|
RE: Sterling Models WWII Warbirds
Funny thing about wood quality. When I was a kid in the 1950's we all used to joke about the lousy quality of the balsa in Berkeley kits. But in recent times I have collected a few Berkeley kits and am favorably impressed with the wood. Either I misjudged Berkeley or my standards were higher back then. I do like to fondle nice pieces of balsa wood. Liked it as a kid, still like it. Dick
Posted on: 5/23/2013 4:46 PM by Author "otrcman"
in the forum "Golden Age, Vintage & Antique RC"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11520689
RE: Sterling Models WWII Warbirds
[quote]ORIGINAL: LesUyeda Typical of all Sterling offerings. As their steel rule dies became dull, and could no longer cut the softer (good) stuff, they just went to harder and harder wood. Ever hear the term ''die crushed''. That was applied to the newer Sterling kits Les [/quote] Interesting insight, Les. So, if I want a nice, early Spitfire kit I should be looking for one that has the black printed plan with reed radio shown? The one I bought recently on ebay has the blue plan and a proportional radio shown. I just figured weighing the box would be the only indicator. From what you say, am I correct in thinking that there would be three phases of die-cuting as follows : 1. First examples. Sharp dies, good cutting, good balsa. 2. Second examples. Dull dies, good balsa, but crunched cuts rather than good cuts. 3. Late examples. Dull dies, hard balsa to avoid crunching. Dick
Posted on: 5/22/2013 10:18 AM by Author "otrcman"
in the forum "Golden Age, Vintage & Antique RC"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11519184
RE: Sterling Models WWII Warbirds
Heck, Joe, I didn't even know that there WAS an article for the F-51. Like you, I have all three kits stashed away. Interestingly, the wood quality in the F-51 kit is very good. Nice and light. But the Spitfire box is so heavy that you'd think it was full of oak firewood rather than model airplane parts. The big nose block in the Spitfire kit could be used as a wheel chock for a real Spit. I built a Sterling Spitfire in 1964 and the wood didn't seem all that bad at the time. The wood selection must have varied a lot. If I ever bid on another ebay Spitfire I'm going to ask the seller to weigh the box before bidding. By the way, the Spitfire was an excellent flier. Dick
Posted on: 5/20/2013 8:28 AM by Author "otrcman"
in the forum "Golden Age, Vintage & Antique RC"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11517102
RE: Speed controller wire length -Stafford B-24?
Check out http://www.vvrcf.org/smf/index.php?topic=934.0 That thread is about an electrified Stafford B-24 and is quite recent. The airplane has been flown with good success. A lot of the thread is about the owner of the plane, who was a WWII flight engineer/top turret operator. His Stafford B-24 is modeled after "Bananna Boat" the plane he crewed. There are a couple of club members who helped him with finishing and installation of electrics. Dick
Posted on: 9/12/2012 8:37 AM by Author "otrcman"
in the forum "Glow to Electric Conversions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11226131
RE: Eagle Tree Guardian
I'm not sure the Guardian is a perfect answer, but it has possibilities. The question is, do you expect it to keep you out of trouble for a few brief seconds while you get the other engine throttled back, or are you expecting it to provide enough control to permit continued flight on one dead engine ? In simple rate damping mode (what they call 3D), but with heading lock disabled, the Guardian should buy you some time by slowing down the initial response to power loss. But if you have heading lock enabled in 3D mode, then the Guardian may or may not be your friend. Depending on the aerodynamics of your particular airplane and how you have your Guardian response set up, yaw toward the dead engine could be exaggerated due to adverse yaw from aileron input. In 3D mode, my understanding of the Guardian is that it will try to keep pitch, roll and yaw attitudes level unless you make a control input. If the airplane begins to yaw and roll into the dead engine and you have no stick input, the system will try to keep you straight and level. But does it use aileron or rudder (or both) to keep your wings level and on the original heading ? And how would your airplane respond to an aileron correction in the presence of a strong yawing tendency ? I think a lot would depend on the particular aerodynamics of your airplane and also on the way the Guardian's many features are set up. Bottom line is that the Guardian may be a great help, but will require some special testing and adjustments to tune it to your airplane. Unfortunately, the testing could cost you a few airplanes in the process. Dick
Posted on: 9/9/2012 10:47 AM by Author "otrcman"
in the forum "Twin & Multi Engine RC Aircraft"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11222810
RE: RDS 8000 question
I don't see why you can't do as you propose. You will have to use one of the customizable mix functions. Have you called Jack Albrecht at Airtronics Technical Support with your question ? The 800 number is on the Airtronics website. The nosing over problem with tailwheel models is very common. I just sort of cock my right thumb back, holding a slight bit of up elevator, before adding power. Then as soon as I'm at full power I release the back pressure. It has the dual effect of keeping the model from nosing over and also keeps the tailwheel on the ground until there's a little more air flow over the rudder to hold the airplane straight. Dick
Posted on: 8/11/2012 12:07 PM by Author "otrcman"
in the forum "Airtronics Support Forum"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11189479
RE: Proctor Nieuport 28 warped tail surface.
