Need help identifying this vintage .19/.35 stunter

What you have there is known as the Heinz 57. See the wingtip, it says CL-20 with the letters ER in front of it. That's a Sig Akromaster wing and possibly two of them. The body does look like a Veco Squaw but it didn't have provisions for inverted engine mounting like the removable bottom block is on this model.

GallopingGhostler wrote:Roddie, nice thing about that model is that it would be very easy to restore it to its former glory. I did a search for "Veco" on Outerzone, came up with Scout, Warrior earlier single seat version, and Squaw. Although they show the Veco heritage reflected in your model example, none seems to hit it directly.

What is its wingspan? I think a few more dimensional specifics (wing chord, wheel diameter, bellcrank size, etc.) would help the community nail it down.

Thanks George. It's a Facebook group (Control Line Enthusiasts) inquiry. Fuse length is a reported 23".. and W/S is 34". That's all I know thus far. It looks VERY MUCH like a Veco Scout.. except that the Veco Scout is a 1/2A model (full-fuse..) with a 25.75" W/S.

It doesn't seem to be a "Veco" model.. although it looks a LOT like the Scout. Who else kitted full-fuse/scale-like Stunters... back in the 50's?

Wondering if maybe.. it's a scaled-up version of the Scout.. that was maybe.. featured in one of the then-popular Aero-Modeling magazines.. along with a construction article.

These things happen..

Ken Cook wrote:         What you have there is known as the Heinz 57. See the wingtip, it says CL-20 with the letters ER in front of it. That's a Sig Akromaster wing and possibly two of them. The body does look like a Veco Squaw but it didn't have provisions for inverted engine mounting like the removable bottom block is on this model.

I had a feeling that you'd be able to shed some light on this Ken. Any thoughts on what the fuse might be from.. for a rudder ID?

Just about all of the Veco designs were based on one similar design. The differences being size, cockpits, etc. I have built the Warrior, the Squaw, Tomahawk. Some flew better than others. The Papoose fits this wingspan the closest. The Papoose also was designed around a inverted engine.


Some had flaps, some didn't but a common problem with them is the undersize wingspan. The Chief took care of that but they didn't increase the airfoil thickness enough.Nonetheless, I still feel it flies pretty decent provided you keep it light.

Clever guy joining two different airplanes together, the result of a crash maybe?  I see signs of brilliance, and signs of not so.  The bellcranks attachments for instance.  

I did that once, joined a horizontal stab from a Mambo R/C plane onto a profile fuselage of my own design and powered it with an Enya .09 or was it .15.  Result was not impressive.

rsv1cox wrote:I did that once, joined a horizontal stab from a Mambo R/C plane onto a profile fuselage of my own design and powered it with an Enya .09 or was it .15.  Result was not impressive.

Used the elevator as a C/L half-A wing? Or another plane's R/C or F/F tail?

Mambo had a lifting tail with its flat bottom modified Clark-Y rib section, which shifted CG location back. Was a little tricky to get it right.

Hal DeBolt used it on some of his rudder only cabin R/C's, (.049 Livewire Kitten was one). Frank Zaic also used it on a few of his trainers. He did not use it on the Airco kit I got, R/C Aero Star, bigger "A" size of the half-A Lark, but used it on the Aero-9 trainer.

I think the philosophy was to prevent the airplane from porpoising when turning, as once the aircraft entered a bank, rudder then would lift the tail, causing it to build speed, which would zoom and stall. It was to inhibit this by lifting the tail during zoom.

Sterling Minnie Mambo had a symmetrical elevator rib section instead, it was one of the stunting-est planes around, could do two loops with a good spiral dive.

So, I can see how you could have had problems with Mambo's lifting elevator.