SMALLnet post335

Mark, I was looking through my old magazines and found the original construction article on the Pacer. It was in the August 1974 issue of American Aircraft Modeler.

A reminder that one can easily copy just a portion of the SMALLnet Newsletter via the "Copy and Paste" method.

I use Juno, and when I read something I want to print, all I do is Highlight the text, right click the mouse, and click "copy". Then, I go to "Write" tab, put cursor in message block, go to "Edit" on tool bar, choose "Paste" and, LO!!, there is the text.

Choose "Print" and file it away. (Leave yourself a note as to where you filed it.) Charlie

I agree with Al Lidberg's observation that things are definitely trending to a preference for pre-fab in our little hobby. I have for many years had a visceral disgust for the idea of buying an already- built airplane, dropping an engine and radio in it, and then flying it until all the plastic trim pieces start peeling off. Ugh. These things are NOT models, they are cheap toys. I never could get over how many guys there are these days out at the flying field who ardently declare how much they hate building! They go through ARFs like water, fercrineoutloud, and they never have anything worth showing off that they can be uniquely proud of. What keeps them interested? I'm perplexed!!

Now, flash forward to the present day. To my shock and disbelief, I now find myself flying several ARFs, with more in the box. I have an almost complete Kyosho Tiger Moth bipe with a Thunder Tiger 54 four-stroker in it, I fly a World Models Midget Mustang with an OS60FP, a Sureflite 1/2A Cub with a Norvel .061, and I have waiting a Jamara Fournier RF-4D for Speed 400. I also own a Gerasis 2-meter Fox sailplane, a Nora parkflyer, and a Bleriot III by Icarus. What gives?

I'll be the first one to admit that since free time is not a luxury for me right now, the obvious appeal of quick turn-around time is an irresistible aspect of ARF kits. But another glaring truth is that lately the ARF products are getting pretty darn good! You should see the quality of my World Models Midget Mustang. UNBELIEVABLE. I can't build much better than this myself. This one is NOT a cheap toy, and I can't believe how well engineered it is. And the price of the kit was only forty dollars more than an equivalent box-full-of-pieces kit. (Overseas third-world labor rates have really started to have an impact).

I get all the enjoyment of a high-quality, fun-to-fly machine with only a week's worth of building, and the only thing missing is the pride of workmanship thing. No shame in that.

I am currently in the middle of a huge project right now, a sixteen- foot span all-wood Olympia sailplane, and I can't allow other projects to intervene if I am ever to get it done on schedule. While I still excoriate flyers who hate to build and dare to call themselves "modelers", I now sympathize with modelers who sneak the occasional ARF in there for some variety. I predict the day will come when a guy will show up out at the flying field, open his trunk and extract a beautifully-made stick-built model, with hand-brushed dope on silk and all the flying wires in place, and plant it down in the middle of all the polypropylene and foamboard ARFs on the flight line. Guys will crowd around and say, "You actually built that? All by yourself?? HWHOAH, DUDE!!!"

We are low on the Improved Alpex MICRO receivers, and will get more in three months -- so if you want one, better order it now.

Golden Age Reproductions
PO Box 1685
Andover, Massachusetts 01810
Attention: Jim Fiorello

In addition to the book mentioned, they also sell the plans for all the models in the book, and also a fine line of selective rubber- powered kits, which could be modified to small electric. I was very happy with Jim Fiorello's service.

Concerning Campbell's custom kits, particularly the hand launched gliders, I would like to second the information about the quality and service from Lee Campbell.

R. Linwood Cochran
Free Flite Unlimited
6769 Angels Lane
Tucker, Georgia 30084-1302
(770) 493-6769

I mentioned Linwood, not only for his service, but to mention that if you are a member of the National Free Flight Society, he will give you a 10% discount on all his catalog items, including Campbell kits.

Randy said: "In answer to Barry Scrimgeour's question about plans. At one time the AMA sold a book called 'The Best Of The Golden Age of Flying Models'... I don't know whether it's still available."

This book is officially not available, but Jim Fiorello (owner of GAR) still has a few copies in his basement. He might be coaxed to part with a copy. It doesn't contain Flyline plans (it was a compilation of the popular plans being sold by GAR when it was published). Last I checked, Aerodyne has the Flyline plans listed as available through them.

Been seeing a lot about electrics lately, and since I've about given up anything but, will chime in with my comments. Haven't found them terribly expensive nor difficult. Most of mine are Speed 400's -- motor is $9.00 and gear $19.00 (if used), use regular props: wood or composite with geared unit; or a folding prop with direct drive (prop costs $14.00, but is practically unbreakable, because it folds for landing.

