The Fly Baby Story - Oshkosh 365

(Photo by Bowers) 

"Fly Baby" set up in Pete's driveway for final adjustments 

just two hours before the second "first flight". 

The volunteer manpower really swarmed around that day. 

Sunday, July 1, 1962. 

WELL, THE big design contest is over — won by "Fly 

Baby", that controversial clunk—that Box—that latter-day 

antique. Whether it goes on to join such classics 

of the homebuilt movement as the Corben "Baby Aces" 

and the Stits "Playboys" or slips quietly into oblivion 

remains to be seen. This article gives the background 

of its design, the reasoning behind some of the features, 

and an account of its various adventures and misadventures 

leading up to the 1962 contest. Most of the structural 

details are covered by the photos and captions. Construction 

drawings will be presented in SPORT AVIA- 

TION starting with the next issue. 

The original "Fly Baby" was a 48 in. span free-flight 

Class A/B gas model that I built in 1940 to use either a 

Madewell "Mite" engine or an Ohlsson 23. The name 

and the model went well together, and even achieved 

a degree of fame when they set a new Class A Rise-off- 

Water record under the new rules that the Academy of 

Model Aeronautics (AMA) set up at the time. 

When I started doodling up an all-wood homebuilt 

design in 1951, the name of the old model seemed to be 

a natural choice so I used it. The "Big" design was quite 

a different ship than what it is now. The EAA design 

contest, with its very specific requirements, and even 

EAA itself, did not exist, and the ship was intended to 

be strictly a jazzy personal runabout, mainly for crosscountry. 

Since a friend, Rex Richards, had a good fuelinjection 

Continental 85 out of a wrecked Culver V, the 

design was developed around it. The first design consideration 

was for all-wood construction, primarily because 

I didn't have the skill or the equipment for metal, either 

sheet or tube. Cost wasn't a consideration in the early 

stages. I had planned to skin the whole thing with 1/16 in. 

aircraft plywood, but when I did check costs, this idea 

was dropped in a hurry. With cost now to be considered, 

the design boiled down to a low-wing single-seater with 

Vs in. marine plywood fuselage sides, similar to what 

"Fly Baby" now has, and an inverted gull wing, more 

like a Vought F4U "Corsair" or the German Junkers 

JU-87 "Stuka" than Neal Loving's "Love", with monospar-and-D-tube 

wing construction similar to typical wooden 

sailplanes. Landing gear was fixed single-strut with 

no shock absorbers, the 8.00 x 4 tires being considered 

adequate by themselves. This feature carried on to the 

present ship. 

4 DECEMBER 1962 

The 

Fly Baby 

Story 

By Peter M. Bowers, EAA 977 

13826 Des Moines Way, Seattle 88, Wash. 

Various things kept popping up to prevent me from 

building the ship after I had assembled a wood and cardboard 

mockup in the living room of my house boat to determine 

cockpit layout and size. I did keep doodling, 

however, adding features and making modifications as 

EAA and the local homebuilt movement grew and experience 

with other homebuilts could be applied. In 1957, 

when the EAA design contest came along, I worked up 

an entirely different design. This was to be for Ron 

Schaevitz, with whom I was working in Boeing Flight 

Test at the time. This was considerably simpler than 

the current on-paper "Fly Baby" design, and was intended 

to be strictly a beginner's homebuilt. The wood construction 

was retained for simplicity and low cost and the 

aerodynamic layout was based on the two Story "Specials" 

then operating in Seattle in order to match their 

flying qualities, which were very definitely superior to 

others in the area. 

The Storys were thoroughly conservative and conventional 

airplanes with a distinguished pedigree. Their immediate 

predecessor was George Beaugardus' "Little Gee 

Bee", which Tom Story of Portland, Oreg., had built 

just before World War II as a development of Les Long's 

famous Longster "Wimpy". That Story, originally to have 

been called "Super Wimpy", was used by George for a 

round trip transcontinental flight from Portland to Washington, 

D.C., in August/October, 1947, to petition FAA 

for a degree of tolerance for amateur-built aircraft that 

did not then exist. The flight achieved its purpose. 

The "Wimpy", "Little Gee Bee", and the Storys all 

got their good performance on low power mainly from 

a feature well known to the pre-war homebuilders but 

largely overlooked by the majority of post-war builders 

who saw the new crop of amateur designs grow out of 

the Goodyear racers of 1947 and on — low span loading. 

"Wimpy" did real well with a 30 hp Aeronca E-107 but 

had 30 ft. span or more while the Story designs went to 

28 ft. for their 65 hp. History and the aerodynamics 

books bear this out. The early Heath parasols with 25 hp 

Hendersons were pretty marginal flying machines with 

25 ft. wings but became ATC'd when the span was increased 

to 30 while power remained the same. It's not a 

given area and wing loading that does the job, it's the 

SPAN that the area is distributed over. The more the 

merrier. As the aspect ratio (the wing span divided by


All the tooling needed to assemble the fuselage sides— 

a flat work area and some notched two-by-fours. There 

are only two scarfed plywood splices in the whole airplane 

—visible halfway toward the tail. 

the average chord, or span squared divided by wing area) 

increases, induced drag, especially at the low speed range, 

is decreased. Racers, which don't care about easy landing, 

have ratios as low as 3 for good high-speed flight 

but the safe-and-slow jobs want higher ratios, at least 

over 6. For sailplanes, the A.R. alone is a pretty good 

index of performance, with a high for the super-dupers 

of 24 to get 40-to-l glide and 16-18 the best structural 

compromise. There just aren't any in production any more 

with aspect ratios under 10. In modern airplanes, the 

Piper PA-15/17 "Vagabond" with A.R. 5.8 and a span of 

27 ft. just couldn't compare with the old J-3 "Cub" which 

had 35 ft. and an A.R. of 7, and the four-place "Vagabond" 

developments, the "Clipper" and the "Pacer" never 

really arrived until the horsepower was upped from the 

original 115 to an eventual 160. 

As a result of all this, the new design ended up with 

a span of 28 ft., an A.R. of 6.5, 120 sq. ft. of wing area, 

and a good long tail moment arm. Another distinctive 

fe; ture of the Story was the simple wire bracing of the 

two-spar wings to the upper longerons and to a rigid 

larding gear. Where the Story, in common with the Ryan 

ST of 1934 and the Boeing P-26 of 1932, ran the lower 

View into the cockpit 

showing the finished 

forward spar 

bulkhead and the 

hydraulic brake 

master cylinder 

mounting. Note the 

inboard plywood 

covering over the 

double bottom longerons 

and the forward 

bay. The diagonals 

carry landing 

gear loads in the 

forward bays but 

only serve to stiffen 

the plywood skin in 

the bays behind the 

cockpit. Dural angles 

in forward corners 

transmit engine 

mount loads into 

the fuselage sides. 

