Does anybody really know?
I have been trying to research and determine what the Futaba receiver bus current rating is. I cannot find this information anywhere. The reason I need to know the bus rating is because I am building giant scale planes up to ½ half scale and will be using as many as 15 high torque servos. I will be using two receivers to lower the bus current load, but I would still like to know the exact max current rating for the receiver. I am also aware of the Futaba MSA10 that will allow you to use separate batteries for the servos. It seems that the manufactures of receivers are trying to keep this data a secret. I have heard several values in the past. I saw the other day where amcross said that 4 amps is the maximum current the Futaba receiver can handle. Here is the answer I got from a Hobbico product support guy: It is not a statistic released by Futaba, as in normal situation there is no need to know how much current a rx can handle. We have advised people in the past to not exceed 7amps, but again, that is not an official stat. Servos and other devices deal with current draws in the milliamp range. Thanks, Rob M. Product Support So is it 4 amps or 7 amps? When I invest several thousand dollars I a giant scale plane I would like to be sure I am not over loading the receiver bus. I guess I could do a destructive test on the bus of an old receiver and actually measure the maximum current it can handle without over heating. Does anybody know for sure what the bus rating is for any brand receiver? I would appreciate it very much if someone could tell me what it is.
Posted on: 3/14/2003 2:35 AM by Author "James Goss" in the forum "RC Radios, Transmitters, Receivers, Servos, gyros"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=622355

New Postage Stamp Design
It was really cold at the flying field today, but I had it in mind to test fly the “Gooseneck Stamp” today so I endured the cold. (Dave came up with the name Gooseneck Stamp) After charging and fueling I noticed something was wrong with the charge of the receiver battery, it would not except a charge. I had charged it a little the day before so I checked it with a loaded voltmeter and it showed ok. I decided to go ahead with it so I ran it allover the field and couldn’t believe how well it stuck to the ground with unbelievable turns. Finally I brought it around and headed it down the field and brought up the throttle. It steered straight as an arrow and it did rotate to leave the ground. I had been wondering if it would rotate because the wing was so close to the ground, so this answered that question. When it got in the air it needed a little aileron trim and a little down trim. It didn’t take long to get comfortable with it and it seemed to handle about the same as my regular Stamps. I made several circuits and was about ready to bring it in to see if it would hover in for a landing when it started to act up with me. It was making a few moves of its own so I new something was wrong. I didn’t have full control and it set in for a hard landing. It did receive some damage; the ½ inch aluminum spine broke where I had drilled to mount the pod. I think I will move up to a ¾ inch aluminum spine for the next one because there is no way around drilling the aluminum to support the pod. Having the pod places a great deal more stress on the spine than in a conventional stamp. I also think I will go ahead and move the pod to the rear a little. By and large, I was pleased with the results of the test flight and I feel this plane has some real potential. Just to see it operate on the ground makes it all worthwhile. It shouldn’t take me too long to have another Gooseneck Stamp ready to test and then I will be able to see what it will really do.
Posted on: 1/26/2003 2:11 AM by Author "James Goss" in the forum "Profile and Fun Flying Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=502016

New Postage Stamp Design
Dave I like the name “Gooseneck Stamp”. I think you are right about the engine thrust angle and I already have another one on the building runway that is going to have about 5 degrees up thrust. I am also going to move the engine rearward a few inches so the plane will slide across the grass with no front wheel. Spaceman Spiff I am not set up for video, but I think it is about time for me to get it.
Posted on: 1/24/2003 5:04 PM by Author "James Goss" in the forum "Profile and Fun Flying Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=502014

