After successfully building and flying the prototype 1:6 scale Andreasson BA4B, Pete was kind enough to turn me loose on his Samolot Kogutek.

Careful observers will note that an earlier attempt was made by none other than Mr. Rake himself, but that incomplete model suffered a sad fate in the hangar, details of which you'll have to get from the source as I'm sworn to secrecy. And a little Googling suggests that there may have been yet ANOTHER abortive attempt at a prototype build of this fascinating little airplane that also ended in mystery.

None of this is surprising when you learn a bit about the back story of the full scale subject. If you read Polish, just click on over to: http://www.samoloty.ow.pl/str301.htm

And here's Google's passable translation to English: http://translate.google.com/translat...tm&sl=pl&tl=en

I'll net it out for you:

• In 1921 Mr. Zalewski began working on his 18 hp engine.
• But Mr. Z had little money, and no real shop.
• That's where the kitchen comes in--and you thought YOU had a patient wife!
• By 1924, his engine (with cylinders made from a truck axle) was ready.
• A shortage of cash cost Mr. Z another year, or two, or three...
• By 1927 "The Rooster" (Kogutek in Polish) airframe was FINALLY ready.
• Mr. Z's pilot, Mr. Babinski, flew her to Warsaw for the big air show.
• Mr. B arrived late, and sadly, "The Rooster" was not able to compete.
• BUT, this was the first time a Polish plane flew with a Polish designed and built engine, so it was an important milestone all the same!

OK, let's get building.

Oh boy, another Polish plane! I`ll be watching this one closely.

This birds got some funky lines to her.

Originally Posted by Dan Parson

This birds got some funky lines to her.

I may use that line as my current Facebook status......

Nice looking model Pete!

tim

Tim, be careful, Netty may read it

I will leave all those little ply and balsa disks to you guys. A bit too much for me. I will get one of Sparky's engines and make it work when I need to see cylinders

charlie

Cool! This is a neat plane, I've never heard of it before. Tim's right, it does have some funky lines!

In the rendering, is that vertical bar through the wing a lever for working the ailerons? That thing looks HUGE... Will that be a functional part of your model?

J. B.

Originally Posted by Led Zepplin

Cool! This is a neat plane, I've never heard of it before. Tim's right, it does have some funky lines!

In the rendering, is that vertical bar through the wing a lever for working the ailerons? That thing looks HUGE... Will that be a functional part of your model?

J. B.

That there's a kingpost, which takes rigging both above and below what was a very thin wing on the full scale airplane. Makes for nice big overlapping triangles, with the mast over the fuse forming the central support and the kingposts carrying it to the wingtips.

I have other renderings (I'll post later) that also show smaller posts at the leading edges of the control surfaces which act as horns, but also send rigging to at least three points on the control surface itself. Sexy and complicated! (Yet another possible Facebook status line for Hooper )

Pete's kit wing is flat bottomed and has a nice structural spar, so all rigging will be for scale effect, with the possible exception of the undercarriage, which might actually need the wires I plan to install if landings get...er...sudden. I believe it was Pat Lynch who thinned the last ribs on one of his models to trick the eye into seeing undercamber. I may be stealing yet ANOTHER trick from his bag.

I don't intend to force ailerons into this small model, but I can easily imagine a scaled up version with proper thin, undercambered wings, full house controls, and scale linkages.

So what's the WS on this one? Is it an IPS size?

So that kingpost is just a rigging support for the wing, that makes sense. Thought it seemed way too big to be any sort of a horn.

J. B.

Yeah, I'm bad. Started cutting out parts for it, then got sidetracked. Now I'm enlarging it to 50" for 4 channel, hopefull for a spring time project.

Originally Posted by baldguy

Yeah, I'm bad. Started cutting out parts for it, then got sidetracked. Now I'm enlarging it to 50" for 4 channel, hopefull for a spring time project.

Busted!

But we're apparently in agreement that this would make a very charming larger size model with full house controls.

In answer to Led Zep's question, she'll have a 36" span.

Yes, little bigger would be nice.
Now Peter will dis-own me, cuz I didn't finish it.

Not at all mate. I, myself am currently working on a 12" span, profile scale version from Dorabatics foam - as per Classroom Fighter style. I have enough Plantraco gear for that and a slightly smaller (10") N11. Should make nice companions for my Zero and HM-8.

I quite agree, a larger, aileron equipped version would make a nice model.

Pete

Originally Posted by PETERRAKE

Not at all mate. I, myself am currently working on a 12" span, profile scale version from Dorabatics foam - as per Classroom Fighter style. I have enough Plantraco gear for that and a slightly smaller (10") N11. Should make nice companions for my Zero and HM-8.

I quite agree, a larger, aileron equipped version would make a nice model.

Pete

Whew! That's a relief Cuz I want to do a Rake prototype in the future, some obscure beastie.

Turtle deck is a simple and fairly flat affair, but somehow I found myself needing pins, tape, AND rubber bands to hold it all in place. Trifecta!

While waiting for the fuse sides to finish drying, I got high on CA fumes gluing the cylinders. A nice scale touch.

Now that Pete's in the house, a few quick notes/comments, some of which might prove useful to future Rooster builders:

1. The wheel cross section is not to scale. I assume this is intentional, to make assembly details easier to see, but might be worth noting as it caused me a moment's confusion (granted, that's easily done ).
2. T-13 came as one piece from Charlie. Separating it was no bother, and it might have actually helped with the glue up, but figured I'd point it out in case it's just a line error on the cut file. Though the way it's labeled suggest that one piece may have been intentional.
3. I doubled the side (vertical) pieces of F3, which appears to follow what's shown on the side view in the plans, and also makes for a nice strong former, but wanted to point it out on the off chance that it was unintentional. (I know how you hate weight aft.)
4. F6A is not labeled on my plans.
5. I added a second cross brace (doubler, essentially) immediately aft of the "extra cross brace" under F6A. My additional piece gives the forward bit of the fin a landing pad.
6. F2B was too deep and blocked my spar entry holes, so I had to scale it back with my Zona saw.
7. I fabricated a small horizontal triangle piece to join the top aft fuse, otherwise those two long skinny bits above the horizontal tail slot sort of flap in the wind with little to glue to.
8. Undercarriage is labeled A B in the side view and F R on the plan. If that's intentional, I'm afraid I'm going to need you to slap me up along side the head and explain.
9. Question: Does the top of the forward LG wire just get sewn into the bottom of F1?

Incidentally, I believe everything on the plans arrived from Charlie and Vicki, so the cut file is complete as far as I can tell. And as we've come to expect, all wood was carefully selected and perfect for the designated applications.

OK, back to the shop.

Okay, let's work through that list.

1. Wheel section isn't that far off scale. If you want shallower cones, and cones both sides of the wheel, feel free.

2. Yep, T13 is one piece, cut through after fin/rudder are built.

3. F3 uprights aren't intended to be doubled, but it won't do any harm.

4. F6A is now labelled.

5. I can't really see the need for an extra, extra X brace since the fin glues between pieces of block balsa. That should provide all the security needed.

6. F2B is now modified on both plan and cut file.

7. Fine, although I would have expected the block balsa to provide adequate support for these pieces. Fit it early, shape it later.

8. On my plan, the one your PDF was generated from, the u/c wires are labelled A and B at both places, but with an additional reminder of which is Front and which is Rear on the actual wire drawings.

9. Yep.

10. Don't forget to bend the ends of the u/c wires as shown in side view, for binding to skids.

11. U/c rigging will be functional, to prevent fore and aft movement.

Pete