Newcomers
Bob Underwood Box 40, St. Peters, MO 63376
It's potpourri time! Four subjects will form the basis of this offering. Evidently my January column struck a responsive chord.
Upon returning from an FAI (Federation Aeronautique Internationale) meeting in Paris, I found letters addressing parts of that column. Two provided some thought-provoking ideas and concerns; excerpts from each follow.
Supplier help and ethics (W. P. Higgins)
W. P. Higgins was concerned with "the abominable 'help' given by a supplier." He cited "the awful or non-existent or erroneous information provided in the ads or with the product, the wide range of ethics prevalent, and the concern that our organization (AMA) is fearful of helping us 'get on the case' of an errant (ad paying) supplier."
W. P. listed four manufacturers/distributors that he felt were lax in responding to his needs and concerns as a recently returning aeromodeler. While he agreed with my concept that those who do not shape up will not be around in a few years, he feels by that time "it's too late for we who have struggled with them."
At the other end of the spectrum, he wrote about a supplier "which may well be a kitchen-table operation (which) is outstanding."
While I realize that Mr. Higgins is in an excellent position to criticize my treatment of his letter, since I failed to provide the specific company names he included, I plead his indulgence; current AMA policy doesn't allow me that option.
Some may chide me by suggesting that this is not specifically a newcomer problem. That may be true! However, it's fair to say that the newcomer is most often affected by a general lack of knowledge concerning the hobby.
I would be remiss not to add that W. P.'s observations concerning questionable ethics and after-purchase help are not limited to aeromodeling. Our society is rife with concerns about these issues. It's a sign of our time, and not a pretty one at that!
His last sentence was, "Thank you for beginning the dialogue on this. Keep it up please!" Any responses from the "other side"?
Club experts and meeting procedure (Bob Wilson)
A letter from Bob Wilson provided comments regarding club experts:
"When one of the (club) experts droned on at a meeting for one hour and forty minutes and at another meeting for one hour and twenty-eight minutes, I mentioned to our president the need for Robert's Rules of Order. He steamed about this for a couple of days and finally called me to cuss me out with the statement that he 'never heard of Mr. Roberts and did not need to be told how to run a meeting.'"
Mr. Wilson suggested that AMA needs to take some action. His idea is not to try to censure or control, but rather to educate. He suggested publishing a manual for officers. A second idea he has is a video that details the running of a meeting, "specifically on maintaining order in meetings through the use of Robert's Rules of Order."
Student Pilot Flight Instruction Manual (Dennis Miendersma)
Dennis Miendersma of the Palos R/C Club and the Woodland Aero Modelers provided a copy of the group's Student Pilot Flight Instruction Manual. The 21-page book is nicely written and quite comprehensive. I was especially interested in some of the admonitions:
- "If for any reason an aircraft is in trouble and headed for the area or spectators, do your level best to kill the power and ditch it. Don't try to save it. Planes are cheaper than people. It's a small sacrifice to make."
- "If your aircraft goes down in the field or trees, don't move! Note where you are standing, and pick a far distance reference point or object. Follow a straight line in your search and rescue effort."
- "If you are searching in the trees, listen to aircraft overhead to orient yourself to the flightline and runway. It's a jungle out there!"
- "When you recover a crashed aircraft, be sure to pick up every last piece and splinter. You'll be glad you did when you decide to rebuild it after the shock wears off. All those little pieces can be glued together to make templates to create replacement parts."
Thank you, Dennis. The manual is most helpful. Interested parties can download it from the Web at www.palosrc.com. Dennis indicated that all are welcome to use part or all of the book, and that, "It bothers me immensely when I read that clubs don't have an instruction program in place." Amen!
Smithsonian roving display and education outreach
I met with the Smithsonian as part of the Education Committee regarding the much-anticipated roving display planned to begin in 1999. The collection will wend its way around the country for several years, pausing in museums, and it will feature 20+ highly detailed models.