New Postage Stamp Design
Spaceman I really don’t know how the thrust line will work out. I do know that the rudder is much more effective than on the standard Stamp. Having all the prop blast above the wing puts the rudder in direct line with it. On the ground it turns with a very small radius and at any speed without nosing over. I don’t think the elevons will be as effective, but they should still function well enough. Roll rate will probably be slow. I am hoping that the rudder will allow the plane to perform a pinwheel while in the air, assuming it gets off the ground. A pinwheel is very hard for any plane to do. The only plane I have had to do one is the Spinsation. If you haven’t seen a pinwheel it goes like this. Pull the plane to a vertical stall with engine at idle. Give maximum throttle and either left or right rudder, the plane will spin in a vertical mode while falling. I am sure this plane will have some unique ability, I will just have to find it. Graeme I will keep your suggestion in mind. I have always used a tailskid on my Stamps and you are right they really do work. I thought this time I would try it without a skid because I originally wanted the wing to hug the ground. After I saw that the plane needed a small wheel I decided to add the front wheel and try it that way first. I think if I move the pod back to the CG or beyond, the plane will skid across the grass without a wheel. I am going to try that idea next. Thanks.
Posted on: 1/23/2003 4:01 PM by Author "James Goss" in the forum "Profile and Fun Flying Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=502011

New Postage Stamp Design
It has been three or four months since I was in my shop for anything other than home remodeling related jobs. Today I decided to spend the day in my shop and build an airplane. I was thinking about working on my bucket plane, but on the way to the shop I had another idea for the Stamp. How about having a Stamp with no wheels, but it will be able to takeoff from the ground like any other plane, simply let the plastic skid across the grass. Raise the engine by using a pod so the prop will clear the ground. This sounded good so I made a sketch and went to work. A couple hours later the plane was ready to try. I had made the pod from ¼ plywood and was not sure the pod would support the TT .36 engine without excessive vibrations. The first test was to see how the pod performed. With engine running the pod was surprisingly stable and appeared to have plenty of strength to do the job. The next test was to see if the plane would move forward with no wheels. It would move in some areas of the grass, but not the rough grass. I made a modification and added a small single wheel under the engine. This little wheel really did make a difference. It will handle any rough terrain now. You can’t see the tiny wheel in the grass so the plane looks like it is floating on the grass. Having a low center of gravity, I think it is going to be a good doughnut machine. It also turns even sharper than my other Stamps, it is really active on the ground. I will probably test fly it this Saturday if it is not too cold and let you know what it will do.
Posted on: 1/23/2003 12:08 AM by Author "James Goss" in the forum "Profile and Fun Flying Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=502008

Pizza box flying
Hacker Don’t worry about the wing being warped. It changes for each and every flight it seems like. I have had some of the most ungodly looking wing shapes and they still perform ok. We were doing full contact combat the other week and my Stamp had already had about 50 crashes and hits. The aluminum spine had even got bent all out or shape. On the next flight I was hit by another stamp, it just so happened it was a green stamp, and his nose hit my plane dead center, the aluminum spine was bent so bad I had to try and correct it by bending it by hand. The aluminum now broke in half and the wing was now basically two pieces that flopped up and down in the middle. It now looked like a pile of refuse. Even though it was all broken up I thought I would fly it again. It flew almost as good as a new one until it fell apart in the air. After seeing this I don’t worry about deformed wings.
Posted on: 12/10/2002 11:19 PM by Author "James Goss" in the forum "Profile and Fun Flying Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=97845

Check This Idea Out, A Flying Bucket.
I decided to try it again today, Saturday 21, 2002, and see if I could get the bucket off the ground. This time I used my backyard test field, it is rather small with trees close by and with a bumpy runway. It takes me about 40 minutes to get to my regular flying field so this saved me a lot of time going back and forth for the tests. Using my local field was equal to three or four trips to the main field because I had to return to my shop several times. For today’s test I had installed a larger .36 TT engine and had moved the CG back to four inches. Wind was calm and it was about 4 pm with the sun to my back. The problem I had today was mainly tracking on the rough field. I knew if I got it in the air I would have to set it back down quick because of the small area. On the first flight I could see that it did want to rotate this time. The .36 engine elevated the bucket with ease as long as I could keep it going straight until it gained the speed it needed, and that didn’t take long. It would lift off the ground and do a quick loop. After several tries to make sure I didn’t have too much elevator, I decided it was tail heavy. The CG at four inches was changed back to three inches. This was accomplished by moving the engine ½-inch forward and then installing a heave hub spinner nut. This was about the twelfth test flight and it tracked well down the field and rotated without looping. It gained altitude fast and was at 50-feet in no time, and was also approaching the tree line at the end of my field. It was flying smooth, but I throttled back and let it drop back to earth. It remained kind of flat as it came down. Out of about ten more tries I got it up two more times with hard landings. Even though it was difficult to get into the air, it did fly and this makes all the effort worth while. No pictures, I was alone. Knowing that it can fly, if everything is just right, I am going to make a few modifications and have another go. It is so short in length it likes to tumble when it hits a bump on the ground. I would like to increase its overall length by about three of four inches and leave more of the bucket wall on top. This will capture more of the prop blast for thrust lift. No longer than it was in the air I could tell the orientation was going to be difficult to keep up with, larger will help here too. The bucket I used was not a full five gallons. I would like to find a larger one, maybe seven or eight gallons. I will be keeping my eyes open for something larger, if you know of anything that may substitute the bucket please let me know.
Posted on: 10/21/2002 11:24 PM by Author "James Goss" in the forum "Profile and Fun Flying Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=315026

