Control Line Navy Carrier-2007/01
Line sweep and leadout-guide location can now be calculated accurately
CONTROL LINE NAVY CARRIER - 2001/04
The mySTeRy Airplane in the February issue was the Avia B-
534. This biplane was designed and produced in Czechoslovakia
before World War II. It was one of the last biplane fighter designs in
the world, and is credited with the last air-to-air victory by a biplane.
If you can’t recall any air actions for the Czechoslovakian Air
Force, your memories are correct.
The Czechoslovakian B-534s were part of the spoils as the
country was divided up during the early stages of what was
becoming WW II. By the time WW II began in earnest, Germany
had annexed Czechoslovakia along with many of its Air Force
assets—among them some B-534s.
As Germany was preparing to build its first aircraft carrier, the
Graf Zeppelin, many aircraft designs were modified to include
catapult and arresting gear. The airplanes were tested to gain
experience in carrierlike operations and to evaluate some of them as
potential production carrier aircraft.
Three of the confiscated Avia B-534 biplanes were modified for
that purpose. Thus the Avia B-534, designed and built in a
landlocked country and nearly obsolete by the time it entered
production, is a legal prototype for our Control Line (CL) Navy
Carrier events.
I’ll announce the winner in the June column. There is no Mystery
Airplane this month, so I can devote more space to photographs.
CONTROL LINE NAVY CARRIER - 2001/02
As I Announced in the October issue, the
last Mystery Airplane was the Bristol Brigand.
The winner of that contest was Don Boose of
Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Don won a one-year
membership in the Navy Carrier Society.
In the October column, I mentioned that
Rand McNally listed the aircraft as a
shipboard attack aircraft. Although that
reference fulfills the documentation
requirements for anyone who wants to build
a Brigand, I received interesting letters from
a few readers who had experience with that
aircraft or with other aircraft from Bristol.
None of the correspondents recollected the
Brigand serving aboard carriers with the Royal
Navy. One was modified for catapult
operations, but that seems to have been to
validate steam-catapult development rather
than to test the aircraft for carrier service.
The correspondents unanimously doubted
that the Brigand ever made arrested landings.
The Mystery Airplane for this month
may stump those who are most consistent
in their correct answers.
Send me your entry via US Postal Service
or E-mail at the addresses at the head of this
column. I’ll select the winner from among
those who correctly identify the aircraft.
I’ll give you an extra chance to win if
you can describe the circumstances that
qualify this airplane as a legal prototype
for the Navy Carrier events.
CL Navy Carrier
I RECEIVED the first photos of the season from Jim Schneider (Livermore CA). His Profile F8F Bearcat is shown this month. Jim built the model from Brodak kit plans. Modifications include the line-slider and bellcrank on top of the wing. The model uses the Webra 32, which is a capable engine right out of the box. It is also very light, at only 7 3/4 ounces for the bare engine without the throttle. That's even lighter than the Nelson AAC (aluminum-aluminum chrome) Combat engine by approximately one-
Control Line: Navy Carrier
Wing Loading Revisited: The reason our current airplanes are significantly larger than the ones we flew 25 years ago is that slow speed is important to obtaining a good score. Our airplanes are larger because a lighter wing loading produces a better low speed. I pointed out the performance differences which were evident at the Nats in my last column. Because slow speed has a predominant role in determining overall flight score, the majority of our models are now built to a 44-inch wingspan limit. Because wing loading is determined by dividing weight by wing area, there are basically two ways to decrease wing loading: You can build a model lighter, and you can build a model larger. Building lighter has its limitations, and experience has shown that the best improvement in performance comes from building larger models.

