HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lewis@oasys.dt.navy.mil (William Lewis)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
Subject: Re: newbie type
Date: 13 Aug 92 19:54:38 GMT
Reply-To: lewis@oasys.dt.navy.mil (William Lewis)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In rec.models.rc, tjreynol@zephyr.cair.du.edu (The Jumpin Dude) writes:
>say, i'd like to learn to fly an RC airplane, saw some a few weeks ago
>doing acrobatics, etc.,
>
>went to the local hobby store for some basic info, checked out some
>trainer type planes, but i'm really turned off right now by  the idea
>of spending *100* hours to build a model before i can even attempt to
>learn to fly; i think that it should be much more reasonable perhaps
>to buy an assembled trainer from someone else, say for a couple of
>hundred dollars complete with radio and all (???) before
>i go investing months of time, ..
>
>does tihs sound like a reasonable idea?
>i don't know, i'm just looking for ideas.
>
>thanks,
>tim

I think that it sounds reasonable.  But I'm in the process of building
my first RC plane. I have no ideahow much timme  that I've invested
in to it, but it is alot.  Costs so far have been $190 for radio, $40
for plane kit, and about $150 in supplies and special tools that I didn't
already have, and $75 for an engine. totaling $450. I'm sure I'll exceed
$500 by the time I'm ready to fly ( especially if I join AMA , and the
local club $90 for both ).  Granted,I could have saved about $150 by
not buying some of the gear and tools (electric starter, heat gun etc..)
and I could have spent less on a 4-ch radio ( $120 ). But I plan to
continue with this hobby , and I'm sure I would have bought these Items
anyway.  Well that's my story... now to answer your question a little
deeper.

IF you can find someone who is willing to sell you his whole setup for
only a couple of hundred...BUY IT.  That is ( there's always a catch)
IF 1. the radio is up to spec (doubtful)
   2. The plane has not been crashed ( Most trainer's end up this way,
      I hear.)
   3. The engine has a muffler ( most fields won't allow you to fly
      without one, besides the fact that the noise will make you gou
      deaf) Most older motoers didn't have them and they're hard and
      expensive to find.


Solution: Buy an ARF or an AWARF plane.  Though I don't have any experience
with arfs or awarf's They seem like a good way to go if you're not an ar
experienced builder or feel like you have the time to spend buildingt

You'll still need to buy a radio, engine, fuel, glow plug batteries,
and whatever else you might want in the field.  Unless you know someone
who is willing to loan you all of these things.

Well that's by bank account's worth of advice etc...

BILL bill

I hate this keyboard, and I hate this online editor!!!!!!
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
From: svoboda@rtsg.mot.com (David Svoboda)
Subject: Re: Foam Cores
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 01:07:36 GMT

In article <5898.2a93a812@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
|
|For full-size planes, here's the technique we use for fiberglass over foam.

	[Good Stuff.  Deleted.]

Something I have never had the guts to try on a wing is to cover foam with 
fiberglass and epoxy, as Bill described, then, after the epoxy dries
completely and you join the wings and fiberglass the centersection, drill
a small hole in each wingtip, take the wing outside, and pour gasoline
into the wing, *dissolving the foam*, and dumping it out the other hole.  
Theoretically, you would have a strong monocoque structure.  If you wanted 
to give it some extra strength in any direction, you could just introduce 
the structure you wanted into the foam before you fiberglass it (eg, if 
you wanted ribs, you could cut the foam into sections, then glue the 
sections back together with a balsa rib at each cut location), and the 
epoxy would just glue the structure right to the skin.

I once used this technique to make a one-off fiberglass fuselage, complete
with bulkheads and wing fillets.  But everyone has heard of hollow fiberglass
fuselages.  But hows about a hollow fiberglass wing?  :-)

	Dave Svoboda, Palatine, IL
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
From: chaffin@sab45.larc.nasa.gov (Mark Chaffin)
Subject: Re: Anyone out there from the Greensboro, NC area?
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 14:57:45 GMT

I believe Greensboro is where they have a massive IMAA fly-in every year.
One guy I fly with goes down there every year.  I believe it is run by
some guy with lots of land and lots of money.  My friend brought back a
tape he made of this summer's fly-in.  Don Lowe was there flying some guys
Constellation.  I think Bubba Spivey (Lanier) was there with his Stinger.
The field is so big that they brought in a Pilatus Porter.  From what I've
seen and heard, it's a great place to fly.  Hope to be there next summer.

