Conference vmszoo::rc

    Bill,
    
    Thanx fer' the comeback.  First, can you tell me what club your
    brother belongs to?...the name is familiar but I can't quite dial
    it in.  If I knew what club he's associated with (or which field
    he flies at) maybe I could put a face with the name.
    
    Next, Royal kits are  a pretty good choice...they're fairly true
    to scale and fly well if kept light.  They are, however, kinda "old-
    technology" when it comes to kit engineering, i.e. they're all balsa
    construction and use LOTSA' bassa blocks which must be shaped/sanded/
    hollowed to achieve complex shapes such as cowlings, scoops, fairings,
    etc.  I, personally, like these methods (being an old-school modeler)
    but some may not.  I should mention that narrow-track landing gear
    configurations, e.g. Spitfire, ME-109, Hellcat, P-40, etc. can be
    VERY troublesome (understatement) to a scale newcomer and good advice
    might be to avoid these types 'til more experience is gained.
    
    The friendliest fighter-type I can think of for a newcomer to scale,
    and maybe to taildraggers as well) is probably the P-47 Thunderbolt.
    (Top Flite makes a pretty good one.)  The old "Jug", though it might
    not appear so, has one helluva wing on it.  It will tolerate a higher
    loadind and still be forgiving of heavy-handedness than any warbird
    going.  Another goodie for a first scale fighter is the Pica FW-190.
    Scale fidelity is pretty fair and it flies extremely well on a plain-
    vanilla .60.  Note that both of these have wiiiiide-track landing
    gear set-ups, a great asset when trying to get involved with warbirds.
    
    You mentioned Anker's Aeromaster...I couldn't recommend this bird
    more highly as an advanced trainer, preparatory to going into scale.
    Once you can consistently handle Aeromaster takeoffs and landings,
    there just aren't too many surprizes left when it comes to taildrag-
    gers.  For this reason, I'd recommend that you DON'T modify the Areo-
    master  gear set-up one iota.....let IT teach you.
    
    Finally, if you'd prefer to stay with a trike set-up for your first
    venture, consider a P-39 or a T-28 (Pica kits a nice sized one of
    these).  Pica kits do have a bad reputation for quality of wood in-
    cluded but they are fairly well engineered and fly well.  Since
    Viet Nam, a multitude of paint schemes exist for the T-28 in a
    fighter-bomber role so you don't have to build it as a trainer.
    
    Let me know if this helps and/or if I can be of any further assis-
    tance.
    
    Al Casey  (RC-AV8R)
    

    Ha ya... A long trek about to come to fruition ...This year I get
    wet and dirty... Next year I plan to be able to get my wings...
    (add a saiplane and the SCAT CAT to the stable)...
    
    And all the while, keep collecting whatever I need to build the
    plane i've been wanting to build for the past 20 years: A ducted
    fan ME262.. I've located plans for a german supplier. Its a 2m
    job, about 10 pounds.. I'm going to collect whatever I can in
    supporting documentation over the course of the next months.
    (If you can give me some pointers here, it would help)
    
    If all goes well, I'll have in the air fo the spring of 89.
    
    md

    One of the two magazines (I believe it was MA) has an article this
    month about searching for more documentation.  It listed all sorts
    of places.  It actually was a good "here's how to start" article.
    
    Not bad, I only missed 1 source.  NASM.  Actually, I didn't bother
    because I am not building a US plane.  But from what the article
    said, they have all sorts of information...  Maybe I will give them
    a try...
    
    Cheers,
    jeff
    

Actually, don't overlook NASM.  I've been collecting
documentation on an obscure Polish trainer, the ZUCH-2 for
several years now.  My contact, an expert on Polish planes,
suggested I write the Smithsonian for two articles that may have
the plane mentioned.  I wrote them, naming one of the books, the
one with the better documentation.  They got back to me, the
xerox copy was in Polish, but it was all there!  I sent it to my
contact, and he translated it for a nominal fee.  Golden stuff.