It's a barrel of fun and the electrons wipe off readily when you finish! You can even test run on the kitchen table if desired. Just a matter of a little different kind of flying, with most electrics more like true aircraft in that you have to use the wing for its designed purpose - lift.

If you have nothing better to do, you can see some of these and other club members' work on a Web page just started by one of our "computer savvy" members, at: < http//www.hanoverrc.freeservers.com >.

For me, I've just purchased my first CO2 motor plane, and am having trouble learning the tricks to the trade. So, have a long way to go on this effort - chill tanks, larger tanks, adjust motor power with cylinder turning, etc. It goes on and on, but then isn't that what the model world is about: challenges? Will keep at it until it becomes second nature like all the others have done in the past.

Started with old ignition engines (still have one O & R 23) and fought those until that new-fangled glow plug came on the market. But, then had to learn a different technique and use of a different fuel, which "ate" the dope off my planes! The challenges and changes are what keeps us at this decade after decade!

I'd like to second what Gene LaFaille said in posting #334. Long ago I discovered you can save big money by looking for materials and equipment from suppliers outside of our hobby and avoiding the "model airplane surcharge".

I think we need to get beyond the universally accepted paradigm of R/C being an expensive hobby. Many would-be newbies either can't or don't want to spend the money required to go the conventional route of big radio, big engine, big ARF, big money. I can't say I blame them either.

My friends and I have BIG fun flying 1/2A, 2-3 channel planes, wooden sailplanes, and HLGs (the $4.00 kind). I can't remember the last time I spent more than $40 for a kit or engine. When guys stop by the field to watch us fly, they invariably say they have always wanted to fly R/C but couldn't afford it. They are shocked when we tell them how little we spend on this sport. Our planes are so cheap and docile we don't hesitate to take fledgling pilots up on them, and you can just feel the hooks slide into them.

If you've got a gentle, "disposable" airplane, don't hesitate to take up a rookie pilot on it. You'll probably make a friend for life. And let them know there is an alternative to the $400, 4-channel, .40-powered ARF "trainer".

The real reason I wrote was in response to Steve Morris's comments about his Junior Falcon. I believe this is the one he is flying on a single channel. Is there any magic trim configuration necessary for single channel planes? I typically build my planes with 0 degrees incidence on the stab, 3 degrees positive on the wing, and balance it so it hangs down at a 15 degree angle when suspended from the spar.

I shim in downthrust with whatever size chunk of plywood I have lying around, which gives 5-7 degrees downthrust on a reed-valve .049. I seldom worry about right thrust (probably should). I try to keep wing loading to no more than 10 ounces per square foot. This works well on two channels, but would it work on a plane without an elevator?

I'm not looking to fly aerobatics, I just want to keep the thing over the field. I believe they call this R/C assist. I'd appreciate any input on this.

One last thought. There has been some discussion lately about diesels for small airplanes. Has anyone considered the Texaco .049 glow engine as an alternative? I love this engine. I'm swinging an APC 8x4 prop on a 17-ounce, 265 square inch plane which I built from scraps; total materials cost less than $4.00. (Had the wing of a Herr StarCruiser given to me, which cut my costs to the bone.)

Picture a 1930's era primary glider with a Cox engine on the nose. I get six-minute motor runs like clockwork; and starting is a breeze with all that flywheel mass up front. I call it an internal combustion slow flyer because you can literally fly this one from a lawn chair. I think I paid $24 for the engine from Tower Hobbies.

Have a look at this engine. If enough of us buy it, maybe Cox/Estes won't discontinue this engine from their catalog also.

Oops, almost forgot. Where can I get a set of plans for the Dakota? I vaguely remember mention of a source in a recent posting but I've forgotten it and didn't save a hard copy. David

...David, I've been flying single-channel R/C for about 50 years now, and still enjoy its simplicity & "charm". The model adjustment procedure that's always worked for me is to trim the glide path JUST on the verge of stalling in straight flight. That's because in a turn the model banks, picks up speed, and tends to nose down.

Setting the CG and decalage for a close-to-the-stall glide minimizes the tendency for the model's nose to drop in a turn. Also, this trim setup makes flaring out for a landing possible. I keep the model turning as it approaches the ground; then at about a 2-foot altitude I apply opposite rudder to straighten out. The extra speed the model acquired in the banked turn now lifts the nose. When I do it just right, my little Pee-Wee-powered Starling with its 1 1/2" wheels greases smoothly onto the grass.

As for the engine thrustline setting, I like my 1-channel planes to fly straight with neutral rudder, whether the motor is running or not. That generally requires about 3 degrees right thrust on my models; plus sufficient downthrust to keep the climb angle modest.

