SEN 831- Oct 22 2003
- Details
- Category: Archive 2003
- Hits: 1115
News and Reports 2003
SCAT Electronic News 22 October 2003 issue 831
Table of Contents
=================
KC mounts and Honda 70 XRs - Ramrod250
F1P in Poland - Lorbiecki & Ossi
Tan Super Sport - Salzer
To Mike Segrave
Sierra cup ala Leeper - SweepeeteLee
SW Regionals 2004 news - Lidberg
Window Plane Airfoil - Ellis
Photo Album from rene: Sierra Cup Pictures - SweepetteLee & Limberger
Sierra Cup Results - McKeever
Maurice Bayet Coupe D'Hiver - Evatt
Re: Angles - Skykeing and Segrave
Championships scores - Kaynes
Contest date - Chesson
Re Jason Magill - Morgan
airfoils and angles - who but
Dads .... - Barr
Searching for PROFILI2 - Skykieng
Dads...... - Lorbiecki
California Invitational [Livotto]
KC mounts and Honda 70 XRs
==========================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
I'm still acquiring and using KC .061s for F1J, and Doug Galbreath has
advised that he no longer makes the Oliver-tube-style mount for them. I
have more engines than mounts and am wondering if any SEN readers have
any spares they could part with for a reasonable fee.
A word here also in praise of the Honda 70 XR as a chase bike. I bought
one this spring and have been quite pleased with it. I recommend it
highly to others. Not the biggest or most powerful bike, but it's plenty
adequate for fields like Muncie. It starts easily, runs great, and is
easier to load and unload than my Trail 110. I know Bill Shailor, Peter
Brocks, Dick Wood, and others have used this bike to good effect, and I
understand there are deals to be had on them now from Honda. I've seen
some of the larger bikes in the XR series used for chasing too, but
another advantage of the 70 is that there's no clutch to deal with --
just a three-speed foot shift -- so one-handed operation is easy.
Jim Haught
F1P in Poland
================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Hi John and John
I have seen in SEN that you are very interested of F1P contest in
Poland. Finland had no team in that category, but I looked it as a sub
committee member. There had been so much talking of F1P since the rule
had 'forced' in the CIAM meeting.
I think F1P is easier to fly than F1J? It seems to correct minor
problems after motor run to the reasonable glide better than faster J;s?
I asked the weights of the P-models. There were not many ones to
understand English. As far as I understood the models were quite heavy,
300 ... 400 g! All made by boys or family members not connected to any
'factories*?
The Serens said they are going to make larger stab to the next model.
There were some models with very large stab. They flew well when climb
was OK, but lost plenty of height when diving too fast after a not
enough vertical climb. Some times down to the ground. Needs enough
incidence?
To me Adam Strycharski with a F1P-design was the moral winner. His model
managed very well in that turbulent air. May be there was some politics
to get a suitable winner? Adams father was angry to the team manager who
put Adam to fly in bad air on the fist round (10 seconds short). The
other rounds were maxes. For the rounds 5, 6 and 7 the max was 120. The
winner Tomasz dt'ed in a few meters height one of these and landed just
in 2 minutes the other one. Adam had 20 ... 30 meters altitude dt's. So
2.30 or 3 min max had made him the champion?
I include some photos of F1P's in small size because of my modem. If you
want some larger, ask.
Best wishes to you project
See you in France Ossi Kilpelainen
Tan Super Sport
================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
I have been flying Super Sport (sent to me in March 2003) all through
summer and found it if not good then useable. This, however, stopped in the
last contests when we flew at temperatures below 15 ° Centigrade. The rubber
then performed well during the burst, but the cruise phase was definitely
below par. So I will have to leave it in the box for next year ...
Has anybody similar experiences with later batches of the Super Sport?
BTW: I also maded some flights on regular Tan Sport: Not bad for testing
planes, but definitely below even Super Sport.
Klaus W. Salzer
To Mike Segrave
===============
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Due to failure of the direct line...
WindowPlane airfoil has 6.3 percent mean camber at 0.40 chord, 6 percent thick.
Mike, more than
10 mails returned undelivered. Amities. JW.
Sierra cup ala Leeper
=====================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Thanks Arno,
It was a very fine comp, really two comps, since Sierra Petite[ Am Cup] was pri
or, on Thursday.
I took 5th there and might have been higher, except I did not set DT time for 5
min!
My Red 5 Li'l AL DTed going up at 185sec...oh well.
The final order was: Brian VN, Victor S, Peter Brocks, Rene L, then myself in 5
th pl, with Vasi 6th.
Friday was for the Sierra Cup Mini events. I flew my H'AL, which is going and
towing much better since I cut the curly ear blocks nearly off! I maxed out ag
ain, then launched near end of FO rd...only to dive to the ground from 60+meter
s!!! It was not hurt [ ! ], but found the battery was flat, since I had forgot
ten to charge it!
I am making up a preflight check list to change my ways!
In the Sierra Cup [Sat] the day was very good, yet a harder test than the prior
days. More entries in glider but less maxouts than on Thurs...5 of 20+ vs 6 o
f ~14.
I used Red 5 thru rd 3, then White Babe thru the FO.
In the 5min FO I followed Vasi upwind a little, saw his bird hold on line 3 cir
cles but he did not go.
When that air arrived I went on my 2nd circle in it, with maybe 3 min remainin
g. It climbed away nicely and Pierre, Rene and Brian all went in same air, sin
ce only 2 min were left in rd. To our surprise, Brian and my White Babe droppe
d out in some disturbance over the low area near the fence and gully eastward.
Only Rene and Pierre maxed to go on. My time was 285 for 3rd, with Brian at a
bout 230 sec.
It was nearing 6pm when they went for 7 min. I ran with Rene upwind to the high
ground near sheep pen and
Sunrise Blvd, waiting for the air til only 1 min remained when he launched very
high. Pierre had stayed on the
skin and launched earlier looking quite good, but we did not have a clue as to
his fate[399sec it turned out],
as we were about .5k upwind.
Rene's Baby AL was really flying great and seemed to start holding at 2 min, th
en slowly went up as
it went east, to DT at maybe 150 meters after the max!
A beaut flight to end the day and Rene was over the moon!
Ciao,
Leeper
SW Regionals 2004 news
======================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
I just sent this note to Steve Kaluf, the AMA Technical Director:
"Steve:
The listings for our 3 Southwest Regionals contests at Eloy, Arizona, on 17,
18 & 19 JAN 04 on the AMA competitions webpages have some problems - none of
the write-in events are listed, which means that my contest [AMA FF - sanction
# 04-0020; don't know the other numbers] lists only about half of the events,
the FAI contest [John Nystedt CD] is missing one - F1P, and the RC Old Timer
contest [Bob Angus CD] shows no events at all [they are all write-in SAM
events].
In addition, because SWR 2004 AMA FF has been designated a National Cup
'Exempt' contest, we have added a number of National Cup events:
Nostalgia Rubber
Nostalgia Wakefield
AMA rubber Moffett
AMA Classic Power 1/2A
Classic power AB
Classic power CD
Nostalgia Power 1/4A
Nostalgia Power Early 1/2A
In the FAI contest, we added F1P.
In the RC Old Timer contest, we have added:
Electric Rubber LMR
Electric Wakefield LMR
Foxacoy.
This is a lot of info, but I do have a couple more notes:
-Please add the note about SWR 2004 AMA FF being a National Cup Exempt
contest.
-For RC Old Timer, please add a note: Rules for new events can be obtained
from the contest director.
Thanks, and I hope you can get all this added to MA magazine for at least the
issues published in late November and December.
AL
A. A. Lidberg Southwest Regionals contest manager
www.aalmps.com"
The new events listed here for AMA FF will be done as no fee / certificate
awards / Nat Cup points.
AL
A. A. Lidberg model plan service
www.aalmps.com - see SW Regionals webpages at:
www.aalmps.com/swrintro.htm
Window Plane Airfoil
=====================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Mike Segrave,
The "Window Plane" P-30 airfoil has been the B6356b. My recent thinking
has been that this airfoil has way too much camber for this application.
It is very draggy. The climb could be much better and the glide has been
called more of a "controlled parachute" than a glide. My next plane will
use a typical Coupe or Wakefield airfoil with far less camber.
On flying angles-> Typically planes use 3.5 degrees of geometric
incidence between the stab and the wing. The aerodynamic incidence is
the angle between the two airfoils' "zero lift angle of attack" and,
since the wing is usually more heavily cambered than the stab, a couple
of degrees of aerodynamic incidence is added due to camber. An
additional factor affecting incidence is the downwash off the wing.
These three affects - geometric incidence, incidence due to camber and
wing downwash - result in the wing flying at about six degrees of lift
greater than the stab. The stab flies close to zero degrees angle of
attack and the wing flies close to six. By close I mean +/- two degrees.
When people talk about zero-zero incidence, they are only talking about
geometric incidence. A hand-launched glider, for example, is usually
built at zero-zero. However, in a hand-launched glider the wing is
highly cambered and the stab is flat. The result is a significant
aerodynamic incidence. For a slow speed flight and reasonable
longitudinal stability lift must be much lower on the stab than on the
wing.
Art Ellis
Photo Album from rene: Sierra Cup Pictures
============================================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Hi Roger,
Rene took these while in Sacto for the comps and wants to share with the SEN re
adership.
For those who have interest, the three comp days he and I were flying[Thurs, Fr
i, Sat]were
'Bluebird days' as R. Morrell likes to call them.
Most of the major players were in attendance and the flying was top grade throu
ghout.
In the Sierra Cup the winners were: Rene Limberger[F1A], Alex Andriukov[F1B, of
course] and
some new guy, E Verbitsky[F1C]sneaked in for the win.
In F1H, 10 year old Ryan Archer[familiar sir name]continues to show promise wit
h a flyoff spot and
a fine 4th place.
My compliments to the Sierra Eagles MAC, especially Mike McKeever and Craig Cus
ick for the
fine job of organization they performed.
We surely hope for future continuation of their competition, in light of the co
nstruction looming to the north
of the power lines.
Ciao,
Leeper,
SCAT Scribe
--- Lee Hines
--- This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
--- EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real Internet.
----- Original Message -----
From:
To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Sent: 10/19/03 9:18:41 PM
Subject: Photo Album from rene: Sierra Cup Pictures
rene's album
Sierra Cup
1 of 89 photos
Hi Friends,
please enjoy my sierra cup photo album. Below, please click on "View Images" (o
range). once you are on the album site, click on "View Photos" (blue) (you don'
t need to sing in). Next, a slideshow window should pop up and you can scroll t
hru the photos. Have fun!
Rene
Instructions: Click view photos to begin. If you're an existing Ofoto member yo
u'll be asked to sign in. If not, you can join Ofoto for free.
If you cannot see the links above, copy and paste the following URL directly in
to your browser: http://www.ofoto.com/I.jsp?c=eoqiaot.xfj34sd&x=0&y=-9ixv67
Questions? Visit http://help.ofoto.com.
Sierra Cup Results
===================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
EVENT SIERRA CUP SCORING SHEET 2003
F1A
NAME COUNTRY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 FO1 FO2 Total Place
Limberger, R USA 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 300 420 1980 1
Brun, P USA 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 300 397 1957 2
Hines, L USA 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 285 1545 3
Van Nest, B USA 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 206 1466 4
Beschasny, V UKR 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 200 1460 5
Cooper, J GBR 180 180 161 180 180 180 180 1241 6
Puhuttka, R USA 180 180 167 180 180 180 169 1236 7
Allnut, P USA 180 180 180 133 180 180 180 1213 8
Coussens, T USA 180 162 180 180 180 180 122 1184 9
Brock, P USA 180 180 132 180 180 180 148 1180 10
Stamov, V UKR 180 180 91 180 180 180 180 1171 11
Terzian, F USA 180 168 180 180 180 180 82 1150 12
Parker, J USA 180 180 165 66 180 180 180 1131 13
Coussens, B USA 76 180 180 180 180 180 119 1095 14
Pecenlovic, E USA 180 180 180 180 27 180 120 1047 15
Smith, N USA 180 180 180 180 180 26 89 1015 16
Carroll, E USA DNF DNF DNF 180 112 DNF 58 350 17
Zink, D USA 117 0 DNF DNF DNf DNF DNF 117 18
EVENT SIERRA CUP SCORING SHEET 2003
F1B
NAME COUNTRY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 FO1 FO2 Total Place
Andriukov, A USA 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 300 420 1980 1
Rouyter, P NED 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 300 371 1931 2
Anselmo, Z NED 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 300 362 1922 3
Fitch, J USA 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 300 351 1911 4
Kosciarz, J POL 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 300 335 1895 5
Kolich, I YUG 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 300 320 1880 6
Rohrke, R USA 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 300 274 1834 7
Norvall, L USA 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 300 270 1830 8
Maklin, J NZL 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 292 1552 9
Ghio, W USA 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 287 1547 10
Kulakovsky, O UKR 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 282 1542 11
Piserchio, B USA 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 263 1523 12
Crowley, P USA 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 251 1511 13
Davis, M USA 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 244 1504 14
Schroedter, M USA 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 239 1499 15
Nelson, E USA 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 229 1489 16
Wood, D USA 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 104 1364 17
Jones, C USA 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 29 1289 18
Jensen, B USA 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 22 1282 19
Kudla, E POL 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 1260 20
Peck, J USA 180 180 180 179 180 180 180 1259 21
Kolich, P YUG 180 180 180 180 180 180 171 1251 22
Batuik, G USA 180 180 180 166 180 180 180 1246 23
Scheiman, P USA 180 180 180 150 180 180 180 1230 24
Cooney, R USA 180 180 180 128 180 180 180 1208 25
Borland, C USA 180 180 180 163 144 180 180 1207 26
Emery, J USA 180 180 180 133 180 138 180 1171 27
Morrell, R USA 180 180 180 180 180 180 53 1133 28
Clapp, J USA 180 38 180 180 180 180 180 1118 29
Khuziev, R RUS 180 180 180 180 180 149 DNF 1049 30
Pratt, J USA 180 142 180 28 132 180 180 1022 31
Bukin, A RUS 180 180 180 180 101 DNF DNF 821 32
EVENT SIERRA CUP SCORING SHEET 2003
F1C
NAME OUNTRY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 FO1 FO2 FO3 Total Place
Verbitsky, E UKR 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 300 420 546 2526 1
Archer, R USA 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 300 420 492 2472 2
Galbreath, D USA 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 300 409 1969 3
Gutai, R USA 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 300 392 1952 4
Johannes, B USA 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 300 364 1924 5
Simpson, Roger USA 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 300 344 1904 6
Kirkenko, A USA 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 300 320 1880 7
Shirley, D USA 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 265 1525 8
Servaites, B USA 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 263 1523 9
Halliday, D USA 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 1260 10
Roberts, M USA 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 1260 10
Simpson, Reid USA 180 180 180 180 180 172 180 1252 12
Nyuegn, H DAN 180 180 180 180 146 180 180 1226 13
Joyce, D USA 180 180 180 180 180 85 180 1165 14
Happersett, K USA 180 180 180 180 180 180 38 1118 15
Johannes, D USA 180 180 180 34 DNF DNF DNF 574 16
Carroll, E USA 180 180 113 DNF DNF DNF DNF 473 17
EVENT SIERRA CUP SCORING SHEET 2003
F1J
NAME COUNTRY 1 2 3 4 5 FO1 FO2 FO3 Total Place
Carroll, E USA 120 120 120 120 120 180 300 576 1656 1
Servaites, B USA 120 120 120 120 120 180 300 555 1635 2
Shirley, D USA 120 120 120 120 120 180 300 481 1561 3
Gutai, B USA 120 120 120 120 120 180 300 466 1546 4
Haught, J USA 120 120 120 120 120 180 300 297 1377 5
Roberts, M USA 120 120 120 120 120 180 246 1026 6
Johannes, D USA 120 120 120 120 120 180 227 1007 7
Oliver, K USA 120 120 120 120 120 127 727 8
Nyhegn, H DAN 120 120 120 120 120 94 694 9
Muther, J USA 53 87 111 86 28 365 10
Lynch, B USA 96 DNF DNF DNF DNF 96 11
EVENT SIERRA CUP SCORING SHEET 2003
F1H
NAME COUNTRY 1 2 3 4 5 FO1 FO2 FO3 Total Place
McKeever, M USA 120 120 120 120 120 180 300 255 1335 1
Cooper, J GBR 120 120 120 120 120 180 300 162 1242 2
Brun, P USA 120 120 120 120 120 180 251 1031 3
Archer, R USA 120 120 120 120 120 161 761 4
Hines, L USA 120 120 120 120 120 10 610 5
Beschasny, V UKR 120 120 99 120 120 579 6
Stamov, V UKR 120 120 93 120 120 573 7
Parker, J USA 120 120 73 120 120 553 8
Norton, B USA 120 120 101 90 120 551 9
Terzian, F USA 120 103 76 120 120 539 10
Smith, N USA 120 74 120 120 91 525 11
Van Nest, B USA 107 120 120 0 120 467 12
Zink, D USA 117 DNF DNF DNF DNF 117 13
EVENT SIERRA CUP SCORING SHEET 2003
F1G
NAME COUNT 1 2 3 4 5 FO1 FO2 FO3 Total Place
Clapp, J USA 120 120 120 120 120 180 300 257 1337 1
Davis, B USA 120 120 120 120 120 180 300 226 1306 2
Emery, J USA 120 120 120 120 120 180 259 1039 3
Bukin, A RUS 120 120 120 120 120 180 243 1023 4
Anselmo, Z NED 120 120 120 120 120 180 240 1020 5
White, B USA 120 120 120 120 120 180 214 994 6
Cole, H USA 120 120 120 120 120 180 179 959 7
Wood, D USA 120 120 120 120 120 180 154 934 8
Schroedter, G USA 120 120 120 120 120 121 721 9
Schroedter, M USA 120 120 120 120 120 119 719 10
Norvall, L USA 120 120 120 120 120 113 713 11
Jones, C USA 120 120 120 119 120 599 12
Brocks, P USA 120 114 120 119 120 593 13
Nelson, E USA 104 120 120 120 120 584 14
Crowley, P USA 120 86 120 120 111 557 15
Cooney, R USA 120 105 89 120 120 554 16
Ruyter, P NED 120 72 120 120 120 552 17
Davis, M USA 120 70 90 120 90 490 18
Maurice Bayet Coupe D'Hiver
===========================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Hi Roger,
Information urgently required
I wonder if any of your readers know when the Maurice Bayet Coupe D'Hiver
Competition in France will be held in 2004, it is usually February - but
which weekend?? It was also suggested there was to be an F1B event also I
believe run by P.A.M.
I would be grateful for any enlightenment.
Many Thanks
Mike Evatt UK
Re: Angles
==========
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
----- Original Message -----
From: "michael segrave"
To:
Cc:
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 5:21 AM
Subject: Angles
> Hi, Bill
>
> I have received a number of replies on the subject but none of them seem
to
> have grasped the nettle.
> The real explanation of the problem can be illustrated by the following.
> Take a normal design and set the wing and stab at zero and place the CG at
> its usual position. Now hand glide the ship. It will glide VERY steeply to
> the ground,right? Now add some negative to the stab. The flight pattern
will
> now be better than a steep dive and more like a glide. What is happening?
> The wing is flying at a higher angle of attack? If so then the stab must
> still be flying at zero or very close to zero for the sake of this
> experiment.
Yes, I follow you.
> Now increase the negative on the stab some more and the glide will be even
> better. Is the stab still flying at zero? This would appear to be the case
> as the wing must be flying at a higher angle of attack to produce the
better
> glide. Perhaps this can be determined by watching the angle that the
> fuselage makes with the ground. In my recollection, a setup with the wing
at
> zero and the stab very negative shows a fuse at a steep(!) positive angle
so
> the stab must still be flying at zero or close.
Okay.
> Increasing the negative to 6 degrees should show a very marked positive
> angle for the fuse so confirming that the stab is still at zero.
Yes, The fuslelage nose will be angled up to the relative wind. A DTing
model is an extreme example. But there are other factors involved that must
be taken into consideration.
> If you do the reverse and increase the incidence of the wing, the results
> can not be so easily observed in the fuselage as its change in angle is
much
> smaller, unless the wing is set at 6 degrees or even more. *Increasing the
> angle to say ten degrees might show the fuse at a very NEGATIVE angle if
> wings, all of them , glide at 6 degrees according to Zaic.
Yes. The ship will glide with the nose down.
> Regards
> Mike S
Mike, I think the "problem" that you are posing is more apparent than real.
I think I did grasp the nettle (is that a stinging handle?) Take a closer
look at my first reply. I do have first-hand experience with this type of
angulation. On normal "Flappers" the situation is similar to what you
describe. When the flaps comes down the incidence angle of the wing is
increased in a ratio to the deflection. That is why an autostab is generally
needed to re-align the decalage -- by dropping the rear of the stab to
accomodate the shift. The "normal" flapper does glide with the nose down
in the sense that it heads straight into the relative wind. (there is a way
to change the camber by raising the section at the hinge and thus not making
gross changes in the incidence)
Now to the mirror example of fuselage tilt --which I have equally
experienced with my work with "Folders". The symmetrical wing mode of a
Folder is set at zero along with the stab. When the wing opens up the wing
is still fixed at zero so the stab needs added decalage --that is, raised up
in the rear. The re-trimmed Folder must glide with the fuselage nose-up to
the relative wind. (according to the late Raul Hoffman, Author of "Model
Aerodynamics Made Painless", the increased lift from the body about balances
the drag produced, so it is a wash)
So, Mike, what is the big deal here? The fuselage is merely a means to tie
the stab and wing together, and whether it tilts up or down to the airstream
is incidental.
Zaic's 6 degee angle is not universally the best. The optimum angle for
glide is the one that yields the highest power factor for the airfoil
chosen. Some airfoils have have their prime angle at 3 degrees. This should
not be the maximum Lift to Drag ratio but rather the maximum value of CL 3/2
Cd. (on some model foils the two angles are very close) You can check any
foil that you are interested in on the Profili2 software. (Google search for
Profili2)
Now the fly in the ointment is the location of the center of gravity. Moving
the c.g. back will load the stab so it will have to be re-trimmed and will
no longer be flying at zero angle. As I mentioned in my initial reply the
angle of attack for the wing and stab could approach the same value...say 6
degrees.(not stable!) Moving the C.G. far forward might have the stab
flying at a MINUS six degrees ..a difference of 12 degrees between the wing
and stab. As you know the proper C.G. location is determined by the realtive
values of the wing area, stab area, and moment arm. Bill Bogart sums it all
up in his article on the "Tail Volume Coefficient" found in the '61 Zaic
yearbook.
I have used more complex systems but Bogart is the easiest to use and puts
one right into the ball park. In any event it takes some test flying and
fine tuning todetermine the sweet spot.
So...one can arbitrarily set the stab and wing at any angle to each other.
But to make the combination perform as intended depends on the where the
C.G. is located...and that in accordance with the Tvo.
Don't tell me, did I miss the "Nettle" again?
Your good bud, Bill Gieskieng, AKA skywhatsoever
Angles
=======
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Hi, Bill
I have received a number of replies on the subject but none of them seem to
have grasped the nettle.
The real explanation of the problem can be illustrated by the following.
Take a normal design and set the wing and stab at zero and place the CG at
its usual position. Now hand glide the ship. It will glide VERY steeply to
the ground,right? Now add some negative to the stab. The flight pattern will
now be better than a steep dive and more like a glide. What is happening?
The wing is flying at a higher angle of attack? If so then the stab is must
still be flying at zero or very close to zero for the sake of this
experiment.
Now increase the negative on the stab some more and the glide will be even
better. Is the stab still flying at zero? This would appear to be the case
as the wing must be flying at a higher angle of attack to produce the better
glide. Perhaps this can be determined by watching the angle that the
fuselage makes with the ground. In my recollection, a setup with the wing at
zero and the stab very negative shows a fuse at a steep(!) positive angle so
the stab must still be flying at zero or close.
Increasing the negative to 6 degrees should show a very marked positive
angle for the fuse so confirming that the stab is still at zero.
If you do the reverse and increase the incidence of the wing, the results
can not be so easily observed in the fuselage as its change in angle is much
smaller, unless the wing is set at 6 degrees or even more. *Increasing the
angle to say ten degrees might show the fuse at a very NEGATIVE angle if
wings, all of them , glide at 6 degrees according to Zaic.
Regards
Mike S
Championships scores
=====================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Roger
I guess a reminder is in order that all the 2003 Championships results
are on my pages at the FAI web site. For 2003 the link is
http://www.fai.org/aeromodelling/competitions/free_flight/ch03/ff03.htm
or for an index to all the results from 1951 to 2003 go to the overall
index at
http://www.fai.org/aeromodelling/competitions/free_flight/mast.html
No pictures, so you still need to see Junior Euro Champs site quoted in
SEN 830 if you want pictures of the event.
Ian Kaynes
Contest date
============
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Hello Roger, Do you know the dates for the Maxmen contest in February,
2004. Thanks, Don
Re Jason Magill
================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Jason Magill has a trick e-mail address. There is double underscore between
wheels and @. It is:Jason Magill (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.)
(as far as I know - haven't had any communication s for a while)
Vin Morgan
airfoils and angles
===================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Mike Segrave asks:
>Secondly,in the matter of flying angles. Does the stab always fly at or
> close to zero, relative to the airstream, all the time?????
NO.
> Or does the wing always fly at 6 degrees all the time?????
NO
>It can't be both
> so which one is it?
Neither
>
> If the former,then trimming raises the wing up to a better gliding angle.
If
> the latter, then the stab has to be trimmed to give a lower lift(negative)
> and allow the wing to glide at its best.
NO.
> Frank Zaiic published some data from an experimenter showing the wing
flying
> at 6 degrees but what was the stab angle????
>
> Regards
> Mike S
Mike, you have been thinking "flying wings" for too long!
A faulty analogy would be an asymmetrical teeter totter. The wing and stab
have to be set up for an aerodynamic balance to achieve smooth flight. The
situation you describe -- having the wing at SIX degrees angle of attack and
the stab (symmetrical section) at ZERO would need the Center of Gravity
location near the 25% wing mean aerodynamic chord. If you moved the C.G.
back to say 70% the tail would then need to be carrying a share of the load
and the stab should then be made bigger and be equipped with a positively
cambered section. Also to get sufficient lift for achieving balance the
angle of attack of the front of stab needs to be raised in relation to the
wing. Of course the end result is depends upon expert trimming..
To carry it to an extreme we could put the C.G past the 100% mark. The
stab (enlarged even more) could even be at the same geometric angle as the
wing. BUT in the glide they might BOTH be at 6 degrees angle of attack to
the relative wind. This zero-zero setting might work well if undisturbed,
but if upset having the nose angled down steeply, the rearward C.G.would no
longer be perpendicular to the light and no longer loading the rear end ...
so there would then be no recovery force and the ship would come straight
down.
The other extreme would be to move the C.G. ahead of the leading edge of the
wing. To balance that condition the stab would have to be flipped over and
given more angular difference in order to hold the ship in balance. Zaic
actually did something like this trying to control a ship under power. The
decalage won out at high speed and looped the ship. When the engine cut the
forward c.g. won and it dived straight in!
Last year there was a very interesting discussion on c.g. location for best
glide. Martin Simon championed the forward location. Many demurred --to put
it politely. It seems that the rearward c.g. has a dampening effect on
pitch that makes it possible to hold the wing stable at a more optimum angle
of attack (I hope I got that right!) Plus a very important point --often
overlooked-- is that the rearward c.g. makes for a more stable DT descent.
I still haven't got a real handle on this complicated subject (I keep
waffling on moment arms, stab size and c.g.) so if a real expert steps up
just forget my half-ass comments.
About Zaic's test. I remember it. On the Floater I think. The stab angle was
probably a minus six degrees ...that would be "zero" in regard to a wing
operating at six degrees. but I believe the stab was a cambered section.
That changes things. In that case the zero geometric angle was actually a
positive one, aerodynamically.
One last comment: Flyers often talk about lifting and non-lifting stabs, and
by that generally go by what kind of airfoil is used...cambered VS
symmetrical. however a symmetrical section can be used on a "lifting"
stab.... even a flat plate airfoil. Actually what defines whether it is
lifting or not is the stab's aerodynamic angle of attack to the relative
wind.
Best! Bill G.
Dads ....
=========
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
To John Davis....Makes me think of my Dad John. He encouraged me and my two
brothers to follow our own instincts, and while you were at it, he always
told us, no matter what you do, even digging ditches, do the very best that
you can. My "kid brother and I went into modelling, and never looked back.
By the way, Dad was a modeller before I was born.
Harry Barr
SAM 3571
Searching for PROFILI2
=======================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Dear John, Just do a "Google" search for PROFILI2 ...or, profili2software.
Then click on what comes up and it will bring you to the actual website.
Just click on your favorite language icon and follow directions.
Good luck! Billious G
Dads......
===========
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Jon Davis, whom I have respected from afar, but sadly never met, hit home with
his memorial to his father. I have a father that has supported my modeling from
the first day, when I was 3 years old, launching his U/C model. I have fond me
mories of learning to fly with an .020 powered KingPin U/C model as well as an
old, all balsa O&R .23 powered plane, in which, for some reason, after successf
ully completing a few laps, I decided to just drop the handle to the ground! Da
d said that the old plane just flew around in circles, dragging that U-Reely ha
ndle. As it approached him, Dad just reached up and caught it by the outboard w
ing. He is my hero.
Dad is a true craftman, and a RF electronics genius. His workmanship on his R/C
models (which he still flys at 76 years old) is something that I have tried to
live up to, but don't know if I will ever reach. His shop is spotless. In fact
, when he sands balsa, I don't think a single drop hits the floor before it is
cleaned up (wish I had acquired that gene!). He has supported not only me but a
lso my son John. He is in awe of what the FF world has turned into with our car
bon fiber wonders. But, he also has kept up with much of the technology that su
rrounds him. Dad was always self taught, with no college education, but I will
put him up against any engineer that I work with.
At 55 years old he joined me in buying our first full size airplane. With that
old Cherokee 140, he earned his private pilot's license. Dad flew for the fun o
f it, never venturing more than 100 miles away. He just wanted the thrill of fl
ight, which he has pursued all his life. His big goal was to fly model helicopt
ers, which he has done very well the last 10-15 years. His small group of frien
ds find him to be the fountain of knowledge, even though he is so conservative
that he will only help when asked. He is a monsterous wealth of intelligence th
at can be tapped at any time, by anyone.
We all have heroes. Some may be ball players, other may be successful business
men. I have had modelers that have meant allot to me. The Brodersens, Italianos
, and maybe even Gutai, have done much to help a lowly Pollock from Wisconsin h
ave a small amount of success in the world of modeling, but Dad has always been
"Da Man". This is a small salute to Dad. May he be around for a long time.
Thanks Jon for bringing up the subject and allow me to reminise. I need to call
someone and tell him how special he is.....
John
California Invitational [Livotto]
=================================
F1A
---
1 STAMOV, V. 240 180 180 180 180 180 180 300 420 355 2395
2 COUSSENS, B. 240 180 180 180 180 180 180 300 420 259 2299
3 BUSNELLI, E. 240 180 180 180 180 180 180 300 420 223 2263
4 BAUER, K. 240 180 180 180 180 180 180 300 420 94 2134
5 McKEEVER, M. 240 180 180 180 180 180 180 300 248 1868
6 PROTHEROE, D. 240 180 180 180 180 180 180 300 52 1672
7 BESCHASNY, V. 240 180 180 180 180 180 180 228 1548
8 BRUN, P. 240 180 180 180 180 180 180 174 1494
9 SECOR, T. 240 180 180 180 180 180 157 1297
10 COUSSENS, T. 213 180 180 180 180 180 180 1293
11 NYHEGN, H. 208 180 180 180 180 180 180 1288
12 TERZIAN, F. 240 180 164 180 180 180 153 1277
13 BROCKS, P. 192 180 180 180 180 180 180 1272
14 BARRON, A. 214 180 180 157 180 180 180 1271
15 VAN NEST, B. 240 180 123 180 180 180 180 1263
16 ALLNUTT, P. 240 180 180 165 180 180 117 1242
17 HINES, L. 240 180 180 180 180 180 100 1240
18 COOPER, J. 231 180 180 156 180 124 180 1231
19 WEILER, R. 240 180 180 180 89 180 180 1229
20 ZINK, D. 240 180 180 180 180 180 83 1223
21 DIEZ, H. 232 180 91 180 180 180 180 1223
22 LIMBERGER, R. 181 180 180 180 180 180 127 1208
23 SMITH, N. 90 180 180 180 180 180 180 1170
24 PARKER, J. 71 146 180 103 180 180 180 1040
25 CUSICK, C. 165 172 83 0 DNF DNF DNF 420
26 LEATH, D. O DNF DNF DNF DNF DNF DNF 0
F1B
---
1 GHIO, W. 300 180 180 180 180 180 180 300 420 402 2502
2 BIEDRON, B. 300 180 180 180 180 180 180 300 420 348 2448
3 PISERCHIO, B. 300 180 180 180 180 180 180 214 1594
4 ROHRKE 300 180 180 180 180 180 180 193 1573
5 SCHROEDTER, M. 289 180 180 180 180 180 180 1369
6 JONES, C. 288 180 180 180 180 180 180 1368
7 CROWLEY, P. 300 180 180 180 168 180 180 1368
8 MORRELL, R. 278 180 180 177 180 180 180 1355
9 NORVAL, L. 270 180 180 180 180 180 180 1350
10 MULLIGAN, M. 277 180 180 180 180 180 166 1343
11 SIMON, G. 259 180 180 180 180 180 180 1339
12 COONEY, R. 250 180 180 180 180 180 180 1330
12 MALKIN, J. 242 180 180 180 180 180 180 1322
14 SHAILER, B. 300 180 180 180 180 128 167 1315
15 SCHEIMAN, P. 300 180 180 180 102 180 180 1302
16 PECK, J. 265 180 180 180 180 160 148 1293
17 BATIUK, G. 300 180 180 146 180 125 180 1291
18 BRADLEY, J. 226 180 180 180 180 161 180 1287
19 DORSETT, C. 240 180 180 180 180 180 101 1241
20 PRATT, J. 300 180 180 115 180 180 101 1236
21 SCHROEDTER, G. 300 180 180 180 180 60 154 1234
22 ELLIS, D. 270 142 180 180 163 180 100 1215
23 WOOD, R. 190 180 180 120 180 180 180 1210
24 BUKIN, A. 160 180 180 145 180 180 180 1205
25 EMERY, J. 149 164 180 180 180 180 170 1203
26 ANDRIUKOV, A. 300 121 137 180 180 96 180 1194
27 JENSEN, B. 70 180 180 180 180 180 180 1150
28 CLAPP, L. 175 177 13 180 180 180 180 1085
29 ULM, A. 261 180 180 163 49 180 65 1078
30 JENSEN, E. 222 180 158 180 157 180 DNF 1077
31 NELSON, E. 0 180 180 180 180 180 160 1060
32 KEPPLER, T. 199 109 180 180 DNF DNF DNF 668
F1C
---
1 VERTBISKY, E. 300 180 180 180 180 180 180 300 420 540 490 3130
2 ARCHER, R. 300 180 180 180 180 180 180 300 420 540 475 3115
3 GUTAI, B. 300 180 180 180 180 180 180 300 420 388 2488
4 SIMPSON, Reid 300 180 180 180 180 180 180 300 420 386 2486
5 WARREN, J. 300 180 180 180 180 180 180 300 420 374 2474
6 PERKINS, D. 300 180 180 180 180 180 180 300 420 366 2466
7 HAPPERSETT, K. 300 180 180 180 180 180 180 300 420 349 2449
8 KIRILLENKO, A. 300 180 180 180 180 180 180 300 420 316 2416
9 JOHANNES, D. 300 180 180 180 180 180 180 300 386 2066
10 JOHANNES, B 300 180 180 180 180 180 180 300 254 1934
11 SHIRLEY, D. 299 180 180 180 180 180 180 1379
12 MENANO, G. 300 180 180 180 180 180 178 1378
13 KERGER, T. 300 180 172 180 180 180 180 1372
14 CARROLL, E. 284 180 180 180 180 180 180 1364
15 SERVAITES, B. 300 180 180 180 180 158 180 1358
16 SIMPSON, Roger 300 180 180 180 142 180 180 1342
17 SAHLBERG, P. 252 180 180 180 180 180 167 1319
18 JOYCE, D. 214 180 180 174 180 180 180 1288
19 GEWAIN, M. 269 180 126 180 180 144 180 1259
F1G
---
1 CLAPP, J. 120 120 120 120 120 240 360 174 1374
2 COONEY, R. 120 120 120 120 120 240 360 127 1327
3 SCHROEDTER, M. 120 120 120 120 120 240 360DNF 1200
4 BROCKS, P. 120 120 120 120 120 240 326 1166
5 SCHROEDTER, G. 120 120 120 120 120 240 279 1119
6 EMERY, J. 120 120 120 120 120 240 163 1003
7 BUKIN, A. 120 120 120 120 120 240 138 978
8 COLE, H. 120 120 120 120 120 240 96 936
9 SIMON, G. 120 120 120 120 120 240 76 916
10 NELSON, E. 120 120 120 120 120 167 767
11 PROTHEROE, T. 120 120 120 120 120 148 748
12 WOOD, R. 120 120 120 120 120 134 734
13 RAYMOND, A. 120 99 120 120 120 579
14 JONES, C. 120 115 91 120 120 566
15 NORVAL, L. 120 120 120 120 85 565
16 MORRELL, R. 120 78 94 120 120 532
17 GRIGSBY, R. 71 92 98 120 120 501
18 PROTHEROE, D. 120ATT 120 120 120 480
19 SCHEIMAN, P. 97 120 120 58DNF 395
F1H
-----
1 PARKER, D. 120 120 120 120 120 240 360 480 480 2160
2 COUSSENS, B. 120 120 120 120 120 240 360 480 172 1852
3 McKEEVER, M. 120 120 120 120 120 240 262 1102
4 STAMOV, V. 120 120 120 120 120 240 151 991
5 HINES, L. 120 120 120 120 120 240 119 959
6 VAN NEST, B. 120 120 120 120 120 132 732
7 BESCHASNY, V. 120 120 120 120 120 114 714
8 BRUN, P. 120 120 120 120 120 105 705
9 COOPER, J. 120 120 120 120 120 100 700
10 BUSNELLI, E. 120 120 93 120 120 573
11 SMITH, N. 120 79 78 99 120 496
12 TERZIAN, F. 55 71 120 73 120 439
13 NORTON, B. 84 57 54 42 90 327
F1J
---
1 CARROLL, E. 120 120 120 120 120 240 360 231 1431
2 MENANO, G. 120 120 120 120 120 240 360 177 1377
3 SERVAITES, B. 120 120 120 120 120 240 280 1120
4 SHIRLEY, D. 120 120 120 120 120 240 231 1071
5 GUTAI, B. 120 120 120 120 120 240 217 1057
6 WARREN, J. 120 120 120 120 120 240 209 1049
7 OLIVER, K. 120 120 120 120 120 212 812
8 SECOR, C. 120 120 120 120 120 71 671
9 NYNEGN, H. DNF DNF 120 120 120 360
10 JOHANNES, D. 120 120DNF DNF DNF 240
Livotto Learnings
=================
Seen at Lost Hills ... latter day hippie renaissance ? both Bauer
and Batiuk have accquired VM camper vans, not the original Microbus
but the more recent Westphia vanagon. This is to be their Lost Hills
transportatiuon and accomodation..
......................
Roger Morrell
