SCAT Electronic News 15 November 2001 issue 645
- Details
- Category: Archive 2001
- Hits: 1333
SCAT Electronic News 15 November 2001 issue 645
Table of Contents
=================
Searching for p-20 plans - Ogura
Lost at the USFFC - Buntnelli
Bird Sections - Pudney
Gibbons Update - Murphy and Maves
Suprised Hermann - Andresen
Re: thin sections - Salzer
Satellite 600 or Roger, How do I post or perhaps you can help - Clark
Re: F1C participation by Frank Menanno. - Blackam
CG - Brokenspar
Searching for p-20 plans
=========================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Hi to all:
I'm searching plans and rules to build a p-20 rubber powered model, can
anybody help?
Please contact me at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Thanks in advance.
Claudio Ogura -Buenos Aires Argentina.
Lost at the USFFC
=================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Roger:
During the USFFC a set of keys were dropped on the field close to
the parking area. The keychain has an M on it.
If found please return to Maryvonne or me; we'll be there for the
Patterson this coming weekend.
Thank you in advance
Ernesto Busnelli
Bird Sections
=============
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
I seem to remember a European F1A flyer in the 60's or early 70's who used a
bird derived section with some considerable success. The wing appeared to
have a large diameter tubular spar which really protruded from the underside
of the section. There was a thumbnail 3 view in Aero-muddler at the time.
Bill Pudney
Adelaide, Australia
Gibbons Update
==============
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Hello Roger,
The following message is based on first hand observations of Bill's
condition by Roger Maves.
Bill Gibbons has suffered a stroke on November 5. Bill seems to be holding
his own and is stable at this time. His left side remains paralyzed, yet he
has a strong grip in his left hand. He can only say a few words which are
not easily understood. Can hear and comprehend what is being said and can
write short phrases or words which most of the time are not intelligible.
Can read some, but it is apparently tiring for him since he does not do it
for any length of time.
Greg, his son, has been in touch with the doctors. who expressed hope that
Bill would be speaking and walking in a couple of months.
Right now Bill needs encouragement from his friends expressed in cards and
short letters.
His mailing address is Bill Gibbons, % Boswell Extended Care Center, 10401
West Thunderbird Blvd. Sun City, AZ 85351.
Telephone: 602-876-5364 or 602-876-5392
There is not anything that we can to do except encourage him and pray for
recovery.
Jerry Murphy, AMA 917
Dist IX FFCB
9 Via Escondido Valle
Manitou Springs, CO 80829
Voice;719-685-3766
FAX; 719-685-3745
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Suprised Hermann
================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Roger,
Guess I was so flustered with someone reading one of my articles that I
omitted some sage advise given by Pete Vacco some 50yr ago. Pete was an
innovator, using 26" dia props on old unlimited rubber wt Wakefields among
other things.
For wing construction, Pete quoted a reliable source that indicated a smooth
hollow sheet wing was 20% better than builtup. But his really great
suggestion was to make a 6-9" span sample of the proposed construction.
This really has many advantages as you can weigh individual components, see
where the chordwise CG is etc. Is also possible to bend and twist and note
any obvious problems.
An extension of this is to glue 2 different sample sections together and get
relative wt by checking spanwise balance point. Also torsional stiffness
with the twist the tips test and see the relative deflection.
In those BC (Before Carbon) days, it was possible to check bending stiffness
as well.
Anyhow it can be a very informative KISS test.
Keep up the good work,
H
Re: thin sections
=================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Using outside ribs to keep an airfoil section is standard usage in the
so-called "jedelsky" wings, and they seem not to hurt glide performance too
much.
Having used this type of glider wings for some time I found a different
effect: trying to make lighter wings I made a built-up wing to the same
dimensions as my successful Jedelsky type glider, using a Benedek 8356b
airfoil.
The glide was OK, but I could not get good circling properties, neither was
the transition from a hard launch up to my expectations..
Poosible reason: the Jedelsky plane was using a stick fuselage with a tiny
pylon to which the wing was attached.Nearly no side area to speak of. This
fuselage obviously hat too little side area for a conventional wing. The
outside ribs seem to have provided what was necessary! Going to a fuselage
with a more conventional nose area improved things considerably with the
built-up version.
So, if you think of using outside ribs, you might need to change the lateral
area!
Maybe the reduced power in F1B (30g) will get some people to try this
approach? Be interesting to hear about results!
Klaus W. Salzer
Satellite 600 or Roger, How do I post or perhaps you can help
===============================================================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Hello,
I am trying to get a Satellite 600 plan. The one that is like what Randy
Archer was flying. I got one from NFFS years ago but it was an Early
Satellite, Not GLH type.
