SMALLnet post354

Craig Beare wanted to know how to install an R/C receiver antenna so that it is completely enclosed inside the fuselage. I've heard of a couple of ways to "shorten" antennas. First one is to wrap the antenna around a drinking straw with the turns about 1/2" apart, which works, although it cuts range. The other is to purchase the Deans "loaded" antenna (Deans part number G72-2) that many helicopter flyers use. It's only about 6" long and doesn't affect range.

Someone was asking how to contain the antenna of a HiTec 555 receiver completely inside a fuselage. Some of my friends and I simply "scrunch" the antenna loosely into whatever space is available in the rear of the fuselage behind the receiver and servo positions.

If the range is reduced slightly we wouldn't know it! We do this on old-timer "R/C Assisted Free Flight" contest ships, which fly very high and to the limit of our vision, without any problem.

I put GWS 2" wheels on my "MOOsquito", what to use as an axle? Checked out the hobby shop supply -- .047" wire fits 2" wheels. 2 1/2" wheels use .055" wire. Now, what to use as wheel collars? Rocket City "Pin Clamps" #55! For the 2" wheels, place a pin clamp on a block of wood, push a .047" wire through. Remove the wire and press the clamp over the LG wire and up against the wheel (the flat side of the clamp against the wheel, one on each side).

...Ron, your use of Rocket City Pin Clamps for wheel retainers is the cleverest modeling idea I've seen this month! How come I didn't think of that? I've been using those pin clamps ever since they first came out, over 15 years ago. But I never thought of using 'em to hold wheels on. Mighty ingenious! [JW]

I very much appreciate all the advice received in the general postings and via individual messages concerning fueling the Cox Droid fighter. Just so I don't look completely inefficient, I could not see any openings in those !@#$%^&*()_+!! vent plugs even with a magnifying glass.

When I came to order, the Naboo wasn't listed so I ordered Droids. While the Naboo fighter may have specific fuelling instructions, the Droid does not -- the instructions show how to hook up the fuel line but that's it. The engine instruction sheet merely says to put fuel in according to which model you have.

I appreciate everyone's help and will now make up a small additional instruction sheet to idiot-proof the model for my grandsons (and for my sons who aren't modelers either!)

Flew one of my Droid fighters yesterday... Found lots of metal chips in the now dead engine... Seems Cox did not flush the engines enough... Strongly suggest everyone disassemble and clean before running!!!

...Tim, Cox isn't the only model engine company whose products contain undesirable "stuff". I have a persnickety modeling friend in Colorado who takes apart every new engine he buys -- and he told me that he hasn't come across one in years that didn't need cleaning or deburring inside. I've seen that problem myself. [JW]

I've been flying with Cox .049s and .051s for a few years now. I have not found a satisfactory method of lighting the glow elements on these engines. Even a somewhat used alkaline battery isn't enough. If anyone knows a good way to get the little engines to ftrol reversal, when the aircraft is flying toward you. These things give novice R/C pilots lots of problems on that first self-taught flight. As a full size pilot, with an R/C model you do not have any of the benefits of full-size aircraft instruments to read or the seat-of-the-pants feedback to help you.

You will be flying your model from an unfamiliar external perspective which can give you visual and depth perception problems. These will take time and practice to overcome. A hand-tossed 2-meter glider can be thrown many times to get the feel of gliding and turning without getting into much trouble. There are a number of foam electric- powered planes that can be used also. These are all more rugged and more easily repairable than your Taylorcraft.

The above slow-flying trainers (15-20 mph) are the way to go if you must be self-taught. They still can have problems when you have even a 5 mph wind. I am a SMALL flying enthusiast and teach people to fly R/C in a club environment. My recommended advice is to get the help of an experienced R/C flyer. You will learn all the things you need to learn more quickly, with less repairs and less needless extra expense.

You must beef up the nose section, and the wing spars, on these kits. The wing needs it even for rubber power ! I'd say a Pee Wee .020, or an .030 diesel would be all you would want, and use a big prop on the diesel ! I have several of these kits, that were once only 50 cents !

There were other large-sized rubber models in the Comet line, although not quite as large as the 54" Taylorcraft. A Winnie Mae, Howard DGA-9, Aeroneer, etc.. Campbell's Custom Kits is planning on partial kits of these, soon. He has all the original plans, he got copies of from me.

In response to Bob Noggle's question as to whether flying full- scale aircraft will help him in his modeling endeavors:

I have been flying R/C for about 25 years, and cut my teeth in C/L prior to that. I have been a flight instructor (full scale) for over 12 years. Being involved as an instructor in both worlds, I can point out a few things that I have noticed. First and foremost, all you R/C pilots out there that dream and wonder if you can fly full scale, the answer is yes. Your transition to full scale will be very easy when compared to someone coming in "cold".

