B-2 Chummy was designed by C.G. Taylor, It was while looking for financial backing to produce the Chummy that Taylor was introduced to W Piper. Chummy never entered mass production, and only a few were constructed. Some put the number at 12. However it is known that some earlier aircraft recieved new serials via factory rebuilds, mods, etc. It was a fairly common practice by other mfger's, at the time.

Chummy introduced side by side seating concept, here in the US, and predates the Monocoupe slightly. Later had fully enclosed cockpit while Chummy was semi-enclosed with winter side side curtains option. This feature carried over into Taylor's next project, his better known E-1 Cub. This was developed into the enclosed E-2, which was futher developed into the J-2 Cub. Introduction lead to split between Taylor and Piper. Former leaving to develope Taylorcraft. Piper became famous providing a long line of light aircraft.

As of today, I knew of only three scale drawings/3-views of the Chummy. One is a very small 3-view which appeared in1926 aviation periodicals. It shows an early concept. Almost useless for modeling purposses. IIRC, another appeared in Sport Flying magazine some time in 1960's. Third appeared in Model builder magazine and can be seen here: https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/show...534053&page=73

You want Report #1092.

This morning I did a seach and found this INTERESTING reference: http://www.eaa44.org/about.htm

Check out their full scale Chummy reproduction. VERY handsome! And looks "proper". Also, there is a rather exciting reference to Stan Teachman making detailed scale drawings from reliable sources. Stan was one of the great draftsmen/historians and the prospect of seeing his Chummy treatment is rather exciting to this long time Taylor buff. Anyone know anything more???

Help:Can somebody please post the Model builder Chummy ,from there to here? I'm a bit flummoxed by certain e-procedures and this is one of them. I can't scan and send either...sorry, but true. As for copyright issues with this drawing, I happen to know for an absalute certainty it has recently entered the Public Domain.
C. Neely

A tip... not every page is the same length for each user, it's a parameter you can set. When I clicked on your link, I ended up in a different place in that thread. If you had not given the post number, I would not have found it.

When you want to copy the link to an individual post, click on the number of the post "#1092" and the post will open, by itself, in another window. Then you can grab that address.

https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/show...postcount=1092

Then you can right-click on the PDF, and "copy link address" before pasting it here.

The link below will download the file posted on the other thread
https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/show...0&d=1380432248

Also, if you have not seen, http://digitekbooks.com/ is beginning to sell complete collections of older magazines, including MB.

When I got home, I looked and had that issue...
Here are the scanned pages, the article as a PDF and the drawing as scanned and as cleaned.

Thank you, david!

Nice work by both you gents.

I note the advert for the Morton M-5 5-cylinder radial in that issue of MB.Only $850...

Jim R.

Nice plan and a pretty plane.

I might mention this plane with side by side seating reminds me of the Inland Sport (produced by Inland Aviation in Kansas City). I think their prototype (designed by Dewey Bonebrake) was produced around 1927 or so. Inland went on to produce about 48 planes before running out of customers during the depression. I will post it later.

I'll take "nice". thanks.

From the f2b thread Jim R wrote:

"I like your drawings of the Taylor Chummy. With respect, I ask how much access did you have to a real Chummy? What was the process you used to determine which details to include or exclude? How many notes on dimensions? Pics?

NB: I have never drawn up a set of 3-views of a full-size airplane, nor am I likely to.

Jim R."

Taylor Chummy drawing was made for my friend, Norman Walsh. Norman was an aviation junkie and RC scale modeler. He also was personal friend of CG Taylor's.Naturally, he nurtured overriding interests in modelling Taylor designs. Without being pushy Norman interviewed Taylor on several occasions, taking pertinent notes etc. Eventually, CG gave Norman a box of Chummy photos and whatever tech data was left (NOT MUCH!) Norman gave me the photos and asked"How about making me a 3-view when/if you can? I took an interest and there you are

So no, I've never seen a real Chummy in my life. The rendering is based upon a few known dimensions and fleshed out with info taken from construction photos directly from Taylor. I make no claims about its accuracy. I have seen two models built , based upon my drawing. Norman built a 1/4 scale RC version. Another fellow bought one of the few sale copies generated by the MB appearance and developed a 1/10 scale version for Electric RC. Judging from their photos, both looked the appropriate part. IMHO, very much like photos of the real thing.

Interesting how Chummy came to be in MB. I took it along with another "lesser work" to bolster my pitch for publishing two better researched efforts. The deal was sealed but had to include the chummy and JN=4 as part of the package. So, you see it was Bill Northrop who chose them. As an aside I was never paid as promised by Bill Northrop. I wasn't really upset, but it is also why the second and third drawings weren't published by MB. I would see Bill at his Pasadena IMS for years after. always enjoyed our discussions.

Best thing to come out of MB exposure was that it lead a well known aviation author to contact me(drawing be damned! he corrected a spelling mistake in the article!). The doors of truly accurate information Peter Westberg had written about, started to open to me..

Mr. Neely,

You were the right man in the right place and right time to do the job. Without your effort no scale modeler could have tackled a Chummy.

Jim R.

A late 1920s photo of the Taylor Chummy prototype:

Thank you TedD60

Taylor later removed the diagonal strut (between front and rear struts) as shown in last photo. He also added a TE cut out. I'm thinking the former strut served no real purpose, as all "drag" functions were already being addressed by the internal wing bracing. The cut out had to be for improved upward visibility?

I suppose it should be pointed out, the last image is of the same aircraft I drew, at a later date. AFAIK, no Chummy actually ever was registered. The NC appears to have been wishfull thinking.

I am a bit perplexed as to why my drawing is showing three times, now? Not complaining, mind you! Just wondering.

Originally Posted by packardpursuit

I am a bit perplexed as to why my drawing is showing three times, now? Not complaining, mind you! Just wondering.

One was dirty. The next was tiny.

It was post a larger version or upgrade the prescription in my glasses.

Call me cheap.

I still have the original ink on Mylar. I'll send you a clean copy for cost and postage.

I note the parallel wing struts on the Chummy, Bellancas, and a lot of other airplanes, and I wonder why the V-strut arrangement was adopted much later. As with the Piper Cub, Cruiser, etc.

It seems to me that a V-strut, with a single attachment point on the lower fuselage, simplifies erection. It also takes care of the drag function, if I understand correctly.

Jim R.

Thanks ... but no.

I didn't want to own it ... I just wanted to see it.

Actually, I was looking for something else and came across the picture of the prototype. I thought it would fill out and dress up this thread a bit.

Just adding to the knowledge base. Its what I do over my am coffee.

Originally Posted by JRuggiero

It seems to me that a V-strut, with a single attachment point on the lower fuselage, simplifies erection. It also takes care of the drag function, if I understand correctly.

Jim R.

I am no aero engineer or designer ... but from building roll cages for racing cars, I do see the strength that an "N", or double "V" strut gives.

Is the strength and rigidity worth the trade-off in cost, weight and drag? I suppose the benefit/detriment could be calculated ... length, weight, loading ... that sort of thing. But that goes beyond the scope of this forum.

We only shows them like they was ... coulda and shoulda is handled somewheres else.