in 1994 The chinese team were using 9 degree's offset.

Back over 50 years ago, Charles Mackey designed a delta wing model that used about 30 degrees of out thrust and the engine was mounted off center in the leading edge of the outboard wing panel.  I have never seen one fly..... it was a "unique" design and the flight characteristics of our top level stunt planes have changed quite a bit since then.

Putting that much out thrust on a modern design would not prove very successful IMHO (plus it would make the nose of the plane look very funny! LOL!!).  In fact I don't believe it would fly very well, if at all!   So much yaw would be introduced that certain areas of the hemisphere would prove very daunting to maneuver in.

Big Bear

I suppose the engine cannot be too far from CG, if big amounts of out thrust is used?


http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php?topic=6720.0

I understand that GMA used lots of offset (12 degrees and 15 degrees stick in my memory) on diesel .15 powered Flite Streak/Peacemakers with 60' lines.  I don't recall the source.

Strangely enough the model with the reported 30º offset was indeed a Peacemaker and a very experienced flier who was watching the flight is adamant that it had no vices what so ever.

And yet there are others who say that larger models, like full sized F2B ones, do not like that amount of offset at all, and I have heard that the 'P' factor caused very bad hinging on inside maneuvers.

Thanks.

I have seen pictures of (I suppose) the Peacemaker in question.




An article in Aeromodeller in the sixties showed an Italian model (I-BAGA?) which used loads of offset too.




Nettie

That would be... this Rich Porter, I fear...

http://community-2.webtv.net/RICHARDPORTER/

There's all kinds of interesting things there but I have never had the ... determination ... to attack it all.

That would be... this Rich Porter, I fear...

http://community-2.webtv.net/RICHARDPORTER/

There's all kinds of interesting things there but I have never had the ... determination ... to attack it all.

  Interesting is certainly one word for it. I didn't dig through this particular version of his site, but the previous version came off a lot more, uh, confrontational, than I had ever gotten from Rich in person. I don't think he would be uncomfortable with the idea of being referred to as eccentric, but eccentricities aside, I have never seen him hostile or less-than-good-natured in real life. I don't know him that well, but his site wasn't representative.

As an aside, one thing that I would challenge is his comments about being "blackballed" in PAMPA - that's a load. Ideas have to *compete* for attention and credibility. If a good idea fails to prevail, almost always the blame can be laid at that idea's promoters.

    Brett

I always got a charge out of the Amsoil man. He did indeed have some, uh, interesting idea, but I never got the feeling he was out of line. I did get a kick out of his Stunt Ball judging system.

It is good to hear that Rich Porter is a pretty nice guy in real life.

Maybe I am overly sensitive in some respects, but his website made me uneasy. As if he were a man with a mission but nobody listens, so he pours it all into a website and the different ideas keep jumping at the reader in no particular order.

  There's a real art to website design/layout, and he's no Michelangelo. But I would have to say, it's not a lot worse that most of the old Geocities sites. Rich's doesn't have Hampsterdance or inordinate numbers of animated GIFs.

I would suggest that the website, like Rich, is more a little "unfocused"  than malicious.

    Some of his airplanes flew pretty well, actually, although I haven't seen the manta-ray looking airplane go.  The .09-powered flying wing (like a modified Ridiculous) was fine and was in excellent trim when I saw it. The streamers trailing from the wingtips and tail probably stabilized it, too.

   Brett

  There's a real art to website design/layout, and he's no Michelangelo....
...
I would suggest that the website, like Rich, is more a little "unfocused"  than malicious.

"Unfocused" sounds like a good description.
I was just wondering if it is unfocused because he is unstable or because he is no Michelangelo of websites. The latter seems to be the case, which is reassuring to me.

I suspect the look of his designs is too "different" for many control liners, however well they may fly.

Wolfman Jack?  Is he still with us?

I just came back from a trip to Rich's web site . It is very similar to the program that use to be on AM Radio  1 AM to 5 AM from a Art Bell's house in Nevada. On the air he was different but in person he seemed like a normal guy. Met him at a ham show in Phoenix a few years ago

   The show is still on, just not with Art. George Noory is the main host, but it's pretty much the same show. On those occasions I spend an evening with AM DXing, it's pretty amazing as you go across the AM dial at 11 pm = half the stations in the country are carrying Coast to Coast.

    For those not familiar with it (and I am not an aficionado, just aware of it), Coast to Coast AM gives guests and callers what you might call an "uncritical" forum for the paranormal, UFOs, reptilians, conspiracy theories, etc. It's on AM radio from about 10pm  to 2 in the morning pacific.

     Brett

p.s. BTW, WLW used to run at 500,000 watts before and during the war, but for the most part the Mexico stations tended to be far more powerful.

Brett
  I have been a AM DXer since the late 1940's Haven't done much since the band went to thousands of low power stations. I live in DX heaven now,low noise,high elevation,middle of the east coast.

     I live in DX nightmare, sea level, incredible interference. On BC the best I have done is Hartford CT (not bad, about 3000 miles) in very special conditions, Zenith 6G501 w/stock Wavemagnet stuck up in the air on a long pole, and the hottest 1LA6 and 1LN5's I can get, and brand new batteries.  If I go over the hill to block the local interference, at night,  I can get just about any AM station in the US. That's not all that much of an accomplishment, the radio in my car - with the window-embedded antenna - can pick up Denver and Salt Lake city like they are next door. I haven't gotten anything outside the continent of North America, but that's not too surprising, the Pacific is a lot bigger than the Atlantic and Europe is out of the question from here. I have no way to put up any 1/2 mile antennas, and I suspect if I did it would just make all the CFL lights and computer oscillators that much louder. The loops like the various Wavemagnets seems to handle the interference a lot better.

     I do a lot better on shortwave, Zenith Transoceanic 8g005, same hot 1LN5 and 1LA6 from the other radio, and the shortwave loop wavemagnet, although the stock vertical antenna works pretty good if the antenna loop it tuned properly.  I can easily get anything in the Pacific rim on 25 and 31 meters, Voice of Russia from Vladivostok can almost be picked up on your fillings from here, Radio New Zealand and Australia, no problem, the Chinese are always blasting something (including their horrible Chinese folk music jammer), and I have gotten Radio France and Deutsche Welle in the mornings a few time. Pretty much have antipodal coverage on that one. The 8g005 works better mostly because 1LA6s are so cheap that I am willing to run the filament voltage pretty high compared to a 1L6 radio and that increases the performance quite a bit. But I think when I get my Philco 40-150 tweaked up, it might be even better, even half-restored it seems to be just about as good as an average Transoceanic, although very hard to tune.

    I took a Transoceanic B600 with me when I drove down to Tucson for the SWR, and at a rest stop in Arizona at about sundown, no interference, and the sound quality and reception were both amazing.

    Brett

Hi Brett    A loop antenna is the best antenna for your area. Google" loop antennas "and you will find three ft home made loops that can be used with your Zenith. They will increase your reception and pick up less noise as they can be tuned to the frec you are listening to. Be sure to build one that has the variable capacitor in it.Most are shown with large wooden frames but that is not really needed. Here is a page to get you started. http://www.frontiernet.net/~jadale/Loop.htm They cost almost nothing to build. You could hang one on the back of a closet door. The small commercial one do not work very well compaired to these. Out of country station are sometimes between out US stations so if you have a very selective receiver you can hear them. I use to record them and get a friend to translate them for me. Eric V left a Zenith Transoceanic here for me a couple of years ago as he new I was a fan of them. I haven't turned it on yet.As a note the selenium rectifiers should be replaced in the power supply with silicon diodes.

   Thank, Ed,  I am pretty up to speed on all that.

    Almost all of the Transoceanic and related radios work better on battery than they do on AC, and it's a lot safer (from all aspect) to run them on battery. I have something like 15 portable radios going back to 1939, some restored, some not, but so far every single one of them operated (with varying degrees of success) on battery, with no restoration. And beside, the best way to hear them is to take a road trip, so no AC anyway.

     For the power supply, the older versions use tube rectifiers and those are generally OK as they are. The selenium rectifiers on my later versions are all either bypassed or gone. I have also found that most of my original power supply caps are still OK, but I replace them automatically anyway. For the Transoceanics I ended up making a constant current source for the filaments on those that I have gotten around to fixing. They also need a fuse, but the limited amount of time I use them on AC I don't leave them plugged in.

    Brett