[/quote] LOL, although I am sure it was not funny at the time. I have heard of using the exhaust of a car to heat up surfaces to remove a warp (or put some in) in field conditions during free flight contests, but never one catching on fire. Was the dope still wet and the flame from the furnace igniting it? [/quote] It's been too many years to be absolutely certain whether it was still wet, but I think not. I was trying to take a warp out of a surface, and had applied a fresh coat of dope and was twisting in the opposite direction while the dope dried. The dope needed to be fully dry before releasing the twist. My hand was getting tired, so I walked out into the hallway and stood over the heater to speed the drying. If you remember those heaters, the entire unit was below the floor and there was a grill that you could walk on. I was standing on the grill, letting the rising warm air dry the dope a little faster. It couldn't have been too hot, because my feet would have been a lot hotter than the part I was holding in my hands. And the rising air would have prevented any fumes from going downhill to the burners. That's why I thought it would be safe. The solids part of nitrate dope is commonly called guncotton. That's a propellant used in some explosives. It can be set off not only by heat, but also shock and static electric discharge. I still use nitrate dope, but I've got a lot more respect for it now than I did when I was 15 years old. Dick
Posted on: 7/9/2012 1:40 PM by Author "otrcman"
in the forum "Golden Age, Vintage & Antique RC"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11149034
RE: Proctor Nieuport 28 warped tail surface.
[quote]ORIGINAL: LesUyeda ''I am afraid of blistering the finish.'' You have nothing to loose. I would certainly try that first. Les [/quote] ................Unless you catch it on fire, that is. If the finish includes nitrate dope, be careful out there. As a kid I caught a model on fire by standing over the floor furnace, holding a surface against a warp and trying to rush the drying. Fortunately the furnace was in the hallway and the bathroom was nearby. I threw the part in the tub and turned on the water. After the fire was out there wasn't much left except black cinders. I rinsed the cinders down the drain and started over. But back to you dilemma. I agree with Les that you have nothing to lose in terms of damaging the finish. It might be smart to use an iron rather than a heat gun, just to assure that you don't get things too hot. (And maybe do it in the bathroom in case you have to throw it into the tub.) Dick
Posted on: 7/8/2012 7:51 PM by Author "otrcman"
in the forum "Golden Age, Vintage & Antique RC"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11148165
RE: WW1 planes with rudder mix
[quote]ORIGINAL: vertical grimmace So I aquired a Fokker triplane from a fellow that did not want it anymore. I have flown it a couple of times and the last time I had almost no aileron control. I had moved the CG to where I think it should be. 3.625'' from LE on top wing. Like BUSA. I have now increased the throw to almost max on low rate as that is where I had my previous DR1 aileron throw set. My question, with a cambered airfoil, how much rudder mix do you guys use when flying WW1? It seems that this aircraft ''requires'' rudder input to turn. I have not experienced this before but have heard of it. THis aircraft was scratch built from BUSA plans, but has a more scale airfoil shape. Is this the cause? I have gone through and measured the rigging and to my surprise it is exaclty 0-0. Wing stab. It does have a ton of down, 5 degrees, but I am running a 50 cc engine and a 23'' prop. Way too much I know, but what I had laying around. The plane is heavy at around 22lbs. For a 1/4 scale tripe, that is a lot. [/quote] The fact that you need rudder with aileron isn't so much due to the thin airfoil as it is due to the very low directional stability of most WWI airplanes. The vertical stabilizer is fairly small and the fuselage length (wing to empennage) is