    Well guys, I had a lengthy diatribe all typed out on the impor-
    tance, care and feeding of GOOD documentation but, for the third
    time recently, I lost it (&^#&@%*^$#%) when the "Network partner
    failed to link"...whatever THAT means.  Bob Day from Basingstoke
    gave me a procedure to save the text but I tried to use it from
    "Spawn" and, apparently, that don't get 'er done.  Oh well, no use
    crying over spilled cervesa!
    
    Essentially, I said I was pleased to have such an early interest/
    response shown to the new scale forum..., Thanx guys. 
    
    Rather than try to remember verbatim what I said about documentation,
    lemme' try to hit the high-points:
    
    1. It's equally as important as the actual construction of a scale
    model and should not be taken lightly.  I've seen many museum quality
    models fail miserably in the static judging circle due to poor/inade-
    quate documentation.
    
    2. there's no pat answer to the question, "Where do I find it?"  Get
    yourself on the mailing list(s) of one or more of the mail-order
    aviation publishing houses (like Zenith Aviation Books) and collect
    anything/everything pertaining to your particular area of interest,
    haunt the bookstores, whatever it takes to begin assembling a
    documentation library.  Make friends with some serious plastic-
    modelers (IPMS members)...they're real sticklers for accuracy and
    have extensive libraries (that's how I got much of what I needed
    to document the MiG-3).
    
    3. Understand that all documentation, even on a common type like
    a P-51) is not necessarily accurate or the same.  Choose *ONE* set
    of 3-views, color documentation, etc. and IGNORE ALL THE REST, GET
    IT OUT OF SIGHT so as not to confuse the building effort.  A model
    which is a composite of many 3-views but doesn't REALLY match any
    one of them is doomed in the static circle.  Just remember that,
    even if you KNOW something is not right on your documentation, you
    CANNOT be dinged by the judges if your model faithfully replicates
    it.                                                               
    
    I had more comments on documentation and some more on Mike's dream
    machine, the ME-262, but they'll have to wait 'til tommorrow.  Again,
    THANX! fer' the interest/participation...let's keep the scale column
    rolling.
    
    Buenos noches,	Al
    

    
    It might not hurt to suggest ways for people to get started in
    scale.  I was pleased with the Sig Citabria kit and found it an
    easy flying plane.  You have to learn that ships like this require
    you to feed in rudder during turns to make them look real.  I'm
    sure there are a lot of other tips that experienced scale modelers
    could give here.
    
    When you're done with the basic construction and ready to cover
    it's real handy to hook up with an experienced scale modeler.  I
    spent an afternoon with Charlie Nelson before covering the Citabria
    and it was extremely helpful.  Most of the problems you would sit
    and ponder for hours have been thought through many times by these
    people.

    In my opinion 4-stroke engines help make the flight more realistic.
    But they require more maintenence and are more finicky - once again
    the help of someone with 4-stroke engine experience is very
    valuable.
    
    I'm stuck right in the middle between scale and pattern - that's
    probably why I chose the CAP 21 for my present project.  I'm
    starting to wonder if I'll ever have the kind of time/patience to really
    get into scale seriously - Charlie Nelson told me he spent over
    1000 hours building his WACO that placed 4th in the Nats last year.
    Another member of our club, Steve Sherwood, spent several thousand
    hours on his Staggerwing that was done in at Orange this year due
    to radio interference.  I guess with three kids I'll have to wait
    a while before that kind of time is available (without having
    3-4 year projects).
    
    Bill
    

    re .4
    
    The name is Marc, not MIKE !!! (arrumph)...
    
    Also a good way yo save yourself the agony of Network link failed
    (especially on long responses) is to invoke your favorite editor
    locally (before notes) and write the stuff into a file. Then all
    you have to do is to do a "reply <filename>". If the transmission
    fails a that level, you still have to original.. Saves wasting all
    that good beer on the floor.
    
    md

	First, my sincerest apologies re: the faux-pas on yer' name 
	Marc.  One of my pet peeves is people who don't/won't take
	the time to get yer' name right and here I go commiting the
	same inconsideration.  Your reply was only signed "md" and 
	I "thought" I remembered that your first name was Mike.......
	should've checked some previous notes I guess.  Sorry 'bout
	that!...I'll try to do better in the future.