Floorboards rest on 

top of the double 

longeron structure. 



Two fuselage sides—one with the plywood skin and one 

with the temporary gussets. Note the "double" bottom 

longerons. Forward upright is birch or oak; other truss 

members are spruce. 


Interior of the fuselage looking toward the nose from 

behind the cockpit, showing the corner bows that stiffen 

the two wing carry-through bulkheads. Diagonal in front 

is strictly temporary. 

wires to auxiliary structure behind the wheels, the new 

design followed the even earlier style of the Howard 

"Pete", Heath "Baby Bullet", and the earlier Curtiss 

Military Racers by cleaning up the whole under carriage, 

using a straight-across axle, and attaching the wires right 

to the axle ends. Consideration was given to using struts 

above the wings instead of wires, as on the Stits "Playboy", 

but the longer span meant that the strut-wing intersection 

angle would be very acute and produce a big 

interference problem, causing high drag and a significant 

loss of lift. It's good to be able to learn by the experience 

of others, and since Fred Sindlinger of Seattle 

had considerable trouble with his short-span original design 

in this area, it was decided to eliminate the problem 

by using wires. This decision was backed up by 

some of the design articles appearing in SPORT AVIA- 

TION and the EAA manuals at the time and the fact that 

Vs in. 1 x 19 stranded stainless steel wire, which tests 

2,100 Ibs., is a lot cheaper than streamlined steel tubing. 

A couple of features that it shared with the 1940 gas 

model were the laminated wood wing tip bow construction 

and tip shape, and the vertical tail shape with small 

underfin. These had practically become a Bowers trademark, 

having been used on all my gas models from 1937 

to 1949, when I built my last one. 

With the new design pretty well firmed up and the 

EAA contest now under way, we decided that Ron would 

build the new one and enter it as "Fly Baby II" while I 

built the original 1951 design as "Fly Baby I". Ron got 

started first, and had both fuselage side frames built, 

covered with plywood, and joined together when he got 

a remote-base assignment and had to give it up. Since 

(Continued on next pog«) 

SPORT AVIATION 5

"FLY BABY" . . . 

(Continued from page 5) 


Tail surfaces are wire braced and wooden-leg landing 

gear is rigid. Fuselage plywood is covered with fabric 

at time ship is covered. 

I hadn't started mine, I did some serious thinking about 

the contest requirements, especially where they stressed 

simplicity of construction, easy flying, and low cost. The 

"II" had it all over the "I" here, so I decided it would 

be the best one for the contest and bought Ron's fuselage 

for what cost he had in it. Since the Cantilever job 

was still on the drawing board, there was no point in 

calling the existing piece of construction "Fly Baby II", 

so it became plain "Fly Baby", later "Fly Baby "I" to 

provide a more definite designation for FAA paperwork. 

Later on, when it was decided to use three different 

wing arrangements for versatility, the designation was 

expanded to "Fly Baby 1A" for the low-wing design, 

"IB" for the same fuselage with a new set of biplane 

wings, and "1C" for a strut-braced parasol monoplane 

wing fitted to the biplane center section. 

While the original design had been worked up for an 

85 hp engine, this was no longer available, so 65 was 

chosen for the "Fly Baby I" because it was more generally 

available and cost less. This was replaced by a Continental 

A-75, the A-65 converted, under rather unusual 

circumstances. George Loeffers of Seattle had 

bought a 65 hp Taylorcraft that needed recover and an 

engine overhaul. He decided to convert to 75 hp in the 

process, but found out after the job was done that his 

ship couldn't take a 75, having been converted up from 

50 hp originally. So, since he had a 75 he couldn't use 

and I had a majored 65 that he needed, we traded for 

the cost of his conversion. For all practical purposes, 

though, this engine operated as a 65 while in the ship 

because I used a 65 hp metal prop on it and didn't want 

to cut it down from its present 74 in. diameter to the 

69 in. it was supposed to be for the 75, which picks up 

most of the extra 10 hp by turning a smaller prop 200 

rpm more than the 65. Actually, the ship was designed 

to take up to 85 hp, but I figured that there was no 

point in going beyond that. 

As work progressed, I found that one of the biggest 

problems was shooting down the suggestions of all the 

well-meaning visitors who kept trying to improve it to 

death by suggesting that "You can get another 5 mph 

by cleaning this up", and "Why don't you ...?", and 

so on. I had problems with myself in this department, 

too. It took real will power to keep in mind that this 

was a ship for beginners and resist the temptation to 

add features that I would want for my own personal 

ship. 

Well, as practically everyone finds out sooner or 

later on such projects, things went much more slowly 


than expected. The contest deadline of August, 1960, 

got near; "Fly Baby" was a long way from completion. 

Fortunately, volunteer help from George and Dave Trepus, 

who worked at Boeing, became available, and one 

of the model building kids in the neighborhood, 12-yearold 

Dale Weir, and a couple of high school kids, Jack 

Davis and Tony Honsburger, made themselves fixtures 

in the shop and soon became indispensable. With only a 

couple of months to go, the panic button got pushed hard 

and craftsmanship went out the window. For the last 

couple of weeks, everyone I could drag into the shop 

was put to work, including some local FAA inspectors. 

Jim Clark of West Coast Airlines, owner of one of the 

Storys, handled the powerplant problems and Fxi Rudolph 

of G.E. was the paint department. 

A word about the covering and coloring — I had 

intended to use the colors of the prototype Boeing Jet 

Transport, yellow and brown with white trim and wanted 

it to be nitrate dope over the Sears-Roebuck Dacron Polyester 

Taffeta ($1.37 a yard), but Rex, who is an enamel 

enthusiast, talked me into using automotive enamel for 

the finish. The closest the auto supply store came to the 

desired color was "National School Bus Yellow", so this 

is what we used. The shade "Cordovan Brown" that looked 

good on the color chart turned out to be a metallic maroon 


Tail surfaces are built without jigs. Elevattor spars take 

torsion loads so are of box construction; stabilizer spar is 

C-section. Note that end ribs are double and boxed with 

plywood to resist doped fabric tension. Ribs are V* in. 

plywood with V* in. sq. cap strips and leading edges are 

covered with .016 in. hardware store aluminum. 

on the airplane, but didn't look at all bad. Rudy really 

threw the stuff on as time ran out, and we didn't bother 

with the white trim. Art Schultz of the Boeing art department 

took a short cut on the white fuselage numbers and 

outlined them with black 1/16 in. chart tape sealed with 

clear plastic spray. This tape held up fine for over a year 

and a half in the weather. 