short. The yawing torque exerted by the aileron input is simply too much for the little vertical to resist, and the airplane yaws the wrong way. Rudder input offsets that adverse effect. In your post you said that you had just moved the CG. Did you move it forward or rearward ? If rearward, then that further decreases your directional stability. If you have trouble wrapping your mind around this phenomenon, try temporarily adding a bunch of vertical area to your fin or rudder. Suddenly it will be much easier to roll back and forth. In full scale, there's an old flight instructor's adage about using rudder with aileron: "Stick and rudder. Stick and rudder. Never one without the other!" Same holds true for RC models. Whether you mix the rudder in your transmitter or do it with you thumbs, the rudder needs to move whenever the ailerons move. WWII type planes aren't nearly as bad about this as WWI, due to the increased directional stability afforded by larger verticals, longer, sleeker fuselages and higher speeds. I have flown some full scale planes that absolutely did not roll at all with ailerons only. Without rudder such airplanes are unflyable. The Jenny, for instance, has double cables from rudder pedals to the rudder, but not on the ailerons or elevators. Evidently Curtiss thought rudder control was so critical that redundant cables were a necessity. Dick
Posted on: 7/3/2012 8:16 AM by Author "otrcman"
in the forum "RC Scale Aircraft"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11141217
RE: Blushing Dope
It's not too appealing in the summertime, but the time honored method for eliminating blush when doping full scale airplanes is to heat the work area. Whether you air condition the area or heat it, the effect is to increase the spread between temperature and dew point. If you can spread these two temperatures enough, there will be no blushing. I routinely paint indoors when there's fog outside. I just run a heater for 30 minutes or so, turn off the heater, and proceed to spread dope. By the time my shop space cools back down, the dope has dried enough that there will be no blushing. Needless to say, heaters and dope don't mix well if you are using any sort of open flame source. Dope is EXTREMELY flammable. Think Hindenburg ! Dick
Posted on: 7/2/2012 8:35 AM by Author "otrcman"
in the forum "RC Scale Aircraft"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11139808
RE: 66 in W/span Jenny, who made this kit? HELP!
There's an Aerodrome Jenny kit on ebay right now. The number "43" and the words, "Love Field" both appear on the fuselage sides in the box art. That's another indication that your model was probably an Aerodrome kit. Dick
Posted on: 5/11/2012 9:55 PM by Author "otrcman"
in the forum "RC Scale Aircraft"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11077685
RE: 66 in W/span Jenny, who made this kit? HELP!
I stand corrected. LesUyeda is right. It's not a Joy Jenny. Denny, the first thing that I see in your pictures is that there are balsa diagonal braces in the fuselage sides. After looking at the Joy plans again, I see that they called for diagonal X braces in each fuselage bay made of small diameter rods. Never seen an Aerodrome kit, but that may be it. Les, did you fly your Jenny ? Sure looks nice. What engine ? Dick
Posted on: 5/6/2012 8:08 PM by Author "otrcman"
in the forum "RC Scale Aircraft"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11070960
RE: 66 in W/span Jenny, who made this kit? HELP!
Yes, that is almost certainly a Joy Products Jenny. Size is right and the method of assembly of wings to fuselage is exactly per plans. One of my fellow club members has a NIB kit for this model, which he would like to sell. I don't know what his price is, but if you have ever seen one on ebay they run in the $200 to $250 range. Send me a PM if interested. Dick
Posted on: 5/1/2012 5:55 PM by Author "otrcman"
in the forum "RC Scale Aircraft"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11064655
RE: Forward swept wing will it turn like a normal three channel?