I think there might have been something in one of the recent Model Aviation
issues about it.

Mark Chaffin
chaffin@sab45.larc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
From: bobwo@ecs.comm.mot.com (Bob Woodhouse)
Subject: Re: 2WD 1/10th offroad
Organization: secure_comm
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 11:58:22 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.222609.19155@beaver.cs.washington.edu> waynew@cs.washington.edu (Wayne Wong) writes:
>
>Just some questions...
> 

[RC10 Question deleted by Schumacher driver]

>
>(2) I think that I want give modified racing a try.  What are typical
>	final gear ratios to use with say a 15T or 17T quad (on a 
>	relatively short and/or medium track)?  

I'm not quite certain.  I have recently started 2WD 1/10 offroad modified
buggy racing.  A lot of people at my track gear pretty high, so maybe they
would choose about an 8.6:1 final ratio.  I was gearing pretty low on
my 16 turn motor;  10:1.

>
>(3) Modified motor brushes... how often should one replace these?  What
>	compound do these come with?  Should I replace them with soft or 
>	hard silver brushes?  I would like to minimize comm. wear.
>                

I have asked this same question many times.  If you go to various hobby
stores in your area and ask for a brush good foor modified motors, you
may come away with several different brands, but it seems that most people
I have met use full-size (uncut) soft brushes.  I initially used silver
brushes borrowed from my 'slot machine' motor.  I really can't tell the
difference in performance;  however, I must be a relatively numb driver
since what I see as a subtle differences or as no difference is often
perceived by others as an amazingly huge difference.  I hear that comm
wear is much greater with silver, especially hard silver, brushes.


>(4) Sometimes I've noticed modified racers using 6 cells instead of 7.  Is
>	this because they want to have less "punch" out of turns,
>	save weight, etc?
>                          

I chose to use 6 cells right from the start.  It certianly was not my idea
to reduce punch.  I guess from my on-road, parking lot experience, I found
that the punch of the 7th cell was balanced out by its weight.  That is,
I saw no final racing results that indicated I should use 7 cells, and I figured
that twisty off-road courses might give the same result.  Maybe depending on the
size and traction of the track, 7 cells would be better.  I know that I was
able to pace an RC10 which had 7 cells, higher final gear ratio, and a motor
similar to mine (12 double) while I had a CougarII and 6 cells.  So, of course,
I will say that 6 cells can perform as well as 7, and since 6 cells are cheaper
than 7, I am swayed towards 6.

>
>Thanks,
>Wayne
From: bloom@inland.com
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
Subject: Re: Anybody with experience in 2IM problems please contact me by email
Date: 12 Aug 92 11:11:35 CST
Organization: Inland Steel Company; East Chicago, IN

In article <1992Aug06.183610.2984@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, mkfeil@bcrki9.bnr.ca writes:
> I am in the process of trying to convince my club that 2IM is a real problem
> now that odd channels are much more common. Any two transmitters operating 23
> channels apart have the potential of wiping out every single conversion
> receiver no matter what channels the receivers are on. This is because a 23
> channel spacing is 460 Khz, which is very close to the 455 Khz intermediate
> frequency of single conversion receivers.
> 
> This topic has received a fair bit of writeup in the model press, but I can't
> seem to convince anybody that they should be putting up a single pin 23
> channels away from their main pin. I have had one crash and one near crash
> already this summer due to this. The near crash was a confirmed case of two
> others 23 flying channels apart. Luckily I didn't have enough control to
> throttle forward for takeoff! I have since switched to a dual conversion
> futaba conquest system in my pattern plane, but there are still many people
> out there (including me) who have single conversion receivers in some of
> their planes.

