Warrior "flapped" stunter

I have one Warrior left. I did a very nice one a few years back. I sold it to a fellow in New Jersey. I had a rubbed out doped finish on it. I had a lot time in that plane. It was remarkable actually. He still flies it today with a K&B .28 in it. He just loves the plane and has a lot of fun with it. I had a few other models I sold and recently gave one away. My Southwick Skylark was sitting around for the past 3 years. I was in the dope stage, I just didn't finish it. My son didn't want me parting with it. I just gave it to my fellow club member Skip. I knew Skip liked it and would finish it. I built the entire model aside from the wing covering. Here's a recent picture of the Skylark.

https://www.facebook.com/PhillyFliersCL/photos/pcb.1228843743852424/1228842540519211/?type=3&theater

Skip, Dennis and Steve are all smiles after a very successful day of flying the SKylark. I can't wait to get some handle time on her.

           I have a Chief and I don't know what to do with it. So many to build, not enough time. I still might do my other Warrior. Ken

That Skylark is slick Ken! If you lived nearby, I'd give you my uncovered Warrior. God only knows if I'll ever do anything with it. I think my Dad had a Chief.. They were all Veco/Sterling kit guys; my gramps, dad and uncle.. although my uncle also built Top-Flite kits and built some models from plans (the Jr. Falcon). My dad and uncle are still with us.. but neither would think of picking up a handle to fly now. My dad has diabetic-neuropathy in his feet.. and his brother in-law (Uncle Vin) has had trouble with dizzy-spells that started coming-on decades ago. He gave me his Renegade recently. The only thing he has left of the hobby is the ST .35 that was on it. He's given me most everything else.

The Warrior has nice lines.. even if utilitarian. I think my dad designed the trim scheme.



I decided to give the model a warm home. Plus.. I made it fit up in to the basement ceiling right next to his more recent Monocoupe.

When you look back onto the 1st page, this was a older thread and Super Dave chimed in. One model he didn't mention was the Papoose there was also the Tomahawk. These were just cool planes. As for the Veco, I would just continue running it. I don't clean my engines as some do on here, I have seen some pretty negative things happen when that's done. I run them. Don't fix what's not broke and enjoy them.

Ken Cook wrote:                  When you look back onto the 1st page, this was a older thread and Super Dave chimed in. One model he didn't mention was the Papoose there was also the Tomahawk. These were just cool planes. As for the Veco, I would just continue running it. I don't clean my engines as some do on here, I have seen some pretty negative things happen when that's done. I run them. Don't fix what's not broke and enjoy them.

Yea.. I have old Veco kit-boxes advertising the different models of the period. Just a few.. "The Brave", "Little Tomahawk", "Smoothie", "Scout", "Dakota", "Tom Tom". "Little Tom Tom", "Mustang", "Sioux" and "Thunderbird"... are listed on my box..

It's my assumption that Veco was acquired and split between model-companies; Dumas, for continued or possibly obligatory kit production.. and K & B ended up with the engine/parts/tooling? I can't make that claim for certain though.

This is one of a very few engines that I've thought about taking apart. It's the dirtiest one I have by far. The venturi is filthy inside. Maybe I should just swab/flush it out best I can.. and leave it be? I removed the needle. It was hard to turn/open at first.. but got easier. The seat is probably fouled with goo. The needle easily wiped-clean.. but I'll want to flush out the spray-bar/seat with something. Should I just submerge the nose of the case in solvent beforehand?

I've got an engine-thread going too.. Maybe better off to continue a cleaning-discussion there.

This is from an old 1965 catalog I got recently,

I had a pair of warriors my dad built for learning the pattern. They were too little so he gave them to me. One had a McCoy 19 with a Tatone Peace Pipe, and other a Stallion 35. They flew fairly well, once I learned to fly them with 52 foot lines and 8x5 on the McCoy and a 10x5 of the Stallion. I think dad built them with a small flap deflection compared to the elevator to keep the drag down on the short wings and its short moments like Ken mentioned way back a few years on this thread. I did learn a lot on these models and they were easy to fly for a little boy carrying them to the school yard and back. Nothing as good flying as a Magician which I had a pair later or a modern kit of the Smoothie.
Ringmasters are really good flying models for basic stuff.
Chris...

I have a set of plans for the Papoose using a Norvel .15. It certainly is a cool looking plane. I bet that .15 with it's lightweight and power would make a terrific little stunter. I have a Renegade kit but I have to say, for being a combat flyer myself, that plane has too many parts in the box. I enjoy building them but like many of the period planes, they seriously overcomplicated the wing construction.