As long as you are worrying about your swept forward wing, here's another concern: Wings of that configuration often have trouble with structural divergence. Speed and wing loading are your enemies in this respect. As you increase your wing loading the problem could become more pronounced. The two symptoms of divergence are unusually rapid roll response to gusts or rudder input and (worse) actual wing failure. I can see from the photos that the leading edge is sheeted. That will help to make the wing stiffer in torsion. Is it also sheeted on the lower surface ? And did you put shear webs on the spar face to structurally connect the upper sheeting to the lower ? All that will help to make the wing more resistant to twisting and therefore structural divergence. Dick
Posted on: 5/1/2012 10:13 AM by Author "otrcman"
in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11064137
RE: super decathlon fin
All right ! Looks like you can fly the airplane long enough now to observe the details and figure out what to do next. Your plan to increase right thrust sounds like a good one. One other thing you might be able to do (providing you have a programmable transmitter) is to mix in some right rudder with throttle. That is, you would like to have the rudder move right a tiny bit as you increase throttle. The other thing you might consider on you next flight is to trim out any rolling tendency with rudder rather than with aileron. I know that sounds counterintuitive, but it is the correct thing to do with a high wing airplane, especially if it has much wing dihedral at all. Dick
Posted on: 5/1/2012 9:54 AM by Author "otrcman"
in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11064114
RE: super decathlon fin
The resolution on the video isn't quite good enough to be sure, but it looks like you started your takeoff roll holding full up elevator. Do you know if you ever released the up elevator ? It also looks like the plane came off the ground still 3-point. That's another indication that you were holding a lot of back stick. If so, then the airplane simply stalled as it broke ground. Notice how steeply it pitches up immediately after liftoff. And notice how the airplane yaws right in addition to rolling right. Those are all classic indications of a stall. The greater incidence of the right wing panel would normally try to make the plane roll left. But if you stalled it at the moment of liftoff then the plane would roll right, as it definitely did. Keeping the stick back for the initial takeoff roll is very common technique to maintain better heading control. But keeping the stick back at too high a speed is deadly. If you are heading into an 11 mph wind, then you probably don't need to hold the stick back at all. The airplane will head into the wind naturally. Dick
Posted on: 4/26/2012 8:31 PM by Author "otrcman"
in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11058529
RE: Silk Covering Techniques
I was talking about polyspan and I will admit that I haven't used it very long. I am still in the process of learning how it works and if it will hold up. So far I have not punched any holes in it, but that doesn't mean that I won't later. I never pick up a plane by putting pressure on the covering. I learned that back in the days of silkspan with I was a kid and that was all I could afford. I treat all planes the same and carefully lift it by the bottom of the fuselage and wing, but not putting much pressure on any one point. I really like silkspan, but I'll be the first to admit that it doesn't hold up all that good. I have had planes that lasted a couple of years with silkspan, but not more. They just start attracting holes for some reason. Silk is my all time favorite and if polyspan doesn't hold up, then I will go back to it. I just had to try it and see what it was all about. I have used nylon before, but it is a little hard to work with and not much fun. Kind of heavy too. Ed [/quote] In all fairness I should point out that polyspan has some good features. It is nowhere near as stretchy as the mylar films, so you can expect to gain some rigidity from polyspan. It takes very little dope to fill. Overall, a polyspan cover job can be very light. And it really does shrink nicely with a monokote iron. But have you tried just taking a raw sample of polyspan and giving it a tensile test ? In one direction it's as strong or stronger than silk. In the other direction it's no better than silkspan. The first time I saw polyspan was at a hobby show. The guy in the booth had little samples with which he would give a mighty pull to demonstrate how strong it was. Then he would hand the sample to an onlooker and offer to let him try it. When he handed me a piece, I already knew how strong it was in the long direction from watching others. So I turned my sample 90° and began to give it a tug. The vendor got wide eyed and said, "DON'T DO THAT !" Regarding how you pick up a model, I agree that it's always best to pick up in a sheeted area such as under the mid fuselage. But most of my models are old timers with very little sheeting. Sometimes at the end of the day when I'm removing a wing and the wind is blowing there is no good place to grab. Same thing as on a silkspan free flight: wings in a breeze are really tough to hang onto sometimes. Dick
