RE: Helicopter Scale Masters September 23-25, 2011
...last group Also, lots of vidsos out there of this event. Mine can be found at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HqGfV9f1gs
Posted on: 10/2/2011 5:27 PM by Author "StanleyR" in the forum "Scale RC Helicopters"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10744883

RE: Helicopter Scale Masters September 23-25, 2011
-group 2 of 3
Posted on: 10/2/2011 9:19 AM by Author "StanleyR" in the forum "Scale RC Helicopters"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10744872

RE: Helicopter Scale Masters September 23-25, 2011
More photos from the other camera... group 1 of 3. Note: Broken tail section (photos 7 and 8) was the result of Friday night's winds, which toppled canopies and tables.
Posted on: 10/2/2011 9:07 AM by Author "StanleyR" in the forum "Scale RC Helicopters"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10744856

RE: Helicopter Scale Masters September 23-25, 2011
...and the rest from the old camera.
Posted on: 9/29/2011 8:48 PM by Author "StanleyR" in the forum "Scale RC Helicopters"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10741431

RE: Helicopter Scale Masters September 23-25, 2011
Some photos from my older camera. Really a GREAT event! If you appreciate scale realism (including the sounds produced), this was a must-see and must-listen. I'll post the rest in the next reply...
Posted on: 9/29/2011 8:46 PM by Author "StanleyR" in the forum "Scale RC Helicopters"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10741426

RE: Wings Of Victory 2011 at Davis CA.
Here are some photos from Saturday...
Posted on: 7/25/2011 10:21 PM by Author "StanleyR" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10639118

RE: Woodland-Davis Golden Age Fun Fly
I had a great time visiting old friends and making new acquaintances. We all feel terrible for Hal and his T-Craft, but the event as a whole was a lot of fun and would like to do it again next year...SAME location! Richard, Ed and Forrest, great looking shots of the aircraft! I'm amazed at some of Forrest's work capturing my pilot during the in-flight shots! I can't tell if it's smiling or grimacing though. Here are a few more photos that I had and one from my friend Phil. Rob
Posted on: 8/18/2009 9:04 PM by Author "StanleyR" in the forum "Events, Shows and Fun Fly's - Airplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9026719

RE: Best racers banned in Sacramento
Hmmmm, Sorry about what exactly??? I know this is going to sound like I'm slamming you, but I'm trying to do this as respectfully as I can because the truth still matters to me. You can shred me later if you wish. But this will be the last post on this topic for me. I don't know if you realize this, but you're kind of making my point: Jimmy Skids stated John Casey SUED 3 TIMES TO BE REINSTATED and lost all three times. This is simply not true - which is why I posted the actual public records. John initially sought monetary reimbursement. It was the judge who came up with the idea to reinstate him - not John. Evidently, this judge, who by your own description, didn't know what he was doing, was actually trying to bring this to a resolution without costing the club some money. So THERE was the "first move", the golden opportunity for the "mia culpa." But what did SAM's board do, they appealed the decision. By the way, you may need to clarify the following point: Since Jimmy and apparently you believe John lost all three times, did the board win the first case from a judge who didn't know what he was doing, or did John lose the first case by a judge who didn't know what he was doing? It's also nice to know that in a really small world, gossip is the preferred method for people who want to be in the know these days. I suppose that's how Jimmy got his misinformation about how many times John sued, and what the suit was for. I appreciate your candor regarding the warbird racing, the costs involved, and the waning numbers. I know there are many who want to keep it simple and inexpensive and will use the rules of the event to keep it that way. People like Tony realize this thought process exists too, which is why he chooses not to participate in those events. The flip side would be that there are some that think the better the competition the better the sport and those event's rules will reflect that way of thinking. That's where people like Tony will try to compete.
Posted on: 11/19/2005 2:50 AM by Author "StanleyR" in the forum "General Racing Discussion"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=3566944

RE: Best racers banned in Sacramento
You can read the "other side's" opinion from Jimmy Skids and judge for yourselves... Jimmy could have been a bit more accurate about John's role with the courts. John only filed a small claims suit [i]twice[/i] asking for the maximum allowable of $5,000.00 to cover costs to join and travel to a different club for the rest of his modeling career since SAM's board expelled him without membership knowledge or approval. Jimmy probably doesn’t know these facts, but what actually happened is the Small Claim’s judge came up with a resolution that would, hopefully, appeal to both parties and save the club from paying the suit money even though John’s rights were violated and the SAM board acted in bad faith – this also stated in the finding of the court. The judgment asked the SAM board to reinstate John’s membership. There was a drop-dead date in which SAM’s board could appeal the decision - which they did. (Refer Attachment 1) The appeal landed the case in the Small Claims Division of Superior Court. Again, with both parties present, the appeals judge was of the opinion that the previous judge had no statutory authorization to order the SAM’s board to reinstate John’s membership. The court only had the authority to grant the amount requested in the judgment – namely $5000. The appeals judge turned to John and asked him what he wanted the court to decide on. John was feeling justified from the previous judgment and no longer intended to empty the SAM coffer. So he replied, perhaps unwittingly, please enforce the judgment of the Small Claims Court. The appeals judge said he couldn’t because the small claims judgment, which asked for reinstatement, was out of their statutory authority. So the case was dismissed. (Refer Attachment 2) John refiled in Small Claims again, different judge this time, who decided SAM did not have to pay John Casey any money. There was no explanation given by the court for this decision. It’s possible that the decision was based on the testimony of the SAM board representative who claimed John could fly at the site as a “guest� at any time paying the $5.00 daily use fee. I have to chuckle at this when I consider the real mindset of the SAM board as stated in the attached letter. (Refer Attachments 3 and 4) I'm not sure why Jimmy thinks John lost three times in court, but I'm fairly certain that when Jimmy reads the judgment after John re-filed, he may think this last ruling is a win for SAM’s board and a loss for John. Using that same line of thinking, I would wonder what he would say about another judgment whereby a terminated SAM member doesn’t owe SAM any money because the court had no jurisdiction on this matter. (Refer Attachment 5) I will post the judgments so you readers that are interested can decide for yourself. You will also note on the SAMs website, there is a bundle of newsletters missing after June of 2003 when all of these problems were occurring. There was never any mention of the board’s intentions of terminating John in any newsletter. The termination letter John received was never posted in the newsletter. All the judgments were never posted in the newsletter. The private investigators report regarding frequency jamming of opposing member’s aircraft was never posted in the newsletter. Now for the other issue: I'm sorry to hear that Tony Pacini and his group no longer attend the SAM races, but I don't blame them for their opinion. The last race I attended was when SAM had instituted the minimum idle speed rule years ago. I know my first thought was that it was a sneaky way to kill off those competitors that had the really hot setup. You have to understand that even though it may be a "safety issue" to keep the unskilled pilot from potentially torquing their plane on take off at full speed, Tony and his group will always targeted because they are way ahead of the curve on this sport. Yes they probably could spend more money and produce an engine that would comply with the minimum idle rule, but then there'd be another rule change later. This has gone on for quite some time to people like Tony, Joe and Bill - and it's not just SAMs that has done this to them. Even the breakout times have changed throughout the years to slow the aircraft down a bit for “safety reasons.� In the Bronze class where John Casey was dominating, the SAM’s racing breakout time was actually lowered by 10 seconds. Couldn’t be for safety reasons that time. As far as the indemnity insurance for the SAM board, yes this should have been voted on by the membership. The newsletter had actually covered this in the months prior, inviting the membership to “come and have your voice heard� up until December of 2003. I attended the meeting when this was to occur. However, the treasurer’s report noted a $1300.00 expenditure during the previous month. When asked what this expenditure was for, it was learned that the Board went ahead and purchased the insurance without membership approval. For the moment, the SAM club remains under the same leadership. The dissenters have either moved on to different clubs, gotten out of the hobby, or have been expelled. Since SAM’s newsletter is not a viable source of information regarding these issues, the rest of the membership doesn’t care or remains unaware; but even if they knew the facts would they do anything about it? I don’t know anymore… ~Robert Stanley
Posted on: 11/18/2005 9:49 AM by Author "StanleyR" in the forum "General Racing Discussion"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=3564512

RE: Re: gear drawings
That's about all I have. Were you referring to the folks who were trying to contact Doss?
Posted on: 3/10/2005 10:41 PM by Author "StanleyR" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=2751537

RE: Re: gear drawings
And the rest...
Posted on: 1/10/2005 4:59 PM by Author "StanleyR" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=2524193

RE: Re: gear drawings
Feast your eyes gentlemen! The fork is definitely cast. The upper strut is machined and braized, perhaps even some JB Weld is going on at the outer door tangs. It's an interesting study indeed! Missing from the pictures is the Clippard pneumatic actuator for the retract. As for Doss, I toast him - cheers! Better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all.
Posted on: 1/10/2005 4:54 PM by Author "StanleyR" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=2524175

RE: Re: gear drawings
As a previous member posted, I too had a great conversation with Doss - it was '92. I knew of his plans and parts only AFTER I had blown up another master modeler's plans, modified and built a 100" racer for the mini-Reno events. Doss was very complimentary of the pictures I sent him of my racing mustang. We talked for about an hour and although I had my landing gear and retracts made from scratch for my plane, I decided to buy his set for a backup. I knew they were set up for a 92" aircraft so they were going to be on the slightly small size. I also mentioned to Doss, it was ashame he didn't make his an even 100" instead with the heavy interest in the 100" racing at that time and all. Well the parts arrived, retracts and mains. After I damaged my landing gear, I had the SteedStuff mains retrofitted to my retracts by a machinist. The funny thing is, if my memory serves me correctly, the mains and lower fork were cast pieces and not machined. Therefore, it's a pretty good chance that he did make his gear. However, the retract units matched the details in his plans and they were machined from aluminum manually - still has the layout fluid in some spots. I still have these in my garage attic - as I have lost the financial wherewithall to continue developing a competitive, scale, 100" P-51 racer. I would be glad to post some photos of the set if anyone is interested. Also, the P51 probably didn't have "mechanical" washout because there is an aerodynamic washout built into the airfoil as it spans toward the tips. In other words it transitions from one airfoil (root) to another (tip), and is a very slight change. Doss's plans are correct in depicting the airfoil profile. Some of you mentioned that he still included mechanical washout using the rib jigs. I'll have to review my plans again - been too long to recall. The 100" that I flew, briefly, and a 60 size rendition (although they weren't Doss's) also had the laminar airfoils of the P51 with mechanical washout in them. Both were a joy to fly. Flaps at 47 degrees during landing was like bringing the plane down on rails very slowly, with power on. Those were good times - I am now shedding a tear...[:(]
Posted on: 1/10/2005 1:26 AM by Author "StanleyR" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=2522080