Thanks, Paul!
Hatching an Eagle
6
After five years of wandering around before the inevitable '60s 1/32 F 1 race at Las Vegas, I vowed (in public) that I would have my own car this year. Despite having a drawer full of Ferrari, Cooper and BRM bodies, most of which would accomodate a more-or-less conventional motor/chassis set-up, I decided to tackle the Eagle body that I obtained several years ago (a Fitzpatrick glass body)
When I first metioned my concerns about the space inside on a DL some time back, Russell, ever helpful and generous as he is, sent me one of the rare K's motors advising that it was about the only thing that would fit.
Take motor in one hand, body in the other and push them together - hmmmm - not going! - and add some side plates to the motor to form a chassis and it gets worse!
Opened the motor drawer and here is what came out:
![gallery_99_516_34576.jpg]()
Left to right: a version of the currently popular Bear Dog mini-motor, the TMM (Taiwan mystery motor), K's, an (MRRC?) eBay find, and, for contrast, a standard Mabuchi can. Although the K's is 0.002" narrower than the TMM, by the time side plates of any reasonable thickness, say 0.032" are added, you are at 0.66" - a non-starter for this chassis. The MRRC is about as bad, even without the screw heads. The mini-motor and the TMM are the same cross section, the only difference being length. Since my friend Jim Butt has a wickedly fast Indy Turbine powered by one of the latter and since, like the mini-motor, an end-of-the-can mount can be done, it got the nod. Like the mini-motor, the shaft needs to be sleeved to accomdate a 2 mm bore pinion (more about gears later).
Looking at photos of the Eagle Weslake, I decided that, in addition to the distinctive body shape and paint scheme, several other things defined the "look" - the solid polished (titanium?) upswept front A-arms, the long rear suspension trailing arms and the very distinctive polished exhaust system. The model would need to incorporate these.
Next consideration - the guide: The front overhang on the Eagle is long but narrow. Both the Sakatsu (trailing) guide and the TSRF guide can be accomodated without extending past the tip of the nose. The TSRF guide is more easily adjusted for height and has the wires extending from the back of the braid mount rather than the front (in the case of the Sakatsu), an advantage with the narrow nose so the nod went to the TSRF.
Thanks to wheel and tire size info from Mr. P and wheelbase and track data ( 96.5", 61" F/R) from Prof. Fate, I was ready to start cutting metal. I decided on a wire sprung pivoting chassis ( and am not at all certain that my version of this type will have any handling advantage over, for example, an out-of-the-box MRRC brass Clubman). Working on this scale has its pitfalls - most of what you will see is second and third tries (but I keep telling myslef that I am learning with each mistake)
On the jig:
![gallery_99_516_21741.jpg]()
and right side up:
![gallery_99_516_7024.jpg]()
The rear assembly is machined from brass stock. The front section is 0.062" brass and the front axle carrier and origami-like upper A arms is 0.032" brass sheet. the pivot is 1/16" drill rod and the torsion springs are 0.047" music wire.
Here is the first trial assembly:
![gallery_99_516_25085.jpg]()
The wheels and tires are temporary but they are of the right diameter - 0.80" front, 0.85" rear.
Now, about gears - notice the little green crown gear above - it is the smallest (24T) Slot-It gear. I would have loved to have fitted a 64 DP crown with an internal (same side as the teeth) hub but to the best of my knowledge, no such animal exists and the width does not allow for the fitting of an external hub. I know that the Scaly etc. crowns are a bit smaller but I am not about to spend the time to build a scratch chassis and then fit a P.O.S. gear set! Here are the consequences of my choice:
Dr Jekyll:
![gallery_99_516_15643.jpg]()
Mr. Hyde:
![gallery_99_516_341788.jpg]()
And that amount of cutting does not allow for any body movement! I believe that I can accomdate a little body shake by skimming 1-2 mm off the diameter of the gear (they appear to survive much more powerful motors) and chamfering the outer edge. Beyond that, I plan to add a little built up detail of some lines, add rear suspension detail including the coil-over spring units, paint the gear silver or black and hope that those measures, along with the extension of the exhaust pipes, will mask the surgery.
An Eagle or an omlet? - we shall see.
EM
When I first metioned my concerns about the space inside on a DL some time back, Russell, ever helpful and generous as he is, sent me one of the rare K's motors advising that it was about the only thing that would fit.
Take motor in one hand, body in the other and push them together - hmmmm - not going! - and add some side plates to the motor to form a chassis and it gets worse!
Opened the motor drawer and here is what came out:
Left to right: a version of the currently popular Bear Dog mini-motor, the TMM (Taiwan mystery motor), K's, an (MRRC?) eBay find, and, for contrast, a standard Mabuchi can. Although the K's is 0.002" narrower than the TMM, by the time side plates of any reasonable thickness, say 0.032" are added, you are at 0.66" - a non-starter for this chassis. The MRRC is about as bad, even without the screw heads. The mini-motor and the TMM are the same cross section, the only difference being length. Since my friend Jim Butt has a wickedly fast Indy Turbine powered by one of the latter and since, like the mini-motor, an end-of-the-can mount can be done, it got the nod. Like the mini-motor, the shaft needs to be sleeved to accomdate a 2 mm bore pinion (more about gears later).