Check This Idea Out, A Flying Bucket.
I made it to the field today with my Bucket-O-Fun. I didn’t get it in the air, but I did learn two things about it. First it tracks very well down the field and the rudder steers ok. Second, the CG needs to be moved to the rear about an inch. I thought I had it balanced at 3.4 inches, but it was 3-inches exactly. I am going to move it to 23% or 4-inches from leading edge. It just would not rotate off the ground. It came close a couple of times, but needed more speed. I may go ahead and change the engine from the .28 to a .36, but I will probably try it again with the .28 after I relocate the CG. I forgot to carry some lead weights to the field today and as usual nobody had any. I may get to try it again tomorrow if the weather holds. I didn’t figure it would fly the first go around anyway. It does look odd sprinting down the field and I also found out it tumbles well on the ground. Maybe it will do as well in the air.
Posted on: 10/19/2002 11:50 PM by Author "James Goss" in the forum "Profile and Fun Flying Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=315023

Check This Idea Out, A Flying Bucket.
I was able to get the radio gear installed in the bucket today and I think I will get to test fly it tomorrow, Saturday morning. I decided to go ahead and install a rudder while I had it on the bench. It will be nice to be able to steer it down the field with a little control. I believe the rudder will be efficient in turning the plane on the ground. I don’t really know what to expect when the bucket clears the ground. Having such a short tail moment and close coupled elevons it will probably be very sensitive. I think I will have low rates set at about 50% of high rates and use that for takeoff. I have it balanced at 20% of the overall length of the bucket, 17 inches and not 16 like I said earlier. CG is at 3.4-inches from leading edge of wing. I will let you know how it behaved in the air for its first test flight.
Posted on: 10/19/2002 2:43 AM by Author "James Goss" in the forum "Profile and Fun Flying Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=315021

Stamp/PBF/FlatPlane first timer...
Remember Chris when the plane leaves the ground reduce the throttle to slow her down. If it is still hard to manage simply point the nose up at about a 20 or 30-degree angle and give it a little more power, it will become very stable. For landing the Stamp you can bring it in like any plane, but right before it touches down turn her nose up and bring up the power. This will stop all forward movement of the plane and it will touch down pretty as you please. Later you can do vertical landings from any height. Flying the Stamp too fast is the number one reason new Stamp flyers have problems. I will confess that it does take a little time to get use to the nose high flying style, but when you get the hang of it you are in for a real treat.
Posted on: 10/18/2002 3:10 AM by Author "James Goss" in the forum "Profile and Fun Flying Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=319567

Check This Idea Out, A Flying Bucket.
Dave You are right; it does look like a peep sight. Maybe I will be able to hit the center of the field with this plane. AnthonyH That is a good name for the plane, Bucket-O-Fun. Thanks! Flypaper I tried it with the top of the bucket intact, but it was very tail heavy. Removing the top section really cuts down on the overall weight. If this version doesn’t fly I will try more wing area. C Watkins I know what you mean about not having time to pursue the hobby. At one time when I was in the peak of the hobby I was working a fulltime job, a night job from five pm to ten pm. and taking 30 hours of college credit. Some of those classes were 150 miles from my house. The only planes I built then was in my dreams. Being retired now I can look back and wonder how I did it all because I still don’t have the amount of time I need for the hobby. Keep up the good work Chris. Chris I tried the coroplast. For this diameter the coroplast tends to collapse in the corrugations. I discovered this when I was building the flying mailbox. Heating the coroplast helps, but it still doesn’t work well. I think we will come out better with the bucket. I have also thought about using something that will give a longer tail moment, maybe a plastic trash can or something along those lines.
Posted on: 10/16/2002 2:25 PM by Author "James Goss" in the forum "Profile and Fun Flying Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=315019

