OS FP .25 C/L

sosam117 wrote:Minor damage --- easy fixable.
Nice heavy hub on the nose (of the engine).

Take the engine out, clean her up, test run it on a test stand and re-install it into the plane.

Yup.. that's a (Harry) Higley Heavy-hub-nut.. and was recommended to my dad because of the "lighter weight" modern OS engine being used; rather than an engine period-correct to that Sterling kit.




Now.. the OS FP series engines are considered vintage.. I have a .10 FP/RC NIB (never run) and a remote NV mount-kit in the box with it. Bought it direct from Tower Hobbies in the late 1990's along with an Ace All Star biplane kit that I intended to build for it. Still have the unbuilt kit and the unrun engine.



and the OS .10 FP/RC

Roddie, a period engine for the C-series Sterling kits would be a .19-,35. Using a .19 engine of that period would be a very poor choice as these models were very overbuilt which would render those style of models underpowered especially a biplane. A period .19 shares about the same power as a modern .15 today.  A Mccoy .19 is just under 6 oz's whereas a .35 be it a Mccoy or Fox weighed in at 7 oz's unmuffled. A OS FP and I would think that's a iron piston version is roughly 8.5 oz's with a muffler. I would think that the hub was more of a look than a necessity. These kits always built their tanks into the model. Metal tanks at some point are going to be a problem and for these models it's the fate of the model if one needs to cut into it. It's very difficult to service the tank . The better solution was to make a all tubes forward tank and cut out a rectangle directly into the firewall and slide the tank into the pocket.

Given that the wing area on the Kit C-1 36-in span Sterling Monocoupe is less than 200 square inches (that of the Ringmaster Jr. or Sig Acromaster), I would think that something akin to a legacy .35 in power like the OS Max .25FP might be a slight overkill, don't you think?

The kit was designed in the 1940's here's the 1950 model magazine ad:



The engine range given would be for the engines available back in the 1940's, including ignition engines. Even the engines of the 1950's were more powerful.

Though the model is built a little on the heavy side, I'm thinking a .15FP like the one on my Ring Jr. or a Fox, Veco, K&B, McCoy Red Head .19 would probably be sufficient.

Given the wing is relatively thin modified Clark-Y airfoil (less draggy for more speed) and model is a scale sport model, not a precision stunter or combat plane, also lends me to think this.

My opinion of course, but just saying.

I like those kit prices! We could afford those mowing lawns when we were kids. Now scraping by on Soc. Sec........not so much at todays prices!

True, even the lowest cost CL kit was $1, which in today's money is $11. Difference back then is a man's salary even though of simpler jobs was enough to buy a house and permit the mom to raise the kids while the man was away at work. Taxes were much lower, so one had more disposable income. However, it is what it is.

That $4.95 Monocoupe is now $55, which is may be half of what one would pay for a retrokit these days. Of course the quality of the kits these days is much better than back then. Competition was so heavy, that they did everything they could to drop kit prices including partial plans (less paper to print), compact densely packed boxes (less storage and shipping logistics costs), less than optimal balsa densities and sections (cheaper wood), etc. but still have a more or less flyable plane if one followed instructions. It was always recommended to cut your own wood from better balsa if you wanted better performance.

For what they were, I still enjoyed them. It was all the fun of growing up.

Regarding Roddie's perspective, I'm thinking that it would be nice simply to repair the plane to flying condition, and simply run it with the .25FP. One can down prop it if needed, and it would bring back the fun of CL flying as it was 50 years ago (although the FP came later during the what? late 1970's?). If nothing else, with the more powerful engine can fly it on up to 70 foot lines.

After previous day's flight session, might see a few less facial wrinkles the next day, turn back arthritis and notice a slimmer waistline.

Fun tends to do stuff like that.

I don't get that "in todays money " thing! Today I have LESS money! And I never had a wage increase that kept pace with "todays money" percieved value of everything!

OhBee wrote:I don't get that "in todays money " thing! Today I have LESS money!  And I never had a wage increase that kept pace with "todays money" perceived value of everything!

Today's money is what our dollar is worth now. What we could buy for $1 in 1950, we would pay $11 for the same now. It is more or less why the car someone could buy new for say $800 in 1950, we now pay say $17,000 for. They tack on all sorts of goodies to drive the cost up plus of course all the safety goodies they say we need along with all the emissions control stuff. Then you could buy a plain car with rubber floor mats, in-line small 6 cylinder, hand crank windows, 1 or 2 speed wipers, heat only no A/C, may be an AM radio. But it was good dependable transportation.

I remember in 1972 getting $88 or so a month from the Army before deductions for a slick sleeve private. But since they provided room and board and in a year I was made a Specialist-4 worth a few hundred dollars a month, I had enough to afford model plane stuff and a used car.

Regarding that Sterling C-1 Monocoupe of Roddie's, the only I'd like to do is the C-4 Waco cabin biplane one of these days. It has the classic look unlike any other.

GallopingGhostler wrote:

Regarding that Sterling C-1 Monocoupe of Roddie's, the only I'd like to do is the C-4 Waco cabin biplane one of these days. It has the classic look unlike any other.

The Monocoupe  was built by my dad sometime in the 1990's.. following a 25-30 year hiatus from the hobby. He bought the kit, OS FP.25/CL engine and all needed hardware at the same time.. so it was a later released kit by Sterling. It was the 1st time he had ever used an iron-on covering. (Top Flite Monokote) He'd always been a silk & dope man. Sterling's later (last) offerings were furnished with a cheap plastic cowling for the engine.

Rewind some 35-40 years.. dad built the Sterling Waco C-4 "Cabin" that you see in this ad.



I was a little boy then.. but I remember vividly; how beautiful that model was. I wish I had a photo of it. It was beige w/red trim.. and had the earlier slick spun-aluminum cowling. A McCoy .19 Red-Head stuck proudly out the top of that cowling. The Cabin's side-windows were opaque gloss-white plastic-sheet. Not sure if that was included in the kit.. or if he decided to substitute. All that's left to that airplane is its engine.. which I have.




I've since sourced some 3-48 and 4-40 size cap-screws that I can cut-to-length to replace the OEM (some missing..) machine-screws.

I've been told that the McCoy .19 is a LOUD engine...


 
Like his son; my dad was more of a builder.. than a flier.