a small story

[RC Storick]

I am not a typist or a writer. It seems that no one can take me at face value because I am not a engineer or a NATS winner or a dozen other professions that have absolutely nothing to do with toy airplanes. So any of my findings can not possibly be right, Does not matter I have built hundreds of airplanes and tried all sorts of setups and configurations.

The story starts in California when my DAD owned a Hobby Shop. At 10 years old I was vastly impressed by the airplanes that you could not buy. Around 1966 I went to Whitter Narrows and ran into two guys. Bill Noyes and Tom Warden.
At that time Tom was our Testors rep and he would supply me with a endless supply of the best wood. I had All the wood and dope one could use in a life time and I built hundreds of airplanes. At that time Victor Cunningham was a rep as well and I took some knowledge from the free flight guys. Any doubt to this statement ask my Dad at this years NATS cause its going to be his last one.

I sit here and think back in time July 1969 back porch Listening to Vin Sculley announcing a Dodger game and a interruption in Broadcast "One small step for man on giant leap for man kind" We were starting a orange Voodoo I had just put a brand new G-21.35 on to break it in. There was another guy who lived close to the shop I use to fly slow combat against I wish I could remember his name. We flew at LaPunte high school. At that time I flew both Fast and slow combat and it was a blast.

I tried all sorts of airfoils thin,fat 20,30,40% and diamond. Beam wings,D tube anything and everything will fly and fly well as long as they are light. Its all about weight.

We had a contest in the parking lot of Ole's Hardware the next week end. Tom had is Continental and 2 Minado's there a purple one and a green one. So if the is any doubt as to the Continentals age it was flying in 1969. Bill Noyes had a metallic blue Pieces and a built up chipmunk painted like Art Shulls same paint scheme as the Continental. I ended up buying Bills Chipmunk for $40.00 that was big money at the time. While at that time those two guys were the people I was following I never told Tom his airplanes were too heavy. Tom was a perfectionest and painter. Not a good combo. Now this is my opinion and mine only so if someone wishes to dispute it so be it. But I was there and I know what I saw and thought. A slight run down on those planes other than being heavy the wing was breasty and the nose is too long for quick clock time. Tom flew them well but at that time they were not for me. I think somewhere he said it was akin to flying a 49 Mercury.

I am just writing down thoughts and they may be out of chronological order but who cares. I would like to interject the Chipmunks we had then are not the same planes as a VanLoo or Sig. They were built up and could only be built from plans there was no kit.

That's about the time I was breaking into stunt from Combat. First full body ship I had built was Bob Palmer T bird. It was OK but nothing to write home about and the second one was a Skylark. Those are the only two for certain I remember because after that not liking kits I started scratch building and got into trouble on a regular basis for sanding at school. The obsession grew to epic proportions and it was fun!

Fiftten years later I was a Eugene Prop Spinner and flew with Gerald Schamp who is a member here and he is also a great finisher. around 81-85 he had a 10% larger Oriental that was candy red,Super Tiger .60. This plane was to drool over. Do you still have it Gerald? Even then in transitional housing I was building one a month.

If anyone knows Rob Gow, Ken Pasco ,John Martin or Danny Nippolatano I would like to talk to them. Its a long shot as I have not seen or heard from them in 40 years. I often wonder if they are still flying.

I showed John Brodak how I arrive at a airfoil and stack sand. By eye I made a SWAG and drew a 1/2 airfoil folded cut and unfolded the paper and sandwiched 22 ribs in between the plywood templates. This was done by eye and I make this statement to show you don't absolutely need a computer program to generate ribs. This airfoil by the SWAG method was within a pencil line of the plane he had on the bench. The Gypsy.

I make this statement only to show the sheer number of airplanes I have built. I have no degree in toy airplanes I am not a math major or a literary scholar,spelling bee champ or any of the sorts. But what I am is a guy who might know a little about toy airplane construction.

[wwwarbird]

 Neat story Sparky. I design and build mostly with my eyeballs, in most cases if it looks right it will work.

[M Spencer]

I think its obvious that someone who does a six week computor corse and  doesnt know anything about anything is superior and knows everthing .

First C.A.D. systems were $ 16.000 , were useless , & took twice as long as a competant draftsman to do a drawing of any complexity .
They couldnt even do a Curve , just interjoined parrallel overlapping tripe .