With only a week to go before the date of departure 

for Rockford, panic really went into high gear. Other 

contestants seemed to be having the same problems, for 

the judges cut the required 50 hrs. of flight time down 

to 25, and then took to phoning Hie various ones to 

find out if they'd even have their ships finished in time. 

There was serious consideration given to postponing for 

another year, but at the last minute it was decided to 

have it as scheduled. 

The test hop for "Fly Baby" was scheduled for Wednesday, 

July 27, 1960. Needless to say, work carried right 

through from the time I got home from Boeing Monday 

night, all through Tuesday when I took sick leave, and 

all through the night and into Wednesday morning when 

we loaded the ship on a glider trailer and hauled it to 

Thun Field, at Puyallup, Wash. This was 35 miles away,

off the airways, and the corner of a triangular test area 

that I had asked for and gotten. Ted Smith of FAA 

showed up on schedule, made his inspection, and finished 

filling out the paperwork. I put 5 gals, of gas in the 

tank, since I wanted the ship to be light for the first 

flight and to reduce the fire hazard — just in case. This 

proved to be a mistake, but only one of several to be 

made that day. 

Since the freshly-overhauled engine had only three 

hours of block time and an hour of running in the ship, 

we decided to run it in for another hour while taxi-testing 

the ship and trying out the brakes and steering. 

There was nothing wrong with this — the later troubles 

came from over-anxiety to get into the air and the Go- 

Go-Go atmosphere generated by the now sizeable crowd 

made up of all the local aero-nuts who could get away 

from their jobs. I put on a parachute and taxied out to 

the end of the runway. The first two hops were to be 

low drags down the runway with the wheels just off 

the ground to test trim and controllability at low power, 

and all went well. On the full-throttle run, "Fly Baby" 

jumped into the air and then the engine sputtered. I 


Ribs are band sawed from Vs in. plywood, then fitted 

with '/» in. by Vt in. slotted cap strips. All were built by 

one person in a single Saturday. Wing tip bows are laminated 

from !/e in. J Sfl$p$, and ailerons are carried on Cspar 

behind rear wing 'spar. Compression ribs are steel 

tubing, one of few tyelded assemblies in the ship, and 

drag wires are Va in. 1x19 stranded wire. 

set down right away and taxied back past the crowd to 

try again. Again it happened, so I cut out further attempts. 

Since the ship had been given a fuel flow test before 

coming to the field and the engine had worked fine on 

the full-throttle demonstration for FAA, we were stumped. 

We thought that maybe the fuel line had a restriction 

or was a bit too small, so put on another and went out 

to try again later in the day. This time the throttle was 

advanced more slowly to cut down on acceleration and 

backward fuel surge, and things seemed to be going OK 

until at 20 ft. altitude at low speed with the nose up, the 

engine quit cold. With no power and no speed, there was 

nothing to do but hold on tight. The impact bent the 

axles and the steel axle support plates gouged into the 

sides of the wooden landing gear struts. Fortunately, the 

prop didn't hit the ground so this was the only damage. 

The ship was able to taxi back to the line under its own 

power. 

It was several months, long after I had put in a 

shorter and still-larger fuel line, that I found out what 

had happened. In looking at a photo taken just before 

the first take-off, I noticed that the wire fuel level indicator 

that sticks out of the cap of the Piper J-3 fuel 

tank was all the way down. 

The hour of engine running had used up most of the 

5 gals, that had been put in and no one, neither myself 


Joe Roskie puts the final bits of hardware store aluminum 

flashing to the leading edge of the right wing before covering 

with Dacron from Sears. 

« ». 

nor a single one of the spectators, pilots all, had noticed 

the warning that was there for everyone to see! The "preflight" 

inspection had been made BEFORE the engine 

run, and was not repeated before the flight. The lesson 

learned, fortunately at relatively low cost, was a double 

one — first, don't get in a hurry concerning test 

flights, and second, forget the weight handicap and fill 

the tank for the first flight. While the tank-to-carburetor 

relationship was exactly the same in "Fly Baby" as it was 

in the J-3 "Cub", the lighter homebuilt had considerably 

more acceleration with the same power and the small 

amount of fuel aboard surged to the back of the tank, 

behind the outlet, so the engine was running only on 

what was in the sediment bowl. With higher fuel levels, 

there was no further problem, but I did make a rule of 

"No take-off below % full" as used on Cessna 140s, etc. 

Well, it took a day to straighten out the metal 

landing gear parts, add a stiffening fairing to the 

straight-across tube axle, make two new wooden V-strut 

assemblies, and get it all back on the ship. With a full 

tank, the first real flight was highly successful, and "Fly 

Baby" was at last ready for Rockford, but with only 

an hour and four minutes on it. FAA wouldn't let it go 

cross-country with only this, so it got loaded back on 

the glider trailer and three of us, Jack, Tony, and myself, 

left Seattle on Saturday afternoon. Two days and 

(Continued on next page) 

(Photo by Victor D. Seely) 

Those '/s in. plywood ribs are HUSKY. Note that Pete is 

standing on the RIBS, not on the spars! Don't try this 

stunt until you get the stabilizing tapes in, or the ribs 

will bow sideways and break. 

SPORT AVIATION 7


(Continued from preceding page) 


Cockpit is roomy, and central portion of instrument panel 

is removable for service. Powerplant department—controls 

and instruments—at left, flight instruments in middle, 

and navigation department consisting of one compass at 

right. Turnbuckle across the middle is loosened to slack 

off the wing wires prior to folding. Removable rear tortledeck, 

taken off for this photo, is held on by two 

trunk latches and two aligning pins. 

nights of straight-through driving got us to Minneapolis, 

where we spent a night in an auto court and went on 

into Rockford, 2,243 miles from home, on Tuesday afternoon. 

Well, all the panic and midnight oil proved to be 

unnecessary. Only one other contest ship — Neal Loving's 

two-seat pusher — showed up. Since his had even 

less time than mine due to fuel flow problems, and we 

were both way below the special contest minimum of 

25 hrs., the judges called the contest off and postponed 

it for two years. However, the judges went over the ships 

just for the experience, and evaluated them just as 

though the contest was going. Beyond that, both ships 

just sat, since they couldn't fly; Loving's in the exhibit 

hangar and mine in the tie-down area with the "Live" 

homebuilts, where it attracted little attention except for 

curiosity about the rigid wooden landing gear. The wood 

was more controversial than the absence of shock absorbers 

and the feature of an old-fashioned straightacross 

axle. It really looked crude, too. The new wooden 

Vs had been built in only two hours, were rough-finished, 

and not even painted. Reaction to the gear was mixed, 

with both "pro" and "con" comments by Bob Whitticr and 

Bob Straub in the 1960 Fly-In (October) issue of SPORT 

AVIATION. My rebuttal to both appeared in the December 

issue. 

