1960 Berkeley Interceptor 35 Stunt CL

Cribbs74 wrote:George, I had just recently read that Fox took over Berkeley back in the late 50's and due to the volume of kits already on the market that that the business venture failed. Apparently the kits weren't selling fast enough to turn a profit.

Ron, that bit of history I wasn't aware of until you mentioned it. The plans sort of hint at it looking at the title block. Berkeley, Cleveland, Jasco and etc. slowly faded away. Looks like Sig bought out the last of them, selling their cabin scale kits in the 3 foot wingspan range as "Sig Craftsman" series. I bought a number of Berkeley plans when Sig was clearing them out in the early 1990's.

I have never built a Berkley kit so I can't even speculate on the quality of the kit. OTOH PDQ kits and Sterling Kits sold very well and it was known that the quality was poor. Who knows, either way that's a neat bit of history you have there. Ron

Berkeley kits are IMO made to late 1940 / early 1950 standards. From my experieces with the 1959 Impulse RC build, the wing ribs die cutting was okay. Fuselage sides left a little to be desired and needed to be trimmed according the outlines in the plans. Designs are sound, but drawings may lack minute details, so it requires an experienced modeler to make them up, which for a seasoned builder shouldn't be difficult. Sheet wood is unsanded with swirl marks from rotary sawing, so they need finish sanding.

In this case I fell in love with the outlines and appearances of this model. It is similar in size and wing area to the Ringmaster S-1. It has a short coupled nose, which should handle heavier engines with ease without adding any tail weight. I have observed it for years, but never could get any plans or kits for it until recently. I've got an extra Testors McCoy .35 Red Head, which should make an excellent engine for it.

It may be a slightly more difficult build than the modern laser cut kits, which are in reality deluxe kits. But I am a long time builder coming from a free flight stick and tissue culture of the 1960's. This should be in reality not much more difficult than building an earlier model S-1 Ringmaster.

George,

Here is where I read that tidbit of info.

http://www.craftsmanshipmuseum.com/Fox.htm

Have fun with the kit!

Cribbs74 wrote:George, Here is where I read that tidbit of info. http://www.craftsmanshipmuseum.com/Fox.htm Have fun with the kit!

Thanks, Ron. I remember reading that article, but some time back, may be years ago. Duke was an interesting character. Thought he'd live to be 100, but died shortly after writing that article.

getback wrote:Nice find George is that going to be your next build knowing you have a lot in Q ? Eric

Still have the 09 powered Cessna 177 CL to finish and the Berkeley Impulse RC build, to complete. This one is on the top of my queue to build list. I like it because you don't see many of these and it seems proportioned right to be a good stunter.

I wanted to add, it surprised me how (at least from photos) pristene it was, and wondered why not many were bidding on it. I essentially picked it up for a song, much less than one would pay for Mr. Brodak's excellent kits of same flight dynamic calibre.

Here's the ideal engine for it, a Testors McCoy .35 Red Head, a gift from Mr. Bill Spencer (AKA plowboybill).

Here is what I would choose for a vintage combat.

That is if one were to fly combat. My purpose is for sport stunt flying. Just as the .35 Red Head provides sufficient stunting power for a Ringmaster S-1, it ought to provide adequate power for this Interceptor.   

Regarding Ron's comment, "Have fun with the kit!", well, fun it will be, LOL. The kit does not come with plans, instead an assembly instruction sheet. Even the fuselage profile is not full scale, which would be useful. To make meaningful use would require templating and creating functional drawings of this kit. I am sure if such existed, there would be other modelers who would want to scratch build this awesome looking plane, may be even update it to modern construction techniques.



It has the standard quality fit of Berkeley kits. The profile fuselage pieces require trimming to properly mate together. They don't simply fall into place. The nose is solid 3/8" thick mahogany, which is heavy. This begs to be replaced with balsa, hardwood engine bearers and sheet plywood skins.





Why did they not include full size plans? Kits were very competitive items, and if the cost could be reduced by not reproducing the more expensive plan to undersell the competition yet provide sufficient information so the modeler could successfully build it, would mean continued success for the company. Obviously, Berkeley had some production teething problems that needed ironing out. They also probably had a problem with marketing their kits. AFAIK, back then kits were cut throat business and profits off each kit were slim due to competition. I imagine that Bekeley, even with some of the rough edges just could not undersell their competitors, who provided better kits to begin with. Personally, the drawing is really lacking. I imagine that a builder back then probably did some sketching so he could successfully complete this model.

I've got some ancient Dos/Windows 3.1 CAD software that begs to be installed on my PC, another back burner project but worth doing, hmmmm ....

That front piece looks like red oak. It was probably a stair tread at one time. I dunno, but that design looks to me like catastrophe on a ground pounding. I wonder if anyone ever used it for combat. It looks more like a battering ram. Ken

Ken Cook wrote:That front piece looks like red oak. It was probably a stair tread at one time. I dunno, but that design looks to me like catastrophe on a ground pounding. I wonder if anyone ever used it for combat. It looks more like a battering ram. Ken

It very well may be red oak, Ken, I'm not good at recognizing my woods. It is not a good fuselage design, resembles some of the CL stuff done prior to WW2. The wing isometric diagram is not properly scaled either. The wing is shaped more like the Ringmaster S-1 wing in real life, judging by the wing rib chord width. However proportion wise, with a set of full sized plans drawn out and revising the fuselage to more standard styled fuselage construction would probably redeem the model, ditto for the wing, too.

I'm interested in its stunt capability more than I am its combat capability.

One way to find out!

Since it's not going to be subject to the stresses of combat then maybe you could recut the fuse as one solid piece and use maple bearers.

Might save a bit of weight.

Cribbs74 wrote:One way to find out! Since it's not going to be subject to the stresses of combat then maybe you could recut the fuse as one solid piece and use maple bearers. Might save a bit of weight.

If one looks at other combat planes like for example Midwest warbird profile scale series, they use standard "one piece" (actually several pieces spliced together) balsa with maple engine bearers and plywood sheet nose doublers, just like the profile Ringmasters. Thus, perhaps I am wrong, but I find Berkeley's approach somewhat unusual, and yes, it would save weight also.

I measured the thickness of the aluminum bellcrank supplied with the kit using my digital caliper. It came out to 0.0325 inch or 1/32nd inch (error with these calipers is +/- 0.001). The bellcrank is unusable. I suppose it was intended to be a one shot airplane in combat, anyways.
 

Proportionwise, the longest wing rib is 9" long. Add the leading and trailing edges, chord at fuselage is 10.5". That calculates roughly out to about 400 square inches, Ringmaster S-1 territory. Overall it has the same proportions as the Ringmaster. WIth appropriate structural modifications, basically a new fuselage out of balsa with wing opening fully cut out and standard engine bearers, plywood cheek doublers.

It may not be a contest winner, but it should be a decent stunt plane or stunt trainer plane.

Trace all the parts and get them, and the instruction sheet scanned with some type of measuring guide for scale on the pages.  This way you can always choose to scratch build, or upload to something like Outerzone to share and also still have for yourself.

With the lighter nose I expect balancing with a modern muffler engine will be easier.

Phil

I bought some quad ruled 11x17 paper for this purpose. It would be quicker to sketch and trace the parts onto this. Make a wing plan and fuselage plan. Later, it could be scanned and CAD'd. This will allow me to build it and have a reference for others to improve on it as desired.