SMALLnet post461

...Recently I read somewhere a cogent parable, or allegory -- anyway, a brief tale intended to make a guy do some thinking. It began by stating that in Martial Arts, a beginner starts out with a white belt.

Then as he becomes more and more proficient, he's awarded belts of other colors: yellow, orange, red, etc. -- until as a top- grade Master he gets to wear a black belt.

However, after that, as time goes on and the belt is washed repeatedly, its blackness gradually fades. Eventually it becomes white again and returns the Master to beginner status.

That tale came to mind last weekend when I went out flying with two of my sons (and one grandson). I had a pair of my faithful old R/C sport planes -- but neither of them flew at all well.

I was baffled about that for a while. Then I remembered that I'd recently installed new receiver batteries. They're NiMH cells, replacing my original NiCads. And they weigh about half what the NiCads did...

Yep, my black belt has turned white with age. I utterly forgot to re-balance my models. They provided an excellent demon- stration of the adage: "A nose-heavy airplane may not fly very well -- but a tail-heavy one won't fly very long." [JW]

In a previous Posting, JW wrote, "...be it free flight, control-line, or R/C: NOBODY makes a fortune in the model airplane kit business."

I dispute that statement. You CAN end up with a small fortune in the model kit business ! The secret is to start with a large fortune. (It's the same in my other hobby of boat building.)

On Dakotas, I find it best to launch mine with the left wing low. It is powered by a DC Merlin 049, a fairly feisty little diesel. I have a little ballast in the tail. It usually accom- plishes a one-to-one glide-to-power ratio; but Sam Burke has done three-to-one with his -- I believe it is set up with a rearward C of G.

On one-design matters, it is good to see that the Tomboy is enjoying a revival. A Tomboy is one of those aircraft that I try not to be without -- I have built at least five of them. You can build them just for fun, free flight, or add R/C. I flew most of my R/C versions with ACE pulse rudder-only, to my great enjoyment.

The one I have now has two channels of digital, motor and rudder. That's plenty for a landplane, but elevator would be nice for off-water flying. There are some events now for Tomboys.

There is the Hilda Baker memorial event (honoring David Baker's late wife) which is no-holds-barred postal free flight. It's just an intestinal fortitude for duration free flight, with no limits on motor run. You can build it in either the 36-inch or 44-inch version. There are no limits on engine size, but the Tomboy was intended for up to 1 cc (0.06 cu in) in the 36-inch version, and up to 1.5cc in the bigger (extended wing) version.

I have flown Tomboys with a FROG 100 Mk II, a FROG 160, a FROG 150, an ED Bee, various versions of the Mills 0.75, and latterly with R/C PAW 049s and 06s, including the Classics.

After a long tussle over the years against the Australians, Mike Myers (the SAM President) took the event this year with a flight in California. His flights have, on occasion, landed in the local jail, but apparently not this time.

On the other hand, David Boddington is promoting a restricted R/C event for 2 channels (rudder/elevator) for any version of the Mills 0.75, with standard tank, and only in the 36-inch size. Otherwise the rules are simple, apart from the proviso that the model must be tissue- or silk-covered -- or covered in some tissue-resembling fabric like Airspan or Litespan. The event is run like 1/2A Texaco.

A Tomboy is such a simple, quick build that I can see little need for a fancy prefabricated kit -- though I can see such a need for some of Vic Smeed's other designs, such as the Mamselle, with complicated formers and stringers.

For someone less concerned with authenticity and just flying sport R/C, the Tomboy's dihedral could be halved with advantage. Otherwise it requires a rather delicate touch; not that this is hard to learn.

The floatplane version of the Tomboy uses the three float layout and very well it works. My good friend Don Myers, from NJ, built his with interchangeable float systems; the other being twin pontoons.

With the pontoons he had a splendid watercraft, without the slightest interest in becoming airborne. All was corrected when he switched to the original layout. Don built a 44-inch version and used an MP Jet 06. Surprisingly it didn't seem to have any more climb than my 36-inch version, which then had a PAW 049; but it had a really superb glide with the bigger wing.

I just received Roy Clough's Steel Guitar book, and as a SMALL- time musician of modest repute myself, I have to say I found it eminently readable, funny, sad -- you name it, it's there!

It's amazing how many aeromodellers are also musicians. I can identify with so much of what Roy writes about, and the frustrations/rewards of the music game are mirrored in our model-making experiences! I can't wait for his projected book on model aircraft!