Roddie, your Veco may well run if you clean the needle and spraybar well, remove and check the glowplug, oil it up a bit and turn it over by hand a couple dozen times to loosen up the gum before trying it, but I'd recommend a teardown and crockpot/anti-freeze cleaning.
It has an aluminum head gasket so minimal chance of damage to it and a backplate gasket is easy to make.
From the pix it should clean up beautifully.
See Chinn's review (last page) for a peculiarity in teardown:
http://sceptreflight.com/Model%20Engine%20Tests/Veco%2035C.html

And how about asking your dad whether to recover and fly the Warrior or keep as is?
IMO, I think his color/trim scheme makes a very elegant looking model.

FWIW I bought an old S-2 Mustang built with Ambroid an unknown number of years ago that came down on my 2nd flight after the flap link pulled loose.
Not too much damage but the outboard wing literally fell apart when I pulled the old silkspan off - ribs fell off the TE and spar, LE off.
I really want to get it back together this winter - I felt more confident flying it than any plane (of just a few, actually) I've had a handle on.

I see no reason whatsoever to pull an engine apart just because it's dirty on the exterior. If it's turning over smoothly, it's ready to go.  When you remove a head, the gasket regardless of material is no good once it's been  compressed. Yes, we all do it which is use it again. However, when you take a old engine that's sealed up from running, you now compromise the compression due to removing the seal of carbon and varnish which filled in any voids the gasket didn't originally seal. The only need to do is to make sure the rod is moving freely on the wrist pin. The need to always take things apart amazes me actually. Many times especially in a Fox .35, I see people take out the liner. There's no indexing on that liner and the chances of someone putting it exactly back in the same spot is slim to none. In addition, burnt castor goes up the entire side of the exhaust bypass due to more heat on that side of the cylinder. When all that's removed and polished up real clean, the end result is poor heat transfer. This can seriously distort the liner. It was heat cycled through the years  and conditioned itself stable. By all this cleaning you essentially take a good engine and now can potentially ruin it by thinking that making it cleaner will make it run better. I can't comment on the antifreeze method, I have never done it because there's just no need for it.

                   I would like an explanation as to why there's a need to soak an engine in antifreeze or take it apart. Seeing I fly combat, I have stuffed my share of engines into the ground up to the leading edge of the wing. I have never felt the need to take anything apart aside from removing the backplate. If I remove a plug and see dirt, I either flush with fuel or if it's so bad I take it home, remove the backplate and flush it out in the sink with hot soapy water . This practice absolutely has to be done if this happens with ball bearing engines. You can't properly flush out dirt of the ball races by using fuel, it must be dismantled followed by hot soapy water and running.  I have never ruined a engine doing so. I'm still on my original engine that I started in the hobby with 40 + years ago. I have engines that are completely caked black with carbon and castor varnish. They're my best running engines bar none. Why would I want to remove that aside from the area to give my clip contact on the head? By no means am I trying to be a smart a@@ I just would like an explanation.

My recommendation was based on the impression that Roddie is thinking of preserving a family heirloom.
While nothing more than putting it away would certainly accomplish that, if that was my purpose I'd simply want it spiffy clean and prettified.
As he's noted in his referenced engine thread he has other engines to fly, much more suited to stunt than the Veco and not requiring any detuning.

Stripping down an engine should always be a last resort and I never really see the need to tear apart a runner.

Caution is needed and there are always reasons why a motor might need more than a wipe down. The ingress of dirt in the venturi, in my opinion, always needs attention but ....... there is always a but .........a combat engine that has eaten dirt is usually pressed back into service. It is a contest engine and the chances are that there is very little that is abrasive in the dirt.

I would remove the back plate and flush out with fresh fuel.

I see no necessity to take apart a regularly fired up engine to do a spotless spring clean - it is a working beast. If I was putting it in a new model - then I would clean up the outside but with just a toothbrush and a selection from the myriad of fluids that I have.

I have never used a "crock pot" because I don't have one and prefer other methods.

When I get an engine and can get it to turn over with very little effort then I clean the outside - bear in mind that the majority of engines I get are considered scrap or "for parts" - but I have selected that engine because it is a golden oldie.

Here is an example of what I would call a partial restore. An old ED engine - 60 years old when I got it, and seized (They usually are!). A couple of hours in Hoppes No 9 and here are the before and afters.





Why would I do this? It isn't a perfect example or considered by me to be a shelf queen.

I want to see the serial number, make sure that the mounting lugs haven't been butchered, check for cracks and see that all the screws are intact (not been forced open by a gorilla with a chisel!)

Many engines I wouldn't contemplate touching but some ........

