HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: robertw@informix.com (Robert Weinberg)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
Subject: Re: Slope Gliders
Date: 16 Dec 92 23:25:04 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <Bz99AL.Fs8@inews.Intel.COM> dbraun@cad636.intel.com (Doug Braun )  
writes:
> 
> I was thinking of buying a Sig Ninja as a second slope plane, my first
> being a Bobcat that is a little under the weather
> after a failed attempt at an inside loop.  Any pros or cons on this
> kit?  Will it take regular servos?  Any other recommendations for a  
not-too-expensive intermediate slope plane?
> 

I've almost finished building one. I've heard from quite a few people that it's a  
quite nice plane, pretty responsive. It was recommended to glass the fuse because  
of reports that a decent nose-in will split it up, which just happened to a  
fellow-flyer (he rebuilt the fuse with no problems). It's considered a good plane  
for a beginner at ailerons. The instructions are complete, all hardware is  
included, and it uses standard servos. I'm pretty new at planes, but it seemed easy  
to build with nice interlocking lite-ply parts for the fuse.

> Also, I noticed a plane, a Sig Samuri, in the shop that I could not find
> in any 8-month-old ads or catalogs.  Is this a new plane?  Just wondering,
> but it's a little over my price range.

Someone has been flying a Samurai at Milagra Ridge. It's really neat - has  
pitcherons (the whole wing moves as a one-piece aileron). Default configuration  
uses the pitcherons as elevons, which is the way he built it, but he thinks he  
would prefer the kit option of building in regular elevators instead. He was flying  
a lot of aerobatics for very little lift, so I was impressed. The included hardware  
is very substantial - including bell-cranks for the pitcherons. It uses standard  
servos - you can operate the pitcherons on one servo, but he needed two to mix in  
the elevator function with the aileron function. He was using powerful servos -  
90-ounce each, I think, but this was apparently more torque than the plans  
required.

--
+================================+================================+
|         Rob Weinberg           |  Workstation publications tech |
|   Email : robertw@informix.com |        Graphic designer        |
|   Voice : 415-926-6754         |     <imagine your ad here>     |
+================================+================================+
From: seanm@terapin.com (Sean McCaskey)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
Subject: Re: out of control
Date: 1 Jan 93 14:36:13 PST
Organization: BBS

In article <rcb.725905722@news.ncsu.edu>, rcb@ncsu.edu (Randy Buckland) writes:
>fhage@rap.ucar.edu (Frank Hage) writes:
>>Make sure the on/off switch is nowhere
>>near where your launch hand sits on the model. Always turn on the model
>
>And make sure that all ON is toward the tail!!! It feels wrong, but anything
>that hits the switch in flight will be moving toward the tail and won't 
>be able to turn it off in flight.
>--

  I disagree with you on a hand launched glider.  How many times have you been
hit by something in flight that COULD have turned off the radio.  I tink it is
best to have the switch ON in the forward position so if during lanuch you hit
it, it will be turning it on.  Ever since I knocked my Segitta's radio off on
launch, I flipped all my switches.  On powered planes, I set them the other
way.

---Sean---
From: i001444@disc.dla.mil (james ogorek)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
Subject: Re: Super Decathalon 40
Summary: If you like style of A/C try Nosen 40 SIze[D[D[Dize
Date: 24 Dec 92 13:25:55 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Defense Industrial Supply Center, Philadelphia, Pa               

I have flown the Nosen for three years with no problem. Easy to build
Flying with 45 Four Cycle Saito. Low cost, fiber glass cowl and wheel pants
are available at extra cost 
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
From: paulm@rachel.storcon.com (Paul Moreau)
Subject: Re: First Trainer Questions
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 14:40:44 GMT
Organization: Storage Concepts, Inc.