Downthrust is also helpful in avoiding spiral dives in prolonged circling under power. That's because when the model is banked, the "downthrust" now points out of the turning circle, and helps prevent the turn from steepening.

As for the C*x Texaco engine: over 40 years ago the original Cox company used to make engines just as friendly as that one -- and runnable on big props, too. I'm referring to the 1958 Golden Bee. The craze for higher rpm (and after the company changed ownership, cost-cutting measures) eventually eliminated that lovely motor from the Cox lineup.

The Black Widow at its best was a pretty good R/C power plant -- I've used a couple of those with success. My best results came from 7-3 1/2 Kaysun nylon props (the colored acetate ones were dangerously weak, but the plain nylon Kaysuns lasted forever) flying 1- and 2-channel R/C models of around 300 square inch wing area.

Anyway, to my mind the modern Texaco .049 is just a resurrected Golden Bee with a taller glow head. I own a couple -- but like my original '58 Golden Bee better.

Finally, I sell plans packs for my 50-year-old all-sheet-balsa Dakota biplane -- and for its "sister ship", the monoplane "Sioux". The Dakota plans package is $15 postpaid; same for the "Sioux" -- but if they're ordered together, the price is only $25 for the pair.

These plans packs include full-size plans plus a copy of the original Veco kit plan, and addendum pages with data on R/C con- versions, electric-power options, and other useful information.

My postal address is: Joe Wagner, 927 Pine Avenue, Ozark, Alabama 36360-2217. [JW]

I'm glad that somebody finally took on this suit of the emperor's new clothes....I've always thought that balancing propellers is a waste of time, given that the engines they are hooked to are imbalanced anyway. The best that balancing a propeller can do is not make matters worse no matter what the angular relationship is of the propeller to the crankshaft.

An additional notion that I have not bothered to test, is that of mounting the propeller so that a blade is aligned with the crankshaft counterweight. If the engine shivers when run, turn the propeller end-for-end and try again. One of the two positions ought to be better than the other unless the propeller is balanced.

...Peter, you're certainly right. However, not all model engines have crankshaft counterweights! I can't speak for all of them, of course, but I know of at least two model engines that ran more smoothly without a crankshaft counterbalance than with one.

Years ago I "advised" Herb Wahl as he was finalizing the design of his near-replica Bunch "Tiger". Herb was a meticulous engine man who refused to be satisfied until he was SURE that there was no further improvement possible in the replica model engines he produced. (Brown Juniors and Ohlsson "Gold Seals" preceded the Bunch project.)

Anyway, Herb was astonished to find that to minimize the running vibration of his Bunch motors, he had to eliminate the counter- weight completely. Dynamic balancing is indeed an arcane art! [JW]

Tape has been used to permanently balance props on electric models for some time. Bob Kopski learned of the technique from Keith Shaw and he described the method in his column in the October 1995 issue of Model Aviation. (This is, of course, not recommended for piston engines!)

Gene LaFaille is not alone in using inexpensive motors in electric planes. Bob Kopski has touted the Kyosho Mega Monster geared truck motors in his column. But going beyond casual flying, modelers seeking higher performance will gain a lot from rare-earth magnet motors and state-of-the-art brushless motors. Gene, it is no myth that R/C truck and car packs are of inferior quality; when their capacity is measured they do poorly. Give yourself a treat and borrow a Sanyo rapid-charge pack and put it in your Bee. You will see a significant increase in motor run time. And that is why most electric flyers pay extra for them.

Regarding the method of trying to smooth a two-stroke engine by deliberately unbalancing the prop, as described in Posting 334, I would think that the orientation of the prop relative to the piston position would be a very important variable.

There has been good response from SMALLnetters for copies of the Noorduyn "Norseman" plans (see Posting #333 for details). The total on order so far from all sources is 48.

Reservations are still coming in, and I'll keep the registry open for a few more days, as long as people keep replying. I'm repeating this information because some people may tune in late.

...Ian, it's been more or less standard practice for many years to install a 2-blade prop on a single-cylinder model engine, oriented with its axis parallel to the connecting rod when the piston is at Bottom Dead Center (BDC). That way, with the usual vertical alignment of the cylinder, the propeller is in a straight-across position when the flyer begins hand-flipping it.

Things are often different now, because model engines are installed with their cylinders pointing sideways in control-line profile models, and at all sorts of angles in various scale R/C planes, to minimize the protrusion of the head or muffler outside the scale outlines...

However, when using a deliberately unbalanced prop on an engine to smooth its running, if that works it's usually with the "heavy" blade pointing straight down when the piston is pointing straight up. (Rotate the model as required to check this orientation.) [JW]

SMALLnet Posting post335