HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tross@digi.lonestar.org (Tony Ross)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
Subject: R/C Car ForSale
Date: 22 Dec 92 20:53:32 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: none

Wanting to sell a TAMIYA F-1 Wizard, PULSAR 2001 2 channel radio, both in 
mint condition and a TEKIN 411 Speed controller still in package. $150.00.
Interested parties should respond to this message or call (214) 517-3648
and ask for Tony.

Merry Christmas
From: macs@worke.Eng.Sun.COM (This IS a test)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
Subject: Re: MonoKote/SuperMonoKote (was FliteKote<=>MonoKote?)
Date: 31 Dec 1992 05:58:10 GMT
Organization: Sun
NNTP-Posting-Host: worke

In article <1784@necis.UUCP> rbono@necis.UUCP (Rich) writes:
>
>  Q) What is the difference between MonoKote and SuperMonoKote?
>
>  I have a few rolls of each, and I can't really tell any difference in them.
>Is this just a marketing term?  Maybe they changed the name at one point and
>I have some 'old' rolls?  Or is it that some colors are called 'Super' and
>others are simply the 'regular' stuff?
>
When Monokote came out sometime in the Stone Age it was :

	1. Sticky on the back.
	2. Not as durable.
	3. Had less 'shrink factor'
	4. All of the above.
	5. None of the above.

Anyways, at some point, around the Bronze Age, Topflite came out with
a newer, better Monokote, and called it Super Monokote to distinguish
it from it's sibling.  This is the covering we have all come to know
and love (ok, some of you people can substitute hate).  

Now, in their infinite wisdom, the marketeers who are in charge of
this stuff have decided to drop the Super and go with just Monokote.
If you look through your model rags over the last year or so you
should be able to pick out the point when this happened.  Two
of the three magazines I subscrive to (Model Builder, Model Aviation,
and Flying Models) now just refer to Monokote.  I couldn't find
an official reference to Monokote in Model Builder.

I suppose that 'Super' is not a '90s term.  Maybe it will now become
Rad Monokote, or Narly Monokote.  Either that or they are planning
to come out with a newer, better Monokote and they want to call
it Super Monokote, or maybe...

Manuel.
Organization: Arizona State University
Date: Friday, 1 Jan 1993 12:30:32 MST
From: <ICJPS@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
Subject: Re: Great Planes P-51 & 4-stroke
 <725834413snz@harrier.demon.co.uk>

Thanks for the input... I have been favoring the 70 Surpass, mostly on
an intuitive basis.  The cost difference between the 70 & 48 is only
about $30.  The manual is vague, saying the 48 provides "sufficient"
power to fly the plane.  They don't say this is with or without retracts.

==============================================================================
Johnny Stephens   Distance Learning Technology   Arizona State University

              122 degrees?  Well, at least it's a dry heat.
==============================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
From: chengku@cs.washington.edu (Cheng-Chi Ku)
Subject: DUCTED FAN JET FOR SALE
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 17:38:41 GMT


I have a Yellow Aircraft A4 skyhawk that I want to sell.  It was
expertly built and has been test flown.  Its absolutly immaculate.
It comes with OS 91 DF engine, Dynamax Fan, Spring Air retracts, Violett Pipe,
starter probe, retract pump and servos.  You only need to add a receiver and
battery pack to fly.

Its markings are white with red stripes.

It's quite fast but remains as docile as any fast sport ship.

I'm asking $1200, but I will entertain reasonable offers.

If you have any questions, send email to davido@olympus.cfr.washington.edu
From: trljim@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (JIM SONNENMEIER)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
Subject: Re: ANABATIC Combat Slope Planes
Date: 23 Dec 92 13:35:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <Bzo94n.IC8@inews.Intel.COM>, dbraun@cad636.intel.com (Doug Braun ) writes...
>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!
> 
>                         
I`ve never seen it fly either, but a guy in my club was visiting northern
calfornia this fall and saw the designer of this plane flying the heck out 
of it. He described any possible maneuver you might like to try and that 
the plane was very crashworthy. He got a kit but wanted a bigger version of
it (the wing span is 3 feet) so since you get two in a box for your $50 
bucks he used the two wings as wing halves and cut a double sized fuse 
the same shape.  You cover the airplane (all of it) with clear packing tape
(it gains ALOT of strength from the tape) its boxy looking but looks kinda
slick (pun intended).

Jim
From: bs464@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Duncan R. McCoy)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
Subject: Re: First Trainer Questions
Date: 28 Dec 1992 17:23:20 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bs464@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Duncan R. McCoy)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, bloom@inland.com () says:

>In article <43373@gremlin.nrtc.northrop.com>, johnson@charming.nrtc.northrop.com (Greg Johnson) writes:
>> 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?)
>> 
>
>Gee, doesn't your throttle go both ways?  This is the first time I've 
>ever heard anyone complain about having too much power.  The only 
>valid reasons to choose the FP are lower cost and lighter weight (not 
>really an issue for a .40 size trainer).  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.
>
 
How about choosing the OS .40 FP because it's a good engine. The FP doesn't
cost much and is about as totally reliable as an engine can be. It's not at
all fussy, will hold carb settings for ever and will fly a trainer as well
as any engine will. Why spend $140 to do a job that $70 will do? Sure the
beginner will eventually want a hotter engine for another project, but he
can also use the FP .40 later on. Try it in a Midwest Hots. Your FP .40 will
pull that little plane vertical as far as you can see it and give you speeds 
of 90 mph. Use the FP .40 in place of a hot .25 on a smaller plane a ways down
the road.

For training, you want equipment that will give more flying time and less
time fiddling and adjusting.

I don't buy the comment that the flyer "doesn't have to fly at full throttle."
The beginner has a whole bunch of things to learn, simultaneously, while
learning to fly model airplanes. There are plenty of ways to get into trouble
without adding to the options. The beginner wants slow and gentle so he can
master the techniques of takeoff, flying the airplane in a controlled manner,
and landing safely. He needs to learn to fly ahead of the airplane, not 100
yards behind an 80 mph bullet.

Duncan R. McCoy
Boulder City, NV

-- 
Duncan R. McCoy
Boulder City, NV
bs464@cleveland.freenet.edu
---------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Subject: Re: Rocket powered R/C (Estes Astro Blaster)
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 06:39:56 GMT

I thought rocket power was expressly forbidden for R/C work by the AMA. Or
is it just airplanes that shoot rockets?

L.
From: torsten@rnivh.rni.sub.org (Torsten Leibold)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
Subject: Re: Great Planes P-51 & 4-stroke
Date: 2 Jan 93 12:46:42 GMT
Organization: Rhein-Neckar-Informationsdienst Viernheim

ICJPS@ASUACAD.BITNET writes:

>Thanks for the input... I have been favoring the 70 Surpass, mostly on
>an intuitive basis.  The cost difference between the 70 & 48 is only
>about $30.  The manual is vague, saying the 48 provides "sufficient"
>power to fly the plane.  They don't say this is with or without retracts.

In addition, I have the feeling that they assume a paved runway when
they mean 'sufficient'. Imagine a plane with just "sufficient" power:
It's dangerous to get it airborn, close to stall speed - and it just
flies horizontal. Absolutely no fun ! 
Keep in mind: You can always pull the throttle back !

-- 
  +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
  |   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: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: Light Covering...
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 19:42:51 GMT

In article <2569@rnivh.rni.sub.org> torsten@rnivh.rni.sub.org (Torsten Leibold) writes:
>dqwelch@sgidq4.sdrc.com (Mike Welch) writes:

>>I was wondering what kind of covering material to use?  I realize
>>that Monokote is too heavy.  I have used some stuff called
>>Flite Cote.  It was light, but not very strong.

>>Would tissue and dope be advised?  Any other advice?

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

I disagree. Nylon or silk may not be awfully light, but Silkspan is. 
The amount of dope needed to fill the tissue isn't much and the covering
adds a huge amount of stiffness to the structure.

>Your only chance is to find a light film. I usually use Solarfilm by
>robbe for such purposes. But I think that it's too expensive when it
>reached USA....

You can get Solarfilm from Indy R/C. Its cheaper than Monokote, something
like $5 a roll. Problem is that it isn't a film that adds much stiffness 
to the wing.

If I were you I'd investigate the Mylar gift wraps available at KMart 
and Target. These caught my eye a few weeks ago and I bought some. Its
a little expensive for Combat so I might not use much of it but it is
honest-to-goodness mylar - very strong. (Careful though - some colors 
might not be. The irridescent "Opal" film isn't) It is quite a bit 
lighter than Monokote and you will have to brush on Balsarite or use 
3M77 to attach it.







-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: svoboda@rtsg.mot.com (David Svoboda)
Subject: Christmas Goodies
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 16:26:29 GMT

Hey, friends,

Did anyone get any RC-related Christmas stuff this year?

I recieved (from my RCer dad) some plans for scratch-
building from the Model Airplane News plans service.

1. A .15 sized F4F Wildcat.  Really cute, stubby fuse,
	four channels, clark-y, no landing gear.

2. A 40 sized DeBolt Autogyro.  Single rotor, flapping
	blades.  Supposed to have a flying speed from
	70mph to 2mph.  (Can't wait for the fast/slow
	club funflys. :-)

3. A *tiny* .010 powered sport plane for one channel
	(rudder-only) use.  Has about a 14 inch wingspan.

The last item brings a question/request:  Does anyone
have, or know where I can buy, an old Ace Digital
Commander pulse-proportional radio?  I am looking for
a Baby or Baby-Twin system.  I would be interested only
in a working or unworking-but-complete system.  27Mhz
is fine.  I can supply nicads.  I will pay a reasonable
price for a good unit.

Thanks.

		Dave Svoboda, Palatine, IL 
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
From: lesnyd@monsanto.com (Larry E. Snyder)
Subject: Re: Beginner questions (again!)
Organization: DSC
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 19:06:21 GMT

In article <BzH2qr.3IE@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, jtg0707@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jui Tien) writes:
> 
> Holiday Greetings.
> 
Happy Holidays!

> 	   I went down to the store to check out the engines, the K&B and FOX
> 	   do look less *polished* than the O.S. engines. Are they really
> 	   such bad engines?

No, but they aren't the easy-to-run workhorses the OS engines are, either.
As I've posted before, I learned to fly on an Eaglet 50 with a K&B .20 
Sportster and that engine was GREAT. It always started on the second or
third flip and always ran well. But for higher performance, I'd go OS.

> 
> 	2. Question of durability vs. flyability.
> 	   Many people suggested that I should get planes such as U.S. Aircore
> 	   or something called *Duraplane* as beginner trainers. While others
> 	   suggested Balsa planes such as PT40 and the like. The prevailing
> 	   opionion is that Balsa planes fly much better but are very fragile.
> 	   The question is: how fragile is the Balsa planes? How much
> 	   flyability do I give up by going to the *industructable* planes?

You should fly a plane built to FLY, not a plane built to CRASH! A plane
that is "indestructible" probably needs to be, since its wing loading will
be high and it will fly HOT. The most fragile plane around, the SIG Kadet
Senior, is also the easiest to fly. I had never seen one until last summer,
when a newcomer brought one out. It was barely rolling when it simply lifted
up off the ground at about 10 mph! And although this guy was a natural flyer,
within a month he had moved up to a fast low-winger. The Kadet never crashed,
and this guy never had an instructor. I'm not saying the Kadet is THE way to
go, I'd probably recommend an Eagle or PT40 with ailerons, but I strongly
recommend learning on a plane built to FLY, not built to CRASH (I said that
before, didn't I?).

> 
> By the way, I've decided to heed the advice and leave the helicopters for
> later days.

Wise move. 

> Thanks in advance.
> J.T.
> 12/18/92
> 
> 
> 
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
From: jrp@bohra.cpg.oz.au (John Pitman)
Subject: DECATHLON
Organization: Computer Power Software Group Pty Ltd
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 05:18:05 GMT

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
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: New C/L (control-line) FAI rules 
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 15:35:04 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.182341.27111@bernina.ethz.ch>
>Kibo peny@ppc.lpc.ethz.ch writes: >Combat F2D >	Glow engines shall use
>a singel simple chamber silencer of min. internal>	length 40mm
>and max. int. length of 89mm; int. dia. min. 20mm and max. 40mm;
>	with tail pipe max. int. dia. 8mm. Any other shape of the same
>volume limits >	(4 to 32 pi cm#) is acceptable. Total length of the
>exhaust system from engine >	port (xylinder liner) to system outlet
>not to exceed 15cm.

In the latest Model Builder magazine are some pictures of experimental 
mufflers attached to various Russian engines. The interesting ones 
seemed to be made of silicone rubber and were tiewrapped onto the motor.
Hmmm.. wonder if a cloth muffler would be within the rules... I'll bet
it'd even work at reducing the noise!



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NTAIB@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS                 !
From: seanm@terapin.com (Sean McCaskey)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
Subject: Re: Engine problems
Date: 1 Jan 93 14:33:19 PST
Organization: BBS

re FOX crashed engine trouble.

  Are you SURE there is a clear path from the tank to the carb?  Can you blow
into the overflow line and see fuel squirt into the carb?  It sounds like you
may have something jammed in the spray-bar in the carb and thus no fuel is
getting to the engine.
---Sean---
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: rumor: Lubbock may NOT be 93 Nats site..
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: rec.models.rc
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 15:20:26 GMT

In article <BzMH2M.G55@news.cso.uiuc.edu> selig@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (selig michael) writes:

>Well, you don't know me.  I like going back there "year after year
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Yes we do.. 9-)
>after year..."  I grew up in Lawrenceville and have been thrilled with
>having the NATS in my hometown!  Now this year, my vote is for Golden,
>Colorado because that is where I will be...but I might fly back to
>Lawrenceville if indeed it plays host to the NATS again. Any OFFICIAL
>word yet?

>By the way, I think most RC sailplaners like having the NATS in L'ville.
>The site is pretty nice and the thermals are abundant.

Hmmm 

Last time I was there the humidity and heat just about killed us. I 
was working with the Manpower people helping set up tents, running 
water and trash, etc. The day we tore it down was the worst. We could 
only work 15 minutes at a time before taking a rest. Heat exhaustion 
was a very real possibility. 

Our biggest gripe was that we didn't have more help, especially for 
the tear-down. If next you go to the NATS, do volunteer at least a 
day or so to help. Tearing-down day would be the day you'd be most 
needed.

I'd do it again. I'd just hope the weather was a little better.




-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NTAIB@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS                 !
From: johnson@charming.nrtc.northrop.com (Greg Johnson)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
Subject: Re: First Trainer Questions
Date: 21 Dec 92 18:20:19 GMT
Reply-To: johnson@charming.nrtc.northrop.com (Greg Johnson)


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 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?)

> 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?

  Regarding the need for a filter:  completely unnecessary IMHO.  I fly an
R/C helicopter at a very dusty field.  Helis spend a lot more time near the
ground than do airplanes.  I've flown my heli for almost two years at the same
field without an air filter.  (An astute rec.models.rc reader might cock an
eyebrow here; I recently sent out an inquiry about getting more power from my
OS .32 heli engine; that posting and this one may be related!!)
Several people at my airplane and heli clubs have tried them, and at this
point not a single person uses one on an airplane or a helicopter.  They just
don't seem to be worth the bother.

  All that having been said, the bottom line for a hobby is to have fun, and
one thing that means is to do things the way you want to do them.  You're the
boss as far as your own gear is concerned!  Based on your car background, you
might want to goof around with air filters just for the heck of it.

Greg Johnson
johnson@nrtc.northrop.com
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
From: "bernie wong" <bernie.wong@canrem.com>
Subject: enterprise model colour
Reply-To: "bernie wong" <bernie.wong@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: rec
Date: 26 Dec 92 23:37:16 EST

Hi all.  I just got the Star Trek: The Next Generation U.S.S.
Enterprise-D model from AMT-ERTL (stock no. 6619) and would like to know
the correct paint colour for it.  The instruction manual says that it is
"...molded in color so painting is not necessary.".  However, I would
like to paint it.  I can't identify by eye what colour it is molded in,
but if somebody (perhaps from AMT-ERTL) knows could they please tell me
what the colour is?  I, personally, would like to re-paint the model
even though it is "...molded in color...".

Please reply via E-MAIL at bernie.wong@canrem.com.  Any help would be
greatly appreciated.  Thank you!


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Jason Wong
Calling from Markham, Ontario CANADA.  It's not cold though!  :-)
INTERNET E-MAIL: bernie.wong@canrem.com



... I don't know whether to congradulate you or not  Adm Don
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044