In article <1992Dec20.170241.973@bnr.ca>, martyg@bnr.ca (Martin Gallant) writes:
|> Over the last two weeks, I have been studying various R/C aircraft
|> guides and magazine back issues to bet a feel for what the hobby is all
|> about, and have decided to jump in after the holidays.  I plan on flying
|> a .40 trainer in a club, with the help of an instructor.  After much
|> research, a couple of issues still puzzle me, so I would like to
|> sollicit your opinions.
|> 
|> I have narrowed down the engine selection to the OS.40FP (~$70) and the
|> OS.46SF (~$140), the latter strongly recommended by my local hobby shop.
|> Do I need to be messing around with ball-bearing engines for my first
|> plane, or is a plain bushing motor adequate?  I am prepared to spend
|> whatever time is required for break-in on a test bench.
|> 
|> Coming from an automotive background, I am quite concerned about running
|> an engine without any type of air filtration.  My club files on a dusty
|> grass field.  I know there are commercially available filters on the
|> market, but these represent a compromise between reliability and
|> longevity.  Should I bother with these, even just to satisfy my
|> paranoia?
|> 
|> -- 
|> Martin Gallant <martyg@bnr.ca> 214-684-5532 (ESN 444)
|> The above opinions are my own, not necessarily those of my employer.

   Depending on the plane and the amount of asphalt around :^)  I'ld go
   with the OS .46.   This is a very good engine annnd has plenty of surplus
   power for any .40 size trainer.   Especialy if you decide to use an air
   cleaner for these will rob you of a little power.   The fp's are a decent
   engine for a trainer but when you go on to 'bigger and better' the .46
   (specially the ABC) can go with.

-- 
          _____________________________________________________________
          -                *                      _______   _~;       -
          -            Paul Moreau               |       =_= /        -
          -    Sr. Diagnostics Software Eng.     \   USA    /         -
          -         Irvine, California      --->  *-_  ___ /          -
          -     UUCP: ..!uunet!storcon!paulm         \/   \\          -
          _____________________________________________________________
From: bloom@inland.com
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
Subject: Re: First Trainer Questions
Date: 29 Dec 92 08:38:32 CST
Organization: Inland Steel Company; East Chicago, IN

In article <1992Dec28.143126.2057@news.columbia.edu>, liggio@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Vincent J. Liggio) writes:
> In article <43373@gremlin.nrtc.northrop.com> johnson@charming.nrtc.northrop.com (Greg Johnson) writes:
>>  I would definitely go with the $70 OS .40FP.   The OS
>>.46SF as your first engine.  Totally unnecessary.  Counter-productive, in
>>fact.  As a beginner that kind of power is a distinct disadvantage.  
> 

> I agree fully with this.  I started my flying on a Great Planes Trainer 40,
> and the Hirtenberger (sp?) .40 engine I had had more than enough power to
> spare on it, and subsequently made learning to land much more difficult,
> until I switched to a 11x4 prop to slow down things.  The power is great
> when you learn to do basic aerobatics, but when you try to land and don't
> have much control over your plane because of inexperience, and it is going
> 60+ mph and refuses to slow down on the downwind leg.

The landing speed of an airplane is determined by 3 things:
1) Thrust at whatever rpm the prop is turning during landing
2) Drag of the plane
3) Stall speed of the airplane
4) wind velocity

Your choice of engine has really nothing to do with any of these things. 
Thrust is determined by prop selection and throttle control, with a lower 
limit at your minimum idle speed.  An OS .46 ABC engine and an OS .40 FP 
produce the same thrust with the same 10x6 prop when they are idling at 
the same 2800 rpm.  The additional weight of the .46 is not going to 
measurably increase the stall speed of your trainer.  Obviously you have 
to fly faster than the stall speed on your landing approach to maintain 
control.  Engine selection is really a red herring as far as how slow 
will it go.
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
From: pat@hprnd.rose.hp.com (Pat Thaler)
Subject: Beginner question (cars)
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:38:25 GMT
Organization: Roseville Networks Division
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.8 PL6]

My son would like to get an RC car.  He is almost 11.  We have had
a couple of toy store RC cars in the past which have not been very 
satisfactory.  The main problem has been durability/repairablility.

So, what do you recommend?

What we are considering right now is an RC10 with an Airtronics X12P.
There is also Raider Pro that would be about $60 less, but looks
less well made (parts like the shocks are plastic instead of metal).
A cheaper electronics package could knock $20-30 off, but he likes 
all the trim controls on the $80 ones (we saw several at that price
besides the Airtronics).  I'm not so sure that the extra controls
are worth it.  Will they make it easier to use or will they make it
harder because it will be hard to get them set right?

We can get the RC10, Airtronics X12P, a battery, and a Panda AC/DC charger
for $255.  Is that a fair price?