Check This Idea Out, A Flying Bucket.
Here is a picture of the paper plane on the engine rails.
Posted on: 10/14/2002 10:22 PM by Author "James Goss" in the forum "Profile and Fun Flying Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=315008

Check This Idea Out, A Flying Bucket.
For the last few weeks I have been inactive in my shop because we are in another phase of our home improvement project. I was able to sneak down to my shop last Thursday for a few hours, I told my wife I would be in the attic pulling some wire if she needed me. I got caught though because she didn’t hear the normal bumping noise and came looking for me. Before she found me I had enough time to get a project underway. I have been thinking about a new design, a pipe plane, ever since I built the Postage Stamp Mailbox. I haven’t spent any more time on the mailbox, but I am sure it will fly well when balanced. For the pipe plane I wanted to use a pipe of some type for the wing, I just didn’t know what to use. A couple of weeks back a nice fellow by the name of Chris Watkins came over to visit my shop and to pick up a Stamp plane, Chris is from Georgia. While he was here Chris showed me a small paper airplane that his son had been flying. It was round and would fly very well in a straight line of flight. I was amazed at how well it flew and I visualized using a pipe, in the shape of this paper plane for my project. If this design actually functions in the air I will give credit to Chris for the idea. You can see the little paper plane in the picture. The five-gallon bucket is a discarded detergent bucket my wife gave me. It is white plastic and has less weight than the black buckets such as the ones that driveway sealer comes in. It also weighs less than sheetrock mud buckets, but they will probably work fine also. The pipe plane is very fast to build and I can see many advantages for this design, assuming it will fly. The durability will be even better than the Stamp/PBF planes. No spine will be needed because the round forward section of the wing supports itself. With the upper part of the pipe this plane is something like a biplane. In the picture the engine rails have not been cut to length, this is how I will balance the pipe. The diameter of the bucket is 11-inches, this gives about 35-inches for the circumference. With elevons the overall length of the plane is 16-inches. It is kind of short and could probably use more tail moment. It has about as much wing area as my Stamps have, but some of that is vertical. For its first flight it will have a vertical fin only and not a rudder. If it does get off the ground and actually behaves like an airplane I will add a rudder. I am going to use a Magnum .28 engine and the plane will weigh about 2 lbs 6 oz. I will probably have it ready to test this weekend if I can get some free time to install the radio gear. If you have an idea for a name for this plane please let me know. So far it is a pipe plane, a bucket plane, or sky bucket.
Posted on: 10/14/2002 10:18 PM by Author "James Goss" in the forum "Profile and Fun Flying Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=315007

The Invisible Stamp
The invisible Stamp looks good in the air. I tried it today Oct. 2, 2002 and it is a little hard to keep up with it, especially at a distance. I figured it would be less visible than white because of the glair from the sun penetrating the coroplast. At close range the visibility is as good as any color. I did have a problem with some high torque servos I was using on the elevons. They were GWS 108 oz torque coreless servos with a transit speed of .16 sec. I thought the high speed would allow for better aerobatics with the Stamp. The speed was fine, but the glitches gave me fits. I ran an experiment a while back with the S15 servos and measured the radiation field that these servos generated while in use. The field was noticeably strong at twice the distance as compared to our standard servos. It reached a good eight inches while using a 320 mh coil as a pickup sensor. I had forgotten how strong this field was and had run my antenna within three inches of the servos. As soon as the plane cleared ground it started its own maneuvers. I flew it the rest of the day, but had to deal with the unexpected. I have now replaced the high torque servos and this Stamp performs as well as any.
Posted on: 10/2/2002 11:09 PM by Author "James Goss" in the forum "Profile and Fun Flying Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=269966