...Good point, Pete, and all too true. Before I lost my hearing, I was a musician (drums, vibraphone, and trombone) and many of the guys in my old model club were too. Zach played trombone, Rudy played drums, Lew played piano, and so on. My son David can play almost every stringed instrument; and of the many youngsters I taught modeling to when they were 5th and 6th graders, the only truly successful ones were also excellent musicians. [JW]

Does any one of you have a plan for the Spacer 1200 free flight model by Sal Taibi ??? Thanks for your attention, Nick

I once had the rough feeling in the BBs in a diesel that had been sitting for a while. Having some glow fuel on hand, I flooded the engine with it and worked the fuel around in the engine. The glow fuel dissolved the congealed castor and the engine freed up. I then removed the glow fuel, flushed out the engine and oiled it. It was now ready to go.

I enjoyed the comments about Roy Clough, Jr. I have enjoyed his strange "way outside the box" designs since the 50's. Only built one though. I think it was called Saturn, an .049 C-L.

Recently on one of the C-L forums, someone mentioned powering a Veco Scout with a TD .049. The flyer commented on how fast it flew. I mentioned how it was WAY over-powered, and that I have a Cub .049B in mine. Then I thought, what if one was built with an increased span of, say, a couple of extra ribs on each wing. Ever experiment with larger wings on it? I built mine using the kit- type LE, but I think next time I will use the square LE as JW shows as used on the "prototype" in his full-size plans.

Greetings from Pulaski, PA. I read with interest the articles on the reliability of the old R/C equipment. I started flying R/C in 1958 using a ground-mounted transmitter, a single-tube receiver, and a rubber-powered single-stage escapement.

The plane was a paper-and-stick J3 Cub with a 6-foot wingspan and powered with a fixed throttle engine of approximately .15 displacement. As I recall, my mentor (Dean) and I spent about 20 hours preparing for the first flight on the White Sands desert of New Mexico. After a short rollout on the sandy floor, the plane ROG'd. I was instructed to not push the control button until advised to.

The Cub climbed out slowly and true. At about 75 feet of altitude, Dean called out "right turn". I pushed gently on the control button -- and NOTHING happened. Again and again I pushed, but to no avail. No response to a single push or to a double push: no right, no left.

As the plane continued to slowly climb and head to the West, we jumped into Dean's convertible and slowly drove over the desert floor. After what seemed like a lifetime, I noticed the plane descending. We stopped the car and watched the Cub make a near-perfect "hands off" landing. To our surprise, we had driven nearly 5 miles through the desert. It was a wonderful first "free flight" radio-assisted flight for me, and one that taught me a number of lessons.

One, don't put too much fuel in for the first flight; two, don't ever wind the darn escapement rubber too tight. You see, the rubber for the escapement had "bunched up" and locked the escapement tight. Many flights later, it became quite clear that Murphy's Law also applies to model aircraft.

Here it is, nearly 50 years later, and I still love the hobby. By the way, Murphy is still alive and well. His laws claimed two aircraft on a recent afternoon at our field. To all flyers, young and old: Be very thankful for today's radio equipment.

Jim Dodson, Beaufort, South Carolina, (843) 521-1754, < > asked me to pass the word that he has cowls and canopies for Musciano-Scientific 1/2A carved-fuselage all-balsa models.

Also, Jim has a friend who is producing a laser cut kit of Walt's "Challenger" stunt model: 32" wingspan. H3

Ross McMullen < > asked JW about the 1950-era Kenhi stunt model kits with multi-spar wings.

...Ross, on the Kenhi stunters: all of the "second generation" Kenhi control-liners used multi-spar wings. Those included the Bobcat, Wildcat, Cougar, and Panther. The original Wildcat, Bobcat, and Cougar were close copies of the Veco Brave, Warrior, and Chief, and used the same construction methods. But they cost way too much to produce, so Hi Johnson redesigned them.

The second-edition versions of the Bobcat, Wildcat, and Cougar flew better than the first ones; mainly because they came out a good bit lighter. However, quality control at Kenhi wasn't high -- not nearly as good as we managed at Veco. For one thing, at Veco we'd switched balsa suppliers, from Balsa Ecuador to International Balsa, because of the much better quality and consistency of the wood International Balsa provided.

But Kenhi was stuck in a long-term contract with Balsa Ecuador. That made a big difference between Veco and Kenhi kits in the wood they contained...

The Panther didn't perform well. Its wing had an unusually large root chord, and its flaps were too far behind the CG. Their aerodynamic action conflicted with that of the elevators. Several stunt flyers I knew told me that their Panthers flew much better with fixed flaps. [JW]

I run the SMALL event up in Ottawa, Canada. I've been getting requests to see what engines are currently 2006-legal for SMALL events. I.e. .30 4-strokes and or FX .32 2-stroke -- as some people have seen the .35 limit allowed for C-L.

