enough strength for high G turns also.

ARUP

Rivets was a heavy airplane but had some nice aero details that made it fly faster than its competition. If the race was long enough then Rivets would eventually win! The flip side of that coin was Buster flown by Bill Brennand. He was a very lightweight pilot and Buster was too. Buster would leap off the ground and be in first place while the others had to catch up. I have a 1/4 Rivets kit by Quay Barber Models- long out of production. I also have a QM Rivets kit by Mini-Flite Co. of Red Bank, New Jersey- also long out of production. I have some 3-views, too. Good luck building one of my favorite raceplanes! Can't wait to see it finished!

HighPlains

My Feedback: (1)

If this is a Formula One class (Goodyear, 190 CI, later 200 CI) only class, then the Nemesis NXT would not be legal, since it was in the Sport Class at Reno with turbo charged IO-540 or IO-570 engines pushing close to 400 mph. The earlier Nemesis would be legal, but they are two very different aircraft.

If this is a strictly scale event of F1 designs, you will be at a huge disadvantage with a Rivets compared to the newer high aspect designs. The difference in induced drag in the high G turns of the older designs is the difference between winning and losing. If they allow you to fudge the wing span to a similar span as the Nemesis or Sundowner, then you have a chance. For instance of the 200 plus designs that have competed in full size F1, about 25% have been close variations of the Cassutt. In recent years a popular modification has been the so called "Wilson wing" which decreases the chord at the root and tapers the wing, thus increasing the span.

js3

My Feedback: (3)

Nitro,

I've found 3-views of three different versions. Tomorrow I'll scan and post them. I assume you're most interested in the T-tail version but I'll post them all for curiosity's sake.

They are from two sources both Hirsch books, and Mendenhall. Neither has great detail but it's a start.

Nitro2Burn

Here is the F1 defining rules:

Formula 1
1) Scope
i) All aircraft in this class are to be a scale representation of any full size aircraft that attempted to
qualify or competed in either the Goodyear Trophy or Formula 1 races during the Golden Era up to
1977. The Seagull Nemesis and Hangar 9 Sundowner ARF kits are also allowed in this event.
ii) Fixed or retractable landing gear may be used, with steerable tail wheel.
iii) Dummy engine allowed and encouraged. A scale size spinner may be fitted.
iv) No restriction on colour scheme.
v) No "builder of the Model" rule applies.
vi) A pilot’s bust is required.
2) Model Details
i) Minimum wingspan 80� (2M) to a maximum of 90� (2.25M) is allowed for monoplanes.
ii) Minimum wingspan of 70� (1.75M) for BiPlanes.
3) Engine Details
i) Size 56cc Maximum.
ii) A Carburetor venture stack is allowed
4) Mufflers
i) Only simple expansion type mufflers can be used.
ii) They must be under the cowl, some of the header may protrude.
iii) Maximum noise level 98db measured at 3 meters over grass measured 1 meter above the ground,
and up wind of the model.
5) Fuel
i) Any MAAA legal fuel is permitted.
6) Propeller
i) All propellers are to commercially available.
ii) Propeller may not be worked in any way, except for balancing and crankshaft sizing.
iii) The contestant is to provide their own propeller/s.
7) Weight
i) Entrants are required to have a "Permit to Fly" for their aircraft if it is over 7Kg in weight.

Nitro2Burn

For some reason they allow those 2 ARF's. My guess is to make it available for the non builder orientated. At a guess also I imagine both of them have a somewhat "standard" wing cord shape and so would lose out a little when chasing higher speeds. I have put up the rules as they are to keep everyone in the loop. I had looked at the Cassut racer and was pretty keen for it but then found out the Rivets was within the rules and it is an aircraft I have a soft spot for. My only other real option was a Shoestring which I could get a plan for an 80inch version but definately didn't want a plane which comes under the clitorus catagory (every *naughty c word here* has one). I would much rather put the efforts into making my Rivets light and fast to be competitive.

From what I have read, the shoestring and the rivets full size had a big advantage by having larger wings so I should be able to keep somewhat in scale and still not lose out to shorter style wingspan planes with no taper. This is one reason I have chosen to go 40% which is 85" and not just pull it up at 80" also.

Nitro2Burn

ARUP- It sure is a nice plane, am hoping to make use of the large chin it has. Hopefully will be able to make it tunnel up to behind the engine to somewhat force air into the carby.

