SMALLnet post397

Found your -small model- site recommended to me by Mr. R. Schwieren. Thought I'd send you some pictures from my Pibros project for your picture gallery. This is a delta model which normally is made out of Depron. I got it from the German "Pibros site": < http://www.pibros.de >.

Because I like more durable models I redesigned it in Balsa. It started off as a glider. Later on, as the hill over here turned into a bridge (I live in Holland, so normally it's really flat out here) flying there was not possible anymore.

I had to change my model into a motor-driven one. A Cox would be more than sufficient. I had this engine since I was 14 or so. After 15 years it found a new purpose. One year later it has a bigger sister with a 2.5cc O.S. engine.

Both models fly exceptionally well if you know how .... Because I used to fly the small one as a glider, later on the motorized version was no problem anymore.

So much for my small models. If you are interested in my other projects, take a peek at my site: < http://www.rcmodels.net >.

... The photos that Chris attached to his submission failed to come through in viewable form here. SMALLnet is a TEXT-ONLY forum. [JW]

The ones that I have missed are: Volume 5, no. 6 (Nov/Dec 1964) and Volume 7, no. 1 (Jan/Feb 1966).

Also I have nothing from Jan 1967 on; I would be interested to know when Grid Leaks ceased publication.

I also need RADIO CONTROL MODELS & ELECTRONICS: Nov 1963; Dec. 1963; Mar 1965; and May 1965.

I also research an interesting booklet named "PROPO PRIMER". I would be grateful to modelers that may help me in this research.

I purchased his "Bud", which is a 34" double taper plank with a single rudder extending from the center aft of the wing on a slender boom. The EPP wing is cut in halves with spar slots, and the fuselage parts are cut from high-density foam and plastic. The elevons are shaped with lightening holes, and need only to be covered with film.

Construction is both simple and fast. Glue the wing halves together, add the two spars, and place them in the foam chuffs to ensure alignment. I covered the elevons with Ultracote and hinged them to the wing with a film strip, after coating the last quarter-inch of the wing with contact cement to ensure good adhesion.

The fuselage consists of two pieces of high-density foam and a piece of corrugated plastic with the tail boom installed. The sheet balsa rudder is glued to the boom. A couple of hours and you're ready to fly.

The Bud is designed for the GWS motor and receiver and a couple of micro servos such as the HS 50 or 55. I installed a heavier Astro 01 with variable speed controller, a JR 610 receiver, and two HS 50 servos. I had to shorten the nose a little and move the Sanyo 720 NiMH battery as far to the rear as possible, to get the CG where it belonged. The fuselage comes with a slot for a standard nicad battery pack.

My Bud flies like a dream! It has no dihedral so it's not hands off, but it is very maneuverable, and thermals well even with the additional weight of the Astro. My Bud weighs 8.8 ounces with an area of about 200 square inches. It cruises nicely at 1/2 to 1/3 throttle. A few rpm's are all that's needed to kill the drag of the radio, servos, and battery hanging out in the breeze.

It loops and rolls easily, but my favorite type of flying is just cruising around and working a little lift here and there. Flight times at cruising speeds have ranged from 21 to 23 minutes.

Flying wings with no sweepback (Planks) have flying characteristics a little different from conventional configurations. Steve provided some excellent information regarding setup and trim. My Bud flew great from the first flight. The only change I made was to program some exponential to make up for my heavy hands.

I saw Steve fly the Bud with the GWS motor and receiver at the Bay Area RC Fliers SMALL fly in at Coos Bay, Oregon this summer and couldn't wait to order one when I returned to Seattle. Steve has an asymmetrical design that is nearing production that makes your head hurt when you see it turn. The visual clues say one thing, but then you discover the plane is turning the opposite direction from your initial impression. Steve said that it takes some getting used to.

If you have a used C*x TD .020 with nothing to put it in, you might want to try the Cloud Kitten by Fred Reese, in the March 1999 issue of Model Aviation (Plan #872).

Fred used the Ace Foam Wings and a C*x PeeWee .020. I made some changes as I didn't have the foam wings. I used a built-up wing with Clark-Y ribs; constant chord of 5 1/2", span 35"; total wing area 192.5 square inches.

I also am using a C*x TD .020 engine, 270 mAh battery, a Futaba FP R114H receiver, and Hobby Shack CS-20 Servos. The plane is covered with GM covering from Balsa Products: < http://www.balsapr.com/" >.

The plane builds up quick and easy. I have a tendency to build heavy, and the plane came out at 13 ounces. I have been flying the Cloud Kitten for over a year and can find no faults with it.

Someone with lighter building practice than I could get the weight to 10 ounces using a 150 mAh battery, GWS Receiver, and Hobby Shack CS-10 servos. This is a very relaxing park flyer and FUN, FUN.

Model Airplane building actually started in the deep Depression of the 1930's and continued through time. Then, a 10-cent investment in a model kit would provide more "pastime" than a whole dollar's worth of movies -- and those were only a dime too!

With the current economic problems, it might be well to remember that one does not need a $200 kit to have fun, when a plan and a few dollars' worth of wood, glue and a piece of rubber will keep a mind occupied for several days! Whittling balsa and gluing stick is a much cheaper way to "forget your troubles" than a $15 bottle of booze . . . and lasts a lot longer!

...Randy has a good point. And there's even more to it than that. The 10-cent kits -- in fact even the elaborate dollar models -- usually came without instructions. All you normally found inside the kit box were balsa wood, wire, tissue, and a plans sheet.