R/C pilots know how to fly. They know what a stall is, how to control an aircraft at minimum airspeed, how to take off and how to land. Repositioning one's butt from the ground to the pilot's seat is a relatively easy task. Note that I am talking about the physical aspect of flying the airplane... and that you are required by law (and common sense) to follow FAA regulations when making this transition.

Full scale pilots transitioning to R/C, beware! Yes, you too know what a stall is, and (I hope) how to take off and land safely. What you will not be prepared for is the (in most cases) snappy response and perceived "reversal" of controls in certain instances. I have seen more than one accomplished full scale pilot reduce his model to a MonoKote "bag of sticks" due to overconfidence. "I can fly a three million dollar King Air; this ought to be cake". Not. Build a floater. I suggest a two-meter sailplane with a Norvel on a pod.

Get competent instruction. Be patient. It takes some hands-on experience before you will be able to recognize the wacky attitudes that your aircraft will get into (usually in close proximity to the ground) and react quickly with the correct control inputs. So why bother with R/C at all?

Satisfaction. I get the same satisfaction greasing in a perfect landing with my little 1/2A biplane that I get after a particularly soft landing in a full-scale King Air. Catching a thermal with an R/C sailplane is every bit as exciting as doing the same in a full scale sailplane. Learning to fly, whether full scale or R/C, will be fondly remembered as one of the most challenging and enjoyable events of your life.

By the way, does anyone know what happened to the Herr Engineering web site? The address < http://www.iflyherr.com > is now owned by an Internet "squatter company", and is listed for sale to the highest bidder. Mike S. Gillihan

I just went out this morning and did a little flight testing of a new motor. It's the VL HY-50F which is being sold by John Worth at Cloud 9 for $20. I think it's a winner! The motor comes with a 5 1/2" prop that looks a little unfamiliar to me -- maybe it's a Czech prop or off a CO2 motor?

Anyhow, I've got mine wired with a Pixie-7 speed control and the energy is coming from a 2-cell rechargeable lithium pack (800 mAh). The motor does not have the strength of either the long lost HY-50D (one of these days I may have to try the Pot-2 from Hobby Lobby) or the HY-50B, but it does provide decent power at a lighter weight.

Furthermore it will do so on fewer cells than the HY-50B. The lack of motors that will run on less than 9 volts has been irksome -- I hate little nicads and a 2 cell rechargeable lithium pack has lots of energy. I think the HY-50B is really only suited for higher cell counts -- I tried it with 2 lithium cells and had an airplane that wouldn't climb. This seems to be a common complaint with this setup, but on 3 cells it'll do fine.

On the other hand, with 3 cells, total power system weight is pushing 3 ounces -- which requires a 6-8 ounce airplane.

I've been playing with the HY-50B in Al Lidberg's Skylark, and I've been a little unhappy with the performance. The airplane will fly and climb well with 3 cells, but at 6.5 ounces, the glide is not stellar, and the airplane is a little twerpy to fly. I tried the Radio Snack 8.4V rechargeable NiMH pack which comes in the rectangular case of a standard 9V dry cell transistor battery, and I found that at the current draws of the HY-50B motor with a 6" Tern prop, that it didn't put out any more thrust than the 2-cell rechargeable lithium at about the same weight.

However, this morning I substituted the HY-50F motor in the Skylark along with the 2-cell lithium pack and I was rewarded with a very pleasant flight. The airplane has a climb pattern like a scale rubber ship -- gentle climbing circles. The glide is much better too -- I may be able to make a landing that doesn't end up on the nose.

I've moved the center of gravity aft 1" compared to what's shown on the plans -- the plane does need a little help to recover from a stall though. Total weight is down to 3.5 - 4 ounces by my inaccurate kitchen scale that showed a previous weight of 5-5.5 ounces (needed some nose weight too with the larger motor because the CG had to be farther forward.)

I think this HY-50Fis just what's been needed for the smaller stuff, i.e. 24-30" span designs intended for rubber, but not overbuilt like many of the Guillow or Sterling kits. I've got a Dumas Aeronca C-3 that I think one of these motors will find a home in....

I've just finished a plane that might be of interest to some of you: a Gus Morfis 1/12 scale ME-262, that's powered by 2 Norvel .074s, and swinging APC 6.3 x 4 props. Its a real looker, with the engines mounted tractor, and separately fueled and servoed in each separate jet nacelle.

The plane is painted with Nelson Water-Based Polyurethane Paint (which seems to be wonderful stuff, BTW), and weighs an appalling 2 pounds 12 ounces due to my hamhanded building style.

Even at this weight though, and with only 240 square inches of wing, if given a hard level handlaunch the plane flies great. It's not an acrobat, but then its not built to be. It is however, a pretty sight to see on a smooth level pass!