The easiest solution is for your club to make everone fly with dual conversion
receivers.  At my field in the suburbs of Chicago, single conversion AM 
receivers are pretty useless.  I have witnessed 3 crashes as a result of 
some kind of radio interference hitting Futaba Attack AM receivers (Futaba 
claims these are narrow band, but they are not dual conversion).  I don't 
believe it was 2IM interference as noone else was flying.  I can only guess 
it was pagers.
From: sbixby@cup.portal.com (Steven W Bixby)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
Subject: Re: Futaba speed control with Airtronics Radio
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 10:19:51 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

>Ok, I know that Airtronics receiver can be used with a Futaba servo,
>does anyone see any problem using a Futaba Electronic speed control with
>an airtronics reciever?  I really dont want to blow up the speed
>control, but Airtronics want >$100 for thiers and I already have a
>Futaba in an R/C car, soooooo I want to use that.  

Go for it - as was mentioned before, get the speed control wiring set up
first, or the speed control will go the way of the Great Part Bin in the
sky.  ;-)

>I'm going to put it in a Great Planes PT-Electric.  I really dont like
>the cheesy little microswitch pushed by a servo arrangment they want to
>use.

The only problem with using a speed control in lieu of servo/switch, is
that you'll lose some flying power & time from losses generated by the
speed control - I would guess at least 2-300 rpm less and about 5 percent
reduction in run time - especially if your Futaba ESC is one of the older
low frequency switching rate units - but I'd give it a try and see how it
goes, anyway.  (I'm a charter member of Tinkerer's Anonymous.)

  -swb-  (Steve Bixby - sbixby@cup.portal.com)
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: Q500 needing Reform...
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 14:51:20 GMT

In article <1195667300@trsvax> earl@trsvax.tandy.com writes:
|   The problem has been the engine. When they allowed "any production .40" then
|   the money guys all got into max'ing out their planes and going as fast as
|   possible. These are the guys who come out for the races with 5 airplanes
|   ready to go (if ya crash one just get another out of the van). When someone
|   decides to get super serious into racing and really wants to win, you just
|   can't stop them.

|   The best technique to keeping everything reasonable, is to restrict the
|   engines to one type or brand only. Also all racers need to agree that
|   if someone challenges their engine, that person can buy the engine at
|   the regular suggested retail price from them. This would slow down the
|   fanatics from putting lots of money into a engine, only to have to sell it
|   to someone else "before the races officially start".

Hmmmmmm...

Isn't there something in Q500 that says you have to use a box stock 
engine? This would cut down on the proprietary modifications. In auto
racing (and FAI Team Race) the engine of the winner is taken apart 
and the displacement measured.


|   Of course this system fails at the big money, prizes events, as a fanatic
|   would have several custom engines ready for racing. Since there's bigger
|   prizes and a bigger event, there's more to win; if your serious. When you
|   challenge them, they sell you their racing engine, and just go get another
|   out of the van, anyway.

Yeah but one can race their own engine against them  9-) Nice cheap
way to build up your own stable of fast motors...

Serously though.. How does one race if someone has bought your engine? I
think "claiming" can happen but _after_ the race. 

|   Restricting the engines to a relatively inexpensive engine works the best
|   as more people can build, setup, and fly planes in the races. Then it boils
|   down to skill and experience, and who set their needle valves the best.

Its either that or speed limits and speed limits are stupid in racing 9-)

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NTAIB@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS                 !
From: lew@4ccvw15.scg.hac.com (Lyman Lew)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
Subject: Re: Quickie 500 Needs to be REFORMED!!
Date: 17 Aug 92 20:09:38 GMT
Reply-To: lew@4ccvw15.UUCP (Lyman Lew)
Distribution: na
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA

In article <BszBqo.533@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
>
>Here are some other restrictions that might work and not obsolete 
>anything:
>
>1) Restrict venturi size. This was done with FAI Combat and caused
>   a pretty good slowdown. That class was getting too fast for pilots
>   to keep up with. Didn't reduce the carnage though...
>
>2) Legislate a competition prop. Hopefully something large enough 
>   to slow things down. The Nelson can't produce power at lower 
>   rpm's so they'd have to modify it (eg. lower the exhaust timing)
>   with the end result being lower speeds overall.
>
>3) Reduce the amount of nitro allowed in the management-supplied 
>   fuel. 
>
>4) Use a metered volume of fuel. Competitors will have the option 
>   of running wide open and running out of fuel (resulting in a Zero 
>   score) or throttling back and not running out of fuel. Easy to do 
>   with a syringe (the officials suck tanks dry before they refill 
>   it to avoid people putting pure nitro in the tank before taking 
>   it to the filling station). 
>
>They could also just ban the Nelson or have a $150 price cap. The 
>problem is that the other engines also have pretty high list prices.
>

Iskandar,

These are excellent suggestions and can easily be implemented. Note
similar restrictions are used in the INDY 500. Smaller CFM carburetors
and lower turbo boost are two that comes to my mind. The big reason
for this is to slow down cars and minimize the potential for carnage.