While they have there uses , its the quality of the operator that defines the result , wether C.A.D. or with a Board & Square , parrallel rules ,
or a drafting board .

 

" A Chap ' offered to do a programe , C.A.D. Drawing etc etc , and computor cut a Foam plug , to take a Fibreglass Mould from , for a fuseage .
Bottom Price was $ 500 . And the Mould wasnt included in the deal . Two Days work estimated .

I figure you could do a pretty good Fuse. plug from foam , in a afternoon . If you had a straight eye & knew how to use a ruler . The Foam would be worth 5 or 10 bucks , but theres usually some in the builders rubbish skips .

Strange how with all this tecnology , most are still doing Nobler Derivitives .

If Aldrich had been keen on the Magnum , would everyone be doing Magnum Derivitives .


If the da*n computors good for anything , lets see a few original configurations . Or cant it work out feasable aerodynamics .

Anyone built a Chuck Glider lately ? or is hurdling fences to much of a chore .  

[wwwarbird]

 Nothing against it here at all, a person can put all the engineering they want into these models, or not. It's just another great thing about this hobby, it can be approached however one chooses. I do know a lot of people though who could be progressing much faster all the way around if they would just get to building and flying and stop constantly overthinking every little detail. Doing so often drags them down more than actually accomplishing things. Bottom line is that on contest day, it's gonna be the one holding the handle that makes the biggest difference.

[Howard Rush]

I do know a lot of people though who could be progressing much faster all the way around if they would just get to building and flying and stop constantly overthinking every little detail. Doing so often drags them down more than actually accomplishing things.

No kidding.  The only way I finished my first Impact in a finite amount of time was to continually tell myself, "This airplane was designed by a world champion and a professional airplane structures engineer,  You are unlikely to improve either the aerodynamic configuration or structure.  Get building."

[Hoss Cain]

WOW! 4 great posts. I do like their style.    

However, why is it that I could build a stunter, such as a Warhawk, Zilch, Barnstormer, Smoothie and such types in a couple days, a thunderbird in 3-4 days, and fly it with the dope barely dry enough to handle. Now it takes me several months, or more.  

BTW I don't use any "confusers" even when I build from thoughts (definitely a looong, loooonnng way from computers) as I go.

However back then there was very little TV worth watching and no grand-kids or great grand-kids to spend so much time with, but there was work, as I recall.     In addition it seems that that thing called "procrastination" was not so much as it is today. HA!

Ya'll hang in there now. It's up to us old timers to keep the sport alive. Just you wait 'till next year!  

[RC Storick]

It was stated somewhere why have things not changed. That's a easy question to answer. How many ways can you attach one wing to one fuse? ONE and all the computer power in the world wont change that. The most powerful computer in the world is on top of your neck. Some have just not figured out how to boot it up.

[MarcusCordeiro]

I'd say:
"Good luck Mr. Gorsky" ?

Marcus

[Larry Renger]

The side of your shoe airfoil curve is probably more than 95% as good as the best that can be done. And how many models actually get the 'foil all that accurate anyway? Selig and Donovan, in their great series of airfoil test books, accurately measured the prototype airfoils submitted for testing, and found NONE of them "dead on".

[RC Storick]

This thread was not about airfoils in particular. Its about the over thinking ,analyzing ,calculating and just nit picking every detail. In our arena of tethered flying its all about weight. Trust me light is right even if its hard to do. For the over thinkers take a 1 pound rock on a 6 foot string and swing it over your head. Now try to change direction. Do the same experiment with a 8 OZ rock. Feel the difference? Its about feel.

I don't think I can explain it any simpler.

The moment of inertia thread leaves out centrifugal force. The farthest weight being the heaviest has more leverage on the fulcrum point than the lighter one. But I am not going to get into a hypothetical discussion of something I can feel and see with my eyes. I just roll with the flow. I know gravity is there but I don't need to know the hows and why its there. Acceptance is the key.

[Steve Helmick]

Sparky wrote:  "the wing was breasty and the nose is too long for quick clock time."

Huh? I met a lady who was breasty, but her nose was not too long, IIRC.      Steve

[Derek Barry]

Hey Sparky,

I did the math and it turns out that your story is incorrect.

You should have carried the 2...

Derek

[RC Storick]

yep your right

[Derek Barry]

yep your right

Sorry Sparky,

I just couldn't help myself. 

I don't need Howards program to build a plane either. I am probably as low tech as anyone out there. I do, however, find all the conversation about it interesting.

Derek

[Dennis Leonhardi]

Robert, I understand completely what you're saying, and think you really hit it on the head.

As I type this - sitting at a computer - a dozen great computer stories come to mind.  Back in the '80s, I became fascinated with personal computers and spent many evenings in the workshop of a hardware and software engineer.  Forget the books, let's learn hands-on.  (And I say that as an engineering major who spent 7-1/2 years in research labs.)

I'll never forget my first Internet Explorer installation on a PC; the geniuses at Microsoft used an area of memory for the installation that was commonly reserved for the "in" VGA video card of the day - meaning you had to set up an alternate video display to complete the installation.  Duh?

Some years later, I was selling PCs in a store that employed an "expert" as it's chief technician; he had taught computer maintenance & repair in the Air Force.  When he complained about a system that wouldn't recognize a floppy drive, I asked if he'd checked the jumper settings on the floppy.  What?!?  Floppy drives have jumpers!?!

Wwwarbird has it right: sometimes we do too much analyzing, instead of flying (and/or building).

And, I must say: all the theory is great if you're designing the next Boeing 747.  But we're playing with very small models.  I've built planes with a flat sheet of plywood for a wing (for crash combat in the '50s) that flew just fine, and accomplished the purpose.


Dennis
 

[Paul Walker]

Hey Sparky,

I did the math and it turns out that your story is incorrect.

You should have carried the 2...

Derek

Derek,
You should build another "Matrix" and put that info all over it!   

[Mark Scarborough]

This hobby gives back to each in its own way,, I am fascinated by tech things,, I love my computer and CAD programs,, when I start a new file,, and draw in my latest creation,, print then build the thing,, and watch it flying,, its all spectacular to me,, Randy likes the old school pencil and paper aproach,, but I dare say the enjoyment he gets is no greater than mine using the computer,,

some on here use math to help predict the TENDANCIES of certain aspects,, some on here use pure cut and try,, some use both,,

none of which makes either better or worse,,

its about how this hobby feeds you as an individual,,
so,, bashing on ones choice accomplishes nothing,,
recognizing that for example,, Roberts aproach does not bring me the same joy it does him,, well thats ok,, cause I dont build for him,, he does not build for me

[RC Storick]

its about how this hobby feeds you as an individual,,
so,, bashing on ones choice accomplishes nothing,,
recognizing that for example,, Roberts aproach does not bring me the same joy it does him,, well thats ok,, cause I dont build for him,, he does not build for me

I agree 1000% on this statement. I also don't see you personally nit picking everything I try to convey like some do. As I stated I know there is air and I know there is gravity I don't need to know the hows and whys of what makes them work. I just accept the fact I can breath and I am stuck to the ground.

[Dennis Leonhardi]

I agree 1000% on this statement. I also don't see you personally nit picking everything I try to convey like some do. As I stated I know there is air and I know there is gravity I don't need to know the hows and whys of what makes them work. I just accept the fact I can breath and I am stuck to the ground.

AMEN!

 

[RandySmith]

"I also don't see you personally nit picking everything I try to convey like some do."


I have seen ZERO bashing of anyone.Or their choices
Pointing out things like ignoring a 12.5 to 14 ounce battery pack weight right behind the EC motor is not nit picking , it is helpful
Adding correct weights and equivalent parts is also helpful
The motor is only part of the weight ahead of the CG, and all of it needs to be taken into consideration, If you want to do a proper job, and know what is going on.
Pointing out that there are ways to figure out where things would go, or close it it is not nitpicking. it is helpful
By the way the Centrifugal forces had no reason to be in that spread sheet. If anything was to be added it would be G-Forces from maneuvers.
And the moments of inertia are there for you.

Using Computers for CAD design and drawing is not nitpicking, it is very very helpful.. this led to the Laser cut kits, and 100s of other things ,which we would have none of if not for computers
We also would not have your EC motors for not computers.
You would not be able to setup the EC motors as easily as you like to without computers
You would not be able to trouble shoot the EC motors either without computers.
RSM Props
APC Props
Laser cut ribs
Laser Kits
many spinners
Many Wheels

Yada Yada Yada  these a just a tiny few of the things we would be lacking that came from computer plotted design and etc...

