SMALLnet post460

Does anyone have experience building the MAL kit designed by Dave (VTO) Lindstrum XY Chromosyne ? Please tell me what you know about this model.

The Harbor Freight 12-volt Dremel-like rotary tool set is again on sale for US $7.95 until 11/28/05. Comes with 3 collets: 1/16", 3/32", and 1/8" -- and 60 accessories plus an AC/DC adapter. See lot number 41695 at local stores, or the website: < www.harborfreightusa.com >.

It's a pretty good deal for field repairs, or you can use it in the shop. Some folks have anchored the motor with epoxy to minimize vibration -- making it better.

AL Southwest Regionals contest info:
< www.aalmps.com/swrintro.htm >
A. A. Lidberg model plan service: < www.aalmps.com >

First, let me say how glad I am to see SMALLnet back. It is like a breath of fresh air. Fellows, please help an old man out. I need all the information I can get on the EBENEZERS. They look like fun ! J W is right: the SMALL meet at Tullahoma is a good one, and a great place to fly with a good group.

I am lucky to live only about 15 miles from Tullahoma. It's great country and beautiful this time of year. The hills are on fire with color. I don't go to the Tullahoma field much, as I have my own 4-acre flying field. I'll be looking forward to the Ebenezer information. Phillip Boyd

...Phillip, although the first bunch of Ebenezer-type models were published in the British Aeromodeller magazine, and achieved their original popularity in the UK, the concept and the initial designs came from an American: Bert Striegler.

The characteristics of the Ebenezers that I know about are:
(1) sport free flight;
(2) powered by Cox reed valve engines;
(3) all-balsa profile-type designs that, in a cartoonish sort of way, resemble famous full-scale airplanes; and
(4) use flat (non-airfoiled) sheet balsa wings.
[JW]

I wanted to ask about the Tullahoma SMALL event. It's not that bad of a drive from Atlanta (where I live) and I would certainly drive up there and check it out. Maybe Eric could let us know about the 2006 event -- with some lead time to allow for planning.

...When I went to the Tullahoma meet October 1, I brought three models of my own plus my son John's "Seniorita". We suffered pesky problems with all the engines -- largely because they hadn't been run in quite a long time.

But we eventually solved our difficulties. My planes were my huge King Condor, my smaller Junco, and a control-line Skyray.

All the Junco's flights were quite short -- under a minute. At first I thought I had sticky reed troubles with the plane's hybrid Cox .049. Not so -- the tiny gasket between the tank back and the intake tube had failed. That allows crankcase pressure to enter the tank & blow fuel out the vent...

Lucky for me that this happened, though ! After returning home, I put the Junco & its Tx on my "cycler" -- and found to my surprise that the Rx battery was down to 0.00 minutes of residual capacity !

Seems that I'd forgotten to cycle the system a couple of times before loading up the model... That can make a HUGE difference when one flies with NiCad power !

The Condor's PAW .06 provided some educational experience to both me and Eric Clutton. It started readily enough, but lacked power. We tried fresh fuel and other tricks, but to no avail.

Then we uninstalled the engine and took that apart. Both Eric and I were surprised as anything to see that the interior of the intake tube (a custom-made venturi unit without a throttle) had a thick coating of congealed castor oil. That was so thick that it blocked off the intake air, just like an almost-closed throttle.

At this point I should mention that my King Condor was originally powered with one of my customized Cox .049's. (I used to fly EVERYTHING with Cox power: FF, C-L, and R/C.) The KC model is a 2-channel motorglider.

I'd had problems with glow fuel deteriorating the foam, and converted my King Condor to diesel. But the PAW .06 was too powerful, and caused the KC to climb faster than I wanted. And that little diesel engine ran forever on the built-into-the-fuselage fuel tank.

Therefore I machined up a special intake for the PAW with a reduced ID. That tamed the power output nicely, and made it possible to fly that 6 1/2-foot R/C model safely in schoolyards and city parks. I did that a lot.

But we've found out now that diesel fuel won't dissolve castor oil coatings on intake passage interiors. So from now on, at the start of each flying season I'll disassemble my diesels enough to clean out all the castor residue.

And I'll be sure to cycle my NiCad flight batteries at least twice before putting the models in the car... [JW]

In Posting #459, several SMALLsters commented on the above topic, which I submitted in SMALLnet posting #457, about the reliability of early R/C equipment. For decades now there have been contradictory statements made in the model magazines about the reliability of early R/C equipment. This seemingly age-old "controversy" once again surfaced in D. B. Mathews' FLYING FOR FUN column in the May, 2005 issue of MODEL AVIATION.

Doc Mathews stated in his column: "I've mentioned this era's lumps and bumps before and have received several letters challenging my memories with accounts of all sorts of good results with the primitive radio equipment of that time. Most modelers of that era remember exactly what I remember: an occasional rare success surrounded by hours of failures."

SMALLsters, such as ourselves, might be interested in knowing that the R/C record clearly indicates that the reliability of early equipment was most dramatically affected by a small group of experimenters, who were the SMALLsters of their time. Their R/C experiments greatly influenced the design of R/C equipment WORLD WIDE! That IS quite an impact on the world's R/C hobby.

Therefore, it was SMALLsters who played the leading role in advancing our R/C hobby, and virtually every R/C modeler in the world soon followed closely in their footsteps.

However, the pathway that the SMALLsters left behind, as they forged ahead, was not without pitfalls, as many early R/C modelers soon found out, when they followed suit. Never- theless, their experiments quickly revolutionized the entire world of R/C modeling!!

EARLY R/Cer' KISS WAS LOUSY R/C FOR PLAY will be continued in the next Posting: THE PIONEERS OF KISS -- the 1930's R/C glider team that, overnight, revolutionized early R/C with their "miniaturized" and simplified equipment!

It was fun to be reminded of early gas tube radios. Did I mention previously that Bill Effinger gave me an Aerotrol set, and showed me a way to increase its sensitivity with a soldered-on stub to the RF coil, with a length of finer wire that could be wrapped around it as a fine-tuning capacitor.

I loved John Meacham's remark that early radio allowed him to crash in some other place than it would have without the radio. Another saying popular at the time was that Radio Control was basically the same as free flight -- only heavier.

I remember designing my first RC airplane, with, of all things, a symmetrical airfoil. It was powered by an Elf single that had been sent to me by Dick Schumacher's friend Malcolm D. Whitman, Jr. I used an Arden glow plug with an 8-4 FloTorque prop. It ran very well.

I didn't think my model was too heavy, but I didn't even try the radio until after I had satisfied myself that the plane flew a nice stable, left-circling FF. The glide was very good and got me enthusiastic about symmetrical airfoils for several FF models.

I used a Sigma 4F relay that seemed reliable enough, and a really long length of rubber to work the escapement. I rebuilt that with a brass clock gear and a pawl that could either lift or drop when pulsed. Control surface was an angled tab supposed to rotate in the slipstream.

The idea was to push the Tx button, quickly note whether the plane nosed up or turned left or right -- and keep pushing and praying until you got approximately what you thought you wanted. I tried it both ways, free turning until engaged, and jumping from one random position to another with each pulse. I also tried a couple of other things, one of which Hal DeBolt felt approximated the Galloping Ghost system. But the cost of batteries and the nuisance of constant tweaking got me out of RC until proportional came along.

Believe it, my modesty about the performance I achieved in these early experiments is completely justified. Roy C.

...Roy's modesty has also (so far) stopped him from giving us a run-down on the neat little free flight "Cloud-Copters" he designed in the 1950's.

Berkeley kitted a couple of those. They had rotor diameters around 2 feet, and were "torque reaction powered" by a 1/2A engine mounted vertically on the rotor axis. Let's everyone bug Roy about these cute little things until he reveals the story -- and maybe tells us where to get plans for them. [JW]

It's Monday morning, back to work after a wonderful weekend at Lost Hills, flying "Old Timer" and "Nostalgia" models. We had our annual battle between the SCIF's and SCAMPS. I had a great time seeing and flying with everyone that attended. The best part of the weekend, for me, was a small group of us that brought Dakotas.

We had numerous mass launches and stood back and watched as the Dakota Dog Fights circled above. Three of the airplanes were closely matched, all powered by Baby Bees. One ship was powered by a "Spitzy" which was not as powerful, but it would run longer.

On a few flights all the airplanes circled close together for more than a minute; then flew off on their own paths. It was quite a spectacle and we drew a lot of attention from the rest of the gang. I saw at least 20 guys standing watching us have fun.

BTW, I put together a site on Yahoo Groups for people to read and tell their stories about the Dakota. It's only just begun, but I'm sure with a little help it will become a favorite site to check out. Here's the link. Check it out -- or better yet, join and add your story. It will be a lot of fun! < http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dakotastories/ >

About a year ago I posted the following historical sketch on the Vintage Model Forum of R.C. Universe. It partially touches on the disputes within the Zaic family about the Jasco trade name.

I might add that Christine Zaic was totally devoted to running Jasco/Jetco as a money-making enterprise. She was rumored to spend her evenings bagging small kit parts.

Although I found Christine a pleasant person, Frank Ehling could not stand her. It went so far that he would not approach her to collect his weekly paycheck. Sometimes this went on for a couple of weeks!

I worked part time for JASCO/JETCO from 1950 to 1952 and knew the personalities involved with their ownership and operation rather well.

By way of introduction: Between 1948 and 1952 I went to Stuyvesant High School in New York City. Stuyvesant was 2 blocks from JASCO /JETCO's office, which was on 16th Street near 3rd Avenue in Manhattan. At that time the Zaics' business occupied the entire building (a 4-story brownstone).

The business and retail sales office with the prototypes of the various Zaic designs hanging from the ceiling was on the second floor. Lumber was stored and cut by Thurston, and sometimes John Zaic (see the Zaic books) on the 3rd and 4th floors. Kits were packed in a rented store front 2 blocks north on 3rd Avenue.