Posted on: 4/17/2012 8:38 PM by Author "otrcman"
in the forum "Golden Age, Vintage & Antique RC"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11046624
RE: Silk Covering Techniques
[quote]ORIGINAL: LesUyeda ''everything I have read says that it is every bit as good as silk without the expense of silk. '' I cannot accept that. Silk is fabric; silkspan is a paper product. I see no way they can be as good. Les [/quote] Les, I think Ed was comparing Polyspan to silk. In some ways, the polyspan is pretty good stuff. Easy to work, just like silkspan. Very easy to shrink with an iron. And it doesn't deteriorate due to sunlight as rapidly as silk. The down side to polyspan is that its strength is not symmetrical. It's quite strong in one direction and no better than silkspan in the other direction. I've covered a few old timer models with polyspan and had problems with puncturing the covering by picking the model up with my thumb across a spar or stringer. If you press too hard the covering just splits along any hard edge that happens to be parallel to the grain. Dick
Posted on: 4/17/2012 8:08 AM by Author "otrcman"
in the forum "Golden Age, Vintage & Antique RC"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11045617
RE: Airplane rudder gyro
[quote]ORIGINAL: Night Scream Hi everyone: Well i'm having some problems witht his HK401 gyro.. it was working fine ona plane i had for experimenting.. I took the gyro off it to fix some problems i had in it and installed the gyro back.. as i've seen in the video on how to set up the gyro... I'm using a futaba 6exa radio and a regular 7 chn rx.. which was flying this plane flawlessly... Here's the problem I install the gyro again and have rate mode at 20% and at AVCS(HH) mode it's at 0% exactly like it was flying i think last time... problem is either i haven't used it in a while and forgot how to set this up or i dunno.. In rate mode the rudder moves and re-centers in HH the rudder shouldn't move.. but it still moved.. very little but still moves... will not stick to a new heading since HH has 0% but the rudder still moves if you move the plane to any side.... I though i was imagining it and took it to the field (i know error) and took off with it in HH which i thouhg was fully off and as soon as i was airborne the plane started to get squirrely and would not respond to my rudder inputs or was faster than me.. and crashed landed.. thankfully into a big piece of grass which didn't damage the plane but i unplugged the gyro right there and today been trying to rack my brain what did i do wrong... The plane is a X330 with an evolution 100 engine, rudder servo is a futaba 3004. The limit is at 150 and delay i tried at 0 then 20.. same results Anyone what did i do wrong??? [/quote] In some of the earlier posts, it has been said that the gyro behavior right around 0% is often uncertain. For that reason, people usually adjust the gain to be slightly offset from 0%. For your "off" mode, try setting the gain to about 5% in the RATE direction. The rate gyro effect will be very minimal and yet you will clearly not be in HH mode. Hope this helps, Dick
Posted on: 4/9/2012 8:40 AM by Author "otrcman"
in the forum "RC Radios, Transmitters, Receivers, Servos, gyros"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11034410
RE: super decathlon fin
Yes, the attitude of the plane looks much better now. Hanging the model from "above" to check CG really does mask the measurement a lot. If the plane is somewhat tail-heavy all you see is that it hangs slightly tail low. If you were to hang the model upside down you would find it much more difficult to balance, but your measurement would be very accurate. Dick
Posted on: 4/6/2012 8:26 AM by Author "otrcman"
in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11030652
RE: super decathlon fin
Looking at your photo of the model suspended from the wing tips shows it hanging slightly tail-down. If you are suspending the model from the intended CG, then I'd say you're still a bit tail heavy. Suspending the model from above as you are doing tends to mask the actual CG point. I'd suggest that you add more nose ballast until the model is absolutely level. You may also be seeing the effects of the greater than intended wing incidence and lack of washout. Both of these will reduce your trim speed i.e. making it appear to want to climb. If the model still wants to climb after you have definitely balanced it to the correct CG, then you can assume it's an incidence problem. Regarding the tendency of the model to turn left: You may find that a bit of right rudder trim rather than aileron trim will be much more effective. High wing designs such as the Decathlon exhibit an interaction between yaw and roll which causes yaw offsets to appear in the roll axis. It's called "rolling moment due to sideslip", or "dihedral effect". Aileron trim is often quite ineffective in fixing the turning tendency that you are seeing. Dick
