SEN 765 - 13 Dec 2002

SCAT Electronic News 13 December 2002 issue 765

Table of Contents
The Rubber controversy and FAI supply - Laffler
Royono/folders (?) - Mosely
Up the Pole - Coleman
Rubber supplies - Andre
Xmas from .. - W-Hobby
Servo info - Tapio
About Rubber - Linkosalo
Re:RN sensitive airfoils. - H
Update Desert Challenge 2003

The Rubber controversy and FAI supply
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

krine Laffler AMA859
I have to add my two cents to the frey.The person that said Ed Dolby;
did not test each box of rubber is correct but also there was never any controv
ersy of a "select PRODUCT";or someone getting better or worse rubber than
the next guy..You got the next box off the shelf whether you were the President
or worked in Mc Donald's. I have stopped flying F1B and have two new models
uncovered because for two years I have not been lucky enough to be able to
obtain rubber that would seem to give me even a competitive chance so I have,
come up with what I feel is the simplest of all solutions to the dilemma...
Have the rubber provided by the contest director on the field with all
out competitors sharing the same batch and ALL WEIGHED ON THE SAME SCALE!
Now that sure does make everyman(or woman) equal.It then becomes the flyer
and the model and not
the problem that I can only get 420 turns and the guy next to mme is getting
over six hundred in his super select batch form maggies deep freeze!
The the guy who now gets six hundred turns knows more about the sport and
deserves to win; because he will be the best modeler on that given day
thus eliminating people winning because they have stores of select rubber
taking the; competitive edge out of the hobby and this certainly; looms
as a major discouragement to any one trying to break in from the outside
because it appears the door is already closed.We are all getting to be a
bunch of old men and where is the next generation,particularly if the next
generation all of a sudden had to build their own airplanes as all of us did..
it appears to me it would all be over; anyways....
but that is another subject altogether.

My comments are not in critcism of FAI Supply or anyone that is lucky enough
to have tucked away some "super Stuff" but it is an objective approach on how
to resolve a delema which seems to be on all competitive flyers mind and has
stirred up a great amount of controversy.If we all have our spoon in the
same bowl of soup then it would certainly, from the
power level make everyone equal..
for myself I find the thought quite fascenating since there is only one person
in control of success or failure and that is the flyer hinself!
iF ;the desire is to level the playing field this would definitely be the
answer!Order 5 lbs for the contest and every flyer shares the cost; and
gets to fly with the same power as his neighbor!

[More editorial stuff ...

While not wishing to start any contraversy ...

Ed Dolby did test the rubber. He had people help him. One of those people
still tests for John Clapp. You cannot be in that business with
out doing it. He advised John when John bought the business
not to tell people what batch they were getting - just to say it
was the next box in the stack.

Ed told people that you just got the next box. That was not true
as back in '93 there were two batches of rubber that he called
August '93 and it depended who you were which batch you got.i
I know people who went to Ed's shop at the same time and clearly
got different rubber

I believe that now days you have a much greater likely hood of getting
good rubber than in the earlier days. ]

Royono/folders (?)
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Thanks to Bob S for response re 'Royono' and to anyone else who might
have given thught to it. Now have a copy of the MAN plan en route to me
from a member of another List.

Looking at a photo of a rubber model with folding wings (from 1943,
yet..) I'm now idly wondering how folders are legal in FAI classes.

Rules obviously set well defined, narrow limits for total
maximum/minimum surface area(s) to keep models on a common basis; surely
a F1C folder has a total area well below the minimum when configured for
the power phase of the flight so how is it acceptable?

Just curious, no axe to grind, quite possibly the situation is covered
by addendums to the basic FAI rules.

Rubber supplies
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

John Barkers comments on the rubber situation come straight from my heart.
The focus of the rubber company should indeed be on consistency rather than
maximum energy. The company clearly has problems controlling the
manufacturing process itself. In the past we did not have such severe
problems with delaminations, air bubbles and energy variation within the
same batch. The rubber of recent years sheds all strands at once
(particularly at higher temperatures) rather than a few strands at a time.
The violent shock damages the models. Indoor flyers complain of their models
blowing up in flight after launch. That is no fun.

I hope the rubber company will focus on the following objectives:
- consistent energy level from batch to batch
- consistent and improved durability
- improved temperature resistance
- less violent behaviour at breakage
- improved quality with respect to mixing process, delaminations, air
bubbles, etc.

Our sport is about model flying, it is not a rubber competition. Although I
am very excited by the higher climbs my models achieve, I am also much more
concerned about damaging or loosing them. Our local field is surrounded by
woods and the risk of landing in these has increased. In Holland we are now
considering to introduce guidelines for contest organizers about better
choice of launch positions for Wakefield contests.

I appreciate Rogers comments on behalf of John Clapp. I trust Johns efforts
are aimed at satisfying the needs of his customers, but I bet the majority
of them prefer improved consistency rather than increased energy content.

Wish I still had some of the october 96 rubber. That was stuff that I liked:
decent energy level, fairly high launch torque and not fragile!

Thedo Andre
The Netherlands

Xmas from ..
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Dear Fre Flight Friends,

W-Hobby Free Flight wishes you Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
It is our tradition to offer the special prices for Holiday season, and so
once again W-Hobby gives away 10% Discount for ALL products.

Please visit our site at
or (for those with no JAVA support)
and find the best parts for your FF models at the lowest prices.

Offer is valid till the 31st of December 2002.

Vidas Nikolajevas
& W Hobby Free Flight

Up the Pole
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Collapsible Crappie poles available at fishing supply houses, make good
thermal poles.
Roger C.

Servo info
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

> In one of the latest SCAT SEN issues you mention a Cirrius CS 10 servo
> available from Hobby People I believe. Done either Cirrius or Hobby People
> have a web sight? How doe it compare to the Hitec HS-50?

I have not used Cirrus/GWS myself, but have heard of people having trouble
in cold (below freezing) temperatures, with servos slowing down or
stopping. In my F1H I use Simprop SES85, and that works pretty well down
to -20C with 4-cell NiCad. For F1B, where I plan to use Lithium-Ions for
weight saving, the lower voltage brings trouble to SES, but here Hitec
HS-50 seems to work (at least in the freezer, have not made actual flight
testing yet). People use HS-50's in RC-HLG with 3-cell NiCads.


About rubber
Sender : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

> Am I alone in wanting John Clapp to concentrate on consistency of energy
> content even if this is a few percent below the maximum that could be
> obtained?

No, I agree that consistency would be even more important than high energy
content. But then, would consistent quality of rubber be any easier goal
to achieve than maximum energy content? I doubt that.

As a foreigner I've been always satisfied with the way John keeps the
playing field level, selling the good rubber to anyone, domestic or
foreign, champion or joe-the-average.


Foreigner is not PC - should read International Sportsman !]

Re:RN sensitive airfoils.
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.


Guess I shouldn't be surprised that not everyone has read "Turbulator
Alternatives" in SYMPO 2001.
The easiest way to eliminate RN sensitivity and gain performance in the
process is to use a single surface or cambered plate airfoil.
If more torsional rigidity is needed then an exposed spar on the bottom,
similar to a soaring bird tip feather should do the trick.

My opinion (supported by Hoerner & Schmitz data),


Update Desert Challenge 2003

Pyroman Peter is collecting supplies for the event.
There a some details we need to resolve the weekend
at the SCAT meeting. Update real soon now.

Roger Morrell