HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: Glider Wings & Airfoils
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 17:40:51 GMT

In article <19AUG199215254184@vx.cis.umn.edu> soc1070                          writes:

|If I remember my basic aerodynamics correctly, you can get lift by
|creating an angle-of-attack thats positive (i.e. forward edge of
|the wing is always above trailing edge), and have no airfoil 
|whatsoever. This is how your basic 25 cent drug-store balsa glider
|operates (as well as the Quest Aurora and various Estes boost
|gliders of days gone by). The trade off is drag.

Well, the big drawback to flat plate airfoils is that they are some-
what inefficient, and also stall at small angles of attack. 

The closest thing to boost gliders in the Free Flight world are
hand-launched gliders. These usually have thin, shaped balsa wings. 
While most do not have symmetrical airfoils they do at least round 
the leading edge underneath.

|The angle of attack is normally created by using elevators on the
|horz stabalizer (the tail), but the draw back is that the tail assembly
|is not providing any additional lift - just the opposite.

The elevator is there to help the glider HOLD its angle of attack.
It is the interaction between the center of gravity, and the lift
produced by the wing and tail. Yes, the wing has to be at some 
positive angle of attack for flight to take place.

|Ultimatly, the model is simpler to construct, but not as high a performer.

You have another tradeoff to worry about. An undercambered wing 
may glide really well but it also has very high drag when you 
move it fast. Also, the trim will changes in airspeed. A thinner 
wing will make things easier to adjust both for takeoff and glide.
Now mind you, a thin, semisymmetrical wing may glide just as well 
as an undercambered wing, it will just do it faster.


|Additional stability is added by using wing dihedrial, where the
|wing tip is above the root (making a v-shape in front view) from 5 to
|about 15 degrees (Ed LaCroix at Apogee Components likes *a lot* of
|dihedrial...).

Dihedral keeps the airplane from rolling over. On a free flight 
airplane (no ailerons) dihedral is VERY necessary.


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NTAIB@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS                 !
From: Roger.Wilfong@umich.edu
Subject: Re: Micro Video
Organization: U of M Hospitals
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 18:42:19 GMT

In article <POPAT.92Aug28114243@image.mit.edu> popat@image.mit.edu (Kris Popat)
writes:

>2. In the RCM Supercircuits ad, it said something like "240 lines
>noninterlaced" then went on to say "produces a standard video signal."
>What exactly does this mean?  A standard video signal *is* interlaced;
>specifically, 60 fields/sec interlaced in North America and Japan,
>with each field consisting of about 240 usable lines.  So are they
>just saying what one field's resolution is, or do they actually create
>a noninterlaced signal?

Actually NTSC video is 30 frames per second of 525 lines each.  The frames are
sent as 60 interlaced half frames (first the odd numbered lines then the even
numbered lines).  Some of the lnes are consumed during vertical blanking but
there are considerably more then 240 lines.  The interlace effectively
eliminated flicker (or the perception of it) at 'normal' viewing distances. 
The term 'interlaced' viedo has gotten a bad rap in EDT's because they are not
used t a 'normal' viewing distance and there is often widely different
information on adjacent scan lines - this all adds up to eye strain.

Any way 240 lines is decent resolution for a device of this size.  About 18
months ago, a Lionel B/W TV camera/transmitter hit the surplus market for
$50-75.  Lionel's market was train people who could pretend they were in the
cab - apparently it did not go over.  HUVARS bought two of these little gems
(if you only own one, you'll be reluctant to fly it) and two members (Bob Rau
and Mark O'brien) converted it to work on the ham band.  They added a different
transmitter (the original had a really weak signal) and a telemetry/video
overlay circuit.  The whole thing fits easily into a BT-60 and works well.
From: coryc@sequent.com (Cory Carpenter)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
Subject: Re: LDRS XI - trip report
Date: 26 Aug 92 00:47:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: sequent.1992Aug26.004703.20007
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.

In article <1992Aug25.202511.12576@axis.dsg.ti.com> barrett@add.itg.ti.com writes:
>
	:
>
>I was 50' away from Dennis Lamouth when they launched the "Down Right
>Ignorant".  I still think that it was closer to 40' tall.  It was a
>fantastic way to end the week!

Agreed!  It really was fantastic.  I also agree with your estimate of 40'.
I have yet to take a pair of dividers to my photos, but just estimating by 
eye, it looks as though you could stand six to seven six-foot individuals on
top of one another and come close to the same height.

-coryc

-- 
|    >> Disclaimer: I speak for Sequent only in our hardware manuals <<       |
|Cory R. Carpenter, Tech Writer |"Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate... |
|Sequent Computer Systems, Inc. | things."       -- Vice President Dan Quayle |
|    coryc@sequent.com          |                                             |
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
Subject: Re: Astrocam
Date: 3 Sep 92 16:26:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.Bu0GCq.A4r
Organization: Indiana University

In article <1SEP199209281957@almach.caltech.edu> shoppa@almach.caltech.edu (TIM SHOPPA) writes:

>1.  Polaroid makes a special 35mm color slide film that is processed in
>a small hand-operated machine.  I don't know all the details, but these systems
>were very common at one time for producing color slides from computer
>displays.  The film isn't particularly cheap, though, and the processing
>machine is maybe $100-$200, I think.  A full-line photography store ought
>to be able to give you info on this.

Well, Polaroid does make an instant 35mm color slide film for the 
general public. I don't think the machine to process it costs all 
that much, but the film does cost an arm and a leg. I guess you'd
also need a slide projector and a dark room and screen! 9-)





-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NTAIB@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS                 !
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
From: Roger.Wilfong@umich.edu
Subject: Re: Astrocam
Organization: U of M Hospitals
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 21:33:38 GMT

In article <6040@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
writes:
>In article <BtuoJx.4E0@world.std.com>, jlw@world.std.com (James L Walker)
writes:
>> A couple of weeks ago a guy brought one of these cheap autowind
>> cameras out to our field.  He had mounted the camera on a piece of
>> plexiglass and then mounted a Futaba S-148 servo so that it would push
>> the button manually.  We mounted it on the bottom of his Sturdy Birdy
>> powered by a .40 FP right under the wing pointing down.  He popped the
>> flash up so that we would know when the camera was taking pictures.
>> 
>> The pictures were a blast to look at.  It was cool to see the field
>> that we've been flying on all this time but have never seen from the
>> air.  A couple of the pictures showed the pit from high altitutude.
>> It was pretty neat.  I wish we had it around when we lost planes in
>> the woods before.  Next time we'll use it to try to locate them.
>
>Using a Polaroid, I presume...!
>-- 
How would that work Chris?  Would you just let the camera spit them out and let
them flutter to the ground?  Sounds good to me. ;-)
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
Subject: Re: Astrocam 110 Film
Date: 2 Sep 92 17:19:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: hpcvaac.1992Sep2.171926.9159
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA

elder@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (Greg Elder) writes:
: Is it may imagination, or did someone in an old post (about 3-5 months ago)
: mention that 400 speed 110 film was no longer being produced?  As a result,
: you would have to use 200 speed in the Astrocam.  The reason I ask is that
: I was in a local Wal-Mart store last evening, and they had lots of
: 400 speed 110 film.  Maybe they are getting rid of whatever they have
: left (or maybe I am just imagining what I thought I had read months
: ago).  If 400 speed is not going to be produced any longer, I'll
: go out and buy a few rolls for myself.  (I have an Astrocam 110 but have not
: built or flown it yet.)  Thanks.

If you buy a bunch - store it in the freezer. It will then last for years.
Thaw at room temperature for a few hours before use.

