The Haught Corner
Around the horn
Cashing it in
In his Technical Director's column, Steve Kaluf makes a good point that bears repeating.
Contest directors and others who send fees or place orders for supplies or plans should send payment by check or money order. Please do not send cash for these transactions.
There have been a few reports of cash allegedly sent to AMA that was not in the envelope when it reached the appropriate party. Since it's impossible to ascertain what happened to the cash (or if it was there to begin with), everyone loses in this deal. If you use a check or money order, you'll have a receipt of the transaction.
Speaking of cash
Charles Rushing needs financial support. (I excerpted his "My Heart Goes Soaring" poem in a previous column.) Charles is compiling "an emotional history" of the Wakefield competition, and he needs help to cover publication costs of the 160-page effort.
The first Wakefield Cup was won in 1911 by E.W. Twining. Since then the event has developed a rich, colorful history that is fully detailed in this book.
Anyone who contributes $40 or more will be listed in the book and will receive a first-edition copy. Contact Charles at Box 1030, Sutter Creek, CA 95685; Tel.: (209) 267-0866.
Mailbag
- Hal Lorimer
- Letter: "I would really like to get the coordinates of the Simplex airfoil."
- Reply: The Simplex has been published in a number of places, including several newsletters and the 1960 Air Trails Annual. It's actually a logarithmic spiral.
- Mike Cook
- Letter: "I was interested to see that you found it necessary to design and build an RC model to get the pilot monkeys off your back. At least, you built it yourself. Building the model is still my prime criterion for judging a real modeler. However, despite your stated enjoyment of the process, the covering job, as seen on the cover, indicates need for practice with both the UltraCote and the iron!"
- Reply: Mike, the cover was shot after Vindicator had suffered a pretty healthy ding following an attempted deadstick landing on a windy day. Thus the covering was loosened, and there were a number of repairs to be made, a radio change, etc. We used the model in this condition to indicate that no matter how busy you are, renewing your AMA license is important. Vindicator has since been restored to flying condition, and the wrinkles have been ironed out again.
- A. Gordon Wheeler
- Letter: "Your excellent article prompts me to write. My recent experiment with a Dynaflite Butterfly reminds me so much of the Vindicator that I just had to tell you about it. I chose to learn RC with the Butterfly because it has a light wing loading, and is nice and slow and stable so that an old fud of 65 with a slow reaction time could have a better chance at learning to fly RC airplanes. I had little trouble learning RC flying and soloed quickly without difficulty, largely because I had time to respond to the Butterfly's slow approach speeds. However, if even a slight wind comes up — especially a gusty wind — then I am out of business. Our flying strip is small—no room for cross-runway approaches and landings. I had an idea. Rather than build another complete airplane with a higher wing loading and ailerons which could handle the crosswinds, why not just build a shorter wing with ailerons for the Butterfly fuselage? I eliminated about 14 inches from each wing center panel, left the tapered outer panels as is, and made the aileron area about 9% of the new wing area. With a six-foot span, I could now make the wing one piece. With ailerons, the polyhedral is a disadvantage, so I eliminated it and put in a straight 4° dihedral. With the higher wing loading goes a higher landing speed, so both the takeoff roll and landing rollout are a bit longer. Surprisingly, though, Butterfly II still floats quite a bit in landing but gives better directional control on the ground. I installed a steerable tailwheel. I'm writing to make a possibly money-saving suggestion to other newcomers who wisely start RC models like the Butterfly and then want to advance to more responsive models without the considerable cost of a new airplane."
- Reply: Gene, the versatility you mentioned was a prime reason for Vindicator's wing layout: to give room for developing pilot skill. Don't want a floater? Take the tips off and go!
- C. Allen Johnson III
- Letter: "It's hard to believe that a dyed-in-the-wool FFer would do such a thing."
- Reply: Allen, do you suppose they'll drum me out of the National Free Flight Society now?
- Dave Chambers
- Letter: "I enjoyed reading about your experience designing, building and flying Vindicator. On page 14 you made a reference to the April '95 issue and Mr. Munninghoff's article about on-off switches. Apparently you disagreed with him as to the position of on or off. I am inclined to agree with Mr. Munninghoff. If you care to comment, please do."
- Reply: The essence of the "argument" is personal preference for the switch's function. Vindicator's arrangement is "in" = on. I prefer the idea that if the switch is bumped, I will still have control of the model. The downside is that the switch could be bumped to the on position on the ride to the flying field, thus draining the batteries. When the how-to was published, we had a fairly even split of comments for each switch orientation.
- A. Gordon Wheeler (second note)
- Letter: "You have a winner in your Vindicator! I was very impressed with your new design, especially liked your fuselage construction — light and strong. The Vindicator would make a great electric RC model. The beauty of the electric airplane is that you can climb up on a 60-second motor run, glide around, pick up thermals and then turn the motor on to return to the field, if your model is far away."
- Reply: Our Electrics columnist, Bob Kopski, has a set of plans and has "threatened" to build an electric version.
Jim Haught Managing Editor
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