With the Fly-In over, there was nothing to do but 

haul "Fly Baby" home again and wait until 1962. The 

ship, meanwhile, performed just as it was intended to— 

as an easy-to-fly, docile, and forgiving sport plane. Any 

doubts that anyone had about the performance of the 

landing gear were soon dispelled as the ship was based 

at Auburn, Wash., which is a really ROUGH sod field. 

Since this is 20 miles from home, and my garage is too 

small to take even a ship of the EAA contest dimensions, 

I left it there except for a trip to the Boeing Hobby 

Show of 1960, where it won a big cup for being the most 

popular exhibit after taking second in the "Technology" 

category. In its original configuration it logged 114 hrs. 

and 20 different pilots had flown it. 

In April, 1962, disaster struck. A local pilot who borrowed 

it for a cross-country got off course in the mountains 

in bad weather and ran out of gas. He spotted a 

small pasture, but soon saw that he couldn't make it. He 

faced a choice of going through two fences on either 

a DECEMBER 1962 

side of a sunken road or banging it down with surplus 

speed in rough ground and brush short of the fences. He 

must have been doing 80 when he banged it down on the 

nose, one wheel, and the left wingtip. The resulting cartwheel 

broke the fuselage in two behind the seat, wiped 

off the gear on one side, bent the Taylorcraft L-2 engine 

mount sideways, did major damage to the leading edges 

of both wings, and broke some drag wires in the left 

wing. The wingtip bows, laminated up to l'/2 in. thick, did 

not break and nothing between the pilot's seat and the 

firewall budged in spite of the terrific side load that bent 

the engine mount. The pilot's increased weight during 

deceleration bent the steel tube rudder pedals, and that 

was all. He only got one scratch out of it all, and that on 

his hand from climbing out through the bushes. A good 

shoulder harness installation and the double bottom 

longeron construction really paid off here. 

This was a fine situation in which to be with only 

three months to go until the contest. It was the end of 

April before the pieces were all home and things were 

set up to start the rebuild. Even then it looked impossible 

because of the original gang that had helped build 

it, only Dale Weir and myself were available for steady 

work. Such others as could be counted on could work 

only now and then because of other commitments. 

The big break came unexpectedly on the first of 

May. Harry Higgins, an old Seattle gliding buddy that 

(Photo by Dole Weir) 

Everything shown here weighs 150 Ibs. (instruments are 

installed, but don't show). Here are two horizontal tail 

units and landing gear Vs. Turtledeck behind cockpit is 

removeable and can be replaced with transparent section 

and sliding canopy matched to existing windshield. 

Dy tsowersj 

Down the homestretch the first time—helped by Dale 

Weir, the Trepus brothers, and Ed Rudolph, July 17, 1960. 

Ten days later the ship was ready to fly.

(Photo by Dale Weir) 

Boeing had transferred to Wichita a few years before, 

called up and asked if there were any interesting projects 

going on in the shop. It seems that he and several 

other Wichita engineers had been transferred temporarily 

to Seattle to work on the military TFX proposal. They 

were "batching" at an apartment about a mile away and 

were looking for something interesting to do evenings. 

I told him to come on over, and showed him the pile of 

wood in the corner. 

Volunteer help is sometimes anything but a blessing, 

as many homebuilders know, but that wasn't the case 

here. Each of the three principals, Harry, John Aydalott, 

and John Berwick, program chairman of Wichita EAA 

Chapter 88, had plenty of experience and could be given 

a job and then forgotten while they went ahead and did 

it, so work whizzed along. The ability to get along without 

the usual supervision really paid off, for Boeing 

shipped me to Wright Field for a week later in the 

month. While the loyal troops slaved away in my shop, 

I was a real stinker and went down to nearby Yellow 

Springs to visit Neal Loving for an evening and kept 

him from working on his new contest entry! While other 

Wichitans helped occasionally, these three really slaved 

away at the job, and had it not been for them, "Fly Baby" 

could not have made it to Rockford by August. 

Some time was saved by not having to tear down the 

old engine. Jim Slauson, another Boeing-Seattle engineer, 

had a freshly-majored Continental C-75 out of an Ercoupe, 

supposedly modified to produce 85 hp, so we put 

that in. With the increased power, I put in a new special 

16 gal. tank with an inverted pyramid bottom to eliminate 

fuel flow problems at low levels and high angles. 

The work was still a rush against a deadline, and again 

craftsmanship went out the window, but there was time 

to do better on the coloring and some of the details. The 

white trim got on this time, but the wider black tape 

didn't stand up more than a couple of weeks this time. 

From the time construction actually got under way 

on May 5, 1962, to the first re-test flight on July 1, we 

built an entirely new fuselage, made major repairs to 

both wings as well as re-tinned the leading edges and recovered 

both, built new landing gear vee's and straightened 

the old metal parts, built a new tank, built the old 

vertical tail onto the new fuselage and recovered it, 

Towing gliders is one of the things that "Ply Baby" was 

designed to do. No more waivers for any but standard 

category aircraft after June 28, so this activity is now 

made new flat-wrap parts for the cowl and hammered 

out the old formed parts, adapted a 90 hp PA-11 "Cub" 

engine mount, and repainted the remaining old parts to 

match the new, using "Cub Yellow" nitrate dope this time 

on more Sears Dacron. The only change made as a result 

of the 1960 judging was to replace the elevator 

push-pull tube, which George Owl didn't like a bit, with 

cables. The nose was shortened 1 in. and the fuselage 

behind the wing lengthened 7 in. to overcome a slight 

tendency toward nose-heaviness in the original and to 

increase the effectiveness of the horizontal tail, which 

had been designed relatively undersize in relation to the 

wing area and the existing moment arm length in order 

to keep the span short enough for trailering without 

having to remove it. Not that control wasn't good — it 

just became better. There was no weight change because 

the weight saved by removing the long steel tube and 

its guides just matched that of the extra length of wood. 

The fuselage itself was actually a bit lighter because 

this time the plywood was honest Vs in. instead of the 

old 5/32 in. The only other structural change was to 

reverse the directions of the cross-fuselage diagonals to 

simplify the gusseting work during construction. A big 

break came from FAA, which ruled that the repair, actually 

about 60 percent new airplane when you count the 

engine, mount, and tank, was just that and that the 

lengthened fuselage was not considered a major alteration 

that had to be proved out by a long flight test program. 

There were no test hop troubles this time — one 

low-altitude drag down the Auburn runway and then a 

maximum-climb take-off. 

