What is this?

Back mid-October, I emailed "Kirt Blattenburger" on the advice of CEF member "Lieven" for info. on the "Topper" (a.k.a. Falcon) that my Uncle gave me. I got a reply yesterday!

Here's what I wrote to him, followed by his reply...  (note the "News Flash" inserted by Kirt, in the link I sent!)
_______________________________________________________________________________________
October 16, 2013
Hi Kirt,

My name is Roger Jordan. I found you through "Cox Engine Forum" member "Lieven"... when searching for info. on a plane given to me by my Uncle. The model is a "Topper" a.k.a. "Falcon" as confirmed by your archives. Previous searches over the years had come up with nothing. Here is the article that "Lieven" found for me;

http://www.airplanesandrockets.com/airplanes/topper-article-plans-march-1962-american-modeler.htm

My "Topper" is built (framed-up/not covered) but missing it's fin/vert. stab./rudder. (See attached pics...) I have a spare fin/rudder from a Veco Warrior, that I thought would look scale... (until I saw the actual plan in your archives) Are the plans available?

My model is also slightly different; in that it was built with 1/8" sheet balsa wing-ribs... and not the 1/16" sheet with 1/16" x 1/4" cap-strips as specified in the "build" article. My Uncle built the plane back in the 60's... but the plan(s) are long gone.

Both C.E.F. members; "Lieven" and "Kim" speak very highly of you... and they have both been very friendly and helpful to me since I joined the forum a few months ago. There's a lot of really great people there!

I enjoyed reading about "your" experience in the hobby. My Dad, Uncle and Grandfather were all C/L Stunt builders/fliers years ago... and having been born in 1960... (I'm 53) I have fond memories of those years.

I would like to hear back from you. I have most plan sets for my models, except for the "Topper"... It would be nice to have a set to at least "document" the model.

Thanks in advance,
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________________
Kirt's Reply:

October 27, 2013
Greetings Roger:

Thanks for sending the photos of your uncle's Topper model. It's great to see surviving specimens from the era. I have attached my highest resolution version of the plans scan. The original was not even a full page width, so it is only 2,268 pixels wide, but that's better than the 1,500-pixel version on the website.

I hope you don't mind that I posted one of the photos you sent on the Topper web page, and I also put a note on the Airplanes and Rockets homepage to let readers know as well. If you remember to send another pic once the model is complete and ready to fly, I'll be glad to post that, too.

I apologize for the delayed response, but we just closed on the sale of our house on Friday, so things have been a bit hectic whilst moving into temporary quarters.

Take care.
Sincerely,
Kirt Blattenberger

______________________________________________________________________________________
 What a great guy! I sent him a letter thanking him and wishing him luck with his moving transition.

Thanks again "Lieven" for your help!!

Glad I could help, Roger. I found a Stunthanger topic about the plane:

http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php?topic=527.0;wap2

And here's an article about the 1962 contest:

http://www.airplanesandrockets.com/magazines/americas-best-youthful-flyers-march-1962-american-modeler.htm

Lieven

OVERLORD wrote:Glad I could help, Roger.

And here's an article about the 1962 contest:

http://www.airplanesandrockets.com/magazines/americas-best-youthful-flyers-march-1962-american-modeler.htm

Lieven

What a great read!!! Thanks so much Lieven! Well-spent State/Fed. tax dollars in those years (IMHO)!!... Too bad the program was so short-lived. It's always a shame when budget cuts directly affect any youth program.

Roger

bumping this thread.. because I just realized that the engine used on this model, flown to fame by "Eddie Elasic" back in 1961.. was a Fox .25.. and it just so happens that I acquired a Fox .25 recently in a "box-o-engines" free.. from a generous fella down the road a bit from me. It's not the "period-correct" Fox .25... but it's going to be the engine that I'm very tempted to try first on the airplane. The engine is a Fox .25 RC that I'm assuming is a later vintage.. but has been fitted with a C/L venturi/needle.







The engine is relatively "clean".. and compression is excellent. I wouldn't hesitate to bench-run it... as-is. The needle-valve's taper is symmetrical.. as opposed to the earlier stunt-engines. I'm wondering if it's an OEM Fox conversion?

Now that I have some good fuel.. I'd really like to run this engine. Any suggestions on props?

The carburetor Fox used was a PIA double needle and rather difficult to use. When set up properly they are OK. The plate allows for changing between RC and CL setups and was used on later models, say 1980 and later(I am guessing to a certain extent, but it is based on engines I grew up with and have)

Phil

The engine came with the CL venturi. When you say good fuel what does that mean? That engine will run fine on just 22% oil 50/50. Don't load this engine up with too much oil. It has a bad tendency to shut off at some very odd times anyhow. As far as the CL venturi, these weren't always conversion some came with the rc case and some didn't. The engine runs fast, it's not a good choice to learn to fly cl with due to the stack which can snap off of of the case breaking it. Air leaks at the base of the case, the POS needle valve yours is missing the spring, the fact that the stack is cut square offers funny engine runs and it's a real pain in the rear to choke when the prop is on. This is not a engine that you want to run in a 4 cycle. It's a solid two therefore you want a 9x4 and you want it wound up. The engine was introduced in the mid 70's That needle is the same needle used on several Fox engines. You would be much better off with a modern .25 rather than wasting time fiddle screwing around with that engine. I have that engine and yes I can get it to work. However, seeing that most bolt patterns on Fox's are the same, you would be much better off with a stunt .35 which can offer a more reliable and timid run if you were interested in something a bit vintage.  As I always mention, take out that Fox plug and smash it with a hammer.

C'mon Ken Fox plugs aren't totally useless. I use them for tip weight in 1/2A planes.

I would remove the backplate and flush any dirt, etc. out, then bench run it. If you like it, use it. If not, set it aside. It gained a bit of respect as an RC version.

George

It works, but you won't like the run.

I swapped one in place of a .35 on my super clown to save some nose weight. It did ok, but like Ken mentioned it's not a stunt motor. It likes to be run up.

I put the .35 back on after 10 flights or so.

I have a .19 fox built just like that one. I have had the same results as has been mentioned here. The vibration of my engine is horrible. It wants to scream all the time. With three head gaskets, cold plug, 10% fuel I got mine flyable. Not a big fan. But I'm not a Fox fan anyway. Put a redhead on there and enjoy!
Phil:D

Ironically, I think the best series of engines Fox ever produced was the .19 and .25 ball bearing series engines with the cylinder that rotates for side or rear exhaust. The .25 is a terrific and powerful engine not to mention it's weight. It's the lightest .25 ball bearing engine made. The .19 and the .25 share the same case. These are real sleepers and most don't even know what they are. I've seen them go on Ebay for ridiculous low amounts of money. The .25 will outperform a LA .25 with no problem. The same iron piston technology but these needs a little bit of nurturing at first until they break in. Once run in though you will have a engine that works incredibly well for many aspects of the hobby. The .19 runs almost as strong as the .25 does.



https://i.servimg.com/u/f11/19/68/84/08/dscn2613.jpg

https://i.servimg.com/u/f11/19/68/84/08/dscn2615.jpg

Thanks for the tips guys. The model was actually flown back in the days after my uncle built it. There's some oil-staining up front and the beams are drilled for a Fox. My .35 fits perfectly. The airplane was originally covered with tissue and clear-doped. My dad told me that my uncle was never a "finish-guy". He'd build a model in a couple of nights with barely any sanding.. throw-on some tissue or silk.. clear-dope/fuel-proofer.. and it was "off to the field". When I received this model (decades ago..) the tissue had been completely cut out of the rib-bays. There's still some tissue on the L/E.. and solid panels. I guess I could just sand it smooth.. and anything that's loose will flake-off. The model could use a bit of sanding anyway..

BTW Ken, the "correct-fuel" I was referring to is PowerMaster 10-22. I recently sourced a gallon.

Cut out the open bays, cover it with Monokote. Don't try and over think this and smooth everything out. It's not worth the time. Don't try and force off what won't peel off with sandpaper, cover it and fly it. The planes that you have are old, there also brittle. So even though they haven't been flown, there will be issues with them and most if not all of theglue joints are probably in need of replacing.

Ken Cook wrote:         Cut out the open bays, cover it with Monokote. Don't try and over think this and smooth everything out. It's not worth the time. Don't try and force off what won't peel off with sandpaper, cover it and fly it. The planes  that you have are old, there also brittle. So even though they haven't been flown, there will be issues with them and most if not all of theglue joints are probably in need of replacing.

Yes.. I know.. I over-think everything.. It's a curse Ken. Your advice however will be noted.. and I'll apply it if (when) I start to obsess.

I'll need to spend some time fixing things. The fuel-tank was glued-on.. and I'm hoping that I can pry it off without damaging the ply-doubler.

not a very attractive photo..



The fin and rudder need to be replicated from the plan..




I want to have the plan enlarged to scale. Can a copy-center having a large-format printer do this easily by working-off the scale provided at the bottom?

Looking at that photo, I would have to ask myself how much I love that plane. I personally wouldn't attempt it. If that nose has been subjected to oil soaking which more than likely it has, then the doubler glue joints are very compromised. It would be beneficial in terms of engine run quality, time invested, overall appearance to make another one. It appears as though this design has very short engine mounts and long doubler. All vibrations are telegraphed directly into the doubler at the termination point of the bearers. The doubler glue joints especially at this juncture is very important. If that plane was glued entirely using Ambroid I would give it a very short lifespan possibly even as short as 1 flight . I've seen this many many times. The plane literally shakes itself apart in flight. The problem is where do you stop. If you replace the fuse, the stresses take their toll on the next piece of the puzzle which is the wing sheeting. While your able to glue the new fuse on to the wing, the wing joints begin failing. It's somewhat like working on a rusted out vehicle. Until it's all replaced, it doesn't have it's full integrity.