While the display is in a community, the Academy will develop teacher workshops and family/youth programs to spotlight aeromodeling. As soon as the itinerary is established and the venues are known, work will begin enlisting the help of clubs and individuals in those areas.
"Bigger is better" — trainer size and wing loading
If you've been around aeromodeling for more than an hour, you might have run across the phrase, "bigger is better." While it may seem tantamount to a manufacturer's sales pitch, it's true: a bigger model is better; at least it flies better. And that leaves the newcomer with some interesting puzzles.
As you leaf through the half-dozen model magazines and catalogs you might have amassed, one factor will stand out if your interest is Radio Control: the bulk of trainer aircraft you see advertised fit into one size bracket—50–60 inches of wingspan, six pounds, .40–.45 engines. Was this by chance or by design? The answer is yes.
There are notable offshoots and theories that promote smaller as well as larger models, but the bulk of the trainers that show up at the field fit in that range. The engine may vary upward if it's a four-stroke, but the model size remains close to the standard.
You might ask why smaller wouldn't be better. After all, logic says the initial cost is less (airframe, engine, etc.), and the upkeep is less (fuel isn't cheap!). And if you only have a six-year-old Honda Civic to transport it to the field, smaller seems better.
Then there's that ever-present possibility of impact with terra firma; wouldn't a sturdy small model have less chance of sustaining damage? The answer to most items above is basically no, and there are several reasons.
First, a model is built to fly, not to crash! My favorite statement is, "If you build a model airplane to survive a crash into a brick wall, it will fly like a brick wall."
You could make your modeling experience one similar to the school science project where the student is asked to pack a raw egg to survive a drop from the second-floor window of the school without breaking, but I don't think that's the goal.
The scientific fact is that the smaller the model of a general type, the more difficult it is to get it to fly well. You are not going to be able to change the scientific laws that make that so.
In the most simplistic terms, the inherent problems the small model must cope with revolve around wing loading. That refers to the weight of the model, in ounces, divided by the wing area in square feet.
Before you purists punch your computer keys, I know that there are other considerations—wing volume, aspect ratios, whatever. In the simplest terms, however, the more ounces per square foot of wing area, the faster the model must fly to stay aloft, and the more critical things such as stall speed and overall control become.
It has to do with the fact that while the model may be smaller, it still operates in full-scale air! The air molecules passing across the surfaces just don't call out to one another, "Hey, small model a-comin'; bunch up so we can give it more lift."
A smaller model can be flown if you keep it light (lower wing loading) and you allow it to fly faster. Does this mean that a .40-size trainer is optimum? No. Bigger would definitely be better.
Suppose you had a model that weighed five pounds, had a wing area of 450–500 square inches, and flew well with a .40–.45 two-stroke engine. That would give you a wing loading of about 25–28 ounces per square foot.
Now suppose you move to a model with 800 sq. in. and use a .60. At eight pounds, the model would have a wing loading of about 23 ounces per square foot—going down, eh? That makes the model easier to keep up.
The important thing to remember is that in general, the basic weight gain is in the airframe (usually not much), the fuel carried, and maybe some small amount for the engine.
Actually, if you choose carefully, you'll find that a .60 is barely heavier than a .40 or .35/.09 that are about the same as a .60. This comes from the manufacturer using the same basic engine, but increasing the bore and/or stroke.
The weight of the radio system remains constant, as long as you don't go so big that you have to use redundant servos.
You must, however, consider the tradeoffs when going bigger. The cost is higher—not just for the engine, kit (ARF), covering, etc., but for operating costs as well. Then, if you go big enough, the model might not fit into the Civic and you'll have to buy a van. That might be a little hard to explain to your spouse!
While it might seem a strange argument for "bigger is better," your vision may be a consideration. At 56 miles per hour, a model can be gone before you realize it. Think about it: at a mile a minute, the model will be 1/4 mile away in 15 seconds.
Have someone 1,320 feet away (4½ football fields) hold up a model comparable to the one you're considering, and see if you can tell what attitude it's in. If not, a) see your eye doctor; b) try a larger model; c) try macramé.
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