Pat Thaler
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
From: svoboda@rtsg.mot.com (David Svoboda)
Subject: Re: First Trainer Questions
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 16:14:20 GMT

In article <1992Dec20.170241.973@bnr.ca> martyg@bnr.ca (Martin Gallant) writes:
|Over the last two weeks, I have been studying various R/C aircraft
|guides and magazine back issues to bet a feel for what the hobby is all
|about, and have decided to jump in after the holidays.  

Welcome.  It's a fantastic hobby.

|I plan on flying
|a .40 trainer in a club, with the help of an instructor.  

Good call.

|I have narrowed down the engine selection to the OS.40FP (~$70) and the
|OS.46SF (~$140), the latter strongly recommended by my local hobby shop.

Why don't you ask your instuctor what he thinks?  You should involve an
instuctor in every step of starting out, even if you are simply "building"
an ARF.  There are always lots of places to go wrong.

A hobby shop is an unreliable substitute for a caring instructor.

|Do I need to be messing around with ball-bearing engines for my first
|plane, or is a plain bushing motor adequate?  I am prepared to spend
|whatever time is required for break-in on a test bench.

My opinion: go with the plain bearing.  You have to take special care of
a ball-bearing engine (after-run oil, ALWAYS), or get accustomed to
replacing bearings occasionally.  You can really bang around a sleeve-
bearing motor without problems.  And the 40FP is a Schnuerle-ported
snorting monster compared to the sedate 40's that most trainers were 
designed for.  In other words, plenty of power for your uses.  The
plain bearing motor would be inappropriate for tuned-pipe, high stress
applications, however.

|Coming from an automotive background, I am quite concerned about running
|an engine without any type of air filtration.  My club files on a dusty
|grass field.  I know there are commercially available filters on the
|market, but these represent a compromise between reliability and
|longevity.  Should I bother with these, even just to satisfy my
|paranoia?

By all means, if you are really worried, give filters a try.  The best
air filters I have used are simply a little peice of ladies' nylon
stocking held over the carb opening with an o-ring.  The Varsane 
(formerly Perry) foam filters tend to clog with raw fuel, and have to
be squeezed out every other flight.

But actually, few people use air filters on airplanes.  That said, most
people have a shorter engine lifespan than they might.  I personally 
don't use one, normally, but I take great care not to run the engine
in a lot of dirt.  I see too many people run the motor at full throttle
while holding the plane on the ground, generating a huge cloud of dust.
The engine is eating a lot of that dust.  I figure that when actually
taking off, since the airplane is accelerating forward, the engine is
mostly out of the dust the prop and wheels are kicking up.  And there
isn't much dust up in the air.

			Dave Svoboda, Palatine, IL
From: pfoss@cmsa.gmr.com (Pete Foss PO/46)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
Subject: Re: Beginner questions (again!)
Date: 21 Dec 92 17:21:29 GMT
Reply-To: pfoss@cmsa.gmr.com
Organization: .................

I have flown most of the Duraplane series and I feel they sacrifice too much
flyability in the name of durability.  The US Aircore trainer is a pretty good
flyer though.  I still like Midwest Areostars the best for a "with an instructor"
type of trainer.

Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: First Trainer Questions
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:17:50 GMT

In article <1992Dec20. Kibo 170241.973@bnr.ca> martyg@bnr.ca (Martin Gallant) writes:

>I have narrowed down the engine selection to the OS.40FP (~$70) and the
>OS.46SF (~$140), the latter strongly recommended by my local hobby shop.
>Do I need to be messing around with ball-bearing engines for my first
>plane, or is a plain bushing motor adequate?  I am prepared to spend
>whatever time is required for break-in on a test bench.

Depends on how much money one has, I guess.

The ball bearing engines aren't any more complicated to use than plain
bearing engines. They do weigh more though. The 46SF will develop more 
power but you can always throttle back. Are both these engines ABC? Or
do they have lapped iron piston/liners? If the latter, they will take 
a lot more break-in than if the former. 

The FPs are supposedly pretty good motors.



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.rc
From: wd6cmu@netcom.com (Eric Williams)
Subject: Re: ANABATIC Combat Slope Planes
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 21:00:40 GMT

seanp@seanp.btv.ibm.com (Sean Reilly) writes:
> I recently saw an advertisement in MAN concerning ANABATIC Combat(?) Slope gliders.
> They come in packages of two and are supposedly sturdy enough to knock each other
> out of the sky.    Are there any 'rules' for these yet?   Does anyone know if they are as 
> sturdy as they say??

