... Responses to Randy's recent death continue to come in, both at SMALLnet and to my personal in-box. Regrets have been expressed by all -- even by many modelers who never met Randy, but were greatly influenced by his writings and/or his many model designs.

Messages have arrived from Dennis Hansen in Maine; Larry Marshall in Quebec; David Hoffman in Idaho; Brian Sodt in Washington; Zach Allerton in Pennsylvania; Malcolm Davis in England; Kenneth Spencer in Missouri, Tom Anderson in Arkansas; Larry the Red Baron in San Diego; Les Parker (writing for his whole model club) in Australia; Norman Dial in Los Angeles; and Ed Furche in Dallas/Fort Worth.

Here are three of the lengthier tributes to Randy:

Patrick LeRay <  > sent:

I haven't written to the SMALLnet about Randy because I am still just a bit too upset by it. I thought of writing when I first heard, but the more I thought on it, the more thoughts kept coming and the less I was able to think about putting anything down.

Some examples: Just three weeks ago, Randy answered my request to critique my writing on the SAM 9 website. His advice to me was, "If you've been waiting for someone to tell you that your writing is good enough for regular publication, then here it is! You really ought to start pursuing writing for the magazines. So there! Now go do it."

On top of that, he'd said that after four years of not being able to get over here to Shreveport for my SMALLfly in late June because of other commitments, he was definitely coming this year, and had made plans to; so just count on seeing him here.

See what I mean? Lotsa thoughts. -- Patrick

Thayer Syme <  > wrote:

I couldn't help but be touched by all the sentiments expressed regarding Randy's unexpected passing. It was truly a loss for us all. Like everyone else who has sent messages to SMALLnet, I have spent a lot of time studying his projects, reading his columns, and generally being inspired to build the best and most interesting models that I can.

It is always a great sadness when one of the greats passes, and doubly so for those of us who are continuously inspired by their legacy. One of my few regrets in life is not taking time to thank those who have inspired me, before the opportunity is lost. The names are many, even just within the modeling community, and Randy was certainly one of them.

Sincerely, Thayer ( Syme, Editor, Fly RC Magazine )

Pat Tritle -- e-mail address below -- wrote:

I just returned from Tucson to hear of Randy's passing. He will be greatly missed in the modeling community to be sure.

I first met Randy at Little Rock SMALL, probably 7 years ago, where he immediately "took me in", and offered all the help and support a guy could ask for.

I always respected Randy for that, and for a guy like me, just getting started in small models in a serious fashion, I felt truly honored that he would offer his time and knowledge so freely.

Then over the years as I got to know Randy better, I discovered that was just who Randy was: always willing to give freely of his time and expertise. He was a true Gentleman in every respect, and I for one will miss him greatly. PAT

Peter Wood <  > asks:

Can anyone tell me where I can get Tomboy Plans ?

Peter

Dave Plumpe <  > reports:

Hal deBolt's "Half-A" Twin was originally published in December, 1951, "Air Trails" magazine, page 45. It's a 3+ page article, with reduced-size (scale included) plans. Probably everybody has that issue, but if, perchance, anyone out there doesn't have it and wants a scan (probably about 3MB total), e-mail me. I can't do it right now, but give me a week.

Dave Plumpe (on Lake Keowee in upstate South Carolina)

Phil Oestricher <  > contributed:

A few years ago I figured that I was the only Over-40 Free Flighter who had never built a Sniffer. In setting this situation right, I enlarged the Midwest kit plans by 20% and built it.

This sizing gives a span near 35 inches and a wing area of around 194 square inches -- just right for the engine used. This is a strong-running (and easy hand-starting) Cox Babe Bee .049.

Since my Bigger Sniffer was intended as a sport model, I used the stock 5cc Babe Bee tank, and attempt to regulate engine run by careful fueling.

I generally used the same wood sizes as the original design, but did enlarge the spanwise members of the wing and tail. The wing ribs were made flat-bottomed, replacing the peculiar underside concave shape of the kit ribs aft of the spar. Was this done at Midwest to use up old die-cut stock and/or to allow better nesting of ribs on a die-cut sheet?

Covering is transparent yellow Monokote; fuselage and fin are finished in red Aerogloss. (I hate the new EPA-dictated formulation!). Knowing that I would otherwise inevitably end up with washers under the engine's upper mounting lugs, the firewall was built in with TLAR downthrust (turned out to be a massive 7.35 degrees!) and positioned to put the prop a reasonable distance from the front of the cowl.

No side thrust was built in or added later. The plane weighs 8 ounces and now (some nose ballast added during a series of trimming flights) balances at 65% wing chord. The climb (even with the engine running rich) is fast and it gains a lot of altitude quickly in a wide right turn. Maybe it needs all that downthrust...

The slow, floating glide is also to the right, but tighter than the climbing circle. Its performance certainly is not of competition standards, but it is good enough to make it something of a failure as a sport model, in that it flies too well given the relentless encroachment of houses on my club's flying area.