During the rebuild, several features which the ship 

was originally intended to have to increase its versatility 

and gain contest points were incorporated, principally 

fittings for pontoons and provisions for mounting a separate 

set of biplane wings. A glider tow hook had been 

standard equipment from the first, but hadn't been used 

with gliders because of the wrong prop on the 75 hp engine. 

This had been real handy as a tie-down feature, 

though, allowing one to prop the plane alone without 

chocks, get in the cockpit to complete the warmup, then 

pull the release handle and taxi away without getting 

out to untie the ship. With the 85 hp engine and a 71-48 

climb prop, FAA issued a glider-towing waiver, and on 

the first try "Fly Baby" pulled a standard Schweizer 1-23 

sailplane to 3,000 ft. above a 1,500 ft. elevation gliderport 

in 10 minutes in hot July weather. The waiver was 

rescinded in a few days, however, and towing could not 

be demonstrated at Rockford, because the FAA agent got 

to the bottom of his IN basket soon after issuing it and 

found a directive from Washington which stated that after 

June 28, 1962, none but standard category aircraft could 

be issued waivers for towing. The installation of a pair 

of Edo D-990 floats was well under way but couldn't be 

completed because of other last-minute problems, but 


(Photo by David R. Bowers) 

taboo. Even in "Dirty" configuration with no gap covers 

or aileron seals, and with "The Bomb" aboard, ship towed 

standard Schweizer 1-23 sailplane to 3,000 ft. in 10 minutes. 

SPORT AVIATION 9



"The Bomb", a streamlined suitcase that everyone thought 

was an auxiliary fuel tank, was completed by Jim Weir, 

Dale's dad, and painted to match the ship. The interchangeable 

transparent rear deck and sliding canopy 

that could replace the removable turtledeck and headrest 

wasn't completed either, but was shown on the drawings. 

Because of the expressed preference for two-seaters 

in the 1960 contest, serious consideration was given to 

converting to two seats since a whole new fuselage had 

to be built, but even with 85 hp, I felt that the added 

weight and drag would cut down on the good performance, 

especially the low landing speed and baby-buggy 

handling characteristics that I felt were the ship's strong 

points. 

The rebuilt bird, sometimes called "New Fly Baby", 

to indicate its "After-Crash" status, really looked like a 

new machine because it also had a new registration number. 

Back in 1960, I had asked for N3PB to indicate my 

third homebuilt (the other two were gliders), but N13P 

was what FAA Registration Branch at Oklahoma City 

came up with. It arrived a few days before the first 

flight, so I put it on the ship and filled out the papers 

and sent them in. A few months later, I got a letter, 

wanting to know where the affidavit was for the small 

number. It seems that to get one these days you have to 

have the local FAA agent certify that your ship is too 

small to take a bigger one. Since this obviously wasn't 

Black Sunday, April 15, 1962. A fine situation for a contest 

date. In spite of the look of total destruction, pilot 

who ran out of gas didn't get hurt, and ship was rebuilt 

in seven weeks. 

true, and I wouldn't ask Ted Smith to write fiction for 

me, I didn't send in an affidavit. I did ask if I could 

keep the number, since it was already on the ship — 

with enamel yet — and was already on the books in the 

local FAA Office, the State Aeronautics Commission, 

the County Tax office, and a few other places, all of 

which would be bothered by a change. 

Officialdom said "No". The number had only been 

RESERVED for me upon my initial application (and deposit 

of $10) and could be ISSUED only upon receipt of 

the affidavit. I asked to see photostat copies of the affidavits 

that got two-digit numbers for a couple of Grumman 

"Gulfstream" transports and a new Piper "Cherokee", 

all built after this hassle started, but got no reply 

to that pitch. I managed to stall this losing battle along 

for a year and finally settled for a new "legitimate" 

number, N500F. I knew there would be problems with a 

number change — as soon as "Fly Baby" was seen with 

500F on it I received a request from the State of Wash- 


"OLD Fly Baby" on an early flight, August, 1960. Fuselage 

has since been lengthened six inches and number 

changed to N500F. 

ington for the sales tax on the "new airplane" that I now 

owned! 

That was only one minor problem of several that 

were still to come before Rockford '62. Since one of the 

main contest requirements was a set of drawings suitable 

for building the ship (supposed to be delivered with the 

entry blank, not when the ship was delivered. Lots of us 

goofed here), I arranged with an illustrator friend in 

California to make good professsional quality drawings 

from the shop sketches and rough scribbles that I had 

turned out, plus construction photos. I also sent him the 

original "Preliminary Information" drawings for the 1960 

contest that Bob Parks of the Boeing training unit had 

turned out. This was in April, plenty of time to get 

them done by contest time. Since I was snowed under 

with the rebuild from then on, I didn't follow up to see 

how he was doing. Finally, in the middle of July, a big 

bundle arrived in the mail from his address. It contained 

"Fly Baby" drawings all right — the same ones 

I had sent! It seeems he had gotten clobbered in an 

auto wreck and a friend of his was settling his affairs 

and returning the jobs he had. 

Well, it took a few more nights of the midnight oil 

to turn out a very quickie set of free-hand shop sketches 

and type up the step-by-step instructions that went with 

them. The result met the contest requirements in that 

anyone could build a ship from them, but they were 

far from "pro" looking. They are not the traditional "Roll 

of Blueprints" approach, but a smaller 8*6 x 11 in. docu- 

(Photo by Jim Slouson) 

Full speed ahead! Five days after the start of rebuilding. 

Harry Higgins at the band saw on the left, Joe Roskie and 

John Berwick at the wing in the background, Pete ducking 

into the open-bottom fuselage, and Dale Weir behind it.

ment with very few flat layouts, mostly perspective 

sketches showing various stages of how to fit things 

together. Instead of very detailed views of each part, a 

single view with a few key dimensions is given, with instructions 

calling sometimes for "Fit on Assembly". This 

cuts down greatly on having to build to close tolerances 

on a bunch of parts where tolerances are not critical 

for the parts themselves except where some other part 

has to fit. Interchangeability is not a problem here as 

on production-line types, so things are simplified by 

fitting one part to another at time of assembly. The 

judges seemed to like this approach real well, judging 

by their comments in the October issue. The only trouble 

with the drawings as submitted is that there is only the 

one copy, which is not reproducible. So, until I deliver 

better-finished reproducibles, they are holding on to 

the prize money! That will take several hundred hours. 

One of the big lessons learned by all from this contest 

is that it takes just as long to turn out a good set of 

drawings as it does to build the plane! Jim Morrow, who 

has been doing those Fokker triplane drawings for my 

SPORT AVIATION articles, is doing "Fly Baby" drawings 

now, and they will appear in SPORT AVIATION 

as well as in the printed plans document. Incidentally, 

you can imagine what all this is doing to that poor triplane 

project! 

