Minnie Mambo Rescue

Don't know if I would change it at this stage Chancey.

Cox .09 or Norvell would require significant modifications being they are beam mounts.  Been there.  Although there are Tatone mounts. Try it as is, then make a decision.

Based on my experiences, the .09 Tee Dee would be too much power for such a light aircraft with a 36" wingspan, not stressed for it either. I flew mine in the 1980's with a .049 R/C Bee, which had the power roughly of a Golden Bee. With lightweight RC gear and lighter weight silk covered wing it flew very well.

One could put a .049 Medallion in it (with R/C exhaust throttle ring), may be a .049 Tee Dee with RC carburetor. Tone down the Tee Dee a little with the right prop.

I flew my 39" wingspan all sheet balsa Top Flite Schoolmaster with an OS .10R/C back in the late 1970's. It had less power than the .09 Tee Dee but turned the plane into a sport super stunter, a really pleasurable A sized plane.

The Minnie Mambo is certainly not a need-for-speed airplane. Regarding the box saying up to a .09, remember that this was an early 1950's design half-A R/C plane, when engines were less powerful. By the mid 1960's, the .09 - .10 engines (like OS Max .10R/C and Enya .09-III TV) had developed enough that they were too powerful for it. An early 1950's McCoy .09 might work. A 1963 A.C. Gilbert .074 Thunderhead would also work.

rsv1cox wrote:Don't know if I would change it at this stage Chancey.

Cox .09 or Norvell would require significant modifications being they are beam mounts.  Been there.  Although there are Tatone mounts.  Try it as is, then make a decision.

Thanks for the input. The real reason I got to thinking and asking was just possibly worried that if it was really underpowered, would it both make and finish the maiden successfully and in one piece to fly another day. I do really want to try it as it is, and will more than likely do it, but will hopefully have a back-up plan in order.

GallopingGhostler wrote:Based on my experiences, the .09 Tee Dee would be too much power for such a light aircraft with a 36" wingspan, not stressed for it either. I flew mine in the 1980's with a .049 R/C Bee, which had the power roughly of a Golden Bee. With lightweight RC gear and lighter weight silk covered wing it flew very well.

One could put a .049 Medallion in it (with R/C exhaust throttle ring), may be a .049 Tee Dee with RC carburetor. Tone down the Tee Dee a little with the right prop.

I flew my 39" wingspan all sheet balsa Top Flite Schoolmaster with an OS .10R/C back in the late 1970's. It had less power than the .09 Tee Dee but turned the plane into a sport super stunter, a really pleasurable A sized plane.

The Minnie Mambo is certainly not a need-for-speed airplane. Regarding the box saying up to a .09, remember that this was an early 1950's design half-A R/C plane, when engines were less powerful. By the mid 1960's, the .09 - .10 engines (like OS Max .10R/C and Enya .09-III TV) had developed enough that they were too powerful for it. An early 1950's McCoy .09 might work. A 1963 A.C. Gilbert .074 Thunderhead would also work.

Thank you as well for your explination and real life experiences. I was just thinking this is not a light aircraft with 35" wingspan, but rather a very overly 'porky' 35" wingspan plane. Lol. Just did some reading on teh Schoolmaster and their expected AUW is stated at keeping it around 19 oz. Plus teh 4" bigger wing. But all in all, I guess it is not that far off what I do have here. Thanks again for the help and explination of the larger engines.

NEW222 wrote:Thank you as well for your explination and real life experiences. I was just thinking this is not a light aircraft with 35" wingspan, but rather a very overly 'porky' 35" wingspan plane. Lol. Just did some reading on teh Schoolmaster and their expected AUW is stated at keeping it around 19 oz. Plus teh 4" bigger wing. But all in all, I guess it is not that far off what I do have here. Thanks again for the help and explination of the larger engines.

You are welcome. Regarding its porky looks, it was designed for the radios of the time, which were 1 or 2 tube (valve) super-regenerative receivers with 1.5 to 3 volt heater elements, a 45 to 67 Volt B supply for tube plate current, and another 3 volt battery for escapement control electrics. Being larger including the battery payload, the fuselage had a cavernous area to haul such.

For example, the similar 1953 Hal DeBolt 34" wingspan Livewire Kitten aircraft radio installation:



Battery and switch wiring for several different receivers. Note, the 22.5 Volt hearing aid or photo flash batteries were still available in the early 1970's. I bought them back in the 1960's and 1970's to use with my flash bulb unit for 120 and 220 roll film box cameras (2.25"x2.25" negative size). They looked exactly like your standard 9 Volt transistor battery, even had the same connectors, but were about 0.25 inches longer.



Can you imagine all of this using less powerful carbon zinc dry batteries of the time, which had shortened life? I don't know how often they needed to be replaced, but it must have been may be a half dozen flights, given the low milli-Amp Hour (mAH) capacity of the batteries.

It may be that the original builder may have used finishing materials to make it slightly heavier. I never weighed mine, but imagine that its weight with radio and batteries was under a pound. You only have 200 square inches of wing area. With modern radio gear and batteries should help to keep it light enough for good sport flying.

Mine is at 1 lb 8 oz. So I believe I am at 1 1/2 pounds overall. Oh well, I will give it a try as it is. I am using 2 E-Flite EFLR60 servos, 1/16" diameter rods for controls, small 3d printed control horns. Receiver is an offshore 2.4 6 channel receiver (10.4 grams), and battery is a 4 cell AA NiCd battery.

