Search the Community

A second Stagg conversion, from 5 years ago This second model I am presenting to you now, of the early Staggerwing machines produced by Beechcraft , denominated A17SF, was conceived to participate in the MacRobertson race as NR / NC12569. Several circumstances did not permit that to happen, and the plane was eventually sold to the Bureau of Air Commerce as NS68. But first, the differences with the model I previously made and posted –the first 17R, NC499N, that you can see here: and this version, the A17SF, whose characteristics are: -a much bigger cowl to house the Wright Cyclone -absence of ventilation gills on the fuselage front -the presence of landing flaps underneath the upper wing * * this in turn demanded a cut on the “tail” of the wing strut upper fairings. DO NOT follow Wylam plans regarding this –and other- details, they help, but get stuff wrong all the time; look at photos instead (or besides) -a non-divided rudder –a divided one was used as an airbrake in the former model- that also has a small compensator protruding ahead from the hinge line at the top -steerable tailwheel -different nav lights located on the lower wings (as in the series models) -some sort of intake tube on left wing root –but only on NS68, not on the racer- -two Venturis underneath the belly –only on racer- -carb intake on top of cowl -thin struts instead of wire rigging on tail feathers -presence of antenna wire -on NS68- -different Pitot tube -different landing wires rigging -elevators had also small compensators protruding from the hinge line -antenna loop on the cabin roof Now, to this particular model of the Stag, A17FS. This particular version had the most powerful engine and the stumpiest look of them all. The schemes differ slightly too between the two incarnations of A17FS: -of course different registrations -scalloped-painted pants in the racer -different propellers -the wing struts were red on NS68 and silver on NR/NC12569 -the regs on the tail are red on NS68 and silver on NC12569 (besides of course the obvious facts that the regs themselves were different) I will repeat here the warnings I posted on the other conversion: The two things that gave me a lot of headaches and produced a lot of frustration were the two-part windshield and the struts. The struts as molded have tiny locating protrusions which you are at risk to confuse with the leftovers of the gates, a couple millimeters apart. If you have managed to spot that with a “phew!”, you are not off the hook. The curve of the upper part of the strut will not match that of the upper wing which it supports, nor will the little pip align with the faint hole in the said wing.