Then there was a need to fix up another trailer for 

the trip to Rockford. In the 1960 contest, the road speed 

requirement was only 40 or 45 mph, and both Loving 

and myself towed our ships on their own wheels. We 

both had trouble with brake drag and serious overheating, 

but figured it was a problem that could be licked. 

We both had detachable trailer hitches that hooked to 

the tail, and "Fly Baby" was wired for regular trailer 

lights, turn signals, etc., with the main lights in the 

wing butts and clearance lights in the wingtips. Hookup 

to the car through a jumper. In 1960, the glider trailer 

was used just to get it to Rockford. The old glider trailer 

wouldn't do for this for 1962, so I had to fix up another, 

(Photo by Victor D. Seely) 

"Bomb" is a ten-inch diameter streamlined aluminum suitcase, 

complete with handle, hinged section, and legs. Ends 

are spun aluminum and center is built up of flat sheet. 

Paint job matches the airplane. 

which kept the midnight oil going a few more nights, 

since it was mainly a one-man job until Ron got aboard 

near the end. Most of the Wichita gang had gone back to 

Kansas by this time. 

The day of departure finally arrived, but the usual 

last-minute stuff delayed the start from 8:00 a.m. until 

noon. At first, it was just to be Dale and myself, but 

one day before we left Rudy was able to come, a welcome 

addition since he could help with the driving 

because Dale was too young at 14 for a license. However, 

Rudy couldn't get off work until 5:00 and we wanted to 

get going earlier, so it was arranged that he would hop 

an airliner and we'd pick him up at Spokane, Wash., 300 

miles east of Seattle. We made it some time after 11:00, 

it turned out. Naturally, I had invited disaster by making 

a very foolish remark as we started: "Nothing to do 

now but drive a car for three days!" Me and my big 

mouth! 

It seems that the fuel pump, which had always worked 

fine when hauling gliders over the mountains, decided 

to act up and we couldn't get over the mountains 50 

miles east of Seattle. We got turned around and headed 

back down the grade to the nearest town that had a 

Ford garage. What with our speed — slightly over Washington's 

50 mph trailer limit and just at about EAA's 

requirement, and the 20-30 knot wind blowing through 

the pass, the airspeed of "Fly Baby" on the trailer was 

around 80 mph when one of the ropes holding the left 

wing broke. The airstream ripped the wing right off the 

fuselage and off the trailer, and the tip dragged along 

on the ground. The rest of the wing was held off the 

ground by the rigging wires, so only half the thickness 

of the good husky (thank goodness for that timber — 

again!) wing tip bow and the top of the first rib inboard 

got ground away before I could stop the car. Why did 

the rope break? More rush—rush—rush. Instead of putting 

the bolt through the fitting and then tieing to the 

round bolt, I tied to the fitting itself, and vibration and 

the sharp corner did the rest. The next tiedown method 

was good for the rest of the trip, including 60 mph towing 

in 40 mph direct cross winds, with no further trou- 


(HhoTo by bowers) 

Landing gear details, showing the wooden V's, shackle 

and clevis pin that hold the flying wires to the end of the 

axle, and "The Bomb". Wires from longerons to midpoint 

of axle stabilize axle against bending under flying 

loads and serve as sway braces for "The Bomb". 

SPORT AVIATION 11



ble other than worry that the whole rig was going to 

blow off the road. 

We got a new electric pump in the car (a $50 job) 

and headed east again with the damaged ship. After 

picking up Rudy, I phoned friends in Spokane, and received 

an invitation from Carl Swanson to bring the 

ship into his operation, Mamer-Shreck, at Felts Field. 

Since it was midnight, we slept in the car and on the 

trailer in front of the hangar and moved in as soon as 

it opened up in the morning. We scrounged power tools 

and material from Mamer-Shreck and from Paul Laudan, 

an old glider buddy working for Cessna at the other 

end of the field, and got to work by 9:00 a.m. I tackled 

the wing repair while Rudy went to work on the fuselage 

repair where the wing hinge had ripped out. Poor Dale 

was worn to a frazzle running back and forth between 

Cessna and Mamer-Shreck in the heat. "Fly Baby" was 

ready for a test hop at 3:00 p.m., so, with everyone out 

to watch, I taxied out. My only worry was for the effect 

of the wrinkles in the leading edge of the left wing. 

This had inadvertently been covered with SO aluminum 

instead of half-hard like the right wing during the rebuild, 

and any movement, pressure, or even a dirty look, 

it seemed, made a dent. We drilled holes and poked 

through to the opposite side with sticks, which got out 

the major dings but left most of the lesser ones. As 

Using a boat winch to haul the folded "Fly Baby" up the 

ramps and onto a flatbed trailer. For long hauls, it is far 

better for the ship to take the wings off entirely and 

cradle them like the wings on a glider trailer. 

soon as the wheels were off the ground I was able to 

determine that the wrinkles didn't bother the good old 

reliable NACA 4412 airfoil. Knowing that "Fly Baby" 

would perform as well as ever, I held her down and let 

the speed build up and made a steep pull-up with steady 

climb to 1,000 ft. that they were still talking about when 

Dale and I came back through Spokane two weeks later. 

Two design features of "Fly Baby" paid off here, 

and one was mentioned by the judges in their report in 

the magazine — the wing hinge was entirely separate 

from the flying fittings. If the hinge had been combined 

with close-tolerance fittings and primary structure, we 

never would have been able to make such a quick repair. 

The other was the "double longeron" construction 

of the fuselage bottom in the cockpit-firewall area. This 

localized the damage when the hinge pulled out and left 

basic structure all around the hole to attach new skin 

to. No Vs in. plywood was available, so Rudy used two 

thicknesses of Paul's 1/16 in. glider plywood. Since the 

hinge doesn't carry any load except when the wings are 

folded, we didn't have to wait for the glue to dry before 


(Photo by Dole Weir) 

First flight with "The Bomb" aboard. No noticeable effect 

on performance. Note the open glider tow hook attached 

to the tail wheel casting. Whip antenna is for Mitchell 

Airboy Senior radio mounted on cockpit floor ahead of 

the stick. 

making the test flight. Busting up flying machines is a 

heck of a way to win construction points in a contest, 

but I am sure that the two mishaps, which proved out 

the basic ruggedness and simplicity of the structure by 

permitting such quick repairs, influenced the judges. 