It may turn al Good after al keap speed try To avoid hard crash the plane look strong y tink its possible To fly wit it wil just take time To start fly at Good speed try Throwing with the hand start runing than lunch Not trow like A slight push

That was another debate. Let it rise off ground, or hand launch it. I was personally thinking of rise off ground cause if it did not take off, it would not fly anyways and do no damage to the plane. However if I hand launched it, I would do so over an area of tall grass or such just in case it did not fly. With winter here, it has also crossed my mind in trying it out when there is some soft white fluffy stuff on the ground too.

So many decisions and options available to get this thing up and running.

NEW222 wrote:Mine is at 1 lb 8 oz. So I believe I am at 1 1/2 pounds overall. Oh well, I will give it a try as it is. I am using 2 E-Flite EFLR60 servos, 1/16" diameter rods for controls, small 3d printed control horns. Receiver is an offshore 2.4 6 channel receiver (10.4 grams), and battery is a 4 cell AA NiCd battery.

That puts it at 24 oz. Bob Aberle's similar sized electrified DeBolt Livewire Kitten weighed at 22.5 oz. using the then dated 400 brushed geared electric motor with 9x4 prop and older flight packs. So, they are close.

NEW222 wrote:That was another debate. Let it rise off ground, or hand launch it. I was personally thinking of rise off ground cause if it did not take off, it would not fly anyways and do no damage to the plane. However if I hand launched it, I would do so over an area of tall grass or such just in case it did not fly. With winter here, it has also crossed my mind in trying it out when there is some soft white fluffy stuff on the ground too. So many decisions and options available to get this thing up and running.

Regarding ROG, The Minnie doesn't do a good job IMO, ground loops very easily. You may have better luck with a throttle-able engine, but I never had much luck even with throttle. A good strong hefty toss by hand straight out is all that is required, like you would a baseball, holding the fuselage just behind the landing gear. It flies out at about a 35 MPH speed IMO. After all, it is a cabin job, not a speed plane.

I'd have to brush the dust off my rebuilt Minnie, put radio gear and batteries in and weigh it. May be 5 years ago I made a new fuselage, totaled in a Figure-9 back in the early 1980's.  I put a Norvel Big Mig .061 R/C in it with the 1 oz. tank mount. Wing I'll have to recover, because I used shrink older sock covering, but it never quite aligned right warping. I have standard plastic covering that would be better for it.

There hasn't been as much motivation to quickly finish, as here in Eastern NM, we almost always have winds above 15 MPH at the flying field, making small flight and rudder only flying nearly impossible. (Hardly any trees, the tallest terrain feature are the parking lot speed bumps in front of Hobby Lobby.)

Wow. Your Minnie looks terrific. And now you brought up another great point. With a model such as this, at what wind speed would one be able to fly these small planes in? Or should I say it as what is the max safe wind speed one should fly these little planes in. Is there a cutoff where you do not fly past? Sorry for all the questions, but at every turn, it seems that another question pops up.

So all this Minnie Mambo talk got me looking again at another plane I have here that has also yet to fly, and it is another ruddr only model I had posted about on here.

Goldberg Skylane 42

Funny thing is I had yet to fly this plane as well. This was supposed to be flown last year, but due to teh whole Covid thing I did not start my training and flying till late in the year and was not able to get cleared to fly on my own. So this is also waiting to get airborne. But ironically I did leave the Skylane as a rudder only ship due to the removable horizontal tail. And it too is a bit porky weighing in at 25 oz. I somehow seem to have a thing for old porky little planes. The biggest difference is that teh Skylane is currently sporting a Cox Golden Bee engine. Now off to go calculate wing loading on it as well just for kicks.

(Hardly any trees, the tallest terrain feature are the parking lot speed bumps in front of Hobby Lobby.) Wink wrote:

lol George ya'll fly close to a Hobby Lobby / that's convenient that was quick to get flight ready , i think you will bee alright with the W/S even at the weight there even with the wide fuse you get lift from that too .. keep us informed and stay safe .

Yeah, I'm with David on this one, the 680g may be too much for a reedie. Perhaps you could get away with it if the wing loading was low, but it is almost 50g/dm^2, about twice what I like to see for my little Bee-powered fighters. Probably an 0.09 (1.5cc) would be a better fit.

Well, it is official. It is done and ready for flight, whenever that may be. It is just as stated earlier, 1 lb 8 oz. This is complete ready to fly with battery and everything, minus the 5cc of fuel. The only thing I did not do or add yet is a switch which will bring the AUW up just a tad more. Heck, I'll probably put it in in a couple of minutes just so I can say I did!

Well, this will be the last update till it flies.... Total AUW ready to fly is a hefty 1 lb 8.5 oz. That is with everything except the fuel. It includes the rubber bands too. The increase in weight was just a tad more than I expected, but this was due to me having to put a brace on teh side of the fuselage to mount the receiver to as well as the velcro used to attach the receiver, and the last minute decision to use a switch which beforehand I was not going to use. So overall, for the weight it already was, I don't think the extra .4 would hurt it any..... Only time will tell.

Worst case scenario is it doesn't fly well and I have to upgrade the engine. I do have an old Enya .15 here with butterfly exhaust......

I would go for a Norvel .074. More power than the .09 and can turn a 7x3 prop much quicker. .09 is heavier though. I think.

There are plenty of hop ups you can do with that Babe bee, however more performance would equate to less fuel economy. With only .5CC your flight will likely be less than 2 mins if you mod the engine. You could put that front end on a horseshoe backplate and run an external tank. Would add some weight up front too.

Ron