The guys who build the kits are locals and I've seen them fly and built
one of the aerobatic models.  The main reason they can crash into each
other and survive is low weight: all up they are about 12oz, so they
just bounce off of each other.  They aren't so much indestructible as
they are designed to break in relatively easy to repair ways, which
holds true with one exception IMHO: the fuselage isn't reinforced
enough and tends to break just behind the wing T.E.  I've thought of
replacing the spruce reinforcing with aluminum from gutter flashing,
but haven't gotten back to that particular model yet.  If you want to
run into each other there aren't many other suitable models, if you
don't mind the price.

As for rules, they were going to hold a combat contest but didn't have
any wind that day.  Basically it's a demolition derby: you can't go too
long without making contact and the last guy in the air is the winner.

-- 
Eric Williams     wd6cmu@netcom.com  |  Never attribute to malice that which
WD6CMU@WD6CMU.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NA       |  is adequately explained by stupidity.
From: torsten@rnivh.rni.sub.org (Torsten Leibold)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
Subject: Re: Light Covering...
Date: 29 Dec 92 12:02:53 GMT
Organization: Rhein-Neckar-Informationsdienst Viernheim

larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:

>Torsten> No !! Don't use tissue like silk or nylon if you'd like
>Torsten> to get a light covering. It needs vast amounts of paint
>Torsten> to get enough tension and that will make the covering
>Torsten> much heavier than any film covering.

>I disagree. Dope and tissue still represents the best low-tech finish if
>you are interested in strength and lightness. (All those FF guys would
>certainly be using something else if it were markedly lighter and
>stronger.)

:-) Have you ever tried to make a finish with tissue and dope on your
own ?? Well, then I cannot understand why you call it low-tech. I
think the handling of an iron is quite easier than that ...

>Interestingly, dope and tissue can be among the finest and most beautiful
>light finishes too. If you don't believe it, take a look at one of Windy
>Urtknowski's CL stunters sometime. By comparison, even the finest monokote
>finish looks downright tacky.

It's no problem to strengthen your structure with tissue/dope, but
it's really hard and very time consuming to get it beautiful. And it's
even harder to get it light. Really !! Have you ever tried it ?
I prefer a strong but light wood construction that doesn't need the
strengthening of the covering and use film for finish instead. The
only reason for me to use tissue/dope is it's durability, so I prefer
that covering on scale-like models or on trainers which I expect to last
longer than just some seasons.

Bye,
  Torsten.

-- 
  +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
  |   Torsten Leibold, Konrad-Adenauer-Allee 105, 6806 Viernheim, Germany   |
  |  UUCP: torsten@rnivh.rni.sub.org    ..!unido!orfeo!rnihd!rnivh!torsten  |
  +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
From: hqp@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (hai.quang.pham)
Subject: Wanderer 72 ARF
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 14:20:17 GMT
Keywords: Sailplane



Does any one know about Dynaflite Wanderer 72 ARF? I saw it in Tower
Hobbies catalog 93 for 119.99. Can it be converted for electric?
I had a Dynaflite Piece O Cake (I bought a used one), I really love
it very much because it is very easy to fly for beginner.

Thanks
Hai Pham
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
From: liggio@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Vincent J. Liggio)
Subject: Re: First Trainer Questions
Reply-To: liggio@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Vincent J. Liggio)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 14:31:26 GMT

In article <43373@gremlin.nrtc.northrop.com> johnson@charming.nrtc.northrop.com (Greg Johnson) writes:
>  I would definitely go with the $70 OS .40FP.  That was my first R/C engine,
>and I still have it.  I've flown it for years, on several airplanes and in just
>about every conceivable environment, including subterranean!  To be frank, I
>would tend to question the knowledge or the `willingness to put your interests
>ahead of his' of the hobby shop person who is urging you to go with the OS
>.46SF as your first engine.  Totally unnecessary.  Counter-productive, in
>fact.  As a beginner that kind of power is a distinct disadvantage.  You need
>to take the .40 FP, and putt-putt a high-wing trainer around at about 1/3
>throttle for quite a while (months at least) before you get a rip-snortin'
>fancy, high-powered engine.  It's like trying to learn to drive in a
>Lambourghini.  (sp?)