New Version of the Stamp, a Pusher Stamp
As stated above the 6-inch balance point seems to fly better than the 5.5-inch I use on the standard Stamp. I am planning on removing three more ounces from the leading edge during the next test flight, probably tomorrow (Sunday). Now that I think about it, not having the engine out front may change more than I originally had thought in the way of balance. Not having the extra six inches out front, or nose moment, will probably require that the balance point be moved to the rear by as much as an inch or more. Here is how I figure it. The total length of my regular Stamp including the engine is about 30-inches and the total length on the Pusher is 24-inches. The 5.5-inch balance point of the regular Stamp is 38.3 % of the total length of the plane measured from the nose and is 11.5-inches from the nose. It seems then that the balance point of the pusher should be based on the same 38.3 % of its total length also. This would be 38.3% of 24, and that is 9.1-inches. 9-inches from the leading edge of the wing, or nose moment in this case, sounds like it would be placing the CG too far to the rear. If I use ratio and proportion and say 5.5 is to 30 as X is to 24, then X is 4.4. This implies that as you shorten the overall length of the Stamp, its balance point moves toward the leading edge of the wing. It does fly like it is nose heavy though, but I don’t know about 9-inches. If anyone has any suggestions I would appreciate the information.
Posted on: 9/22/2002 3:57 AM by Author "James Goss" in the forum "Profile and Fun Flying Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=252797

New Version of the Stamp, a Pusher Stamp
I took the Pusher Stamp back to the flying field today for another test flight. It was raining when I got there and nobody else was there, I had the field to myself. It has been a while getting here, but today was the first time I had the Pusher Stamp in the air and really felt comfortable flying it. Solving the rmp problem has really brought the Pusher into it’s own, it can now hold a place in the ever growing Stamp family. It even steered better on the ground and in the air it had more than enough power. It still has a great sound in the air, like no other plane I have ever heard before. It may be that the prop is still not getting fully loaded, but I don’t think I will change anything in that respect. After the first two flights I removed three of the six ounces of weight from the leading edge. This placed the balance at 6-inches from the leading edge instead of 5.5-inches. It appeared to keep its nose up better at this balance point. Next time I fly it I may remove the other three ounces and see what happens. I know I need to change the elevon control horns so I can get more elevator throw, for some reason it seems to need it on this version of the Stamp. I got six good flights, no crashes, and many good landings today. I tried a flat spin during the second flight, but it didn’t enter it well and I decided not to try it again today. With more elevator throw I think it should be ok. It does hover better than I thought it would, but it is not as nimble as the regular Stamp. I was flying it today without any wind to speak of and on a windy day things may change. This is indeed a fun to fly plane and I think I will keep working with it for a while. It takes a little longer to build, but if you are looking for something different this is it. It is also more of a challenge to fly that the regular Stamp. Its moves are sudden and you really have to stay on top of it. Like the regular Stamp it will slow down as soon as you pull the nose up. It has 5/32 wheel gear wire instead of 1/8 because it needed the weight up front. This allows for some pretty solid landings without flexing the wire. Overall this is a good project to build and fly, but it gives you a pretty good workout. I guess this is one of the most challenging planes I have ever flown. Again, it is unique in the air, looks and sound, and is a good overall project to tackle.
Posted on: 9/19/2002 1:19 AM by Author "James Goss" in the forum "Profile and Fun Flying Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=252796

Vectored Thrust Stamp
Today was a full day of testing for me, both the Pusher Stamp and the Vectored Thrust Stamp was in the air. The Vectored Stamp turned out to be one of the best flying Stamps I have had. I placed the damper flap on channel six so I could control it with the knob. I was concerned about the flap blocking the airflow from the elevons when activated. With full flap I couldn’t detect any difference in the elevon operation, so that answers that question making today worthwhile. In a hover if you activate the flap the nose will be forced up, but with less throttle. This is basically what the flap does; it keeps the nose at a higher angle. It is indeed fun to vary the damper flap while flying around in a hover. I did have a few crashes today with this plane and at the end of the day I had a midair collision with another Stamp (a green stamp) and we did hit hard. Having the slot cut for the damper does weaken the structure so I will have to replace the wing on this stamp. This is another different and unique Stamp and I can recommend it for a project if you are looking for something a little distinct. The flap assembly worked well and never failed to operate properly. If you are interested in building one I will have the instructions on my web site soon.
Posted on: 9/19/2002 1:15 AM by Author "James Goss" in the forum "Profile and Fun Flying Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=269958

