Radio Control: Sport-Aerobatics
Ron Van Putte
IF YOUR CLUB is anything like the clubs that I've been in over the past few years, you have a nucleus of working members who do all the things that are necessary for the proper functioning of the club and the flying site. However, there are always those who benefit from the efforts of others, but who are unwilling to participate in the work. Many times the reason for their non-participation is because they have no real incentive. After all, when someone else will do something for you, why bother to do it yourself?
One club has attacked the problem head on with an innovative approach. The Jersey Coast Radio Control Club (JCRCC) has a plan "which is designed to generate interest and participation of the members in the many activities and programs of our club" according to JCRCC treasurer Howard D. Camp, Jr. The program (which I have paraphrased) is as follows: "Members who work and participate in the club's activities are proportionally compensated by the club treasurer in accordance with a predetermined pay scale with 'JCRCC Money' in $100 denominations. The more a member works and/or participates in club activities, the more 'JCRCC Money' he earns. At times during the year, the club buys RC-oriented merchandise from the local hobby shops. These items are auctioned off during a regular club meeting with the only legal tender being 'JCRCC Money.' The person who worked the hardest for the club has the most 'money' to spend at the auction."
The pay scale which JCRCC uses included the following items:
- Sponsorship of new member . . . . . $1000
- Club Officers (for each meeting attended) . . . . . $200
- Committee Member (for each meeting attended) . . . . . $200
- Model of the Month Winner . . . . . $500
- Model of the Month Entrant (other than winner) . . . . . $200
- Newsletter Editor (each issue) . . . . . $200
- Field Work (per hour) . . . . . $200
- Contest Director (each contest) . . . . . $500
- Contest Helpers . . . . . $300
This is not a complete list, but indicates how the pay scale is structured. It sounds like a great way for a club to benefit from the competition and for the hard-working club members to be rewarded for their contributions to the club.
A few years ago at the Toledo R/C Conference (that's what it was called then) Midwest's Frank Garcher asked me what I'd like to see in new RC-oriented products. After thinking for a while, I had to admit that I didn't see how anyone could dream up any new products. Ever since then, virtually every time a good new product has come out, my reaction was, "Why didn't I think of that?" Well, they've done it to me again. There are three manufacturer's new products which I'll be making a lot of use out of because they are useful and inexpensive.
Du-Bro's new products are all related; the Threaded Ball Link, Rivet Ball Link, and Aileron Connector and Dual Take-Off Ball Link—each have a swiveling feature much like the ball and coupling on a trailer hitch. They look fragile, but R/C helicopter pilots have been using them successfully and, if there is a more severe test of strength and durability than in a helicopter, I can't think of where it might be. The ball is mounted on a servo output arm or wheel and the nylon cap snaps over it. The cap provides adjustment for the pushrod by screwing back and forth on a threaded coupler which is soldered to the 1/16" pushrod wire.
The new Goldberg Pushrod Couplers do many of the same things the Du-Bro Ball Link devices do, but in a different way. They look kind of like a wheel collar turned sideways with a stud coming out the bottom. The stud is inserted through the servo output arm or wheel and a small nylon washer-like piece is snapped over the end It snaps in place because the end of the stud is slightly enlarged. The 1/16" pushrod wire is inserted through the head and is locked by a fillister-head 4-40 screw which comes down through the top.
Molds Incorporated's new products are two sizes of hobby clamps. One novel feature of the clamp is that no rubber bands are required to provide the clamping action. The moveable jaw of the clamp is adjusted to provide the desired spacing and a small locking device (a tiny wedge) is pushed to the locked position. In addition, the moveable jaw is reversible so that the clamp can be used for internal as well as external clamping.
In the CORK, newsletter of the Central Ohio Radio Control Society, club member Tom Long published the following technique: "On certain surfaces Hot Stuff is reluctant to set up as quickly as it should. To get it to 'kick,' prepare the surface by coating it with a light (thin, that is) coating of baking soda. Then change the pH of the surface and allow the Hot Stuff to work in the normal manner." I imagine this technique will work with ZAP and all other cyanoacrylate glues, too.
Some months ago I commented on the stagnant situation in competitor progression through the classes of aerobatic pattern competition. At the time, I suggested one way to alleviate the situation. Just recently Richard Schmidt from Bayside, NY, sent me a proposal for another way to modify pattern competition. The main points from his letter follow: "I've flown RC pattern since the days of Class I, II, and III, when classes were based on number of controls, and saw that system end because it did not represent what the average R/Cer was flying. The present system is limited in that an expert or very good flier is flying in Class A or 'novice' with a plane that has six or seven channels of control. I feel that we are again going away from what the average R/Cer is flying and creating a situation where the average flier cannot compete with the experts. I propose the following: That classes be determined by engine size: Class A—engines to .19, Class B—engines to .40, Class C—engines to .60 and Class D would remain as it is presently. Classes A, B, and C would allow planes to use only four channels (elevator, aileron, rudder and engine). No retracts or mixture controls. Each class would have a pattern based on the capabilities of the airplane rather than the pilot. A pilot could stay in a particular class as long as he or she desired and become an expert in that class, or move from one class to another for variety."
"The advantages of this system are as follows: First, it would reduce the cost of a competition aircraft by $75 to $150. Second, it would encourage engine manufacturers to make better and more powerful small engines. Third, it would encourage radio manufacturers to produce smaller and lighter radios. Fourth, it would encourage the design and manufacture of better small airplanes. Fifth, these smaller planes would make it easier for a person to travel to contests by air. Sixth, it would create more diversity of aircraft at contests and at the local flying field. Seventh, it would bring the contenders more into line with what is being flown by the average flier and enable the flier to try different types of airplanes and see which he or she enjoys most, rather than forcing the person to build a particular type and size of airplane. I hope you consider these ideas and if you like them pass them along to people who could get them enacted."
He has an interesting proposal, but I think it would yield the same situation that existed just prior to the demise of the old Class I, II, III system. Namely, that each class would have its own experts who would win consistently and who would probably be reluctant to move into the next class. That's my opinion—what is yours? My address is 12 Connie Dr., Shalimar, FL 32579.
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