Any help would be appreciated! The Dynamic Hobbies SMALL event hosted by the Ottawa remote Control Club of Canada is set for Saturday, July 15, 2006. The last 3 years we've been getting about 50 registered pilots.

P.S.: I have a new design called "Orville", created with SMALL events in mind! I am busy working to possibly get a laser-cut short kit made available. Here are the specifications:

Wing span 50"; Wing area 425" sq in; Engine O.S. FX.25 Weight approx 3 lbs; Radio 4-channel with 5 HS-81 servos. Ken

... Ken, thanks for your inquiry -- though it's one that I find it awkward providing a definitive answer to. We've had this sort of query in SMALL quite a few times over the years.

To recap: The original scope of the informal group that Randy & I started, and later christened S.M.A.L.L., was limited to 1/2A power. Of course, since .06's and even .074's were loosely included in the "1/2A" category, we admitted those as well.

Next, inasmuch as we were purely non-competitive, there seemed no reason not to expand to .099 power. After all, for years that was my own favorite-displacement model motor...

And so it went. Every time Randy & I agreed to a larger-size limit on SMALL-eligible engines, somebody would come along and ask for even higher limits.

Randy & I decided that to stop the escalation. After all, our main idea was to encourage building & flying model planes of non-threatening size, speed, and noise output -- models that could and WOULD be flown in parks and schoolyards. We determined we'd stop at .25 MAXIMUM.

THEN guys pleaded, "How about the O.S. .26 4-stroke ? It's way less powerful & noisy than, say, a Cipolla .25..." So we gave in once again -- but made up our minds: NO MORE CUBIC INCHES !

...As for the .35 limit for control-line: that was a "special dispensation" purely for the Little Rock annual events. We did that in honor of Betty Fox, who was a staunch supporter of the Little Rock events, and always attended them right up to her death. Anyway, ONLY the Fox .35 was eligible -- and that engine really put out less power than a 1951 K&B .19.

(The Fox .35 had been deliberately under-designed by Duke Fox to make it suitable for powering the control-liners we all flew every non-rainy Wednesday night in the late 1940's and early '50's under the lights at San Fernando Park -- a location right at the edge of a residential zone...)

BUT !!!!! I've attended many a SMALL meet over the last 20 years, and at NONE of them did I ever see anyone checking engine sizes. We always used the Honor System. I've never known anyone to be refused the right to fly at a SMALL meet. And I HAVE seen models with big engines brought to the field. Their owners just wanted to show them off statically...

So there you have it, Ken ! [JW]

How should the fuel tank be positioned in a model with an inverted engine ? Also, what about starting technique ? I had difficulty in my last model (a taildragger with an inverted motor) with fuel draw as it climbed. I also want to get others' points of view, especially in relation to the TD .049.

My goal is to understand the basics so I can properly set up a fuel tank/engine installation and then have it run reliably. Inverted engines fit so well into cowlings; my problem is just getting over the associated challenges.

Milton Dickey has done an excellent job in modifying TD .049's by using SureStart cylinders along with choking down the intake and slightly improving fuel draw. This is also on my to-do list.

...Brian, I've used inverted engine installations a lot, from 1946 on. They're easy to cowl in neatly; and for control-line stunt flying they offer crash protection for the engine head, since it's shielded by the landing gear.

The fuel tank should be located exactly as it would be for an upright installation. That is, with the top of the tank just slightly above the centerline of the spraybar.

That means the tank needs to be lower in the fuselage than it would be for an upright engine. True, a high tank location CAN be made to work. However, that means the fuel outflow will be "gravity assisted". It'll drain out via the spraybar's fuel orifice any time when the newly-refueled model sits with its engine not running.

Another consideration of non-running inverted engines is that in a short time oil will pool in the glow plug element cavity. To prevent the starting problems that can cause, a couple of precautions can be taken. One is to remove the plug.

Another is to store the idle model upside down -- or with its nose pointing vertically.

For starting 1/2A engines without mufflers, I always primed my inverted motors at their exhaust ports, with the piston covering the ports. That prevents flooding. Enough fuel remains in the port area (from the liquid "meniscus" that forms where the fuel meets the blocked opening) for starting purposes.

Except when starting, inverted engines function just the same as they do upright. In fact, I've found that they don't seem to load up their crankcases so much while idling as upright motors do. That's probably because their intakes point downward, so that any excess fuel delivered at the spraybar orifice while slow running can drain away, instead of being sucked into the case. [JW]

In the Nov '91 issue of Aeromodeller magazine I've found sketches for a variable-pitch (rubber-power) prop designed by Cezar Banks. If anyone wants a scan of these, contact me directly. Ian

SMALLnet Posting post461