The plans didn't provide much detail on items such as how to align and attach biplane wing struts. We had to solve that kind of problem the hard way: hands-on. And in doing so, we received real education in practical engineering while our "pastime" provided us with personal satisfaction and FUN... [JW]

I have to respond to Rob Wells comments about "scratch building". I've been modeling since 1975 (a relative newcomer!). My first Kit was a Midwest "Super Sniffer", a design which I will always love. For the best part of the last 26 years I had a job which gave me plenty of free time -- time which was joyously spent building, designing, and flying R/C models.

Unfortunately, that job came to an abrupt end and I was left scraping around for some other form of employment. The job I have now keeps me away from home from early Monday morning until sometimes late Saturday night. Needless to say, there isn't much time left for much of anything else when I do get home!

Although I will ALWAYS have something "balsa" going together on my building board, the lure of the "ARF" has proved to be a convenient way for me to still get my flying Kicks. I have stacks of plans and more kits than I will ever get done; but until the time comes that I can afford to sit down and spend some wonderful time building models, I am forced to do whatever I can to keep flying!

Not everyone works 9 to 5 Monday thru Friday. I don't worry too much about what everyone else says, just let me keep modeling any way I can! Bill Thomas < >

I happened to come across the Mattel/Lockheed Martin (!) X-17 FF electric flying wing at a local KB Toys for the princely sum of $12.99. I remember a couple of postings about this model sometime back but was unable to find it at that time. The model flies well and is excellent bang for the buck. I plan on looking for more to stash away for Christmas gifts for the nephews.

Bud Orren's request for information on the GWS Tiger Moth: Take a look in a recent Model Airplane News for a full review in the Backyard Flyer column. Looks like a fun model!

In regards to Charlie Meyer's concerns about Sig's taking over the distribution of Norvel engines: I have found Sig to be very helpful -- very friendly too -- over the years. I know BIG is a relative term, but Sig is still a small company (especially when compared to Tower Hobbies and the like) with the manners and attitude to go with its size.

David Walker's question about the GWS package: This is on the small size for Speed 400 setups, and is meant to be teamed up with their own line of models and motor/gearbox/prop combinations. I would recommend an ESC with a 15 amp rating -- such as Castle Creation's excellent Sprite 15 -- and a 6- to 8-cell battery pack with cells no smaller than Sanyo 500AR or 600AE.

I mentioned a loooong time ago that I was building a Vic Smeed PAAgeboy design from the 1953 Aeromodeller. I built the model when it first came out and had a lot of fun with it -- and for years now have intended a reprise.

Finally got to fly it a few weeks ago -- our fields have been closed a long time this year due to foot and mouth disease control.

For those who don't know it, the design is 42" span for a 1 cc PAAload class that Aeromodeller pushed at the time -- usual PAAload requirements, with a four ounce dummy. Weight, including dummy, was 13-14 ounces. My 1953 version was a bit over-weight and under-powered (worn out ED Bee) -- ideal for the small field it was flown in.

That particular ED Bee went 45+ years ago, but a couple of years ago I picked up a 1949 edition and it just had to go in a PAAgeboy. Even my small field in the 1950's was big by the standards of those I use now, so my PAAgeboy had to be R/C -- two channel.

First time out -- gentle test glide -- perfect. Telling myself that could NOT be the case, I repeated it -- still perfect. So I started the motor, and with it backed off to a gentle pobble, launched the model. Forgot one thing -- way back then the tick-over test flight runs would be a matter of a few seconds run.

This time I had 2 minutes or so of coaxing it around our field, the level of which varies by quite a bit both up and down. Never got above 10 feet, and much of the time was contour chasing!

Full revs next flight -- just like the good old days. Slowish left hand spiral climb, followed by a reasonable glide. As the model with R/C but no dummy (other than the one on the sticks) weighs just 13 ounces, the performance is as it was when I still had all my hair and teeth! Happy days!

Over 20 years ago I made many 1/2A R/C flights with a Lee Renaud design called the Q-Tee. It was kitted by Airtronics. The present SR Batteries model called the "Cutie" looks to me like a modernized version of the same plane. Seems to me there should at least be a nod of thanks to Lee Renaud, now deceased.

Some folks out there seem to be still trying to make their peace ith Cox products. Over the past almost 50 years I revisited their engines about every decade and found that they still were the fussy little buggers they were from the start.

With the Norvels and Thunder Tiger .07 available now, WHY? Someone made the suggestion that Norvel be approached for smaller displacement versions to replace Coxes. Sounds like a good idea. I am sure the Russians would be happy to do it if the market size was there. And that is the question: how many of you are out there and what are you willing to pay? Let Norvel know.

...Otto, a couple of years ago some of us asked Ed Stevens about the possibility of Norvel issuing a "modernized" version of the old OK Cub .049. Ed seemed interested -- but nothing ever came of that suggestion.

I agree with you that the Thunder Tiger .07 is a good little motor. But it's pretty much intended for R/C usage. LOTS of SMALLsters like to fly small control-line and free flight models. Many of those are older airplanes that were designed for Cox power. The TT .07 -- and most Norvels -- would be way too bulky, heavy, and powerful for those. [JW]

Who was it that recently posted a link to a website that showed a twin, geared, John .035 powerplant? It was posted in the context of obtaining a carburetor that was shown on the engines.

Also, by the way, COX does have .020 props in stock: the double- tuff version (black, more flexible and durable).

Also, I will type COX as COX, not C*X. Some of you are unhappy about the direction that COX has taken over the past years. That's too bad. It is a company trying to stay afloat, like all the rest. In the pipeline now are more glow powered products... I hope it all pans out. Scott

...Scott, to me "Cox" represents a man's name: the late, great Leroy M. Cox. Roy was a good friend of mine. (I'm the man who introduced Roy to the reed valve principle: in 1949, over a year before he designed his first model engine.)

Knowing Roy, I don't think he would want his name to be associated with the quality level of the model motors produced in the last several years by the company that he started. [JW]

SMALLnet Posting post397