Vectored Thrust Stamp
I have been looking for a biplane design that would work for the Stamp. I have a few in mind and should be able to try one soon.
Posted on: 9/16/2002 12:52 PM by Author "James Goss" in the forum "Profile and Fun Flying Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=269956

The Invisible Stamp
OldRCer I have found that for the Stamp to have the same flight characteristics the wing area (576 sq. inches for the 24 x 24) needs to be maintained within 10% of that amount. Your 20 x 24 (480 sq. inches) is about 17% less. It will still fly ok, but may not respond the same in all aerobatics. It seems that the square shape is the overall best.
Posted on: 9/16/2002 12:46 PM by Author "James Goss" in the forum "Profile and Fun Flying Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=269965

Vectored Thrust Stamp
Kevin Kevin, one idea to cover your wingtips would be to use nylon screws to anchor 2 mm coroplast tips in place. For 2 mm coroplast a number 6 or 8 nylon screw would screw into the corrugations, actually plug into them. It would be easy to remove and have access if needed. Your design looks really good, I bet it will fly as good as it looks.
Posted on: 9/15/2002 11:28 PM by Author "James Goss" in the forum "Profile and Fun Flying Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=269954

Vectored Thrust Stamp
Kevin Can’t wait to see your finished product. Using mini servos on the elevons as far as torque would probably be ok. The only problem is when you have a really hard crash, nose first, the inertia of the large elevons tends to strip the gears more so than with regular servos. Ok for the throttle though and also the rudder by not having a steerable tail wheel.
Posted on: 9/15/2002 7:30 PM by Author "James Goss" in the forum "Profile and Fun Flying Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=269952

The Invisible Stamp
Joe Lang, Sounds like a good idea Joe! I am sure it would make a sleek looking Stamp, a Stealth Stamp, now that has class. The way the Stamp hovers so close to the ground it reminds me of a covert stealth. Send us a picture when it is ready.
Posted on: 9/15/2002 7:17 PM by Author "James Goss" in the forum "Profile and Fun Flying Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=269963

The Invisible Stamp
I have been thinking about this concept for some time now, an invisible airplane. I would like to use 1/8 inch plexiglas and may still, but it will be a little heavy, I think about 1.5 pounds. I am sure the Plexiglas Stamp would fly and the glass is more rigid than the coroplast. The weight is the only drawback that I see. I have decided to first use clear coroplast, actually it is a hazy clear, but you can indeed see through it. Who knows, at a distance it may actually become invisible while flying. I may have to fly this Stamp in a 50 square foot area to see it. It will probably show up as well as white does, but it will be interesting to find out. The clear coroplast really makes it easy to build a Stamp because you can see everything on both sides.
Posted on: 9/14/2002 11:21 PM by Author "James Goss" in the forum "Profile and Fun Flying Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=269959

Vectored Thrust Stamp
We got rained out at the field today so I decided to make it a building day. I had already started the Vectored Thrust Stamp a few days back so I decided to finish it today. The thrust flap measures 12-inches long and 3 –inches wide, and rotates with the hinge point being located at 1.5-inches. This is a guess as far as how much flap to use since this is the first. If anything I think it may need more flap above the wing and that will be easy to add on an extension. The Vector Stamp is navy blue, but looks black in the picture. I have been experimenting with split flaps on the Stamp so I know for sure that flaps do work well with this plane. The Vectored Stamp is not completely my idea. I would like to give credit to Gord (Flypaper) in Kingston Ont Can) , he suggested that I try a damper flap such as this that would allow the prop blast above the wing to escape below the wing. I have high expectations for this project to succeed and I really think it will allow for even better vertical landings with the Stamp. I will probably test fly it sometime this week.
Posted on: 9/14/2002 11:16 PM by Author "James Goss" in the forum "Profile and Fun Flying Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=269950

Build your own PBF (Pizza Box Flyer, Flying Pizza Box)
localbuyer Here is some info on landing gear for you. I have been using landing gear from day one on my Postage Stamp. The Stamp is very similar to the PBF and the landing gear really adds a lot of fun with vertical landings. Go to my website and click on the Stamp. Then click on “How To Build A Stamp” and you will find a picture and instructions. I guarantee you will love your plane with gear on it.
Posted on: 9/14/2002 11:05 PM by Author "James Goss" in the forum "Profile and Fun Flying Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=191579

Coroplast --- How Thick?
OldRCer At what speed are you flying when the Stamp is rocking side to side, or is it at all speeds? After takeoff and when they are at reduced speed the Stamp should be very stable. All that I have flown and seen fly appeared to be stable at slow speeds. At high speeds they are liable to do anything. At slow speed with its nose up in the air it is as stable as any plane can be. When you say rocking, is it like the ailerons are being moved? Are your elevon servos mounted in the rear with short push rods? This is an interesting problem and we need to figure it out.
Posted on: 9/13/2002 1:00 PM by Author "James Goss" in the forum "Profile and Fun Flying Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=267045

New Version of the Stamp, a Pusher Stamp
C_Watkins I have thought about a twin such as you have described. At this time I have a twin inline already cut out for a tractor up front and a pusher in the rear. I have been waiting to see how the pusher stamp develops before continuing with the inline twin. I plan on using a .25 up front and a .15 in the rear. I love the sound of twin engines and with a cheap little plane like the Stamp it sounds even better. I believe you are correct about having great flat spins while using selective control of the engines. I was planning on using a couple of little .28 Magnum engines for this project. It is people with ideas like yourself that makes this hobby such an interesting one to be involved with.
Posted on: 9/13/2002 12:49 AM by Author "James Goss" in the forum "Profile and Fun Flying Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=252794

Coroplast --- How Thick?
ReallyUglyStick It depends on what your goal is as to whether the skin thickness is important or not. In my case I always like to know all the details while working on a project. You are correct that it may not be important to some, but others may think it interesting to know the difference between the skin thickness and overall thickness. The size of the corrugations needs to be known if like me you purchase basswood to use as filler strips to prevent the plastic from crushing at screw locations. I find it much faster to buy the 1/8 square or the 1/8 x 3/16 basswood strips instead of cutting them from sheet wood. I build a lot with coroplast, about three or four Stamps per week, and I guess this saves me more time than anything. I am retired now, but my profession was a technical teacher, electronics professor, for thirty-five years. I guess I do tend to look at everything from the technical end by force of habit.
Posted on: 9/13/2002 12:28 AM by Author "James Goss" in the forum "Profile and Fun Flying Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=267043

New Version of the Stamp, a Pusher Stamp
I gave the engine on the Pusher Stamp a test run today to see if it was cured of it’s over revving condition. Before, it sounded like it was reaching 20,000 rpm, due to the input air to the prop being distorted by the coroplast being too close to the leading edge of the prop, about 1/8 inch. Now at ¾ inch everything seems to be normal again and the os .46 LA sounds almost like it’s old self. Pusher props always sound a little different from a tractor prop anyway. Holding the Stamp in a vertical position I can tell it has a lot more thrust than before. Even at this weight it will be able to pull out of a hover with ease it looks like. Its amazing that it got off the ground as well as it did while being under powered. I think I will be able to test fly it again tomorrow (Saturday) and finally be able to see what it will do. It has taken a while to develop this project, but when you stop and think about it a few weeks is nothing compared to a few months or years that are normally needed to get a new project up and flying. I’ll say it again; the Stamp is unique in that we can experiment with new designs at a faster rate than any other airplane around. It can be built and modified, crashed and retested all in the same day if needed.
Posted on: 9/12/2002 11:33 PM by Author "James Goss" in the forum "Profile and Fun Flying Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=252792

Pizza Box/Postage Stamp Planes
Bret After you learn to fly a trainer I will be glad to help you get a Stamp in the air. When you are ready give me an e-mail and we will get things going.
Posted on: 9/12/2002 1:03 PM by Author "James Goss" in the forum "Profile and Fun Flying Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=262670