The rest of the trip to Rockford was routine, except 

that we had to do more driving and less sleeping to make 

up the lost day and a half. We arrived on Tuesday again, 

but the big difference this time was that "Fly Baby" 

could fly. The first thing to do, of course, was to look 

over the opposition. Finding only five other ships was 

a big disappointment in one way, but a break in that 

it gave "Fly Baby" a better chance. As we saw it, the 

contest would be between three ships — Tony Spezio's 

"Tu-Holer", Leon Tefft's "Contestor", and "Fly Baby". 

Leon had most of the same basic design concepts that 

I had — all wood, low cost, and maximum structural simplicity. 

I figured that he might beat me in the judging 

on direct comparison of these features. If the judges considered 

craftsmanship, he'd come out way ahead, for his 

ship was really tops in that department. However, one 

look at his wing span convinced me that "Fly Baby" 

had a colossal flight advantage. He overdid the simplicity 

angle by seeking to avoid even the need to make 

a scarfed plywood splice. (There are only two in "Fly 

Baby"). The plywood covered wings were covered with 

standard 4 ft. by 8 ft. sheets, giving a total span of 18 ft. 

from two 8 ft. panels and the two foot fuselage. "Fly 

Baby" had a full 10 ft. more span. With about 15 percent 

more airplane, I am sure that Leon would have taken 

it. Even his excellent tricycle landing gear, which contributed 

to easy handling, couldn't make up for the performance 

handicap of the short-span low-aspect-ratio wing. 

Tony's ship wasn't directly comparable to "Fly Baby", 

but it had features enough all its own to be a 

serious worry. First off, I figured he'd get a big advantage 

in being two-seat, which in view of the preference 

for two-seaters in the 1960 contest should overcome 

a lot of shortcomings in other areas. I didn't figure that 

he'd lost much for having a steel tube fuselage. Wood 

was cheaper and in my opinion easier to work with, but 

lots of people would far rather have that ironwork around 

them. He got a big cost break by using the Lycoming 

ground unit engine, and had lots of speed over "Fly 

Baby", but with his greater weight and shorter span, 

"Baby" should take him on easy flying, slow landing, 

etc. We figured it would be pretty close, with "Tu-Holer" 

and "Fly Baby" fighting for first, Leon's "Contestor" a 

sure third, Gene Turner's wooden single-seater, very 

similar to the original 1951 "Fly Baby" concept in both 

(Continued on page 14)

G£A/CP/U ARRANGE ME fJr 

'FLY BABY" SPECIFICATIONS 

Wing span 

Length 

Height (folded) 

Tail span ....... 

Wing chord .... 

Wing area ... 

Empty weight . . . 

28 ft. 

18 ft. 101/2 in. 

6 ft. 11 in. 

7 ft. 111/2 in. 

4 ft. 6 in. 

. .... 120 sq. ft. 

605 Ibs. 

Gross weight ........ 925 Ibs. 

Fuel ...... 12-16 gals. 

Power ...... 65-85 hp 

Cruising speed ...... 110-115 mph 

Rate of climb 850-1100 fpm 

Construction ........ All wood 

Airfoil . . . . . . . NACA 4412 

SPORT AVIATION 13



structure and performance in fourth place, and the 

Eaves' folding-wing "Cougar" fifth. 

During the conference that the judges had with each 

contestant, they told us how they would evaluate the setit-up-to-fly 

operation. They emphasized that any number 

of people could help, but that the penalty would be proportional. 

I had never set up or folded "Fly Baby" all 

alone, and in fact, had folded it only a couple of times 

since the 1960 meet, but figured that points-wise, it would 

be best to do it alone. I went to the nearest hardware 

store and bought a broomstick. Rudy sawed off the 

round end, drilled each end, and presssed in a long 

3/16 in. bolt with the head cut off. We then drilled a 

3/16 in. hole part way into each wing tip bow so the 

broomstick could be used as a no-slip crutch to hold 

the wingtip up when the landing wires were slacked 

off. The first "solo" set-up was the one I did for the 

judges, and from getting out of the car, through untieing, 

off the trailer, set-up, and ready for flight was 20 

minutes. With a bit of practice and less time spent on 

explaining details, I could cut it down to 15, I'm sure. 

Folding goes much more quickly. Incidentally, to explain 

how all those 16 wires on the wing are slacked off without 

undoing all the turnbuckles, there is a single turnbuckle 

running across the top of the main fuselage bulkhead. 

This is slacked off, and then four pins are pulled 

where the wires above and below each panel converge. 

Well, enough of history. How does it fly? Darn well, 

in the opinion of the judges, who seemed to agree that 

this was the ship's strong point in spite of flying it in 

the "Maximum Dirty" configuration with no aileron 

seals or wing-fuselage gap covers, and with "The Bomb" 

in place. Adding the gap covers reduced landing speed 

by 2 mph through improved airflow over the tail and the 

aileron seals (plain masking tape) improved the rate of 

roll noticeably. Since they had said that anyone who 

could handle a J-3 "Cub" would have no trouble with 

it, my 18-year-old son David, a student power pilot with 

45 hours, 30 in gliders (private license), and 7 l /z each in 

Aeronca C-3 and Piper J-3, used the advance copy of 

the judges' magazine article to pound me over the head 

with until I let him fly it. On his second time up in it 

he went over Mt. Rainier at 15,000 ft. and the next day 

took it X-C. 

Performance numbers don't mean much unless qualified 

with supporting information. With the 74-43 prop 

on the original 75 hp engine, it cruised 105 mph at 2150 

rpm, the engine being effectively a 65 because of the 

prop. It has exactly the same cruise speed with the present 

85 engine and a 71-48 climb prop turning 2350. 

Changing to a 71-51 ups the cruise speed to 115, but 

chops over 150 fpm off the rate of climb. With the 

71-51 prop, climb from take-off is 1100 fpm at 2300 

rpm and 75 mph IAS. Take-off with this prop is real 

short, especially if you keep the tail low. I've never 

actually measured the run, but it's short enough to please 

anyone. You're about 10 feet in the air, or so it seems, 

about the time the tail would just be coming up in a 

65 hp "Cub" or a Cessna 140. Time to 4,000 ft. is five 

minutes, and to 8,000 ft. is 12 minutes. Times were not 

taken above that altitude because maximum efficiency 

could not be achieved without operating mixture control. 

"Fly Baby" has been to 15,000 ft. with both the old engine-prop 

combination and the present 85 with climb 

prop, and with the latter shown between 300 and 400 

fpm on the rate-of-climb indicator at 10,000 ft. 