I showed the completed model to its designer, Roland G. Schmitt, and he was delighted to see that Sniffers were still being built.

May I add a word on the McCoy Diesel topic? I was given one (an .049) as a birthday present as soon as they came out in 1953. I used it quite a bit in a pusher canard C-L model and then in an original free-flight. The latter was sheer joy to fly as the big schoolyard in Beeville, Texas was only a couple of blocks away from my house. My "support equipment" consisted only of a fuel can, eye-dropper, and a rag.

The evenings were almost always dead calm with no thermal activity. On one flight the engine quit abruptly at about 50 feet altitude as the prop came off. Attached to the prop was half of the shaft. It had failed through the rotary valve hole which had been formed by a milling cut across the shaft. Of course, this produced sharp corners from which a classic fatigue crack had propagated.

I sent the piece of shaft and $2 to McCoy for a new shaft, along with a letter explaining my analysis of this serious flaw in an otherwise excellent engine. I promptly received a new shaft (with a round intake hole) AND my $2 AND a nice letter stating that the folks at McCoy had redesigned the shaft after coming to the same conclusions as I had.

That engine has given great service since then, and remains one of my favorites. Yes, the O-ring fails every now and then, but any old O-ring from a hardware store seems to work OK so long as it's the right size. By the way, my engine has a wristpin -- not a ball and socket -- and its main bearing shows little or no wear for all this running. I've owned many model engines (most pretty good and a few clunkers) since my first Ohlsson .23 back in 1945, and I rate the McCoy .049 Diesel as one of the better ones.

Maybe I should have put the McCoy in my enlarged Sniffer and once again enjoyed a "minimum support kit".

Phil

...Phil, since you know Roland Schmitt, you should communicate with Brian Malin at BMJR. He's been trying to get authentic background information on the original Sniffer, to include with his modern laser-cut kit of that model. And maybe Roland knows the reason for the odd airfoil shape... [JW]

...Roy, I did indeed experiment with that "synchronizing circuit", probably about the same time you did. And I got the same results. I never understood just why; but now that you've mentioned it, I've worked out the answer.

The problem arises from the use of two separate spark ignition circuits (batteries, coils, and the associated wiring) triggered by a single set of contact points -- and, if I remember rightly, one "condenser".

First off, the "condensers" we all used for spark ignition were rated at a low voltage -- 6 to 12 or something like that. That seemed ample for use in a 3 VDC circuit. We didn't realize that when the points opened, the inductive kick from the spark coil's primary windings could exceed 200 VAC. That burned out MANY a "condenser". With TWO coils shooting 3-digit AC voltages at the poor little 12 VDC "condenser" in the "synchronizing circuit", doom from that cause became rather likely.

But the most probable cause for the quick stoppage of the "second engine" lies in the difference between the two "coil circuits". These are actually "resonant circuits", running at a frequency nominally determined by the opening/closing rate of the "points". That was the "common-sense principle" behind the synchronization plan.

But if there was significant difference between the wiring length and coil/battery impedance of the two spark circuits, that could cause their "resonant frequency" to vary a little.

How little ? I'm not sure; but let's look at how much it would take to de-synchronize the second engine.

The Phantom P-30 (by the way, that was the very first schneurle- ported model engine. Bill Atwood manufactured it, starting in late 1940 -- but the design wasn't his. An engineer named Deen was responsible, but never credited.) -- anyway, the P-30 probably turned its prop around 9000 rpm. That's 150 revs per second, or about 7 milliseconds per revolution.

From my experience with sparkers, I know that ten degrees of timer advance (or retard) affects engine speed noticeably. Ten degrees is about .03 of a revolution; therefore at 9000 rpm, ten degrees of rotation takes about two tenths of a millisecond.

Could the two separate coil/battery/wiring circuits we're discussing vary that much in "resonant frequency" ? I believe so -- and now that I think about it, this can't be a new discovery. Take the OK Twin, or the dual-plug Super Cyclone.

I've owned several of those, and to make them run they MUST be operated with a "Twin Coil". Their instruction manuals state that, and each of those 1940-era engines came with one.

Twin Coils differ from single coils in one significant respect. The single coil's "high tension" circuit goes from "ground" to the plug centerpost. There are only three connections on this type of coil: "primary positive", "high tension", and "common ground".

Twin Coils have four: "primary positive" and "ground" for the low-voltage circuit, plus TWO high-tension (HT) terminals.

The two HT terminals connect to the twin spark plugs, and the generated spark has to jump BOTH plug gaps -- obviously at the same instant. ("Ground" acts only as a "base connection" between the two plug bodies.)

Hey -- I didn't start out to be this long-winded ! The crux of what I wanted to say is that the "perfect synchronization" of a pair of spark ignition engines via running them both from a single set of timer points CAN WORK. But it would need THREE coils to do that: two single coils for starting the individual motors, and one Twin Coil to be switched in -- taking the place of BOTH single coil circuits...

Would it be worth the trouble ? I don't think so. One Twin Coil weighs almost as much as an Ohlsson .23... [JW]