Lyman Lew, lew@caesi.scg.hac.com































Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
From: svoboda@rtsg.mot.com (David Svoboda)
Subject: Two Strokes, Four Cycles (was Re: Responses from Engine troubles)
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 14:33:22 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.044459.17915@uwm.edu> jam@ee.uwm.edu (Jeff McKelvey) writes:
|
|After doing the above, a couple of more questions have come up.  First of
|all, what is 2 cylcing and 4 cycling?  I didn't realize a 2 cycle engine
|was capable of 4 cycling.  

Well, Clarence Lee wrote an article about this sometime back, stating that
as far as a two stroke goes, it's completely impossible for the engine to
have four cycles (that is, firing every other revolution).  He did some
sort of testing and proved that the charge was indeed firing every rev,
even though the pitch sounds like it's not.  It has something to do with
exhaust timing harmonics.  (How's that for hand waving? :-)

|How do you tell the difference?  

Anyway, what you do is enrichen the mixture until the engine
is barely running at full throttle.  Now, lean out the mixture until you
are at full rpm, listening carefully to the pitch of the engine as you
go.  What you are listening for is an abrupt doubling of the sound 
pitch, as if the cylinder was all of a sudden doubling the number of
power strokes.  If you can get it right at a specific point, the engine
can "break" back and forth, all by itself.  This is the transition
point.  When you can hear the break between 2 and 4 cycling you have 
a good reference point that is fixed wrt mixture (which the needle 
valve position *isn't*, necessarily, for all conditions).

Some engines don't exhibit the behavior too well, esp ABC engines, for
some reason.  Also note that it is *bad* for an ABC engine to "four
cycle" for a long time, although a ringed or lapped engine likes it.
It's just too rich for an ABC, and lets the cylinder temperature drop
to a point that the clearances are too tight.

If you ever get the chance to see a Ukie stunt event, you will come
to a very quick realization of the difference between 2 and 4 cycling.
(Or do they still do it that way?  Larry?)

Cheers.

		Dave Svoboda, Palatine, IL
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
From: mmarks@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Matthew D Marks)
Subject: Re: SAE Contest in MODEL AVIATION
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 18:03:44 GMT

Ohio State also participated in the competition in Florida.  I was unable to go
with our team, but I was a member of the design team.  Our guys were told that 
we would be in the magazine in the fall, so I'm assuming the articles will come
out next month (Sept.).  Our team placed 4th after crashing on Saturday.  We 
only lifted 17 lbs during the contest but were able to lift 26.5 lbs a month 
before the contest here in Ohio.  I know that humidity and temperature play a 
role on aircraft performance, but so does trying to build a wing better than 
one that lifts 26 lbs with only a month before the competition.

Some engineers just don't know when to stop designing and start building and 
testing.

-Matt
P.S. How did USC do?
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew D. Marks
Graduate Research Associate
Mechanical Engineering Department
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc,rec.models.rockets,alt.models,rec.models.railroad
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.models.scale
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 14:54:46 GMT

OK people...


Is this thread dead or are we going to have a call for votes????? 

Lets get this going before the Scale World Champs at the end of this 
month!!!!



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NTAIB@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS                 !
From: hutto@SMTC.engr.scarolina.edu (Brent Hutto)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
Subject: Re: re:AM vs FM AGAIN? - Have Mercy
Date: 17 Aug 92 17:27:09 GMT
Reply-To: hutto@smtc.engr.scarolina.edu
Organization: NIST Southeast Manufacturing Technology Center

In article <Bt4suE.Jpx@paulsun>, paulm@paulsun.UUCP (Paul Moreau) writes:
>
>   Dual conversion on an AM?   I thought that dual conversion was impossible/
>   useless on an AM receiver because of the method of detecting an AM signal.
>   Besides,   I've yet to see an AM receiver that had 'Dual Conversion' on it.

    There's no technical reason that an AM receiver can't be double or
    triple or quadruple conversion or whatever.  There's no relationship
    between modulation and choice of IF frequency.  The only thing that
    is incompatible between AM and dual-conversion is that AM gear is
    usually *cheap* and dual-conversion costs more to implement than
    single-conversion.

-------------------------------
Brent Hutto
hutto@SMTC.engr.scarolina.edu
From: waynew@cs.washington.edu (Wayne Wong)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
Subject: 2WD 1/10th offroad
Date: 13 Aug 92 22:26:09 GMT
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle


Just some questions...

(1) After about a month of racing my RC10 Team car, I noticed some
	marks on the dogbones/universals(?) close to the outdrive hubs of
	the transmission.  There is a perfect circle (parallel to
	how the rear tires turn) on both the left and right.  Are these
	markings typical?  Is it due to an incorrect setup or just part
	of what happens when the rear a-arms are put at extreme angles?

(2) I think that I want give modified racing a try.  What are typical
	final gear ratios to use with say a 15T or 17T quad (on a 
	relatively short and/or medium track)?  

(3) Modified motor brushes... how often should one replace these?  What
	compound do these come with?  Should I replace them with soft or 
	hard silver brushes?  I would like to minimize comm. wear.

(4) Sometimes I've noticed modified racers using 6 cells instead of 7.  Is
	this because they want to have less "punch" out of turns,
	save weight, etc?


Thanks,
Wayne
From: jck2@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (john.c.kelly)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
Subject: Anyone out there from the Greensboro, NC area?
Date: 13 Aug 92 14:24:17 GMT
Organization: AT&T

I'd like to know who and where the clubs are in that area.  I'm sure
a good way will be to visit the hobby shops, but ...

jck
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: A great guy....
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 02:30:19 GMT

In article <seanm.17s8@terapin.com> seanm@terapin.com (Sean McCaskey) writes:
>
>  This is going to sound like an advertisement, and I suppose it really is....
>but this guy is a personal friend of mine and a BARCS member (Bay Area Radio
>COntrol Society) as I am....so...

Oh don't worry about it...

I'm always plugging Doc Passen's kits. And I've sold a few glue droppers
over the net myself... 

(btw.. Dave Brown wants _$5_a_dozen_ for the things!!!!!!!)






-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: fisher@kay.enet.dec.com (kay::fisher)
Subject: re:AM vs FM AGAIN? - Have Mercy
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 05:17:08 GMT
X-Posted-Via: NEWS-NOTES gateway (a hack!)

>                           <<< Note 135.0 by ::Bill Gingras "billg@hpspdla.spd.HP.COM (Bill Gingras>                                                 -< AM vs FM AGAIN? - Have Mercy >-
,..
>Well, Futaba also sells a micro system, but it is AM.  So now the big
>question.....
>
>IS AM SO MUCH WORSE THAN FM THAT I SHOULD WAIT TWO AT LEAST TWO MONTHS
>FOR THE FM SYSTEM?

No - AM by itself is not a problem.  The problem is you want a dual conversion
receiver.  The inexpensive Futaba AM systems are NOT dual conversion.
If you want a radio RIGHT AWAY - call Tower and get the Futaba FM (Conquest).
I know they are in stock because I ordered one this Tuesday.  But for
my purposes it is just a flight pack - I have no use for the transmitter.
It will cost you a bit more than the AM but it is a dual conversion receiver
and it will be safe against 2IM interference.

Of course if you really want a radio RIGHT AWAY - you should go to your
local hobby shop.  You'd be surprised - most shops now match Tower prices.
If they won't ask them to.  

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################
From: bingham@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (David Bingham)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
Subject: Re: SAE Contest in MODEL AVIATION
Date: 13 Aug 92 16:22:33 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Rosa, CA


  There's a 3 or 4 page article in the current Flying Models (or is it
Model Builder?...). Quite a few good pictures and a good article. I'll
grab the article and lunch and post some more specifics later.

David 
bingham@sr.hp.com