Blast from the (Fly Baby) Past

[rwanttaja]

I was emailed several days ago, a woman whose husband recently passed away. He had known Pete Bowers in the '60s, and she said she'd found some old Fly Baby pictures in a photo album and wondered if I'd like scans of them.

They turned out to be pretty neat.

You see, the Fly Baby prototype crashed just a few months prior to the EAA contest at Rockford in 1963. Pete ended up building a new fuselage, incorporating some changes to improve the handling and make it better. For instance, the tail was lengthened by seven inches. While he was at it, the FAA had also demanded a change in N-number...since short N-Numbers like N13P were only to be used on very small aircraft that couldn't fit a full number. So the rebuilt Fly Baby was registered as N500F, and that's what you see in most pictures.

The pictures supplied by Ruth Weston are of the pre-crash version of the Fly Baby. And they're pretty sharp....
http://www.bowersflybaby.com/pix/n13p_weston1.jpg

http://www.bowersflybaby.com/pix/n13p_weston2.jpg
The other cool thing was that almost all the photos of N500F show Pete Bowers flying it. These have Phil Weston...which, coupled with the excellent quality, makes me think that Pete himself took the shots.

We haven't figured out the significance of the hand-lettered "E2" on the top of the vertical tail. It's quite possible that this was identification for the EAA contest in 1960...when it was postponed due to having only two contestants. Other pictures of N13P show this number quite faded.

Ron Wanttaja

[rwanttaja]

We haven't figured out the significance of the hand-lettered "E2" on the top of the vertical tail. It's quite possible that this was identification for the EAA contest in 1960...when it was postponed due to having only two contestants. Other pictures of N13P show this number quite faded.

I looked through the October 1960 issue of Sport Aviation, which covers Rockford and the attempt to hold the contest that summer. A LOT of airplanes have hand-drawn two-digit identifiers at the top of the tail.
8150

Anyone know what they were for?

Ron Wanttaja

[Joda]

Very interesting stuff Ron. Thanks for posting!!

[planecrazzzy]

Very interesting stuff Ron. Thanks for posting!!

I just think it's amazing they built planes back then... I'd be lost without the internet.
A lot of A&P's have kept me save.... That's why more people should be posting building progress.

Gotta Fly...
.

[Ron Blum]

Very cool. Thanks for sharing! I'm sure that EAA's Tracy Lifeisanadventure would be interested in these photos and story. She needs to put her Fly Baby first in line to be restored.

[rwanttaja]

Getting access to these pictures inspired me to do a bit more research into the conversion of N13P to N500F, which Pete Bowers discussed quite fully in the December 1962 issue of Sport Aviation.

The article *did* make me think, though... should Fly Baby N500F have been disqualified from the 1962 contest?

I put a write-up together to discuss this: Pretender to the Throne (http://www.bowersflybaby.com/bowers/pretender.html).

Ron Wanttaja

[Ron Blum]

Was the Loving airplane the only other airplane in the competition?

I found the part about EAA owning the rights to the aircraft interesting (and later rescinded) because that is the premise of the cuuurrent Innovation Prize that is not gettting good ideas either. I believe because of that clause. Interesting information.

[rwanttaja]

Was the Loving airplane the only other airplane in the competition?

I noticed my write-up wasn't too clear, and have added more detail.

Anyway, Loving's pusher was at the 1960 convention, when the decision was made to push the judging back two years. However, Loving didn't have the plane at the '62 convention when the contest was run. Eighteen people had entered, but only six airplanes showed up:

- Bowers Fly Baby
- Turner T-40
- Nesmith Cougar
- Treft Contestor
- Lacey M-10
- Spezio Tuholer.

Pete felt the Tuholer was his major competitor, with its two-seat design and use of a Lycoming ground power unit as an engine.

http://www.bowersflybaby.com/bowers/contest.jpg

Ron Wanttaja

[champ driver]

Nice photos and story, thanks.

[Ron Blum]

Which airplanes are what in the photo. I know a few but not all. Thanks!

[rwanttaja]

Which airplanes are what in the photo. I know a few but not all. Thanks!

Front Row: Turner T-40, Bowers Fly Baby, Treft Contestor
Second row: Speizo Tuholer, Lacey M-10, Nesmith Cougar.

October 1962 issue of Sport Aviation covers the contest aircraft starting on Page 4. Discusses the advantages and disadvantages of the contestants. Here's a summary of why the other contestants were downgraded:

Turner T-40: "This airplane, while not difficult to handle, was admittedly not for an inexperienced weekend pilot flying from rough strips."

Nesmith Cougar: "The Cougar is a more complex, larger and more costly aircraft. A beginning amateur would find this a more demanding airplane to build and to fly."

Contestor: "Further attention is required in overcoming flight performance deficiencies. ...Complete drawings were not available to the judges, which technically disqualified this entry."

Spezio Tuholer: "...its stalling characteristics indicate that additional work may be required before releasing the airplane to the average pilot.... Cockpit room, however, was at a premium, making it difficult to properly handle the controls. "

Lacey M-10: "Unfortunately complete drawings were not available, nor was the aircraft made available for flight evaluation. This aircraft also was thus disqualified."

Ron Wanttaja

[Ron Blum]

Thanks, Ron W., for the great information and Sport Aviation article reference. It's an amazing story. Paul had me put a different airfoil on the Cougar when I worked for him in the mid-80s. I'm not sure what happened to any of those drawings. It's interesting that only one was a tricycle gear airplane (a sign of the times). The Turner T-40 has always caught my eye. The Lacey M-10 looks like it is simple and fast. A new airfoil (and larger wing) could probably do it wonders. Thanks again. Great article.