I really do not care how or why or what you build, Do what you like, you can use your shoe for an airfoil, cut all the ribs by eyeball, along with fuse sides and other parts, matters not to me, If it gives you fun and pleasure then that is all that counts.  
I think we are all in it for fun, seem a little slack on money, women and drugs.  

Randy

[RandySmith]

Derek,
You should build another "Matrix" and put that info all over it!   

UHHH  no  NO  NO  NO !!!   


Randy

[Howard Rush]

And, I must say: all the theory is great if you're designing the next Boeing 747.  But we're playing with very small models.  I've built planes with a flat sheet of plywood for a wing (for crash combat in the '50s) that flew just fine, and accomplished the purpose.

Right, Dennis.  Our models operate somewhere between Newtonian and quantum physics, and traditional ideas of inertia don't apply. 

I used science to design combat planes that flew just fine and accomplished the purpose-- a somewhat different purpose than yours.

[RC Storick]

I give up. Its like typing to the wall. So do as you see fit. I AM WRONG AS ALWYAS. I must be brain dead.

As far as CAD crap goes give me a Amish piece of furniture anyday.

Pointing out things like ignoring a 12.5 to 14 ounce battery pack weight right behind the EC motor is not nit picking , it is helpful
Adding correct weights and equivalent parts is also helpful

yes just like ignoring that 6.5 ounces right behind the spinner is less than 11.5 I do know what every part weighs. I do feel the diffrence. I don't need a spread sheet to prove it.

[Brian Massey]

Funny you mention that Tom's planes tended to be heavy. Tom gave me a set of plans to his Trophy Trainer back in the late 60's, When I had the finished plane at the field (Whittier Narrows) with the dope still tacky, Tom asked to fly it. After the flight, Tom asked to buy it. It was much lighter than his, and he loved the way it flew. I did wind up selling it to him . . . always wished I hadn't.

Heavy or not, his planes were beautiful.

Have you ever heard where Bill Noyes might be? Haven't seen or heard of him in years. His wife had a great sense of humor; I was at his house once and as we were leaving to go fly, she handed him his lunch in a brown paper bag. She had written "Bill Noyes, Room 6" on the side of the bag. Well, I thought it was funny.

Brian

[RC Storick]

Funny you mention that Tom's planes tended to be heavy. Tom gave me a set of plans to his Trophy Trainer back in the late 60's, When I had the finished plane at the field (Whittier Narrows) with the dope still tacky, Tom asked to fly it. After the flight, Tom asked to buy it. It was much lighter than his, and he loved the way it flew. I did wind up selling it to him . . . always wished I hadn't.

Heavy or not, his planes were beautiful.

Have you ever heard where Bill Noyes might be? Haven't seen or heard of him in years. His wife had a great sense of humor; I was at his house once and as we were leaving to go fly, she handed him his lunch in a brown paper bag. She had written "Bill Noyes, Room 6" on the side of the bag. Well, I thought it was funny.

Brian

Last I saw Bill was La Punte and that was 40 years ago.

[RC Storick]

Right, Dennis.  Our models operate somewhere between Newtonian and quantum physics, and traditional ideas of inertia don't apply.  

OK I'll wait for the next generation of stunt plane outside the box and design of the conventional plane. Maybe a Wild Bill Fierce arrow. Or a flying saucer  

[RandySmith]

I give up. Its like typing to the wall. So do as you see fit. I AM WRONG AS ALWYAS. I must be brain dead.

As far as CAD crap goes give me a Amish piece of furniture anyday.

yes just like ignoring that 6.5 ounces right behind the spinner is less than 11.5 I do know what every part weighs. I do feel the diffrence. I don't need a spread sheet to prove it.

HI

No where will you see that I posted your always wrong.
As far as CAD being crap, you are welcome to your opinion,l I have no problem with that, however you have lots of stuff designed by CAD in your planes. I think the computer is one of the best things to ever happen to model airplanes, It has given us many many new items to use to have fun. and made designing drawing and  printing..plotting plans  much easier and accurate.
The forum members are more than one person, each will think as he does about  CAD. Nothing wrong with whatever they think about it, or anything else in models. They are all welcome to do what they like, and use, or not use what they want.

No where did you ever see I ignored the 6.5 ounce weight, It was in every sheets, the point I made, which was you also have to take all parts into consideration. That does include the 6.5 oz. Or the 8.2 , 11.5 ounce Part.

Regards
Randy

[wwwarbird]

 

 Here's an attempt to cool things down...
 
 Sparky, I'll suggest taking some of your own advice here and if you don't care for the computer lectures that pop up, just turn the channel.

 No offense to anyone here, but check this out. No one ever wins a "debate" with an "engineer brain", except maybe another "engineer brain". It's just the way their melons function, they will always be "right" in their own mind. More often than not the "engineer brain" just cannot fathom that there is actually a simple way to do something, it just can't be that easy they think. I don't care who posts what here, there is always going to be someone who will feel that they are "more right" and that the previous is simply wrong. Another thing is that some folks here seem to consistently forget that not everyone is in to competition and that many comments made here are simply individual preference or opinion.
 There is no law saying that every little thing has to be done a certain way, unless the "engineer brain" overrides what might otherwise be a very simple situation. Just this past winter I witnessed a club member who spent three hours cutting and fitting two sides and a bottom piece for a simple lower cowling and never even got them glued up. Guess what, the guy is an Engineer. If that's the way the individual chooses to approach the hobby and that's what they enjoy, so be it. Going at it like that they're not gonna get much accomplished in the long run though.

 Me, I'll just continue designing with my stick in the sand while my glow igniter is on the charger, by choice.

 No one can argue that you build immaculate and great performing models Sparky, yours are some of the most interesting post made here. Try to be happy with that and please keep showing us in laymans terms how it's done.

[RC Storick]

 Here's an attempt to cool things down...
 
 Sparky, I'll suggest taking some of your own advice here and if you don't care for the computer lectures that pop up, just turn the channel.

Only thing is, this is my thread.

No offense to anyone here, but check this out. No one ever wins a "debate" with an "engineer brain", except maybe another "engineer brain". It's just the way their melons function, they will always be "right" in their own mind. More often than not the "engineer brain" just cannot fathom that there is actually a simple way to do something, it just can't be that easy they think. I don't care who posts what here, there is always going to be someone who will feel that they are "more right" and that the previous is simply wrong. Another thing is that some folks here seem to consistently forget that not everyone is in to competition and that many comments made here are simply individual preference or opinion.
 There is no law saying that every little thing has to be done a certain way, unless the "engineer brain" overrides what might otherwise be a very simple situation. Just this past winter I witnessed a club member who spent three hours cutting and fitting two sides and a bottom piece for a simple lower cowling and never even got them glued up. Guess what, the guy is an Engineer. If that's the way the individual chooses to approach the hobby and that's what they enjoy, so be it. Going at it like that they're not gonna get much accomplished in the long run though.

One other small story on the engineers brain. We had a giant lathe come to the shop. The fork lift was broke and we needed to unload it. One of the engineer brains drew a scaffold with block and tackle. They started to construct this stupid looking contraption. I said back the truck up and we will hook onto the overhead beam and come along it up. And drive out. Well it took 10 min to off load it. They were a half hour into this contraption that would never have worked. Of coarse this was the same guy who surveyed the parking lot cap to slope into the front door.

I went a reread you post and had to mention this about machinists. LOL

Our motorcycle club was going on a run and we had a flat bed trailer. It would hold about 4 bikes if need be. Jeff was the road capt at that time who by trade is a machinist. We needed tie down eyes in it. SO hes out on the trailer measuring with a machinist scale for a half hour and Chopper or pres tells me go handle that. I went out there and with a 3/8 bit drilled 16 holes by eye in about 5 min and Jeff came back and was measuring then with the scale only to find out I was only maybe a 1/8 off in 16 holes over the whole legnth of the trailer. I said Jeff we ain't building a watch..

And ask any framing carpenter if its with in a 1/4 inch they say nail it you can't see it from my house.

[wwwarbird]

 
 There you go.

[RC Storick]

 There you go.

If you need some brain melt down read here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_mechanics

[M Spencer]

Looking at it that way makes it a good deal easier .

In Flight , we consider the Plane to be Stationary .
Therefore its the rest of the Universe thats manouvreing around the Aeroplane . 
( actually , it would be the atmosphe in its opearateing area , along with a bit of gravity ,
probly unnessesay to allow for planetary influance , and the moon , at this stage .  ) .

[Doug Moon]

If you need some brain melt down read here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_mechanics

Lagrangian mechanics, got it down.  Check that one off the list.