It's hard to get accurate airspeed readings at both 


Airborne in the "NEW Fly Baby" before getting the name 

painted on or trying out "The Bomb". Main problem in 

getting good flight photos near Seattle is lining up available 

photographer, camera plane, AND sunny weather! 

ends of the scale, so the high speeds were timed over 

measured courses while landing speeds were checked by 

a car running alongside during landing. There was too 

much difference between various airplanes we tried formation 

flying with for that to provide any sort of check 

at all. Some read higher and some lower for a given 

throttle setting on "Fly Baby". Landing speed without 

the gap covers is 46-48 mph as near as we can determine. 

Procedure is to come in a little fast by "Cub" 

standards — about 80, over the fence at 70, chop power, 

if carrying any, and hold it off with stick until she threepoints. 

Too slow an approach and it won't round out and 

float, or hold off, but will plop right on. For real short 

landings, drag it in nose-high with power, then chop it 

and hit the brakes. When traffic in the pattern permits, 

I often make power-off 180 deg. side-approach spot 

landings in the "Baby". 

When you are familiar only with "Cubs" and gliders, 

the power-off rate of sink seems awfully high — 800-900 

fpm, but this is typical of (relatively) small area ships. 

To float like a "Cub", a no-flaps plane has to be about 

the same size and wing loading as the "Cub". This is no 

problem to the low-time and student pilots, or most 

others who will listen while you give them a run-down 

on the ship and a cockpit check. 

Control is good in all axis, and it can be flown hands 

off in moderately bumpy air. No trim system is provided. 

The pilot can slide back and forth a bit, or actually move 

the seat, to balance the changing gas load. For big and 

little pilots, both rudder pedals and seat can be adjusted. 

With two-to-one aileron differential, turn entry 

is easy and very little rudder is needed to keep coordinated. 

On the other hand, it's a good "rudder airplane", 

and when flying with hands off the stick can be put into 

turns and brought out again with rudder alone without 

getting sloppy. "The Bomb" has no noticeable effect on 

the flight characteristics, and seems to knock only about 

2-3 mph off the cruise speed. A closed canopy would no 

doubt add about 5 mph, but I haven't been in a hurry 

to finish the one I started since I like the open cockpit 

so well. It's quite comfortable, thanks mainly to the big 

three-piece windshield. Goggles aren't necessary at all, 

although I generally wear a helmet on most flights. 

There's plenty of ROOM in the cockpit, too, so you can 

bundle up in heavy clothes and still be able to wiggle 

around. There's lots of baggage room behind the seat, and 

I also carry small stuff on the floor ahead of the stick. 

A back-pack parachute cramps things up a bit, so if you 

want to wear one, as for aerobatics, I recommend a seat 

pack. 

(Continued on bottom of page 15)

Fokker Triplane Planning 

In this view of the miniature construction model, the 

original Fokker Triplane structural configuration is evident. 

Simplicity is the keynote in this structure. 

IN PLANNING the necessary modifications to adapt 

the original Fokker Triplane structure to take a modern 

reliable engine and make other desirable changes, 

I have found it wise to build models to help work out 

proposed designs. The accompanying photos show a pair 

of miniature fuselage frames made for this purpose. One 

shows the essentially original Fokker structure while 

the other shows its extensively modified counterpart. 

In making these models soldered metal construction 

proved better and somewhat faster than the conventional 

cemented wooden method commonly used for flying 

models. When using a scale of IVfe in. equals 1 ft. 0 in., 

which is very convenient for scaling purposes, it will be 

found that regular copper-coated mild steel welding rods 

of l /s in., 3/32 in. and 1/16 in. diameter correspond to 

1 in., % in., and Vz in. tubing sizes. It was found that 

steel rods are better suited to this project than comparable 

bronze brazing rods, because the steel conducts the 

heat of soldering much less rapidly, thus allowing additional 

members to be added to a cluster without the 

whole joint springing apart. Since the real purpose of the 

model is to better visualize different trussing schemes 

it becomes an advantage to be able to remove or add 

members at will. 



I haven't done any aerobatics in it, mainly because 

I'm no good at them. Only Dave Gauthier has. They looked 

good from the ground, and he seemed pleased after the 

short time he'd tried it. I'll let a real "pro" have a try 

at it and give a report later. As for spins, it's a hard 

fight to get it into one, and then it comes out by itself. 

Stall is clean, with no tendency to drop either wing. With 

the wires, it's easy to rig the wings to a bit of wash-out 

so that there is plenty of aileron control through the 

stall. Load factor? Jim Wickham ran a stress analysis 

as the subject of a Chapter 26 EAA meeting, and it came 

up as 7. 

So there it is. I'll admit that it's not an airplane to 

By John Doyle, EAA 2931 

P. O. Box 13, Andover, Mass. 

Generally, rods should be snipped to approximate 

length with heavy diagonal cutters and then filed to 

exact dimensions. It's unnecessary to make rounded 

notches at the ends of struts as the solder fills the joint 

well, but scarves often have to be filed to shape where 

clusters occur. Splices, such as shown in the photos immediately 

behind the cockpit where the longeron tubes 

telescope into each other, are best accomplished by scarfing 

both members and soldering them together before 

jig assembly. As in the building of the full-size article 

a suitable jig is absolutely necessary to align the members 

in proper position while soldering is done. The 

Fokker Triplane example lent itself well to the standard 

side-frame type of construction. With a simple line 

drawing of the frame tacked to a soft pine board 1 in. 

by No. 18 brads were driven along both sides of the 

members to hold them in place. Other jigs were found 

useful to hold the completed side-frames in relative position 

while cross pieces were added. 

John Doyle's redesigned Fokker Triplane fuselage points 

out the heavy reinforcing of the entire structure, especially 

in the forward bays to acccommodate a modern, 

reliable engine. 

A Weller WD-135 soldering gun gave good results, 

using 50/50 wire solder and Nokorode Fluid Flux. Acid 

type fluxes should be avoided because rusting will occur, 

making resoldering operations difficult. Rosin type 

fluxes are also apt to prove unsatisfactory for they generally 

do not work well on steel. 

please everybody, especially those who have had previous 

experience with homebuilts and have built up their 

own ideas as to just what they want. I think that those 

to whom speed and zip aren't so important will find it 

"The Mostest" airplane that they can produce for the least 

investment of money and labor. Careful notes were kept 

on both of these. The raw materials in the original ship 

cost $375, and the "used hardware" consisting of a majored 

engine, used metal prop, instruments, wheels, 

brakes, fuel tank, etc., came to $675 for a total of $1,050. 

These at average market prices in 1960. Good horsetraders 

and scroungers can doubtless cut this down considerably. 

Time to build "Fly Baby" the first time, averaging 

out the labor skills involved, was 720 hours, which 

works out to about two hours a day for a year. £ 

SPORT AVIATION 15

The Fly Baby Story - Oshkosh 365

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?