Bill
From: sford@arrl.org (Steve Ford)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
Subject: Re: Micro Video
Date: 26 Aug 92 13:05:42 EDT
Organization: American Radio Relay League

In rec.models.rockets, jack@rml.UUCP (jack hagerty) writes:
>In article <20AUG199211340700@vx.cis.umn.edu> soc1070 writes:
>
>>Other advantages to this little gem (in addition to being able to 
>>loft it with a D) would be 1) if it prangs you are to out the cost of
>>the receiver/recorder mechanics; 2) since it transmits in real time,
>>you can get that prang an video; 3) the whole setup is *much* cheaper
>>the a current super-8 video camera. The camera is model PC-3 and lists
>>for $190, and the receiver lists for $135.
>
>I saw that same blurb, and you're leaving out an important part: the
>camera is just that, only a camera. The blurb specifically stresses
>that you need a transmitter for remote work, e.g. the RC application.
>
>Another thing, this is out of my field, but isn't a Ham (or equilvalent)
>licence required to broadcast video? Still, it's true that the camera
>and transmitter together would be much cheaper than a super-8 camcorder
>(which you'd have to hack to fit into even an HPR payload section) and
>is generally conceded to not work anyway due to acceleration loads on
>the tape drive.
>
>- Jack


Yes, Jack, you do need an Amateur Radio license to transmit video over
any reasonable distance. Fortunately, the relatively new "codeless"
Technician class license offers extensive video transmission (we call
it "ATV") privileges. There are a number of very small, light-weight
ATV transmitters available. Also, downconverters (for reception) are
inexpensive. They convert the UHF ATV video signal to Channel 3 or 4
for viewing on a standard TV.

Hams have been placing ATV camera/transmitter packages in rockets
and high-altitude balloons for some time. I've seen the some of the
video and it's pretty amazing.

Steve, WB8IMY
American Radio Relay League
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
From: elder@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Greg Elder)
Subject: Re: Nike v.s. Mosquito
Followup-To: rec.models.rockets
Reply-To: elder@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Greg Elder)
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe AZ
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 02:41:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.144642.1@azcc.arizona.edu> kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu writes:
>>  Apparently a couple of kids set an unofficial record at NARCON this
>> year getting a number of flights in the mid-teens off of one mosquito.  Estes
>> describes the lift off as 'instantaneous' - I've never seen one 'lift-off' -
>> I've always just seen them disappear.
>> When I was younger, I didn't keep track but got at least a dozen flights with
>> successful recoveries out of my first Mosquito.
>> 
>  I remember years ago a little rocket from Estes called Streak. I had one
>and it flew great with an A engine. Tried it once with a C engine. My father
>was with me and the two of us lost sight of it real quick. We searched a
>while for it, and only found a fin from it.
>
>  I also remember a winner of the design of the month contest once was a 
>three stage rocket that looked like a tall streak. All stages tumble
>recovery. I can only imagine how high that one would have gone!!!!!
>
>Ken

I believe you are referring to the Sky High which was in the November 1969
issue of MRN.  The reason I know this is because I have just built it.
I did modify the design, however.  I increased the length of the 3rd stage
so that I could add a streamer to it.  I haven't flown it yet.  In the
plans for the original Sky High, it is suggested that you fly with 1/2A6-0
engines in the 2 booster stages.  Since these aren't made anymore, I'm
planning on flying with B6-0's for the boosters and an A8-5 for the
3rd stage.  I plan on flying it this weekend.  I'll let you know how it
goes.

--
  Greg Elder               | 
  Dept of Computer Science |  
  Arizona State University | 
  elder@enuxha.eas.asu.edu |  
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
From: smith@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Greg Smith)
Subject: Re: AstroCams - Where?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 04:34:14 GMT

> Estes made a camera called the Cineroc from about 1967 to 1971, but
> it's been gone for a LONG time.  That was the only KIT movie camera 
> ever produced.

Just as a matter of trivia, since I ordered a Cineroc the moment it was 
announced in the catalog and then waited some eight long months for it 
to arrive (vaporware is neither new, nor exclusively a phenomenon of the 
computer business), I can tell you for sure that the Cineroc was 
first introduced in the 1970 Estes catalog.  I flew mine for the first 
time on October 24, 1970, which was probably a month after they actually 
shipped (had to build the rocket and wait for decent weather).  The part 
of a film I got back from that flight was quite spectacular, but Estes 
apparently didn't yet have the bugs out of their mail-order film 
processing operation, because they botched my order and managed to chew 
up about 3/4 of the film at the lab.  That, and the cost and time 
required, were the reasons I got into developing my own after a couple 
of years.

Estes probably spared my mom the trauma of a thirteen year old's temper 
tantrum by reimbursing me with a new film pack, credit for processing, 
AND two tubes of D engines to fly it a few more times.