I agree fully with this.  I started my flying on a Great Planes Trainer 40,
and the Hirtenberger (sp?) .40 engine I had had more than enough power to
spare on it, and subsequently made learning to land much more difficult,
until I switched to a 11x4 prop to slow down things.  The power is great
when you learn to do basic aerobatics, but when you try to land and don't
have much control over your plane because of inexperience, and it is going
60+ mph and refuses to slow down on the downwind leg, it can get
frustrating (but you will learn quickly, so don't let it get you down).
Good Luck!

Vince

Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
From: vanzwol@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Ted Van Zwol)
Subject: Log Books -- Does anyone in R/C netland maintain such a monster?
Organization: Boeing Computer Services
Distribution: boeing
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 21:41:30 GMT


I have a question that I'd like to present to the net.  It really strikes
my curiosity.

I hate to say "true" pilots---hmm, let's say "full-scale" pilots maintain
a log book of hours, etc.  I realize most of this is for FAA purposes,
especially if one is trying to work toward advanced certifications.  But,
I'm curious to know if [anyone | many | most] of you maintain a log of
flights for your R/C aircraft...If so, what do you track in your log?

BTW, I'm a beginner pilot who's still trying to patch up my plane from an
incident a year ago.  I intend to go head strong into flying again this year.
The idea of a log popped into my head, but (I'm almost embarrased to admit)
it seemed somewhat silly, or non-value added.

Comments?


-- 
Ted C Van Zwol                           |    Genius does what it must,
uucp:      {...!}uunet!bcstec!vanzwol    |    Talent does what it can.
internet:  vanzwol@bcstec.ca.boeing.com  |                  -Emerson
                         ^^^^ new...
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
From: svoboda@rtsg.mot.com (David Svoboda)
Subject: Re: First Trainer Questions
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 19:10:35 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.080739.2559@inland.com> bloom@inland.com writes:
|
|Gee, doesn't your throttle go both ways?  This is the first time I've 
|ever heard anyone complain about having too much power.  

Model engines usually do not have a separate midrange mixture control,
and are often somewhat ragged in the lower 1/3 of the operating range.
It is MUCH easier to tune an engine for the top 1/2.  

Also, when teaching students to take off, I find it much easier and
safer if there is a *medium* amount of power.  (Takeoffs should ALWAYS
be done at full throttle).  Too little power, of course, and climbing 
is difficult.  But too much climb is bad, too, because students are 
rarely very sensitive to airspeed, and can stall easily.  If you
make them keep the climb gradual, they either get flying WAY too
fast to be that low, or they have to deal with the throttle control
when they are concentrating on just flying the airplane.  Likewise,
landing training consist of repeated approaches in the pattern, but
instead of flaring for landing, advancing the throttle (to full, again
because it is easy to find) for the go-around.  Again you have the
problem of either too much climb or too high an airspeed.

So there definitely ARE problems associated with too much power in
a trainer.  I have gone so far as to use a computer radio to limit
the throttle response on a student's trainer (if they are having a
problem due to overpower), but many instructors may not think of
that.

So, there indeed are problems with having too much power.  A 40FP is
ample power for training on a 40-trainer.  The 46 may or may not be
too much power.  It mostly depends on how heavy your plane comes out.

|The only 
|valid reasons to choose the FP are lower cost and lighter weight (not 
|really an issue for a .40 size trainer).  

Lower maintenance.  Less effect from dirt.

IMO, the cost issue is overriding.  The BB motor will not gain him
anything, as he doesn't NEED the extra power that can be had.

If you think that a .40 sized trainer cannot take off without a
high-powered .46 in the nose, well, I would guess that you DON'T
pay much attention to weight. :-)

|The analogy about the 
|Lamborgini is not the best:  More like trying to learn to drive in a 
|Chevy Caprice with automatic transmission and V8, if it had a 4 cylinder 
|engine it would be no easier to drive and might not make it up the first 
|really big hill.

Except that a 40FP is ample power for a .40-sized trainer.  And the
analogy is also apt with regard to the cost issue.

Again, I suggest that the student talk to his instructor about the
question.  There are a lot of opinions, here, and the only one he
should really be relying on is his instructor's.

			Dave Svoboda, Palatine, IL
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc