HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gregt@col.hp.com (Greg Tarcza)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
Subject: Re: Glue selection
Date: 30 Dec 1992 02:43:28 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpcsrc9.col.hp.com

chenq@hal.COM (QiFan Chen) writes:
> I am just wondering if wood glues used by carpenters  
> sold in hardware shops can be used on RC planes. Can 
> they take engine's vibrations? Are they less stronger
> than CA or Epoxy? 

I don't know about engine vibration, being a sailplane type...

I would also like to know about other modeler's glue recommendations.
As for myself,  I build by the following rules:

1.  I use CA for balsa-to-balsa joints only.  Fast CA works for 90% of what
    I need to glue.  Medium will work on the rest of the joints unless I 
    am gluing a large area and/or need the time to align the pieces.
    Slow or thick CA is OK for filling small gaps.
2.  I use wood glue (aliphatic resin, not the white glue) on balsa-to-
    harder wood joints or to join two non-balsa woods.  Its sets up in about
    10 minutes (takes a couple of hours to cure) and makes a reasonably tough
    joint.  A typical application would be to glue 1/16" balsa shear webbing
    to spruce spars.
3.  I use epoxy for the "ultimate" joint regardless of wood type although 
    it is almost a waste of a good glue if used for a balsa joint.  Typical
    application would be wing joiner pieces (usually plywood) whereever they
    may be required.  If a large volume needs to be filled, the epoxy can
    be thinned with micro-balloons.
4.  Baking soda and fast CA can be used for beefing up joints, ususally on
    balsa.  If you haven't tried it, a drop of thin CA on a pile of baking
    soda (or a pile of balsa dust) will create instant concrete! 

> I do want to build RC planes and prefer not to take 
> CA/Epoxy fumes.
   
    You might want to try UFO glue.  It works as well as other CAs.  I think
there are a couple of other oderless CA glues on the market, too.


Anybody got any different opinions?

						Greg T.

===============================================================================
Greg Tarcza      WA2OOD                                               /
Hewlett-Packard Company                    Pikes                     /
P.O. Box 2197                               Peak                    /-,  /-,
Colorado Springs, CO  80901                  Soaring               /  / /  /
719-590-2471                                  Society             /  / /--/
								      /
gregt@col.hp.com                                                     /
===============================================================================

Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
From: seanm@terapin.com (Sean McCaskey)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
Subject: Re: Plans
Date: 2 Jan 93 07:23:49 PST
Organization: BBS

re STICK planes:


  I have never built a "Stick" but have flown many.  They are excelent inverted
flyers in that they have a totally symetrical wing and if built the way I
like'em, a flat wing.  They are pretty much a box and wing.  A good choice.  
  BEWARE of aileron flutter on "Sticks".  Some have the ailerons extending
beyond the tip of the wing...sort of flaired to the outsede.  If it has this,
change it so there is a piece of the aileron stock cememted to the rear of the
wing tip and have the true aileron start a few inches inboard of that.  This
should help if you are like me and want a real cookin' engine up front. 
Remember, always seal the hinge gap!

---Sean---
seanm@terapin.com
From: pfoss@cmsa.gmr.com (Pete Foss PO/46)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
Subject: Re: First Trainer Questions
Date: 21 Dec 92 17:24:26 GMT
Reply-To: pfoss@cmsa.gmr.com
Organization: .................

My FP40 is six years old, been in at least 4 airplanes and has hundreds of
flights.  Nice engine for a first timer.  Starts great with an electric starter.

PS It's never had an air filter either.
From: torsten@rnivh.rni.sub.org (Torsten Leibold)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
Subject: Re: Light Covering...
Date: 31 Dec 92 10:30:10 GMT
Organization: Rhein-Neckar-Informationsdienst Viernheim

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

>more difficult to spray than dope. And, although super monokote seems 
>to be the overall best (not easiest to use) plastic film, its
>durability is poor. Where monokote starts to bag and and loosen and

Give Oracover a try, I think it's called Ultracote in the US.
It's a bit heavier than other films but adds much strength and is very
durable ...

>If "harder" = "more time and labor", then I agree with your point. But

Yes, that's my meaning.

>If you are truly interested in learning how to get a superb dope/tissue
>finish, you should give Windy Urtknowski a call. He has a pair of good
>videos out which provide exact details on every aspect of this finish.
>His phone number is (201) 440-0905. However, be warned that he may talk
>your ear off. :-)

Oh my o my .... Thanks for that hint, but oversea calls are rated with
1 cent per 6 seconds ... :-) That would be really too much.

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: rhk2j@csissun12.ee.Virginia.EDU (Robert H. Klenke)
Subject: Re: DECATHLON
Followup-To: rec.models.rc 
Keywords: spin recovery 
Reply-To: rhk2j@csissun12.ee.Virginia.EDU (Robert H. Klenke)
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:37:42 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.135700.20431@bnr.ca>, petera@bcars630.UUCP (Peter
Ashwood-Smith) writes:
|> In article <jrp.724915085@wombaj.kowari.cpsg.com.au>,
jrp@bohra.cpg.oz.au (John Pitman) writes:
|> |> Hi there,
|> |> One observation that should be added about decathlons is that they
do not 
|> |> recover from spins well - that is they have to be flown out, they
wont recover
|> |> with just neutralization of controls - you need to give opposite
rudder etc
|> |> to get them out. This is true of full size as well as models I am
told.
|> |> I once saw a guy bury two in one day (neither of them his own)
despite being
|> |> told about this attribute  in advance!
|> |> jp
|> 
|>    Come on now, what is so special about a Decatholon? Even a pattern
plane does not normally need to be flown out of a spin it is typically
enough to relax controls and the spin stops and a slow spiral results.
My guess is that the guys that are piling i|> n Decatholons would also
pile in a Cub. Besides the Decatholon has some dehedral does it not?
|> 
|>    Peter  

	Many (read most) full size aircraft need positive recovery (ie. full
opposite rudder, pop the stick forward) from a spin. The Stearman I used
to fly
needed it and it still took 3/4 of a turn to recover. The longer the
spin was,
the faster it spun. Although full size aircraft are more likely to have
this tendency (because if their higher moments of inertia, I think) some
models have the same tendency. I had a GP Kaos .40 the needed positive
recovery and a friend of mine spun it into the ground because I didn't
tell him this. A more rearward CG
helps to contribute to this tendency.

Bob Klenke
UVA
From: gt4902a@prism.gatech.EDU (Chris 'John Smoltz' Johnson)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
Subject: Updating radios to narrow band
Date: 21 Dec 92 01:57:37 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

I have a Futaba 6NLK that I bought just before the narrow band rules
went into effect a few years ago.  Does anyone know the address to 
Futaba that I can right to get my radio converted?   I would like to 
fly next season or there after.

Thanks
Smoltz

-- 
All in all its just another   | ___ |            Christopher Mark Johnson 
brick in the wall!!        ----/___\----           -aka-    John Smoltz  
               x--------------(  .  )--------------x 
 -Pink Floyd      x|x  x|x  |__\___/__|  x|x   x|x    gt4902a@prism.gatech.edu    
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Subject: Re: rumor: Lubbock may NOT be 93 Nats site..
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory
	<BzGHz7.ED5@acsu.buffalo.edu> <1992Dec18.220122.10441@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
	<BzMH2M.G55@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
Distribution: rec.models.rc
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 18:46:33 GMT

Well, fellers, what I'm now told is that FAA approval for the Lubbock site
had been merely VERBAL, and that the problem came up when trying to get
the formal written approval. Apparently that is not to say that the
written approval won't actually be forthcoming, but might just be balled
up in bureacratic red tape or something.

At any rate, it seems that the site was changed back to Lawrenceville
because the practical time frame to make the site decision had expired.
And, it was suggested to me, that Lubbock may still well end up the site
of the 94 Nats. Let's hope so.

(Please feel free to jump in here and correct my third hand information.)

Nothing against Lawrenceville (I'm a native Illinoisian myself), but I'd
like to see the Nats at a more geographically centered site, or better
yet, rotated between a set of such sites. I know it will end up costing
our AMA a few more bucks, but it would be more interesting and competitive I
think. Just MHO.

Happy holidays!
L.
_____________________________________________________________________________
             ___  P-38s Rule        | Larry E. Cunningham          |   
     |      /(*)\                   | New Mexico State University  | (O)(-)
    _:_____/_.-. \_______/ \        | Las Cruces, NM USA 88003     |  /..\
   <_|```` ,=__=_} }_____---)       | larry@psl.nmsu.edu           |   ==
    _:;___:/ (..)_\       \ \       |----------------------------------------
 <===    , \--~~--/_> Yahoo!\ \_    |"Yo, Buddy..
  \,_:____\__.--.__|________ /  \   | I've got yer Computer!
   <_|``````________ } }_____ \_/)  | Right HERE!!"         (computer THIS!)
     :;_____\      |--;       \_/   |----------------------------------------
     |       \ (*) |                | Have you hugged your engineer today?
              \___/  Lightning!     | If so, things might be very different!
____________________________________|________________________________________
Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, and all mine, not PSLs and not NMSUs..
I see your Rolls Royce and raise you *two* 12-cylinder turbo charged Allisons.
From: ed@kronos.com (Ed Baker)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
Subject: Re: out of control!
Date: 28 Dec 92 19:11:59 GMT
Organization: Kronos Inc. / Waltham, MA
Disclaimer: This posting is a personal opinion and not that of Kronos Inc.

It does *not* sound like interference; that would have caused the control
surfaces to extend all the way, not remain neutral.  The fact that they
did remain neutral implies no power to either the Tx or Rx.  Did you say
that you checked the controls immediately before that launch?  Also, did
you check the controls at the crash site?  Maybe you switched off the Rx
as you were launching the plane.  Is the switch at the point where you hold
the plane during launch?  Also try shaking both the Tx and Rx to check for
loose connections.

-Ed
-High Flyers (Cold Flyers recently)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
From: petera@bcars630.UUCP (Peter Ashwood-Smith)
Subject: Re: O.S. 46 Engine
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 14:16:19 GMT

In article <1041@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, mjbst13+@pitt.edu (Mark J Brositz) writes:
|> Sometime recently, someone posted about an article in RCM magazine that talked
|> about putting an O.S. 46 size engine in the Concept 30 helicopter.  Does anyone
|> have any details on how this is done?  

   They extended the aluminum mount with some spot welds, filed them flush with the
surface. Then they ground away some aluminum from the inside of the mount redrilled it
and presto. 

   Peter
From: bloom@inland.com
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
Subject: Re: First Trainer Questions
Date: 21 Dec 92 08:15:22 CST
Organization: Inland Steel Company; East Chicago, IN

In article <1992Dec20.170241.973@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.

There are plenty of other engines on the market that cost less than the 
OS .46 SF and perform just as well.  I like the Enya .45 CXTV or the 
Supertigre .45 ABC; both are about $20-30 cheaper than the OS .46 SF-
ABN.  A bushing motor like the OS .40 FP has much less power (about the 
same power as strong .25" motor) than an equivalent ball bearing motor. 
Your trainer may not need more power than the FP provides, but you can 
always throttle a strong engine back.  If you're short on power, you 
can't do anything but buy another engine.  Strong engines are an added 
safety margin on take-off.  You can make steeper climbs without stalling 
the plane.  Weak engines are much more critical on needle valve settings. 
If the power is marginal, any change in the needle setting may reduce 
the power enough to cause a stall and crash.   Also, there is no more 
messing around with ball-bearing motors than there is with bushing 
motors.  All you do is run them dry at the end of the day, and give 
them a dose of Marvel Mystery Oil.  As for break-in, with a good 
strong .45 ABC ball-bearing engine, all you do is put it in the plane 
and fly it - running in a rich 2-cycle.


> 
> 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?


While a filter can't hurt engine longevity, it can make starting more 
difficult because you can't easily put your finger over the venturi 
to choke the engine.  In addition the filters tend to get wet with 
fuel that is spit from the carb, and this restricts air flow which 
reduces power and can upset the mixture adjustment.  I used a filter 
on my first R/C engine, but no longer use them.
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
From: fisher@kay.enet.dec.com (kay::fisher)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
Subject: RE: First Trainer Questions
Date: 22 Dec 92 05:17:22 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
X-Posted-Via: NEWS-NOTES gateway (a hack!)

>                               <<< Note 486.0 by ::Martin Gallant "martyg@bnr.ca (Martin Gallant)" >                                                    -< First Trainer Questions >-
,..
>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.

No - save the money.  Your first engine is going to be in front of
your first trainer and you can expect to be stuffing it into the
ground/pavement a few times.  While the .46 is a nice engine you won't
need the power.  In addition - failure to properly apply after run
oil to the .46 will ruin it.  The bushing .40 won't rust up.

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################
From: dqwelch@sgidq4.sdrc.com (Mike Welch)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
Subject: Re: out of control!
Date: 28 Dec 92 19:22:23 GMT
Organization: SDRC

In article <1hnbe4INNhmb@austin2.hal.COM>, chenq@hal.COM (QiFan Chen) writes:
|> I own a Airtronics Fm 4 ch. radio (Tx and Receiver) and have used it on a
|> gentle-lady ship for a while. This Sunday, the radio failed just I tossed the
|> plane out on a slope. I observed that the fin and the elevator kept in the
|> neutral position in the air. They did not respond to Tx stick movement at all.
|> I did check the radio and tested the servos before the launch.
|> 
|> The plane crashed landed. I was lucky as the damage to the plane is minimal
|> and nobody was hurt.
|> 
|> I examined all the connections and the radio after the crash and found nothing
|> abnormal. In fact, I flew the plane for a little while afterwards. It was
|> perfect.
|> 
|> Question:
|> 
|> Does anybody have the similar experience ? with a Airtronics or a Futaba Radio?
|> 
|> What could possibly caused the failure? Any weak points inside the Tx and
|> receiver ?  Interference?
|> 
|> Anysuggestions as how to prevent this from happening?

I had a similar experience with a Chuperosa and a high start.  Mine was easy
to solve.  The next time I launched, I turned the reciever on.  Everything was 
fine after that.
From: seanm@terapin.com (Sean McCaskey)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
Subject: Gold Addition Corsair.
Date: 25 Dec 92 12:02:45 PST
Organization: BBS


  Well, winter building season is here. Time to get the glue out.

  I have a nice  TopFlight F4U Corsair to build.  I have buiilt and flown
plenty of planes.  I can handle the hot ones and tail draggers, but this one is
going to be my first semi-scale war bird with retracts.  I have a few
questions....also I would like any hints/kinks anyone who has built this beast
might have experienced.

  1 Engine choice.  I prefer 2 stroke, and it calls for .60-.80.  I know a .60
will be to weak if I build it with retracts.  Will a .Super Tiger .90 be too
much?

  2 What sort of retracts should I use?  I know they have to be 90 degee
rotating, but the mechanicals I have seen don't always lock down.  What about
numatic?  Are they reliable?
  3 (Last one) What sort of finsh is best?  I don't want to plastic wrap it as
it always make the planes look like a plastic toy.  What about light fiberglass
and paint?  Will this make it alltogether too heavy?

  Thanks!

 ---Sean---
 seanm@terapin.com
  No man is a failure who has friends.
From: dqwelch@sgidq4.sdrc.com (Mike Welch)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
Subject: Wind Weasel from DCU Models... Anyone?
Date: 29 Dec 92 21:17:00 GMT
Organization: SDRC

I recently purchased a Wind Weasel kit from Hobby Shack.

I think it is a fairly new kit from DCU models.  I saw a
mention of it in magazine.  It is a 'competition hand
toss' glider.  I thought it was kind of unique with its
fiberglass pod and carbon fiber boom.  

Has anyone else built, flown or seen this kit?

				Thanks,

				Mike

******************************************************************************
  Mike Welch                 * "Gun laws go against Darwin's Theory.
  SDRC                       *  Let stupid people kill each other."
  2000 Eastman Drive         * 
  Milford, Ohio 45150        * "Governments should not mandate the
  Tel: (513) 576-2514        *  use of safety belts.  Let Natural
  Email: Mike.Welch@sdrc.com *  Selection work."  - me
******************************************************************************
From: lew@4ccvw68.scg.hac.com (Lyman Lew)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
Subject: Re: First Trainer Questions
Date: 22 Dec 92 01:54:41 GMT
Reply-To: lew@4ccvw68.UUCP (Lyman Lew)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA

In article <1992Dec20.170241.973@bnr.ca> martyg@bnr.ca (Martin Gallant) writes:
   > <Some stuff deleted for brevity.>
   >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.
   >
I think the store owner just wants to sell you a higher price engine for 
a little more profit. The .40 is more than adeqaute for a trainer. The .46
would just be overkill if you are just learning. Every RC/CL flyer I've known
has crashed more than once. To fly a trainer with an expensive engine is a
complete waste of money especially if you are learning the fundamentals of
RC flying. I've flown the OS .40FP in a Sig Kadet and Carl Goldberg Eagle 
and it behaves very well for the beginner. The speed does not get outrageous
with this combination and the engine responds very well. I have also flown
an Eagle with an OS.45 FSR and it was very fun to fly but somewhat difficult
to train. I have to cut the throttle down to a 1/3 to have it fly slow enough
for my friend to fly it and respond to it. Flying at this throttle setting,
we discovered the engine would load up after several minutes of flying. This
became a problem when we had to abort a landing on our short runway. The engine
hesitated and we couldn't clear the fence at the end of the runway, oops. 
I told my friend to put a simpler lower performing engine in it like the FP.
There are no ball bearings to replace; No rings to eat up; Parts are cheaper
and fewer; And the engine will run closer to its power peak for training.
I would save the .46SF for a sleeper or high speed sport plane.

   >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)

If dust is a problem, by all means use a filter. I had a Royal .45 and 
a K&B .61 that ingested some dirt at the flying field and the results
were not pretty. However, working on model engines is not a problem with
me so I don't use a filter very much unless I'm out in the desert. You
will find the engines running richer with a filter especially if the
element is soaked with fuel and oil. Some performance will be lost when
using a filter also.


Good Luck,

Lyman Lew, lew@caesi.scg.hac.com
From: dbraun@cad636.intel.com (Doug Braun )
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
Subject: Re: ANABATIC Combat Slope Planes
Date: 22 Dec 92 17:41:10 GMT
Organization: Intel Design Technology

In article <1992Dec21.181617.35003@watson.ibm.com>, 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??


I looked in the box of one of these last week.  Basically the plane has:


1: Foam wings and fuse.
2: Spruce strips for spars and fuse longerons.
3: Roll of strong, stiff 2" wide packing tape to cover it with.
4: sheet balse tail surfaces (I think)
5: Hardware

They are very simple planes.  The radio and servos sit in holes dug into the top of
the fuselage, and the pushrods run above the top of the fuse.  The kit has
pretty good directions.  Definitely a "throwaway" plane, but a bit on the expensive
side ($26) for something disposable.
No idea how well it flies.  Definitiely not for windy days, though!

                         

-- 

"There is no human problem which could not be solved if
 people would simply do as I advise." -- Gore Vidal


 Doug Braun                         Intel Design Technology
                                    408 765-4279

 dbraun@scdt.intel.com

                 / decwrl \
                 | hplabs |
 or maybe:      -| oliveb |- !intelca!mipos3!cadev6!dbraun
                 | amd    |
                 \ qantel /