I have a DL50 for it at this point and once it is eventually done will sow how well it goes then maybe upgrade to the max engine size of 55cc. Either way both engines have rear carbs to make use of if I can.

HighPlains

My Feedback: (1)

OK, I think there is some confusion on the terminology.

After the war, a new class of midget pylon racer was developed with tight specifications, as a single place 190 cubic inch Continental engine with a minimum wing area and weight. This class got sponsored by the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, and thus became known as Goodyear racers. Goodyear sponsored the event for just three years, but the name stuck until they were later called Formula One racers.

Your event sounds like it also allows aircraft from the so called "Golden Age" of air racing in the late '20's to the '30's. These events were sometimes closed circuit, while others ran from city to city. In some of these there were several classes, based on engine size, but a large part of it was anything goes with few restrictions. For a brief time, these private (and sometimes company built) racers were faster than anything the military flew. Some of the more famous races were the Thompson and Bendix races, with the Bendix being the transcontinental, while the Thompson was a closed course.

Nitro2Burn

It does leave a little bit to spare from definition I know, but there is also a golden era class that if you had a plane to suit you would fly in that. Here is the Golden Era first definition
Golden Era Race Classes
Entries are to be a scale representation of any full size aircraft that either attempted to qualify , qualified , or competed
in either the Thompson Trophy Races in the USA , or the King's cup races in the United Kingdom, or other races of
similar type during the 'Golden Era' No 'builder of the model rule' applies

The good part here is this more or less prevents these racers competeing in the F1 class as it states must have competed or attempted to qualy in Goodyear or F1. However I'm sure there are some crossover aircraft. I rely on the fact that the golden era goodyear style planes won't have the aerodynaimcs of the later F1 aircraft. To be close to the limit I think an F1 plane that comes close to being in the 70's is more what is needed.

For anyone keen to read more about the different classes of large scale racing here in Aus here is a link to the event coming up shortly, at the bottom is the different classes and rules.
[link=http://masnsw.webs.com/2011natairraces.htm]Aus Large Scale Air Race Rules NSW[/link]

ARUP

Interesting that you were thinking of the Cassutt. It has to be the most modified racer ever produced! There are so many iterations of that airplane it is mind numbing! Some may cry sacriledge but at Reno I enjoy the Formula Ones more than the big iron racers. I have built 3 1/4 Cassutts. Each was more 'scale' than the previous. The latest can be seen in my 'gallery'. It is the best flying airplane I have ever built besides Art Chester's 'Jeep'. They were such great flying airplanes that the first two were lost doing stupid things too low to the ground but, like I said, they flew so nice that the 'stupid' flying didn't seem like it at the time! The latest version has a thinned wing profile and teeny-tiny scale sized tail feathers and they are very effective. Also, you know I like the racers by another airplane in my gallery!

js3

My Feedback: (3)

As promised, here are the 3-views...

Nitro2Burn

I do like the look of the Jeep but the Rivets is a plane I just can't get passed. The Cassut was more because it was easy to find a larger plan to scale up as there is a 60" available to suit 50cc. That concerned me a bit as I needed to add 20" to the wingspan and keep the same sized engine. Kind of meant it's a heavy plan so I would have had to do plenty of mods anyways.
The only prob with the Cassut was there is nothing extraordinary about its looks and to stay within the correct time frame I think I would have had to keep the rectangular wing not the tapered one.

Nitro2Burn

Thanks for the 3views they are fantastic, show alot more measurements than I had hoped.

js3

My Feedback: (3)

You're welcome!

I'm glad to help a fellow modeler.

Rendegade

Nitro2burn, I had a RIVETS, was a nice plane, but they do have one flaw. The tailplane. It's prone to breakage. Not sure whether I bumped mine getting it out of the car, or just breathed on it wrong, but coming out of the bottom of a stall turn (nothing special at all) the tailplane parted company with the fuselage and nothing survived.

Make sure the fin is strong and the connection between the fin and tailplane is good and solid!

Nitro2Burn

Am plannin on lining the vertical stab with carbon or kevlar, am leaning towards a bit of kevlar as it has more flex than carbon to allow a little "movement" instead of snapping straight up. The way the rudder is cut into it below the horizontal stab will allow me to add extra beefing inside once the two fuse sides are joined.

That's the theory anyways