Scientific Circle Master

Cribbs74 wrote:I’ve had built planes shipped to me 3 times. All ended in failure…. So strike 3 for me.

You could ask for the plans and box.

The plans are on Outerzone for free: https://outerzone.co.uk/plan_details.asp?ID=4378

Regarding shipping damage, several years ago I received a kit of a rare half-A bipe stick that appeared either the shipper sent already broken, or a postman had folded the box in half to fit into the mailbox, breaking all the balsa sheets and strip wood.

Nice catch, Bob, the T-28 with rarer vintage Enya red head. Had to look at it twice, 4 bolt head versus 6 bolt Testors. Perhaps spare the Enya by crashing it with a McCoy?

Ken has a point, bellcrank is located very high in fuselage, with tip lead out guide raised would cause it to fly level instead of banked out. Probably was a fast flyer as wing area is smallish for a .35.

With the Outerzone plan, the Circle Master would be an easy to scratch build model, plus with the additional wing area, appears it might have a better chance at flying basic stunts.

Nice plane. I built this one back late in 2006. Yep, still unflown as usual. I actually have the vertical stabilizer here at home as it broke off.

rsv1cox wrote:Nice job Chancey, Magic Marker flaps, #1, and ailerons or pin striping?  I always like detail.  Yeah, the guilt of the non-flyer.  Follows me every day.  I think I could get back into it if I only tried.  

Well, she sure is a porky little thing. This was my very first plane I used silkspan on. I didn't know better so I took it to work and primed it with high-build primer. Sanded, then reprimed. Sanded again then got one of my painters to shoot it whatever color they were shooting the vehicle in the spray booth. I then used a paintbrush and painted all the black basecoat on open-handed with no masking, hence the very wavy and unstraight lines although I did have access to everything needed to do a good job. When dry, I got them to clear the whole deal..... I sure didn't know then what I do now, especially when it came to weight. Wish I could give a weight for it, but it is currently residing in the garage at the cottage.

Oh the bonuses of working in a private shop.....

It may seem porky, Chancey, but it has all the right proportions for a potentially good stunt plane. Got no experience with the airfoil, but heard that such diamond rib shapes worked fine. One could even do a reasonable foam clone of it I imagine with a KFM type airfoil.

Auto finish makes it look like a fine piece of work. How many kids back in the day really built lightweight stuff with heavier rock hard balsa that often came with the kits?

They flew, may be not contest grade, but still a blast of fun to do. That and a sense of accomplishment made it all worthwhile to do.

rsv1cox wrote:You did that freehand Chancey...........wow, nice job and I am envious.  And George, the Enya could be a .29.  I forget, one or the other.

Agreed on Chancey's work. Regarding the difference between an Enya .29 and .35, we are only talking an .049 difference in displacement.

rsv1cox wrote:

GallopingGhostler wrote:Agreed on Chancey's work. Regarding the difference between an Enya .29 and .35, we are only talking an .049 difference in displacement.

Good read here George that I bookmarked years ago.  Bob Allan the Enya authority.  He discusses the Enya .29 Racing engine in detail.  I was lucky to score one a few years back.  

http://supercoolprops.com/articles/enya29.php

A .29 was my first Enya, still have it.  .29's outnumber my .35's about two to one.  

Yes, Bob Allan did have an interesting take on the problem US modelers were creating by not making a proper selection, then blaming the motor for not meeting expectations. We even had a "woke" modeling community even back then!

Bob Allan wrote:The company always intended the 29 to be the racer, whilst the 35 was aimed at the stunt flyer, and for the next 30 years, the 29 was rated at the same power as the 35, indicating a higher state of tune in the smaller engine. This however, didn't stop modellers from fitting the 29 into their new Nobler, and the result was that ENYA got a bad reputation as a stunt engine, probably even to this day (give a dog a bad name!). One credible report I've heard even had one hopeful trying to stunt with the ball race 29 Racing Special!

As an aside, probably the best ENYA 35 for stunt flying was the Model 6001 of 1961, which is hardly surprising as it was produced concurrently with the great ENYA 45 6001 plain bearing, one of the best stunt motors ever. These two engines represent the zenith of ENYA stunt technology, conceived as they were in a time when model engines were primarily designed for the C/L flyer, and the R/C throttle was added later as an afterthought. That process would be reversed in years to come, but back then the ENYA 35 was pure stunt.

I don't have any Enya .29's, only two examples of the .35, an earlier III TV and later V TV. However, since I've been a long time small plane flyer, haven't put them to use yet.

Not to deter from the original thread, but thank you both for the compliments on my little monstrosity.....

rsv1cox wrote:Beautiful job Chancey, almost wants me to make an offer.  But my offer would be about .01 considering the shipping.  $79 + $40 is outside my comfort zone.  It's still for sale.

Bob, regarding your originating post mentioning: https://www.ebay.com/itm/324902045684


Yikes, $144.00 with New Mexico, US local 8.2% "VAT" included , that is more than I would be willing to spend on a fixer upper. For those preferring to clone their own, this is a very easy to scratch build model. For easier building, one could even use

https://coxengines.ca/cox--049-engine-firewall-mount-control-line.html


which would simplify the build for a successful flying model as a reasonable facsimile of the original.

Speaking of your .29 Enya, I picked up a similar vintage jewel of an engine, an original Duromatic McCoy .29 venturi engine. (Sorry, cropped seller auction photos, lazy to grab the stored box. )







Using my fuzzy math for upscaling the Circle Master for a standard .35 engine sized stunt model,

.35^(1/3)/.049^(1/3) = 1.9259 scale factor, say 2x. 2 x 16 in. wingspan = 32 in. new wingspan for the .29 engine.

I did notice that on the Scientific plan posted on Outerzone shows the weaker OK Cub .049B with alternate of Cox .049 Babe Bee emphasizing "Sport" (IMO, no Tee Dee head or upgraded cylinder and standard narrower venturi back of the time). This tells me that Walt Musciano intended the plane not to use hotter .049 engines, I imagine because of its smallish wingspan. Thus, it seems that doubling the size would be better for a .19 to .25 cross scavenge engine or Schneurle .15 instead of a vanilla wrapper .35 glow.
Anyway, enough of my rambling.

Bob, the Enema classic you show with the red head. I'm pretty certain it's ball bearing? I have a .35 and a .29 of the same design, they were both square venturi and the later ones came with the aluminum inserts. They should've reintroduced that engine in a plain bearing. I see the mention above of the Enema .45 6001. I ran mine and I can say that I'm not overly impressed. I found it to consume quite a bit more fuel than a modern .46 and it didn't seem to offer even near comparable power. I ran mine with with a 11x5 and it was ok but I wouldn't call it the perfect stunt run.

    I had to make a custom venturi for it. I own about 300 engines and not one venturi fit this engine from any make or size. In addition, the metric shaft equates to you reaming out your props. I personally hate that as it dedicates that prop specifically to that engine.

From a Sterling CL kit? Engine is a black head .19?

Good application of the Testor's Series 21, Bob, a short nosed bipe. You don't see them used much. Out of a stash of about a half dozen in different sizes I bought From the Hickham AFB Hobby Shop in 1974 on clearance, I only have a .40 left.