Possibly a terrible idea

Great looking plane, fun to fly, super video! Thanks for sharing with us!

Again a great looking model, and again of a plane type that the Finnish Air Force used in WWII.

A Babe Bee will bee quite powerful and heavy for that model. Quillow’s models of the same size have instructions for installing a Pee Wee, and they recommend installing the propeller backwards to reduce the thrust. Of course those are free flight models originally designed for rubber power so they are not as robust as your Curtiss seems to be.

Good luck with the flight, looking forward to seeing the video

Oooooohhhhh! I just LOVE terrible ideas! And I also love the P-36. Got wings and a four stoke engine waiting for me to make up a P-36 fuselage.

The Hawkish Mark

KariFS wrote:Again a great looking model, and again of a plane type that the Finnish Air Force used in WWII.

A Babe Bee will bee quite powerful and heavy for that model. Quillow’s models of the same size have instructions for installing a Pee Wee, and they recommend installing the propeller backwards to reduce the thrust. Of course those are free flight models originally designed for rubber power so they are not as robust as your Curtiss seems to be.

Good luck with the flight, looking forward to seeing the video

I have flown several 400 series airplanes with babe bees, they are fast but mine all flew well.

That’s good news ajkgardner, have you flown them R/C too? I have never seen the 400 series plans, I was thinking of the 300 series (24” private planes).

KariFS wrote:Quillow’s models of the same size have instructions for installing a Pee Wee, and they recommend installing the propeller backwards to reduce the thrust.

This model is nearly 200g, so a Pee Wee just wouldn't pull it. It came out slightly lighter with the Cox engine than with electric power, although not by much. On the other hand, the Baby Bee will be waaay more powerful than the puny electric was. It looks quite at home, so I'm beginning to feel optimistic. Another positive is that I have pretty good access to the needle valve and I didn't even have to cut out half of the cowling.

Going from electric to glow is never a bad idea

I wonder if a TD .020 would have been a better fit? They are pretty powerful for their size. Hope to see it fly!

Cribbs74 wrote:
I wonder if a TD .020 would have been a better fit?

Possibly, if I had one. They seem to be unobtainium, at least where I live. I have never even seen one put up for sale online, let alone with my own eyes. On the other hand, the model barely balances as it is, so having a heavier engine doesn't seem like a bad idea.

I'm planning on flying the model this Thursday.

Good Luck D.G.!!! That Babe Bee looks right-nice and proud...     up-front there! Maybe make a needle-adjusting tool, using a short piece of automotive vacuum hose (rubber type).

The "knob" on your engine's needle looks like the smaller (later) type. A piece of 3/16" (.187") inside-diameter hose would be a good fit. The early Babe Bee's had a larger-diameter knob on their needle.. and would require 1/4" (.250") inside-diameter hose.

The hose; you'll probably have to purchase by the "foot".. unless you happen to have some. You'll only need an inch or two of length to reach down through the opening in the top of your cowling.. but it will be MUCH easier than trying to get your fingers in there.

KariFS wrote:That’s good news ajkgardner, have you flown them R/C too? I have never seen the 400 series plans, I was thinking of the 300 series (24” private planes).

yes , they fly pretty nice, they fly better with a wing mod. Semi symmetrical wing instead of the flat bottom wing that comes with the kit

roddie wrote:Maybe make a needle-adjusting tool, using a short piece of automotive vacuum hose (rubber type).

The "knob" on your engine's needle looks like the smaller (later) type. A piece of 3/16" (.187") inside-diameter hose would be a good fit. The early Babe Bee's had a larger-diameter knob on their needle.. and would require 1/4" (.250") inside-diameter hose.

The hose; you'll probably have to purchase by the "foot".. unless you happen to have some. You'll only need an inch or two of length to reach down through the opening in the top of your cowling.. but it will be MUCH easier than trying to get your fingers in there.

Thank you for the advice, I've been looking for a way to make the needle longer and I haven't been able to come up with anything that wouldn't permanently alter the factory needle, which I don't want to do. I will definitely give the vacuum hose idea a try - in a different model - in this one the access to the "knob" is surprisingly comfortable.

The hose material is not critical and if it hardens with time it almost works better (it stays in place and doesn't flex) compared to a soft and fuel-proof material.

Here is one examples that I used in the 80-ties (PVC line for a fish tank):

Wow, that engine looks like a moonshine distillation facility
What's all that stuff that's attached to it? Is the needle valve actually servo-controlled?

That's my very first glow engine, sporting a DIY muffler, custom sealed tank (due fabrication error) and routing for an external tank. I think it was also the engine of the month a few years back.

That's a Fine looking airplane there and i hope she will perform for you! Let me go back and finish the Vid now /

Rube Goldberg would be proud!! Very innovative idea!!! Wow beyond cool, Mark

The maiden flight today didn't go exactly to plan.

The last time I actually ran this engine was when the horizontal stab on my Dewoitine decided to wander off mid-flight and I crashed the model nose-first into the ground. The airframe was written off, and the engine was full of dirt and sand, so I disassembled it and washed it with acetone to make sure no sand could damage the piston or cylinder. I never actually ran the engine after that crash, I just assumed it was OK and put it on the Curtiss.

However, my assumption as proven wrong when I tried to start it today. It ran rough, was stopping abruptly for no apparent reason, and it never got past 10k RPM. So there is definitely something wrong with the engine. Maybe it's the leftover acetone trapped in the engine, maybe it's sand in the fuel line, or worse yet, the engine is actually broken somehow.

During the weekend I will take it off the model, disassemble it again, clean it thoroughly and bench-test it before using it on the model again.

My engine woes have been addressed - turned out the propeller hub was loose. Changing it to a simple screw resolved the issue, although the engine doesn't really seem to run as consistently as it originally did. Anyway, I managed to get a few flights in yesterday:


In the last flight I crashed the model a little bit, will need glueing up.

Nice flight video! Your plane has a good glide ratio to make it back to the runway after running out of fuel. A little extra tissue and balsa to repair landing roughly should not be a problem!

Nice Flight Video .

That was kicking butt , Thanks !!!

Here's another flight video, in case anyone's interested:


The vertical performance of this model is fantastic - I can just point the nose to the sky and watch it take off like a rocket!
On the other hand, it's heavy for its size, this results in a high sink rate in a glide, and therefore poor landing survivability. I pretty much have to glue it up after each flying session, and the front of the airframe is now more glue than wood. I would need to find some tall grass to land it in, but we really have no grass on the airfield.

For some reason there were plenty of bats, even though it was still daytime.

Nicely done, it looks great and sounds good as well. Ken