Yeah, these were made in Japan.

Got the tail feathers made up. They'll go back in the box till I get to the part of the build to install them.

I'm not sure if Sig originated the term "builder's kit" or not. It was on their kit boxes far before ARFs were as plentiful as they are now. I'm now beginning to see the term as meaning "lots-o-parts", or, "box-o-lumber". This Waco kit certainly fits the bill as a builder's kit. The horizontal stab and elevators are made-up of forty-seven (47) individual pieces of wood. Vertical stab and rudder, Twenty-four (24). Same plane as a "kit" could have been designed to use 1/4" balsa sheeting and gotten away with six or seven pieces - total. Instead, Mr. Platt provided a kit that is striking to the eye. A reward for the patience and time required to put together a builder's kit.

If you choose to build, take-on at least one builder's kit. It'll reward you.

EJWash

EJ--Good post!

And great photos of very pretty work.

Thanks loNslo.

I made an error on the vertical stab. Looking at my plan sheet, the bottom of the trailing edge has a line extending along the bottom of the vertical stab to the leading edge of the rudder. This lead me to believe that the trailing edge of the vertical stab ended there. Revisiting U2's pics, I see his extends to the bottom of the leading edge of the rudder which makes more sense and makes for a stronger arrangement. No worries, I'll just make a new stab.

EJWash

I see. Yeah, you want that vertical spar to run all the way through.

E.J. Mine is just like yours. I didn't understand why there was that little short piece tacked onto the rear end of the fuselage, but that's what showed so I went ahead and made it the same way you did. Now that you mention it, it is obvious what "shoulda" been done.

On the other hand, having that "tail" on the fin post complicates the normal sequence of covering the fuselage and vertical stab and then installing the pieces. If you assemble then cover it might be worth fixing; if you cover then assemble it is a harder choice.

If you do decide to "fix" it, consider just scarfing on an extension to the rear of the fin instead of building a whole new fin.

Thanks U2,

The vertical fin is the simplest of the entire tail feather group. And then there's that pesky "I know about it" factor of mine.

On another note, weird how Platt has you drilling through a glue joint for the wing bolt holes. Gonna use a sharp brad point on that one.

EJWash

It looks like a straightforward job to cut away the existing spar and fit a new one, rather than build a whole new vertical stab.

Yeah E.J. I know, but hey, consider a scarf joint. With a decent angle it will be as strong as a new spar. Maybe stronger. Heck, I mistakenly cut the main spar a little short and scarfed on a few inches at the end. Heck, a scarf joint is permitted on the ANYWHERE on the spar of a real aircraft except under a wing strut or other such attachment. Slope is 1:3 and wood grain should be parallel. Just sayin. LOL>

Originally Posted by u2builder

...a scarf joint is permitted on the ANYWHERE on the spar of a real aircraft except under a wing strut or other such attachment. Slope is 1:3 ...

Pretty sure the scarph has to be much longer than 3:1, perhaps more like 6;1 or 8:1.

And, in this case, it's probably easier to replace the spar. On yours, you did the right thing by putting the scarph out at the end.

Originally Posted by loNslo

Pretty sure the scarph has to be much longer than 3:1, perhaps more like 6;1 or 8:1.

And, in this case, it's probably easier to replace the spar. On yours, you did the right thing by putting the scarph out at the end.

You would think so, and so would I, but I looked it up in my official Aircraft Woodworking book and it in fact says 3:1 and has a diagram that looks to be that scale, and more surprisingly says a spar can be spliced anywhere except for where a strut or landing gear attach. Frankly I don't like the thought of doing it in a real aircraft, but I do it all the time with my model planes when crashes break various parts, typically leading edges but other parts as well.

Plus, these beautiful scale models are flown pretty gently, at least in my hands, because they are such labors of love, and probably are pretty unlikely to come apart in the air unless the workmanship is very shoddy. The main point of failure is usually landing gear related, at least on my planes, partly because I think they are not designed for some of the fields we fly on or some of the less than perfect landings we make, or both.

That is so surprising because it doesn't even meet standard boat building practice which can be 12:1 for structural elements.

Originally Posted by u2builder

The main point of failure is usually landing gear related, at least on my planes, partly because I think they are not designed for some of the fields we fly on or some of the less than perfect landings we make, or both.

Reminds me of the first time I flew off of other than a paved runway.

I was dating a young lady that commented on my "toy airplane" hanging in my bachelor pad back in the early '80s. I made a deal with her to provide a picnic lunch and I would show her that the "toy", an Andrews Aeromaster biplane, was in fact NOT a toy but a functioning radio control model. She took me up on it, so we spent an afternoon at a grass R/C field out in Ft. Worth, Texas, near Carswell AFB.

My Aeromaster had been my mainstay model for several years. After college when I moved from California to Texas in '79, it was the only remnant of the hobby I took with me. I seldom had the opportunity to fly it.

The day before the picnic, I charged the batteries overnight and off we went. At the Ft. Worth field, I filled the fuel tank, checked the flight controls, started the engine, and off I went. I noticed on take off roll that the plane made a sudden jerk to the side. I corrected with rudder and lifted off. Climbing-out, I noticed something different about the appearance of the plane. Coming back towards me, I noticed that the main landing gear was missing. great. I throttled back and turned base. On final, I noticed a bulge from the belly. Odd looking. As the plane got closer I realized that the bulge was my foam-wrapped battery. Then the bulge went away, and so did control of the plane. It settled into the grass, spun on a wingtip, and stopped. Noway to convince my girlfriend that this was normal.

I found the Aeromaster's landing gear just after a sprinkler head in the grass. Inspecting the wood in the torn-out area, it was clear that my seasoned Aeromaster was oil-soaked. It was a fun airplane, and I got several years of fun from it. And here I am, more than thirty years later after thirty years of marriage with that then girlfriend, still supporting my hobby in "toy" airplanes.

EJWash

Great story E.J. It kind of ties everything together in time and space.

I have a standard size Aeromaster. It was a fun plane to build and flies very nicely.

Thinking about the Aeromaster gives me an appreciation for your desire to build in a scale that fits in your car fully assembled. The Aeromaster fit inside my Honda Accord (seen at the left side of the pic) with a little room to spare.

Amongst my stash of kits I have a Giant Aeromaster (73.5"). Great Planes did a decent job of following the lines of the original. I haven't seen one in person, but have read that they're pretty nice fliers.

EJWash