Posted on: 4/1/2012 1:16 PM by Author "otrcman"
in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11023901
RE: incidence design
[quote]ORIGINAL: flybyjohn It looks like by rough calculations, 1/32'' in the rear of the wing of a 12'' cord will give about 2 degrees. [/quote] By my rough calculations (HP calculator) it will take about 3/8" to get a 2 degree incidence change on a 12" chord. 1/32" will only get you .15 of a degree change. Nothing wrong with making changes in 1/32" increments, just don't be surprised if you're unable to see much difference with the first increment. Dick
Posted on: 3/19/2012 9:04 AM by Author "otrcman"
in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11006921
RE: Help with rds 8000
The quick and easy way to find the answer to your question is to call the Airtronics help line. The man who will answer your call is named Jack Albrecht. Jack is a highly experienced model flyer and knows the RDS8000 inside-out. He should be able to walk you through the setup if one exists. If he doesn't have the answer on the tip of his tongue, he'll figure it out and call you back. I believe it is best to call him after noon, PST. Jack Albrecht, Airtronics Technical Services, (800) 262 - 1178 Good luck Dick
Posted on: 3/19/2012 8:41 AM by Author "otrcman"
in the forum "Airtronics Support Forum"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11006884
RE: Need Your Help- Deployed Soldier looking for any information on a possible RC donation site
Hi Rob, Thank you for the update on yourself and your people, and of course the disposition of the models. You have mentioned several times the incredible support you received in response to your initial request for model airplane stuff. But, speaking for those of us who were contributors, I'd like to thank you for you excellent stewardship of the donated items. The fact that you are managing to re-deploy the models is just great. The number of folks who have been reached and are still being reached is truly rewarding for all of us. What you are doing is what leadership and team building are all about ! Thank you again, Dick Fischer
Posted on: 2/22/2012 8:22 PM by Author "otrcman"
in the forum "RC Scale Aircraft"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10971551
RE: Ryan ST from 1960 Model Airplane News
[quote]ORIGINAL: Joe Nagy Hi Art; I finally got your requested Man 9/60 article downloaded and sent off to you just a few moments ago, along with 3 other ST/STA articles I dug up in my research. they were 2. ST by Dick Fischer. RCM 3/67, 50'' ws , 15>19 eng 3. STA by Maxey Hester, MAN 9/71, Nats Winner/Kitted by SIG 4. STA Special, by Burnis Fields Jr.,, MAN 5/86, 91'' ws My #1 Wifey. 'The Shirl' did all the downloading for me and forwarded them to you, as she is an expert doing this. Hope they are of assistance to you, I really enjoyed doing the research, best regards from Glendale, AZ. Little Joey and 'The Shirl'. PS. Let me know if you rece'd everything OK. Joe [/quote] Funny coincidence #2. above, listing an ST published by Dick Fischer. And the post above that, signed by "Dick". All the same person me. I've had a lifelong love affair with the ST / STA. I often think about building another one of those little 50" ST's, only with electric this time. It was an excellent flyer and would only be nicer with an electric motor that could be cowled in a scale fashion and no starting or running problems ! The original one I built for the magazine had a 14 ounce radio installed, and that was state of the art at the time. Be really nice to take a half pound out of the plane. Dick
Posted on: 2/22/2012 8:05 PM by Author "otrcman"
in the forum "Golden Age, Vintage & Antique RC"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10971532
RE: Ryan ST from 1960 Model Airplane News
I built the Ted Strader Ryan ST from MAN plans when the magazine came out. As drawn, the plane would have been controlled by rudder and elevator no ailerons. I built mine with ailerons and a K&B 45 RC motor. It was an excellent flyer. Fairly easy to fly and quite good aerobatic performance for the day. The weak points were the landing gear and engine installations. The gear was pretty light for the size of the plane and you could see a lot of lateral flexing when taxiing. The engine, inverted of course, was pretty cranky as far as starting and idling. The balsa cowling was pretty useless and nearly all flying was done sans cowl. Of course today's engines work much more reliably even inverted. And you should plan on making a fiberglas cowl if nothing is available to purchase. As far as scale outline, it's my impression that Strader enlarged the horizontal stab and reduced the size of the vertical. Those were pretty common tricks back then to make an easier flying plane. Dick
Posted on: 2/17/2012 8:28 PM by Author "otrcman"
in the forum "Golden Age, Vintage & Antique RC"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10964028
RE: Psychology of RC flying