As Frank Zaic's Yearbooks indicate, he founded JASCO for the purpose of distributing balsa and the various other materials needed to construct stick and tissue models. He had little interest in kits.

Although John and Frank Zaic designed and kitted several gliders (Thermics), Frank was always interested in design theory and not the commercial aspects of model airplane building.

After his discharge from the Army Air Force in 1945, Frank and his brother John returned to JASCO which was being run by his sister Christine. He tried to revitalize the Yearbook project, and designed some kits, such as the G-84 and the famous Floater.

However, failing to make a profit from his beloved Yearbooks, Frank moved to the West Coast and worked as a patent draftsman for AeroSpace companies -- and published his Yearbooks again to supplement his income. Also, in his Circular Airflow book, Frank tried to revitalize a more general interest in slow-speed aerodynamics.

The ownership of JASCO reverted to his brother John and his sister Christine. Frank wanted to maintain the JASCO name for himself, however, so the firm was renamed JETCO.

With the arrival of the original K&B Infant .020 it became very difficult to sell towline gliders any more, and the Zaics were forced to look around for a designer who knew something about production and design of powered models.

At that time Frank Ehling, living in New Jersey, was actively publishing (sometimes under pseudonyms) designs in Air Trails magazine. The Zaics convinced him to work for them as a full time designer and manager of the kit packaging operation.

There upon followed a host of designs (Phoenix series) and a re-engineering (not for the better) of the classic Thermic glider line.

Around this time (1950-1955) RC equipment became small and simple enough for the average builder to use. Hal DeBolt introduced his LiveWire series, and JETCO (via Ehling) tried to develop a competitive design which failed. Ehling (burnt out) was losing interest and had differences with the Zaics.

Ehling (because of disputes with Christine) left JETCO for the AMA in Washington DC.

JETCO began to kit outstanding designs from various prominent modelers. They enjoyed a brief spell of relative success, but never prospered

John Zaic left the firm and made a modest living designing and selling a series of single-channel LiveWire type models. JETCO moved to Brooklyn, and marketed their better kit designs for a number of years. Richard Smith

I wonder if someone can tell me how a 4-stroke model engine gets lube to the lower end/con rod. The fuel mixture does not seem to go into the crankcase at any time.

... Bill, that's an excellent question ! Just to see what's been published about the topic of 4-stroke model engine lubrication, I just now checked my "library" of 4-stroke data. That includes a book by my old pal Clarence Lee, another by my late friend Peter Chinn, and several O.S. technical manuals.

NONE of those even mentions the subject of lower-end lubrication !

Here's the answer. All the moving parts in the crankcases of 4-stroke model motors: shaft, conrod, camshaft gears and cam followers -- are lubricated entirely from "piston blow-by".

You're right about the fuel mixture not entering the case. But after each charge of fuel/oil/air in the combustion chamber ignites and drives the piston down, some of the oil from the fuel gets forced (by the high pressure above the piston) through the clearance between the piston and cylinder. When that reaches the case interior, it becomes a sort of oily fog, from the turbulence caused by the rapidly-moving parts.

This oil gets distributed throughout the case interior. Because there's no fuel present to wash away the oily film on the moving parts, lubrication remains ample while the engine runs.

In fact, while I was testing some of the recent RCV 4-stroke engines for Model Aviation, I was amazed at how much oil got transferred into the cases of those valveless 4-strokers. (Their "valve action" results from a rotating cylinder sleeve. That requires its own lubrication, besides the moving parts within the case.) After running, a sizable quantity of oil would seep out of each RCV's crankcase vent... [JW]

I had to chuckle at JW's comment about "too much" information in the on-line R/C groups, and the fact that there is a good bit of "contradiction" within that realm. He couldn't be more right on both counts.

I signed up on the E-Zone a couple of years ago, simply because there was so much truly BAD advice being given by some regarding the airplanes I designed, and know worked with the systems I suggested.

Also, as time marches on, new equipment is continually being offered by the market place, much of which I've tested in many of the old designs with excellent results. Of course, I've discovered a few things that don't work too, and try to steer the guys away from those items. It's not necessarily that the stuff is bad -- most is actually quite good. It's just not suitable for some things.

The bottom line with ANY on-line forum is to look into your areas of interest for a while and determine who's on the ball and who's not. It didn't take me long to spot the Guys who live by the philosophy that if they don't know the answer, they'll make one up as they go along.

Once you know who those Guys are, you can blow them off and lean toward those who truly DO know what they're talking about. They're not hard to spot either, and most of the on-line regulars know who they are too.

I have also made it my policy to let those who claim to know the answers show me what they can do over time, not just tell me. Once you know who's who, these forums can be a very valuable learning tool.

And finally, I absolutely WILL NOT try to answer a question that I don't know the answer to, and the Guys I pay attention to also live by that rule. PAT

SMALLnet Posting post460