Byron Pitts (1/3 scale)... little help?

[MadMonkey]

Hey guys

A buddy of mine recently acquired a Byron Pitts and really wants me to use it as a demo plane (don't ask). Unfortunately, Byron was a little before my time, so I know NOTHING about them. It's currently at another friends house being repaired and re-covered, so it's a good time to look at structural issues and power options.

I'm sure some of you are old enough to know these planes (it's the foam one).

He originally wanted me to fly 3D with it (!) and I said "Uhhhhh.... yeah, good luck with that", so he relented and now wants scale aerobatics with smoke, plus he wants to use a Zenoah engine (dealer pricing... sigh). Any hints? Would a 45 have enough power? I considered the 62, but I've heard it's a pretty bad shaker. However, another friend had one on his GP 1/3 scale Pitts and it seemed okay. Would it be alright to just strengthen the airframe and use the 62?

I'm a little nervous about this thing

Any structural modifications that would be useful? Lightening ideas?

Thanks for any help!

[rc technics]

The Byron Pitts I believe was designed around the Super Tiger 3000. That’s why it was kept light. Many people have tried a Gas engine but the problem with that is you need to find away to fuel proof and reinforce the airframe.

Both me and my dad are currently working on a pair of Byron Pitts from kit form. We plan on setting them up for electric with a 2800+ Watt motor on 10 cells. We are interning on keeping them as light as possible i.e. replace the original wheels and spinner with lighter ones and cut lighting holds in the fire wall. I am also going to double bevel the elevators and rudder to increase control throws.

Hopefully we can turn this into a great big foamy.

regards
Paul Hepworth

[DA2000]

I finished one in 92. Built it primarily stock and powered it with a Quadra 42.

I nearly doubled the size of all of the plywood hardpoints for the cabane, I-struts, and wing bolts. I would go a step further and put a wood plug between them. Over time the foam crushes where everything is mounted.

Covered mine with Econocote in the standard scheme. It was a wonderful scale flying Pitts, but a bit underpowered with the Q42. I believe the 45 is a good bit more power.

Pray you don't have a gas leak.

Oh, and it was actually designed around a geared .60!

I've seen a few glassed and painted, but they don't fly anywhere near as nice as mine did at 17 pounds.

[JimC-MD]

A buddy and I had a couple of these and they were lots of fun. (Thanks for reminding me of how long ago that was)

The ones we had were powered with BGX from OS or the Saito 300 twin. The sound of a screaming 300TTDP on one of these really made a great scale show. One other gentleman had a gasser on his. It was fine up until the fuel leak. It was found when the fuse dropped down onto the landing gear plate while it was sitting in the pits.

Cover with low heat covering and have fun.

[rc technics]

Check this out.

YouTube - This is the PITTS! Antique Byron Pitts...

[Gus155]

They flew really well with a Webra Bully. Otherwise the saito 300 twin is good.

[MadMonkey]

	Quote: Originally Posted by rc technics
	Check this out. YouTube - This is the PITTS! Antique Byron Pitts Special, that is!

Nice! I had no idea they did that!

Well, my friend reaaaally wants to put a gasser in it, so we're probably going with that. Luckily, the guy rebuilding it is an excellent builder so he's going to do some strengthening and fiberglassing, plus fuelproof everything he can.

He'd prefer a Zenoah, after talking to him today. I'd rather go with something lighter like an MT-50 or 57, but I don't think it's going to happen.

So what do you guys think... G45 or G62?

Man, this is going to be a scary flight

I hope he starts realizing that we have much better construction techniques and flying capabilities now than they did in the 70's! He needs to quit buying old stuff!

[pcsol]

Hate to come of as negative MM but with a 62 or even a 45 that thing is going to be somewhat of a brick. I built and flew two of these along with a couple of the "snap" 21's (emphasis on snap). If you cannot get under 18 pounds dry you are really going to have your hands full. And I would be really watchful of the structural integrity at that weight. If the re-builder is going to add strength, than most likely he is going to add weight. I ended up with ST 3000's or Moki's on mine and made a lot of mods to get the weight down to 16 pounds and they flew well. Not great by today’s standards, but well. If you go with the 62 you will need about twenty feet for take off, but a small airport to land it !
G/L

[WangoTango]

	Quote: Originally Posted by rc technics
	Check this out. YouTube - This is the PITTS! Antique Byron Pitts Special, that is!

I cringe at running that Rossi up full tilt with a Byro-Drive and kneeling in front of it. Mine had a penchant for tossing one or both belts. (Alignment problems!) I moved past that with a 2 inch Webra Bully. G-62's were blase' back then so we used Sachs 3.7's......... I've shed more than one of them foam wings. I was cool though...... I had the trunk mount carrier to take it to the field in style! Still have a magazine write-up and pictures!
WT

[Surly_Schmidt]

A friend had one with a converted saw motor of about 40cc. It was fully glassed with 3/4oz and painted. From memory it weighed about 18lb. Flew well back in the day, but dropped like a brick without power which led to its demise.

[MadMonkey]

	Quote: Originally Posted by pcsol
	Hate to come of as negative MM but with a 62 or even a 45 that thing is going to be somewhat of a brick.

That's what I'm afraid of; I'm still trying to convince him, but I don't know if it's going to work. My thinking is: Fiberglass = heavier. Heavy? More engine! Bigger engine? Heavier! I have a feeling it's going to turn into a vicious circle, and we'll end up with a barely-flyable plane that won't do much of anything well.

	Quote:
	If the re-builder is going to add strength, than most likely he is going to add weight. I ended up with ST 3000's or Moki's on mine and made a lot of mods to get the weight down to 16 pounds and they flew well. Not great by today’s standards, but well. If you go with the 62 you will need about twenty feet for take off, but a small airport to land it ! G/L

Yeah... I'm going to try harder to convince him. The Supertigre would be the cheapest option, and I'd prefer to go cheap to avoid the heartbreak when this thing tries to go to pieces on me. I just have a bad feeling about it (or maybe it's the three mechanical failures I had today... that resulted in three crashes...). I mean... it's an OLD plane. That means it's got OLD wood, OLD epoxy... I dunno. I'll give it my best, but that's not always enough.

	Quote: Originally Posted by Surly_Schmidt
	A friend had one with a converted saw motor of about 40cc. It was fully glassed with 3/4oz and painted. From memory it weighed about 18lb. Flew well back in the day, but dropped like a brick without power which led to its demise.

Friend is going to cover it with 1/2 oz cloth and paint it. I'm still thinking it will be waaay too heavy to be a good flyer like that; not something I'd be itching to fly every weekend. Heck, even my GP Ultimate glides like a piano with no power. This thing... eek.

Personally I'd like to see it painted and hung in the shop to sell, but that ain't gonna happen.

Thanks for the assistance, guys... I'm still going to try to convince him to run a glow engine (especially since those Zenoahs seem to be HEAVY). Cheap, light, and simple. We'll see what happens. I'll keep you posted.

I think people just don't understand the effect that weight has on flying capabilities.