An ED 2.46 - sadly neglected - seized absolutely solid - crankcase corroded ....... just my "cup of tea"





Here you can see that the piston is seized solid in the linerbut the crankshaft moved freely.



What you don't see are the marks I made before removing the cylinder head assembly so that I could reassemble it in, as Ken indicates, almost the same position. The cylinder and piston/conrod MUST be replaced exactly as found. It is likely that an engine like this has "settled" - the cylinder and piston will not be round but a near perfect match.



There are some restores that I may take too far! Here we have a Thermal Hopper - well sort of!

Broken crankshaft





Grimmer than grim





I have seen worse and heat and a good soaking is the only way to breathe life into these things. There are varying degrees of grim but I do understand why some of use take to a crock pot - especially with an unknown motor.

The venturi on this went to complete a Space bug - the crankcase was bored out and shortened to take a Bee crankshaft, the piston and cylinder were cleaned - the cylinder blackened and used for another restore.

The crankcase, Bee crankshaft, rear plate/ reed assembly were used to build the engine in the "Rocking Donkey".



So - I agree with Ken and you should think carefully before stripping an engine as the chances of ruining it are high but ....... some will not clean themselves or free up easliy.

No engines were harmed in the creation of this post. The EDs were reestablished as runners and the Space Hopper rejuvenated following minor surgery.

Hey Terry, I'm all over the road with my modeling intensions. I do intend to run all my "runnable" engines at some point.. even if just bench-runs. Thanks for the compliments on my dad's green Warrior. As-is.. it would probably fly if I flushed the tank-out. With the Veco engine installed.. there's about 1/8" of clearance between the engine-to tank-pressure fittings.. requiring only a short (5/8") length coupler-line that must be installed when mounting the engine. Too close/short to clamp-off with hemostats for cranking. The tank is inaccessible to swap-out unless I do some cutting. I'll have to ask my dad what his cranking-procedure was.. if he remembers. It's been 45-50 years since that engine has run. That Warrior with it's vinyl-covered wing is probably 5-10oz. overweight.. but would do roundy-rounds if I dared to fly it.  

Here's a glimpse at how dad did the .032"  solid lead-outs at the bellcrank. The mount looks fairly well-braced.. from what I can see of it. The flap/elev. horns are completely enclosed and inaccessible for inspection.



I see Ken's point. I think that some modelers feel the need to disassemble a newly acquired used engine, if they suspect something's amiss. Missing screws.. binding, seized.. someone having monkeyed with it, who didn't know what they were doing.. Maybe the PO wasn't available to provide a history.

As for the antifreeze/crock-pot treatment.. Ken has swayed me away from that now. I thought about what he wrote concerning castor/varnish-assisted fitment of surfaces.. and melting that all away is really not a good thing to do. My understanding was.. that many modelers apply it to "unstick" a castor-seized engine.. with the side-benefit of cleaning the outer-surfaces at the same time. I've always wondered what affect if any, this has on fibrous gaskets? Maybe it causes them to swell; only to shrink later and blow-out during an engine-run? Replacement gaskets for vintage engines aren't a dime a dozen.. and if you can't remove the head or backplate due to buggered screw-heads.. you can forget about running that one for a while.. if ever.

I appreciate all the comments/advice. Open-minded thinking really helps to proceed in a logical way with anything.

My post wasn't written to sway or direct. I was just asking a question nor was I trying to say what is right and what is wrong. I mentioned if the engine is turning over smoothly. That was key in the beginning of the post. Ian's examples showing a pitted rusty engine is a no brainer. I personally don't judge an engine condition based on appearance so I don't get googly eyed over a shiny engine. Castor oil itself is a preservative. I guess if your looking to get that engine in new like condition, the crock pot would be a alternative way to go. However, that being said, I've also seen some aluminum castings not take well to the antifreeze method and the casting turns a mottled gray and looks like absolute hell. Or it gets spots in it. I've seen several MAX-S .35's end up like this in our club.I've also seen engines end up in very new like condition. The Max's I witnessed were done with the older antifreeze which is suggested. I guess one takes a risk in anything but I've seen very good results just boiling the engine in soapy water.

The crockpot method and boiling method allows one not to take the engine apart and I suppose that makes a credible answer. But as I mentioned in my original post, it also removes good carbon and varnish such as that on base gaskets. This certainly isn't the situation with the old Veco. Greenheads, Mccoy's, OS steelfins, etc have the paper fiber style gaskets. At this point in their existence they should be replaced anyhow, but I feel that subjecting them to this kinda of exposure could seriously shorten any life within them. Some of these engines depending on the years made also have fiber gaskets for head gaskets.