[quote]ORIGINAL: abufletcher [quote]ORIGINAL: otrcman ...if I had to give up something the full scale would surely go first. [/quote] Why? (Assuming it's not just a matter of cost.) [/quote] It was just a hypothetical choice. A way of saying that I get more out of RC flying than I do from full scale flying. With model flying I get to experience types of airplanes that would never
Posted on: 12/13/2011 8:27 AM by Author "otrcman"
in the forum "RC Scale Aircraft"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10857382
RE: Psychology of RC flying
[quote]ORIGINAL: Lnewqban Sometimes, I feel sorry for the commercial pilots, who cannot see their airplane fly just like I can from the ground. I once asked one pilot about that, and he told me: ''I just fly the cabin, and the rest of the airplane follows.'' [/quote] Yes, I fly both models and full size. Completely different experience. Most of my flying is teaching other pilots to fly vintage airplanes, which is rewarding in its own way. Flying a tailwheel plane requires specialized instruction and that skill is getting increasingly rare. As much as I enjoy doing takeoffs and landings, especially crosswind, if I had to give up something the full scale would surely go first. Dick
Posted on: 12/12/2011 7:35 PM by Author "otrcman"
in the forum "RC Scale Aircraft"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10856715
RE: Psychology of RC flying
I'm with you guys. Watching my model fly is one of the joys of RC. Sometimes, if the air is really calm, I will get my model trimmed up as well as possible and then just stand there and watch it go by without making any inputs. Perhaps that's yet another mode of flying, in which I am creating the illusion for myself that somebody else is flying (or maybe the illusion of a real plane) and I'm just that same kid I used to be watching the planes fly at the airport. One of my earliest memories of watching airplane action was in about 1949 at Van Nuys airport in California. I watched a Luscombe take off and as it was climbing straight out I became aware of a serious rumble coming down the runway. I turned to see a P-38 on takoff roll. It broke ground just opposite where I was standing, the wheels disappeared, and it banked slightly to pass the Luscombe. I watched the P-38 until it disappeared into the haze and the engine sound faded to nothing. Suddenly I was aware that I could still hear the Luscombe. My eyes turned toward the sound and there it was. The Luscombe seemed to be in the same place as it was when I first heard the P-38. It was as if the 38 was only a passing dream that had interrupted my thoughts for just an instant. Maybe some of my model flying is an effort to recapture that moment. Dick
Posted on: 12/12/2011 9:57 AM by Author "otrcman"
in the forum "RC Scale Aircraft"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10855779
RE: Psychology of RC flying
Here's another way to look at how we fly RC models: Flying is a "closed loop" control system. By this, I mean that we make an input, then see the response, and then compare the response to our expectations, and adjust our next input. Seeing the response is the feedback element in the loop. You can compare this to moving the mouse on your computer screen. Move your hand in the direction you want the arrow to move, see the arrow move (how far,how fast, what direction) and then make additional moves of the mouse until you see the pointer arrive at the spot you wanted it to be. You can't position the arrow on the computer screen with your eyes closed you need feedback. So it is with flying a model airplane. But I think there is an additional dimension to flying a model airplane. Not only does it move in three dimensions, but it also rotates about all three of its axes. Far more complex than moving the arrow on a computer screen up-down and left-right. In addition, we have the problem of not seeing the attitude (axis rotation) of the model as easily as the computer arrow. Remember the initial problems that you had not knowing whether you were banking toward yourself or away from yourself ? And how about flying toward yourself and having to use reverse roll inputs ? Add to this complexity the problem of intermittent visual contact with the model. Every time you blink or the sun flashes off your model or the direction of bank isn't quite clear you are losing your feedback signal. The mental model helps to bridge those visual gaps. Abufletcher described a frighteningly long episode of no-feedback when he flew behind a stand of bamboo. To cope with all of the problems above, I think we build that "mental model" to fly in our brain so that we know where to expect the model to be and what attitude it will be in when we reacquire a good visual signal. We are using the mental model to supplement our intermittent lack of visual feedback and all of the other feedback cues that we would bet if were were actually sitting in the cockpit. And when we see the model and it's not where or as we expect it to be, that's when we get one of those little thrills in the pit of our stomach. Dick
Posted on: 12/5/2011 11:31 AM by Author "otrcman"
in the forum "RC Scale Aircraft"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10844447
|
