UK Stitts Playboy

[UKRoger]

I am rebuilding a Stitts SA3A Playboy which was originally built by D J Stadler of Wenatchee WA in 1973 and was registered N9996. It had been completely stripped down after an accident and has been re-covered and I am now putting it back together again, aiming to get it back in the air this spring. We have a part complete C65 but are looking around for a C90 and I am thinking of fitting a removable canopy so that it will be more of an all- season aeroplane, something like a sliding Pitts canopy which I believe it had some years ago but has since been removed. It sounds like it will be great fun to fly and it would be great to hear from any Playboy owners and pilots for their tips and advice.

Happy New Year to all EAAers from UKRoger

[prasmussen]

36383639364036413642

Just thought you might be interested in these images. I have a SA-3A on the gear with a C-85 but, frankly, it has been stalled for several years. Have all the parts, just have to make the time to put them together. Any pictures of the UKPlayboy?

Best of luck!

[prasmussen]

3644
And then just one more. Have to imagine it bright red.....

[UKRoger]

Thanks for the photos, that first one has a very neat canopy. Haven't got any photos at the moment, I am off to have a look at another engine tomorrow, a C-65 again but complete. I spoke to someone over here who has flown one and he says that they are great fun!

[prasmussen]

Been years but I wrote to the EAA library about the Playboy and they had some helpful information. My plans were (are) early ones and there have apparently been some improvements/changes to the landing gear truss and rear spar attachment. They also had some accident information which made me feel a lot better about our strut-braced wings. And when I mentioned flaperons, they pulled out several magazine articles which actually talked me out of trying them.

Best, P.

[UKRoger]

That's interesting about the EAA library having some information. On your plans do you have any rigging incidence angles for wings and tail just so I can check that ours is right and has it got any washout? Have bought the engine so just need a prop now, next job is spraying colour. We intend to have the same colour scheme as the original Playboy.

[prasmussen]

I know one of the issues builders were supposed to pay special attention to was the angle of incidence affected by rear spar attachments. What I decided to do is buried somewhere in the chaos of my project. May take a while but I'll see what I can find.

3662

Sounds like you should be ready to fly soon! Hope it goes well. Pictures?

[UKRoger]

Thanks very much, will get some pictures organised. I am aiming to have it in the air this spring.

[prasmussen]

BTW, about half the pictures I see locate the fuselage end of the wing struts at the front of the cockpit. Another group of Playboys use two attach points at the fore and aft. Any particular reasons for that you've heard?

[UKRoger]

I would imagine that the later aircraft had both struts going to one fixing point forward of the cockpit to make access easier,otherwise you had to step over one strut.

[prasmussen]

Access is a good possibility, to bad we can't call Ray Stits. I thought also that the aft position would make the rear strut a bit shorter and therefore stronger. Too, maybe, having the stress spread out (front and back of the cockpit) could make the fuselage a better structure? But I'm strictly an eyeball engineer.

[UKRoger]

It's a good strong aircraft whichever way. I believe it is stressed to +12 -9 but unfortunately our Light Aircraft Association won't accept the figures and it is not cleared for aerobatics over here. I have worked on Pitts Specials and the tailplane construction on the Playboy is torsionally much stronger and the wing spars are similar in dimensions to a Taylorcraft which in its clipped wing form is aerobatic plus the Playboy is 16 feet shorter in wingspan.

Have changed the brakes from heel to toe brakes and am now on the look out for a wooden propeller 72 X 48 or 70 X 48.