I am flying with Nelson's now and my stretched 450 to a 525 sq.in. wing goes
wheyey up there but I think the glide suffers a bit. I feel a 600 would be
best for the Nelson 19, 21 combination.
Any help appreciated.
Thanks, Robert Clark
[Robert
you do what you did - jsut e-mail it to:
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.]
Re: F1C participation by Frank Menanno.
=======================================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Let me start this reply by stating that I have flown and will probably
continue to fly F1C competitively in Australia (to a reasonable
standard)..
I agree that the spectacle of the F1C flyoff at the WC was great, but no
better or more exciting than any I have seen at previous WC. Flyoffs in
all the major classes (if you understand what is going on) at WC level
are almost always incredibly exciting.
The comment
>F1C has less competitors because
>it's harder,
is in my opinion partly incorrect. I fly F1C and also F1B and F1A. Each
class is equally difficult to do at a good standard. The only difference
with F1C is that it is more often unforgiving if you make a mistake, but
then I have seen F1A's bunt into the ground and do some fairly total
damage as well. There is no doubt that this perception turns people of
F1C.
However, the thing that will surely kill F1C by rapidly reducing the
number of remaining competitors is that it IS now much more expensive.
There is no denying this. You cannot compete without a good motor and
prior to gears this was an outlay of US$2-300 per model. Now it is an
outlay of US$7-800 per geared motor.
Of course, Bernard Boutillier is quite right in his comments; now that
geared engines can get us almost as high as the previous 7 second run
(maybe even higher) will the run be reduced again? To 3 seconds? Is this
a 'power' event? As sure as the sun rises, the more you shorten the run
the more critical will be the need to have the best engine. Just as in
F1B the more you reduce the rubber weight available, the more critical
will be the best rubber batch.
Surely there are ways to reduce power and then allow a longer engine run
again. What about a venturi size restriction? This is done in Control
Line.
>as for the price of new technologies (geared
>motors) the free market will work on them as time goes on.
Just as it has for the best F1B or F1A components? None of those items
has really reduced in price. Mostly the reverse. The free market only
works effectively when there is adequate competition between suppliers.
Will only 2 suppliers of geared engines (and a very small potential
market) provide adequate competition? I don't think so. And you can't
blame the suppliers. They are providing a specialist product to an
incredible quality in tiny numbers.
For those countries which have experienced a rapidly declining local
currency against the greenback it is almost impossible to see a future
for F1C. For we in Australia, the local currency has fallen from
75UScents to 50UScents per Australian dollar over the past couple of
years. Since most 'innovations' come with US dollar price tags, that
means it is becoming rapidly impossible for the average person to afford
the best equipment in order to compete at a high level.
That US$800 geared engine is really $1600 Australian. The real cost of
living in Australia and the US is similar (ie a hamburger in Australia
and the US have about the same dollar 'number' on them). Let me ask the
US fliers, if that geared motor was US$1600 (with all the other parts
similarly doubled), how many could afford a fleet of 5 or 6?
I LOVE technology. That's why I started flying F1C in 1987. It's also why
I was experimenting with bunt gliders in 1988, why I built my first
DPR/Variable Pitch F1B in 1987.
Because I do love technology I am seriously concerned that F1C is rapidly
dying everywhere in the world (but perhaps not so quickly in the US). It
would be very interesting to know what proportion of active F1C flyers
around the world attend the WC. I know it is a low proportion with F1A
and B but I'll bet that not too many F1C fliers are left at home during a
WC...
The challenge is not to be blind to the problem. There are solutions
which retain the cutting edge character of these sports but will enhance
participation.
Richard Blackam
CG
==
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
So, here comes whining willy about CG and Brokenspar having ' lost it '
First, Willy, spell the name right. Brodersen ! Broderson is a Swede.
The difference between a Dane and a Swede is that the Swedes have a
flying field... ( Malm"o )
Your experiments are pathetic ! Here's how you do it...
You get one of those little stickers ( looks kinda like a BMW Logo
without the lettering )
and put it on the side of the fuselage or pylon, under the wing
at about the middle of the wing cord ( chord ? )
Then, you hand glide the model in tall grass, and if it dives in, but
some balsa under the stab
trailing edge. If it stalls, either add weight to the nose, or file away
part of the back end
of the boom. When you get a good glide, you got it ! Put some fuel
proof tape over the CG Logo.
I have a supply of CG Stickers. They are Black on White background, .5
Inch Dia ( no metric ),
self adhesive. Ten per sheet, die cut ( kiss cut ).
Send five* dollars: Brokenspar, Inc. Box 1104, Birmingham, Michigan,
48012, USA
USD only. Wrap the bills in aluminum foil, like everyone else does.
Brokenspar
* Overseas and Canada, 28 USD
...................
Roger Morrell