Looking at photos of the Eagle Weslake, I decided that, in addition to the distinctive body shape and paint scheme, several other things defined the "look" - the solid polished (titanium?) upswept front A-arms, the long rear suspension trailing arms and the very distinctive polished exhaust system. The model would need to incorporate these.
Next consideration - the guide: The front overhang on the Eagle is long but narrow. Both the Sakatsu (trailing) guide and the TSRF guide can be accomodated without extending past the tip of the nose. The TSRF guide is more easily adjusted for height and has the wires extending from the back of the braid mount rather than the front (in the case of the Sakatsu), an advantage with the narrow nose so the nod went to the TSRF.
Thanks to wheel and tire size info from Mr. P and wheelbase and track data ( 96.5", 61" F/R) from Prof. Fate, I was ready to start cutting metal. I decided on a wire sprung pivoting chassis ( and am not at all certain that my version of this type will have any handling advantage over, for example, an out-of-the-box MRRC brass Clubman). Working on this scale has its pitfalls - most of what you will see is second and third tries (but I keep telling myslef that I am learning with each mistake)
On the jig:
and right side up:
The rear assembly is machined from brass stock. The front section is 0.062" brass and the front axle carrier and origami-like upper A arms is 0.032" brass sheet. the pivot is 1/16" drill rod and the torsion springs are 0.047" music wire.
Here is the first trial assembly:
The wheels and tires are temporary but they are of the right diameter - 0.80" front, 0.85" rear.
Now, about gears - notice the little green crown gear above - it is the smallest (24T) Slot-It gear. I would have loved to have fitted a 64 DP crown with an internal (same side as the teeth) hub but to the best of my knowledge, no such animal exists and the width does not allow for the fitting of an external hub. I know that the Scaly etc. crowns are a bit smaller but I am not about to spend the time to build a scratch chassis and then fit a P.O.S. gear set! Here are the consequences of my choice:
Dr Jekyll:
Mr. Hyde:
And that amount of cutting does not allow for any body movement! I believe that I can accomdate a little body shake by skimming 1-2 mm off the diameter of the gear (they appear to survive much more powerful motors) and chamfering the outer edge. Beyond that, I plan to add a little built up detail of some lines, add rear suspension detail including the coil-over spring units, paint the gear silver or black and hope that those measures, along with the extension of the exhaust pipes, will mask the surgery.
An Eagle or an omlet? - we shall see.
EM
61 - 69 of 69 Posts
QUOTE (howmet tx @ 17 May 2004, 08:02)I know I shouldn't do this but.... I really, really want to make that car!
![]()
3
EM: Sorry about the fate of the Lotus!
![]()
But glad you plan to make the sequel!
![]()
Jim: One very nice looking piece of art!
![]()
Lotus:
QUOTE Showing stupidity here, but is this because it gives off less smoke or that it requires more heat to ignite? Or is there some other reason?
Methanol, the fuel that came to replace gasoline in Indy cars and also used in other forms of motorsport, has pros and cons. Its fumes do not explode the way gasoline fumes do (one of the major problems in impact crashes, especially with fuel tanks rather than fuel cells), it does not produce flames when burning, and burns slower and with less intensity than gasoline. On the downside, the flames from burning pure methanol cannot be seen, only the heat haze can be (additives have been developed to help with this problem. Also, because it burns with less generated energy, cars that use it must be set up to pump greater quantities into the engine to yield the same HP output. However, because it burns cooler, it is possible to produce MORE HP than with gasoline at the same engine operating temperature if the induction system can stuff enough fuel into the engine. All in all, it IS safer, especially if an additive is used to make burning fuel visible. We didn't have any additives when I raced, and the few fires I've witnessed (with no injuries) were very scary because of the invisibility, though the same fires with gasoline would probably have had tragic results.
Jim: One very nice looking piece of art!
Lotus:
QUOTE Showing stupidity here, but is this because it gives off less smoke or that it requires more heat to ignite? Or is there some other reason?
Methanol, the fuel that came to replace gasoline in Indy cars and also used in other forms of motorsport, has pros and cons. Its fumes do not explode the way gasoline fumes do (one of the major problems in impact crashes, especially with fuel tanks rather than fuel cells), it does not produce flames when burning, and burns slower and with less intensity than gasoline. On the downside, the flames from burning pure methanol cannot be seen, only the heat haze can be (additives have been developed to help with this problem. Also, because it burns with less generated energy, cars that use it must be set up to pump greater quantities into the engine to yield the same HP output. However, because it burns cooler, it is possible to produce MORE HP than with gasoline at the same engine operating temperature if the induction system can stuff enough fuel into the engine. All in all, it IS safer, especially if an additive is used to make burning fuel visible. We didn't have any additives when I raced, and the few fires I've witnessed (with no injuries) were very scary because of the invisibility, though the same fires with gasoline would probably have had tragic results.
61 - 69 of 69 Posts
