Identification Required Please

Anything to do with gliders & gliding.
Post Reply
andyharrold
Posts: 8
Joined: 06 May 2019, 07:50
Location: Huntingdon

Identification Required Please

Post by andyharrold » 09 May 2019, 21:02

Hello there,
I recently acquired 2 old gliders and am going to get them back where they belong, in the air!

One is what looks like a Kestrel BUT has a cruciform tail. I am in the process of stripping it back and it looks as if it may have been extended from a T tail. Before I go hacking off the top section and returning it to a T, have I misidentified the model?
The wings are quite long, giving a span of 5.8m The fuz is glass mat, but those in the know are sure that it was not a Teakle model.Image
Attachments
IMG_20190504_164411526_HDR(1).jpg
IMG_20190504_164401771_HDR.jpg

User avatar
Cliff Evans
Posts: 1631
Joined: 13 Mar 2015, 10:32
Location: Bristol
Contact:

Re: Identification Required Please

Post by Cliff Evans » 09 May 2019, 21:13

It is definitely not a Pat Teakle model!

User avatar
chris williams
Posts: 926
Joined: 10 Mar 2015, 10:50
Location: Blandford Dorset

Re: Identification Required Please

Post by chris williams » 09 May 2019, 21:19

definately...


Now we know... you're 'H' :o

andyharrold
Posts: 8
Joined: 06 May 2019, 07:50
Location: Huntingdon

Re: Identification Required Please

Post by andyharrold » 09 May 2019, 21:20

The second model is a started Kit. I have NO plan, no rudder and no canopy. I have a set of tailplanes but they maybe a red herring!
Nothing has been done to the fuz. The wings are 4.8m span, foam and obechi covered. Fuz is GF chopped mat again.
There are no marks in the fuz moulding to show where the tailplane should go but it looks as if the top is not flat so it suggests NOT a T tail.
The best suggestion I have for this is a Jantar 2b, but the more I look at the cockpit area it doesn't seem quite right.
Viking Models produced a Kit of the Jantar 2b but theirs had a 5.5m span.
IMG_20190504_170146647.jpg
IMG_20190504_173626881_HDR.jpg
All help gratefully received.

Many thanks,

Andy

User avatar
Peter Balcombe
Posts: 873
Joined: 18 Mar 2015, 10:13
Location: Clevedon, North Somerset, U.K.

Re: Identification Required Please

Post by Peter Balcombe » 09 May 2019, 22:36

Andy,
How about a SZD38 Jantar1 which had a 19m full size span, so 4.75m at 1/4 scale.
The angled wing tip TE also looks correct.
Canopy hoop is missing from Fuz. but that is often the case to simplify layup.
Full size root chord is 940mm & tip chord 380mm.
I have a scaled 3-view in the Martin Simon’s book if needed.
Peter

User avatar
Antonia
Posts: 98
Joined: 17 Mar 2015, 22:30
Location: Oxfordshire

Re: Identification Required Please

Post by Antonia » 09 May 2019, 23:17

Hi Andy, the first model with the canopy extending over the wing is a slingsby Kestrel, it is the only full size glider I know to have that characteristic. If the fin of the second model has a radius from the leading edge of the fin to the tip of the fin it would be a Jantar 2b, the SZD Jantar range of gliders had a very simular fuselage shape.
The Jantar 2b (SZD-42-2) and the Jantar 19 (SZD-36A) had what was novel at the time, an all manufactured in the mould "elastic" hinge, where the top skin was a continuous from L/E to T/E, sorry to waffle on :oops:
Hope this helps.

John Vella
Posts: 166
Joined: 20 Mar 2017, 22:09
Location: UK

Re: Identification Required Please

Post by John Vella » 10 May 2019, 09:03

Andy, the first model is a Type 59H Kestrel 22. The puzzle is the tailplane position being cruciform and not T tail. The second model is an SZD 42 - 2 Jantar 2b. The tail is low cruciform ( just above the fuselage line), with elevators. Regards John.

andyharrold
Posts: 8
Joined: 06 May 2019, 07:50
Location: Huntingdon

Re: Identification Required Please

Post by andyharrold » 10 May 2019, 14:57

Thanks for all of your replies. AS you have confirmed my thoughts that it is a Type 59H Kestrel with a modified fin and rudder I have taken the saw to it and returned it to the T Tail.
From what I have read I think it is actually a 17 or 19m Kestrel , as the length of the fuz would be exactly 1/4 scale . I think I read that a 22m version was 2 ft longer .
I have started to remove the paint from the fuz and the glass looks to be in quite good condition , with no repairs evident.
The wings at 5.65m , even for a 22m TYpe 59H are a bit long, but I don't think that I can easily reduce these so will recover and fly it.


The original rudder post had not been fitted correctly with very little wood inside the glass fin. The rudder also needs reshaping as the original had very little deflection, approx 15mm each side.

Does anyone have a fin and rudder drawing that I can have a look at so that I may get the profile right for a new rudder?

(I have relegated the Jantar 2b to the loft for now so that I can concentrate on the Kestrel!)

Thanks, andy.

User avatar
B Sharp
Posts: 596
Joined: 19 Mar 2015, 17:18
Location: Perthshire

Re: Identification Required Please

Post by B Sharp » 11 May 2019, 17:55

If it is the wings that I looked at last weekend at Buckminster I certainly would not fly with them in their present condition. I suspect that considerable work would be required to repair the structure under the covering.
Brian :(

andyharrold
Posts: 8
Joined: 06 May 2019, 07:50
Location: Huntingdon

Re: Identification Required Please

Post by andyharrold » 11 May 2019, 21:15

The wings for the Kestrel are built up made of plywood. It has GF reinforcement on the inner surface. They are then nylon coated and profilm covered. I have cut them down to 2.3m each to represent a Kestrel 19.
I have applied pressure and am happy that they are structurally sound. When we applied pressure to them at Buckminster there appeared to be a clicking noise . It is from where the ply meets the metal airbrake.
I have stripped the profilm covering off , there is no sign of previous damage.

The set for the Jantar 2 are foam obechi and there is lifting of the obechi. I will attempt to repair them / get them repaired, but not this year! (These will probably be replaced, as Paul said, no point in destroying a brand new fuz! )

Post Reply