Guillows kits

Bob, your response is quite accurate. Guillows kits don't handle the rigors of control line. They really need a lot of work and the flying ability of them is not very good. When things are scaled down, they generally don't work well. The wings are thin, the chord is generally narrow and the fact that these wings are not symmetrical all equate to a plane that goes round and round. Built up surfaces such as rudder and stab warp badly and they just don't have the strength needed to sustain the job at hand. The landing gear especially is a major problem. They just aren't up to the job and a lot of beefing up is required. The problem is that when you beef up the gear, the shock transmits back into the structure and the weakest link fails.

In addition, to acquire the strength needed for the engine alone, this requires sheeting the fuse with 1/32". This isn't a easy task due to complex compound curves. I'm currently working on the Guillow Thomas Morse Scout for freeflight and this involved many challenges. In the end, I like the reward but it's painful getting there.

Here's a link to a PDF that's available on the Guillow's Flying models Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1538675473123901/permalink/2950337038624397

a thread or two on RCUniverse;
https://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/control-lines-231/11631798-cox-049-engine-guillows-planes.html#post12246333

Here is one closer to home!!!
https://www.coxengineforum.com/t6767p25-guillow-s-p40-warhawk-build-photos-of-the-finished-model

I built the Thomas Morris Scout many years ago (like 50). Wouldn't fly free flight with the 0.020 but did ok with a Golden Bee control line. Still have most of it kicking around in my shop.

Reviewing Lieven's thread regarding his Guillows P-40 rubber band conversion to nitro power and looking at his pictures




made me give up on ever attempting the conversion myself.  

What was it's final fate Lieven rebuild or firewood?

That's a very simple repair and I would even have that fixed at the field. I keep balsa with me and I use a special covering which appears to look like packing tape but it's 18" wide. I have it on a large roll and I keep 2' with me. As I mentioned, the plane would probably still be intact if the fuse was sheeted. I've made temp repairs to fly equally as bad as this one pictured and fix it later.

Even Guillow on their plans recommends filling in the rectangles with trimmed pieces of 1/16" sheet balsa to form a planking to several bulkhead sections behind the engine. There is a reason for this, to provide considerable strength to mitigate such mishaps, also helps to dampen failure otherwise caused by engine vibration, especially since there isn't much gluing surface area to the stringer bulkhead slots near the engine.

As Ken says, it is definitely repairable, if it were me I'd peel back the covering, repair frame then plank.

Anything is repairable, the question is - is it worth it.  

Witness my 1977 MG Midget.  I paid $250 for it.  Rust bucket.  When finished (not bad) I sold it for what I had in it , about $2200.  But my labor - down the drain. Hundreds of hours of it.  No matter to me, I loved doing it, but to others...........





Krylon rattle can paint job.  Same dry rotted tires that were on it when I bought it.  plus, plus...... It was one of those - see if I can things.

Labor of love, Bob, you did a tremendous amount of work. But, I feel like you, yes, satisfying to do, but what benefit is there if another enjoys it? I did the same with Big Stick 60, paid for it without engine for $25 or $35, then started to work. I got less for it with engine than I put into it. But it sat in my garage ceiling for more than 5 years, was taking up space. I knew at the rate I was going, to learn to fly such a monster, I'd probably be pushing daisies by then.

True, in the case of say that aircraft, repairs can wait until a more opportune time. I did not repair my Minnie Mambo until 30 some years later, required a new fuselage and tail, salvaged only the landing gear and bulkhead it was mounted to. But everyone has their own speed and priorities, more power to them.

i love a good guillows kit as much as the next guy.
And I love cox motors.

But I also enjoy successful flying, not a fistfight every time, and the disappointment of piles of crushed balsa and dreams.

IF I really wanted to build a guillows rig? I'd consider kit-bashing the lancer, which many have done for RC.
this feller uses an electric motor, but 100% could be a cox .020 instead

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ju6TXun8myU


ME? for MY time and energy? I build the Guillows as free flight rubber, and build stronger, dedicated planes for U-control or FF.


Cox CL - a Ringmaster with an .049 would be fun
https://willynillies.com/buy-here/ols/products/jr-skylark-250-beta-kit-pre-order-now-limited-quantities-available-shipping-3rd-week-of-december

Cox FF - a top banana would be awesome
https://jhaerospace.com/product/top-banana-200/


good luck, and whatever ya build - post pix, and share with all the rest of us

Having little success with my Thomas Morris Scout as an 0.020 powered free flight, I later built the Super Cub 195 powered with the 0.020 Pee Wee and covered in lightweight nylon. This thing flew like a bird. 50 years later I may attempt to add radio control to a replacement airframe.

Holding that model before its maiden flight it just felt right compared to the biplane.

Jim how do you like the lightweight nylon ? I looked it up cause i had not heard of it before and it looks impressive . I didn't get to deep into it what kind of dope do you use after glue and ironing ? Thanks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdQp6eit2IM  

When I first started modelling your choices for covering included silkspan, silk and nylon. Silkspan you just look at it and it's ripped. So nylon was the way to go. The stuff light enough that you can see through it. I installed it by pinning it to the balsa wing or empennage and then adhering it with butyrate clear dope. You would stretch it reasonably tight and the shrinkage would occur when the fabric was doped. FWIW nitrate dope shrinks even more but insn't fuel proof.
Nylon or silk goes around corners better than monokote particularly on wingtips. In many cases it is practical to completely wrap a wing with nylon whereas the more modern coverings are best done in sections.
I still have a VooDoo covered in nylon over 50 years ago and the covering is still fine.
And I doubt that it is much heavier than doped silkspan although I don't have any data to prove this.

I think today, the way to go with covering on these models is definitely iron covering. Phil Cartier offers the SLC ( Super Light Covering). After 20 years he finally sold the last and the company wouldn't offer him the same product. He had to order a thicker mill thickness to obtain the amount he wanted to purchase. I haven't used the newer stuff. I have plenty of the old stuff and I typically use it to cover foam combat wings.This Mylar like material goes equally well on open frame work, compound curves takes a bit of patience and a heat gun but it works well. Most freeflight builders are using Doculam. I have purchased this product from Oregan Laminating company. I contacted them and they put me in the direction I needed. These are just lightweight iron on clear plastics. They can be scuffed and painted with virtually any paint.

I'm a dyed in the wool silkspan user. I did my Guillows plane in silkspan but I use Dave Brown Flex-All plasticizer and more than recommended. This really makes the silkspan supple almost Monokote like. It still punctures but not like a potato chip. Dave Brown discontinued the product for a few years due to most not using dope any more. I actually found a hobby shop that carried it and I just replenished my old stock. The bottle is very generic and so is the labeling. They don't even tell you the oz. amount on the label. I approximate 5 oz's and it cost $8.