Gus has a lot of pretty scale 1/12-size warbird plans, which even though are usually built to be grossly overpowered for 704 combat, would fly much slower and better (IMHO) with our smaller .061s, .074s, and 15s. It's just too bad we all don't have concrete to fly off of though, so that we could use those cute little Robart retracts in these 1/12 scale warriors. I'd love to see more of them.

I have been looking for a set (2 mains and 1 nose) of 1/8th inch wire, servo-actuated, mechanical retracts on the Internet for some time, with little or no success. No picture, no manufacturer's numbers, no dealers, etc. I have found references to Hobbico, Magnum , Robart and OK Models as possible sources.

Also, when wire diameter is not specified, weight (2 to 5 lbs), engine size (.25 or .15 to .30 size), add to the confusion. Any help would be appreciated: information on sources; articles on evaluations; web sites; or personal opinions.

Just out of curiosity, am I the only guy who is bothered by the fact that many of the Spitfire ARFs (and the new Great Planes kit, I think) have the landing gear retracting INWARD rather than outward??

Anybody out there have any experience with one of these? How hard would it be to make the gear retract the right way????? Howell

Anyone out there have a set of plans for the old MEN Shrike Aerocommander? It was a wonderful twin, and I would like to rebuild it, but Ebay or anywhere else has turned up nothing!

...I've had a couple of queries about the Veco "Taylor Cub" model plans that I recently found the original of, and perhaps other SMALLsters might be interested in its rather curious background.

Veco's Big Boss (Gil Henry) went to a Model & Hobby Industry Trade Show in Chicago, February 1950, and came back with grandiose ideas about cutting Veco a slice of Berkeley's "flying scale rubber" pie.

At that time I hadn't yet done any ukie design work for Veco, and was regarded as the company's "Official Free Flight Specialist". Therefore Gil gave me the assignment of designing a line of rubber- powered flying scale models, in the same sizes and price range of Berkeley's Henry-Struck-designed kits.

I went to work on 3 designs simultaneously: the Taylor J-2 Cub, a Waco Model E biplane, and a Stinson 105, which I decorated up as Al Williams' "Gulfhawk Junior".

All three models flew just GREAT. However, there was NO WAY I could come up with an economical way of providing a decent propeller. Mine were all hand-carved, of course -- but even if we included a carve-it-yourself block of balsa, that would have used more balsa than all the rest of the kit combined, at least for the Cub and the Stinson.

OK, so all that design work and prototype building & test flying was wasted. Gil didn't worry about that: I did all the work on my own time -- except that I must confess that I did some prop carving during coffee breaks --- and I used "company material" to make myself a prop-carving "skew knife" (that I wish I still had today).

Right around that time Bob Holland drifted by the Veco factory -- his B&B outfit (Bill Atwood and Bob Holland) was located just up the street about 4 blocks. Bob brought us a handful of prototype Wasp .049's. I eagerly accepted them, and adapted the three flying scale rubber models to Wasp power.

The Cub was a natural conversion -- it flew better with 1/2A glow power than it did with rubber. Not so with the other two. Their fuselages were too bulky for the small-diameter props the Wasp ran best with. The Stinson just waffled lazily through the air, while the Waco didn't fly at all. Too big a cowl diameter...

So the Cub was the only one of the three that we issued as a kit. Dagnabbit -- that Gulfhawk Junior was a pretty machine, and flew just great with rubber. A couple of years ago somebody out West told me that he had seen my actual prototype model hanging in a hobby shop. But when I checked, it turned out that the shop had gone out of business years earlier, and nobody knew anything about what had happened to the owner...

Thw Waco flew stably with rubber but it was really too draggy for anything but sport flight -- like Dakotas. It sure looked neat in the air, though! Mine was a dark royal blue -- I think I hand-dyed the covering -- with bright red trim.

The Taylor Cub kit was a good seller, especially after somebody won the Senior flying scale gas event at the Nationals in 1951 with one.

I designed several more good-flying airplanes for Veco that were never kitted. One was another plane powered by one of the Wasps that Bob had handed me. This was a control-line scale P-51D. Gad, that was a pretty model! Flew great too on 32-foot lines. Everyone who saw it LOVED it, and we could have sold 3.3 gazillion kits. (Maybe more.)

But there was one problem that we couldn't solve -- remember this was 1950 and Veco was still pretty much a shoestring operation (except for Gil's Cadillac limousine -- "Gotta keep up appearances, you know!" Gil would explain to us 90-cent-an-hour peons)....

The problem was providing a canopy. I had made my own by hand-stretching over a hand-carved mold. (I was really ambitious in those days! No wife or family to occupy my time, so I might as well use it up in model activities...) But we couldn't do that in production -- especially since as I recall, it took me about 4 or 5 tries to pull one flawless canopy.

I don't even have the drawings for that little ship any more. I still have a few photos of it, though... [JW]

SMALLnet Posting post354