I'm not exactly sure when the Cineroc was discontinued, but 1974 seems 
about right.  I still have one completely usable Cineroc, enough spare 
parts to build another, and a third that is about half-converted into a 
custom version without film pack (the film just coils up inside the nose 
cone) that fits into a BT-55 size tube.  (It was Gary Rosenfield who 
first showed me how to do that, back around NARAM-19 or so.)  I'm hoping 
to finish that up this winter to fly next year, but in the meantime, I 
have four film cartridges loaded and will be flying my stock Cineroc at 
the next club launch here if the weather is good.

Greg Smith N9LHI
NAR 15881 SR
smith@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
Subject: Re: Scale rocket competition
Date: 27 Aug 92 19:47:26 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Aug27.172717.8272@med.umich.edu>, Roger.Wilfong@umich.edu writes:
> >Oho! I wonder if these would also be acceptable as a Jetex 
> >substitute on old Free Flight designs. Unless they produce
> >_no_ thrust  9-)
> >
> Nil, zip, zero, zilch.  3" of thermalite probably has more impulse.  Although
> I haven't tried it, I suspect that an FX motor might manage to push it self off
> of my 6mm piston - but that's about it.

They are officially rated by S&T as zero thrust engines.  However, I have
at least twice seen FX engines "POP!" out of their mounts when ignited.
The most recent time was last weekend, when it not only took itself out of
the model, but yanked the main engine igniter out on the way down.
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
From: paul@taniwha.UUCP (Paul Campbell)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
Subject: Re: Altitude Busters at LDRS
Date: 24 Aug 92 18:08:29 GMT
Organization: Taniwha Systems Design

In article <5818@transfer.stratus.com> leadfoot@bigbootay.sw.stratus.com (Mark Curtis) writes:

>This wasn't known until the pad 99 people requested a countdown
>and Rodgers told them it was too late.  After several minutes of
>thought it was discovered that the waver was still in effect and
>they launched.  A great launch, but well after tracking quit.

Actually I saw what happened - Chuck had quit tracking at 5 and gone
over to check out the 'monster' on the way back - as he got back to
the normal launch site someone told him that 'pad 99' were launching
outside the waiver - he immediatly tried to stop them - for about 5 mins
on the radio before someone pointed out that there was a later waiver from
6-7pm too.

>closed for them.  Someone should go to a little more trouble to
>avoid this in the future.  Chuck was more than a little steamed.

The waivers were read at the flier's meeting and all Tripoli board members
were given copies (including Chuck) ... next time we should probably set up
a notice board and post them somewhere at the launch site too .....

>We waited for the monster to launch, and finally it did,
>but they gave us no warning.  We tried to contact them several

Yeah - I was lucky I happened to be looking that way - but it went so slow
off the pad that everyone got to look around before it was really up and away

>Why Kansas next year?  The Black Rock Desert is great.  Is there
>another place in the US that has that kind of ceiling/waver?

I agree - but then I'm biased - it's 'close' for me. But then the idea is
to move LDRS around the country so that everyone gets a chance to get
there every few years.

	Paul

-- 
Paul Campbell    UUCP: ..!mtxinu!taniwha!paul     AppleLink: CAMPBELL.P

	How do you tell when George Bush is lying?
	You read his lips ...
Xref: sparky rec.models.rockets:2391 rec.models.rc:3605
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: Scale rocket competition
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 16:49:04 GMT

In article <556@rml.UUCP> jack@rml.UUCP (jack hagerty) writes:
>In article <BtG4yq.H9y@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:

>>Hmmm.. I'm thinking that some of those composite motors that 
>>release lots of black smoke might be just the thing for scale
>>JATO bottles.... believe it or not this would fall under the 
>>AMA safety code. 

>Don't try so hard, just use the MRC FX motors that are designed 
>for just that purpose (i.e. long burn, lots of smoke and essentially
>no thrust). That is unless you really *need* them to act as JATO
>bottles.

Oho! I wonder if these would also be acceptable as a Jetex 
substitute on old Free Flight designs. Unless they produce
_no_ thrust  9-)

Some of the scale models are big, heavy slugs.. the ducted
fan ones often share a trait with early jet fighters - in-
adequate thrust available at takeoff, and might indeed bene-
fit from a little extra thrust...



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NTAIB@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS                 !
From: paul@taniwha.UUCP (Paul Campbell)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
Subject: Re: LDRS XI - trip report
Date: 28 Aug 92 05:28:30 GMT
Organization: Taniwha Systems Design

In article <1992Aug25.202511.12576@axis.dsg.ti.com> barrett@add.itg.ti.com writes:
>Paul did a good job with this.  I have a few additions....
>
>Black Rock Desert:  FANTASTIC place to launch rockets.  The days were
>HOT, the nights were a struggle.  Last year was better (weather wise).
>Friday nite's 60mph dust storm was a killer!!  Anyone going to Black

Yeah - I took down my tent every morning and put it back up each evening after
the wind, on Friday I was sitting in my car when it hit - I spent an hour or so
holding on to someone else's tent try to stop it from being blown away (and
trying to stop ME being blown away)


>that more members could attend.  I think that was a good idea.  Aeropac
>has several Black Rock Launches a year for those that need/want the best.

Aeronaut in May, Blackrock in July, BALLS ????

>Some crazy launched an Estes Phoenix with a H?? STAGING to a G??  It was
>unstable (SURPRISE! I'm surprised the RSO let it by) and proceeded to
>land shark quite spectacularly.

The guys next to me at the launch site - they wrote the article in the 
Tripolitan last year entitled 'Confirming on Balsa' about just this
Phoenix ... the article is worth reading just for its description of
Gerlach :-)


		Paul

-- 
Paul Campbell    UUCP: ..!mtxinu!taniwha!paul     AppleLink: CAMPBELL.P

	How do you tell when George Bush is lying?
	You read his lips ...
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
From: spoelhof@kodak.com (Gordon C. Spoelhof)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
Subject: Re: Astrocam 110 Film
Keywords: 400 speed 110 film still being produced?
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:03:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: eastman.3599
Reply-To: spoelhof@kodak.com (Gordon C. Spoelhof)
Organization: Eastman Kodak Company - Health Sciences Division

(C. D. Tavares) writes:
> (Greg Elder) writes:
> > Is it may imagination, or did someone in an old post (about 3-5 months 
ago)
>> mention that 400 speed 110 film was no longer being produced?  As a result,
>> you would have to use 200 speed in the Astrocam.  The reason I ask is that
>> I was in a local Wal-Mart store last evening, and they had lots of
>> 400 speed 110 film.  Maybe they are getting rid of whatever they have
>> left (or maybe I am just imagining what I thought I had read months
>> ago).  If 400 speed is not going to be produced any longer, I'll
>> go out and buy a few rolls for myself.  (I have an Astrocam 110 but have
>> not built or flown it yet.)  Thanks.
> 
> It was probably me who posted this.  400 ASA film was first pulled in the
> mid 80's, I believe; then came back in the late 80's.  Then I heard from
> others in my club last year that it had been discontinued AGAIN.  So maybe 
> it's coming back AGAIN.  Best thing to do:  look at the expiration date on
> the film and compare it to the expiration date on the 200 film.  If it's
> older, I'd suggest you stock up.  If not, it's apparently come back.

I called Kodak's Information Center (1-800-242-2424) and received the
following information:

Kodak 110 ASA 400 Gold film has been discontinued but is still in inventory.
It is replaced by Kodak 110 ASA 400 GoldPlus film...

For example single roll 24 exposure 110 film:

EK Stock         Description                       Product Information #
802-7112         GoldPlus 400 film 110             GC110-24

If this is of any interest, please verify information through Eastman
Kodak's official channels, e.g., 1-800-242-2424.

Disclaimer:  Neither my wife nor my employer endorse opinion according
             to Gordon...

Sincerely,

Gordon Spoelhof

Gordon Spoelhof / Eastman Kodak Co. / HSD 2-8-C-39105
100 Carlson Road / Rochester, NY 14653-9105
e-mail:  spoelhof@kodak.com       phone: (716)253-9734
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets