SMALLnet post459

...I'm back once again, fellows ! I appreciate the many messages of condolence and sympathy you SMALLsters have sent in. By now I'm home again and relatively "back to normal". SMALLnet will be issued far more regularly now.

I do want to mention that with two of my sons (plus one grandson) on October 1 I attended Eric Clutton's SMALL meet at Tullahoma, Tennessee.

The field there is GREAT -- much better than the one where the last three annual Little Rock SMALL meets were held. Eric did a marvelous job of directing, and the weather cooperated reasonably.

I'll be publicizing this annual meet heavily in upcoming SMALLnet Postings -- it sure deserves to be better known ! The turnout this year was far smaller than it should have been. Probably the reasons were high fuel prices, a lack of publicity -- and perhaps the seemingly remote location of Tullahoma.

Actually, Tullahoma is as accessible as Little Rock. It's within a dozen miles of two Interstates: I-65 is the main north-south route between Mobile, Nashville, Louisville, Indianapolis, and Chicago -- and I-24's the route from Chattanooga up through Nashville, and onward (via other Interstates) to St. Louis.

A LOT of territory lies within about a 7-hour drive of Tullahoma. That includes Little Rock, Atlanta, Montgomery, Indianapolis, Cincinatti, St. Louis, and most of Kentucky & North Carolina. There's plenty of model flyers in all that region !

Next year let's SWARM into Tullahoma for Eric's annual SMALL meet. If enough advance interest is displayed, I think Eric could manage to make it a 2-day meet: Saturday & Sunday, around the first of October. [JW]

Regarding Posting #457: a controversy exists today regarding the reliability of early R/C equipment.

I know a few old-timers, but they are fast disappearing. Their stories of early R/C equipment state that it was tricky to use. Some of the problems they encountered:

...Alan, you're quite right. I flew R/C in the late 1940's, and encountered the problems you mentioned. But it was still fun ! In 1970 I moved back to Pennsylvania from southern California, and brought with me many of my models -- including one escapement-controlled R/C plane.

I flew that once more in Pennsylvania. Then I took it home, removed the escapement and its rubber band etc. -- and installed a servo.

Making old-time tube-type radio receivers work was a challenge -- but getting escapements to function was sheer frustration. [JW]

I think there were quite a few "soft tube" (RK-61) radios built from a series of articles in M.A.N. that used two RK-61 miniature tubes. I know I built one that seemed to work some of the time.

The big problem in those radios was that the scheme was to have a relay in the plate circuit that when the radio was "idling" (no signal) the plate current was high and held the relay closed; but when it detected a signal, the plate current dropped and the relay would drop out.

So you had to use the normally-closed contacts on that relay to give a pulse to your escapement. It took a lot of fiddling with the relay spring to find just right amount of tension that would produce reliable operation. (Engine vibration sure did not help matters, so the rubber band suspensions for the radios was used.)

I remember one of the big subjects in the literature at that time was whether you should try your first flights with a new airplane with the radio on, or as a free flight with a short engine run.

The theory was if it would not fly without the radio, flapping the rudder sure would not help things -- and pilot error could put a new model straight into a "death spiral".

It was kind of like learning to fly a full-size plane by climbing into a J-3 Cub and trying to teach yourself by taking short hops.

I still have the plans for my old Berkeley Brigadier that was my downfall in trying R/C in those days. Got the plans out the other day and sure did not remember that short-short nose moment and the giant lifting stab. But, sometimes I did get it to crash in some other place than it would have crashed without the radio.

... Some of you SMALLsters are doubtless aware of the renewed interest in flying my 1949 all-sheet-balsa 1/2A FF biplane, the Dakota. This became especially true after BMJR issued a laser-cut kit of that little sport free flighter. However, I've received a few complaints from Dakota flyers about stalling problems. Some of the writers suggest that modern 1/2A engines may be too powerful for that small a model.

I've flown Dakotas with all kinds of engines -- all the way up to Cub .099's ! They all fly the same for me: tight left power turns and right glide circles. They don't stall.

All of the Dakota stalling problems that people have written to me about seem to be caused by a wrong launching technique.

This didn't happen to Dakotas (or Sioux) in the Good Old Days, because at that time everybody who flew free flight launched his models horizontally -- pointing at the horizon, that is.

But because of the high power of modern engines, today it seems like everyone launches his FF planes upward -- as shown on the cover of last month's Model Aviation. And he throws H A R D .

Dakotas (and Sioux) don't like that ! It makes them stall and dive. To counteract that, misguided modelers will add downthrust. That usually just makes things worse.

If you have a "stalling Dakota", first make sure it has the 5 degrees of left thrust that I designed into the model. Check the balance point, to be certain that's OK. (Most Dakotas come out nose-heavy, and need a bit of metal added as far aft as you can manage. (I use a slug of lead, such as from a fishing sinker, pounded flat & about 3/32" thick, glued into a slot at the extreme rear of the Dakota's fuselage bottom.

When ready to fly, bank your Dakota a bit to the left, and sort of P U S H it towards the horizon. Remember, this is not a spear ! A gentle shove is all you need -- and the left bank at launch gets the little biplane started off in its normal climbing attitude.

Dakotas (and Sioux) climb on their wing lift, NOT on brute engine power. They do climb well -- but without their noses pointing upward much. [JW]

I've been thinking for a long time about building a model plane kit that can be easily produced by hand -- or maybe factory -- some day and offered to others as an entry-level "Build It, Fly It" deal.

I would like some suggestions along that line. By the way, I am not trying to get rich here. I just want to keep the build what you fly attitude alive.

My project is already in the making. It's based on models from the '30's and '40's: with lots of dihedral, long nose moment, light (16 oz. or less); 40 -45 inch span; small gas (.049) or a beginners' electric setup; large tail surfaces; and an overall feeling of drop the CA in the box, shake it up and Voila! it almost builds itself.

Would anyone like to share some ideas that they think would be a great thing to have in a kit? Pre-covered tail and control surfaces? Pushrods already made? Include the covering? Step By Step tutorial in manual and a Compact Disk version?

I ask because I am thinking of bringing some of these to as many Fun Flys and SMALL Flys as I can to promote the Build It, Fly It legacy of yesteryear. If only one person is interested in one of these then I have succeeded in my mind.

...John, it's a good thing that your goal isn't becoming wealthy from initiating a project such as you describe. (By the way, is it free flight, control-line, or R/C ?) NOBODY gets rich in the model kit business. (I was in it myself for years and so were many of my friends -- none of 'em wealthy.)

Also, projects such as you envision have been tried. I could list quite a few, but will mention only Jim Walker's "Firecat" C-L, Monogram's "Pirate" & "Prowler" FF, and Babcock Radio's "Breezy Junior" R/C. None of those became truly popular.

Part of the problem appears to be the fact that model airplane enthusiasts (the "build-it, fly-it" types) are creative artists at heart. They're not numerous -- and they're not especially attracted to what amounts to "paint-by-numbers artwork"... [JW]

It might be heresy, but I've been having much fun with a ParkZone F-27 electric. It takes longer to charge the battery than to assemble the plane. It's also a pretty tough little craft. I just hit a soccer goal, flat out -- and all the damage done was a crack in the foam wing. I repaired that with epoxy in 5 minutes, and was back flying again.

Try one ! It's able to fly in a schoolyard; and for about $165 you're ready to go. Ron

I had the good fortune to work for Jasco in the late 1940's and while there met Frank (who no longer had much interest in the business). He was an incredibly laid-back, soft-spoken and kind individual, and I cherish those meetings.

Later while I was at Parks College, Frank and I corresponded regarding my thesis project which featured an instrumented Berkeley Custom Privateer (the BIG one).

As for a written tribute....So much has been written about Frank that there seems little or nothing left to say..

As for dyeing SilkSpan: I never had much luck with ordinary fabric dyes. However I found that Silk Shoe dye (available at dance supply stores in a great range of colors) works beautifully. One simply pours the dye into a shallow tray, and dips the already-cut SilkSpan panel in the dye. The wet covering panel can be blotted on a paper towel or even newspaper and applied damp to the pre-doped framework.

Other possibilities are the various aniline dyes available at high end wood finishing supply merchants. These very fine powders can be dissolved in a variety of solvents and applied in about any way one chooses. Dyes from this source come in a smaller selection of colors, but include a nice red and yellow.

At the time I worked for Jasco, Steve Ditta of AHC and Frank Ehling were dyeing the sheeted portions of their models with this stuff. I guess they were dissolving the dye in thinner. The result when doped was spectacular. Richard Smith

...Richard, I too was a friend of Frank Zaic's -- in fact, I joined the AMA at his New York City shop, in 1939. He was one of the original founders of the AMA, and did more to promote it in the prewar years than anyone else. His apparent lack of interest in Jasco in the late 1940's stemmed from a "family situation".

Briefly, when Frank entered the Service during WW2, he asked his sister Christine to manage Jasco while he was gone. She said that she needed to be able to make snap decisions in running the outfit, and doing that would be much easier if Frank signed over Jasco's ownership to her "just for convenience".

After the War, when Frank returned stateside and asked Christine to give him back his model airplane business, she inquired sweetly, "Whose model airplane business ?"

...The method of dyeing SilkSpan I described in the previous Posting is the result of MANY tries with other techniques. Yes, other methods do work. I prefer mine because, for one thing, it doesn't transfer excess dye to my hands or to the model's framework.

By the way -- I neglected to mention that the "laundry marker" on the edges of my various pre-cut SilkSpan pieces was for identification: "Stabilizer Bottom", "Fuselage Top", and like that. I found it all too easy to confuse the wet, stuck-together pieces of covering material unless they were plainly marked. [JW]

Those who know Armand Cote (mentioned in my previous posting) will be as delighted as I was at his incredible recovery. The flying gang was astonished when he offered to test-fly my latest Flying Models project (classified). Armand put on a bang-up performance, and of course to my great satisfaction pronounced it good.

Armand walks a little gingerly from a missing leg vein, but seems to be his old bright self. He is a charter member of the Winnipesaukee Radio Controllers. He's also a good argument for open heart surgery -- this was his third round. The first lasted for 20 years!

About our club's use of the airport: It gradually came out (with many twists & turns) that our problems arose from apparent behind- the-scenes political jockeying to appease somebody who did not like model airplanes. However, the Airport Authority, having run out of money to finish their project this year, will permit us to use the field until at least next spring.

(We still must use orange flashers on our vehicles.) Meantime, we have secured the use of, and improved, a former landing strip not terribly far away. Personally I love the airport tarmac, but close-cropped grass beats nothing.

I did receive some interesting information from Horrace Cain about a financial device a model club could use to secure its own property.

...[Horrace sent it to SMALLnet too, and it follows.] [JW]

Earlier I mentioned the loss of veteran C&W steel guitar players as one of the sad attritions of my age group: nothing can be done about that. But, if anybody is interested in what I do when not designing wacky flying stuff, let it be known that I have finished and published my book: "One Man's Steel Guitar." Lots of pictures and mechanical stuff that I worked out, and some anecdotes about the people that go in for semi-pro C&W music.

I understand SMALLnet is not for commercials, but if anybody is really interest in learning more, I'm reachable by e-mail. Roy

Roy Clough wrote, with respect to the loss of his club's flying field: "The Airport Authority tells us the relationship with the club has been exemplary, and thanks a bunch. We now have several members looking into alternatives. My best solution would be to win megabucks and buy one of the big farms in the area."

Do you have someone that has a decent Individual Retirement Account (IRA), or is soon expecting some decent retirement payout which will / could be rolled over into an IRA?

Real Estate investments are very suitable IRA investments. Sterling Trust, Waco, TX < www.sterling-trust.com > is in the business of assisting such investments. The IRA holder can direct to purchase (with cash) the land you need and sell it to the club while the IRA/Sterling holds the mortgage. The IRA holder can serve as his own agent for all transactions.

WARNING: If the IRA Holder is a member of your club, he cannot ever be an officer in the club, and must pay normal dues, or he could be targeted by the IRS as guilty of a prohibited transaction.

Tom Houle asked about suitable e-power & other "hardware" to use in a 3-channel sport flyer with a flat-bottom parasol wing: 44" span and 320 squin area. Estimated flying weight is 24 ounces.

I would recommend a geared Speed 400 on 2 LiPos, a lightweight Rx, and GWS Naro servos. I am flying a 45" span 17 oz model on this setup and it's nice and docile. It cruises around on just under half throttle for 25 - 30 minutes. Covering is Litespan.

I also recommend a look at < www.rcgroups.com/forums >. There is more information there than you can shake a stick at!

...Nev is surely right about the plethora of "information" avail- able on the various R/C forums I've found there's TOO MUCH for my purposes -- and quite a lot of it seems contradictory. [JW]

I've done an R/C 'conversion' of a scratchbuilt Taylorcraft. Very (good) surprising results. Lengthy list of changes, not all of which I can remember without looking at the plans and construction notes. Short version: The Comet Taylorcraft is a much bigger airplane than the Chief. Yes, the wingspans are the same -- but the wing chord, fuselage size, are of a 'one size smaller' airplane. Peter

I have a Comet 54" Taylorcraft complete kit. I would be most happy to trade prints of its plans and print wood for the same of the Aeronca Chief. Kent Pyle

I have enjoyed SMALL since discovering it several years ago. All of my airplanes qualify. What I am enjoying most these days are IPS-powered electrics weighing less than 9 oz, my latest being a Mountain Models Cessna 180.

I also have a "Playmate" built from MA plans, powered with an O.S. FS.26. Now that I am retired, I hope to be able to visit the next SMALL meet.

I am trying to find plans for a SMALL PT-19, perhaps similar in size to the Playmate. If anyone knows of a source, I'd appreciate knowing about it. Curt

HiMax HC2208-1260 (Fits on the stick in GWS Tiger Moths) 30 watts; 9" x 3.8" APC prop; 2-cell 730 mAH Thunder Power LiPo batteries; Phoenix 10 ESC. It's smooth and quiet...

Paul Spreiregen < > submitted to us -- and to about a hundred others -- an item that I can't resist:

Remember when the Washington Post did a front-page story on the Maxecuters flying at the National Building Museum? It was the only time that the WP had a front page story on the NBM.

This past Thursday, Nov 3, HRH Prince Charles was given an award at the NBM, and gave a speech about architecture and planning (which he thinks should all be in 18th and 19th century style). That was a big opportunity for our sterling (pun intended) publicity accomplishment -- if not record -- to be eclipsed.

But the visit of HRH Prince Charles and Mrs Charles were reported on the Style section, and there wasn't even a picture of the NBM.

So the DC Maxecuters still hold the Washington Post publicity record for the NBM !

All of this clearly proves that model airplanes have more value than model princes. Paul Spreiregen

SMALLnet Posting post459