	Now, since it goes hand-in-glove with the thoughts I wanted 
	to express about the ME-262, let's talk about selecting that
	all-important FIRST scale project.  The MOST important thing
	you can do when deciding what to build is be HONEST regarding
	your piloting skill level and SENSIBLE when you make your ac-
	tual selection.  What I'm trying to say here is, if you've just 
	barely graduated from your trainer-type, it's NOT a good idea
	to choose a P-51, a B-17 or an F-4...be realistic enough to re-
	alize that your flying skills are not yet up to these more ex-
	otic type scale birds.  To do otherwise is to doom yer'self to 
	almost certain failure and, worse, we might lose you altogether
	as a scale pilot.

	I've always felt like nearly everyone who starts out in R/C has
	it in the back of his mind to "someday" be at the sticks of a
	hot, sinister-looking scale bird, but be patient...if you go
	about it properly, you CAN achieve your fantasy AFTER you've
	paid yer' dues and worked yer' way up to it.

	So, how DO you get started?  Again, the answer varies according 
	to relative piloting skill...if you're SERIOUSLY considering a
	scale project, I will assume you possess the minimum building
	skills required.  My personal opinion is that you NEED to have
	several "successful" birds under yer' belt (to accumulate both
	the building AND the flying skills you'll need) before you start
	seriously considering a scale ship...this to insure some measure
	of success.  These prerequisite ships should include a trainer
	(obviously), a secondary bird like a Trainer .40/.60 or one of 
	the myriad "Stik" types and an advanced type like an Aeromaster
	to develop the aerobatic and unusual-attitude recovery skills
	you'll be glad to have when flying that gnarly WW-II fighter.

	Having HONESTLY assessed yer' flying skill level, pick yer' first
	project accordingly.  If you've admitted you still don't have the
	skill to react instinctively AND CORRECTLY when things start hap-
	pening FAST, yer' best advised to choose a friendly, high-wing
	type with LOTSA' wing area, light wing-loading and relatively
	slow airspeed, i.e. J-3 Cub, Citabria, etc.  This will provide 
	you with plenty of challenge and realism while getting yer' feet
	wet and polishing yer' tail-dragger techniques at the same time.
	I STRONGLY recommend you start right off with a tail-dragger as
	yer' downstream projects will very likely be tail-draggers and
	you might as well start learning about conventional gear from the
	outset.

	If you have a couple of high performance aircraft under yer' belt,
	you may prefer to start with something a little "hotter."  Just be
	forewarned that a pattern or hot sport ship DOES NOT fly like a
	heavily wing-loaded WW-II fighter!  The former are MUCH more for-
	giving of any neglect or inadequacy on your part...that's why I
	so highly recommend the Aeromaster as a prerequisite to scale -
	the darn thing "behaves" much like a scale ship will.  Again, be
	honest with yer'self regarding yer' flying skills, realizing that,
	if you overestimate yer' abilities, the price will be many, MANY
	hours of labor building yer' pride and joy...GONE IN A HEARTBEAT!
	If you're SURE you're ready for that warbird, make it easy on your-
	self; pick something with plenty of wing area and a WIIIDE stance
	landing gear.  The first thing that comes to mind is the P-47
	Thunderbolt...don't be fooled by how the wing looks, it'll carry
	more weight and be more forgiving of any ham-handedness on the 
	sticks than any fighter going, including the P-51.  The Mustang
	"looks" like it should be better but, believe me, it isn't.  It
	will snap a lot quicker in a low/slow/nose-up situation and can
	be treacherous on the ground.

	Marc, I too have always liked the ME-262 but I'd NEVER build one.
	Before the Phantom, Tom Cook flew and kitted a -262 for awhile
	but gave it up after losing 3 in-a-row to engine failures.  The
	low, extremely wide thrust-line arrangement produces an absolutely
	FATAL assymmetric thrust situation that even the best twin pilots
	(like Tom) can't overcome with regularity.  Tom said the -262 was 
	like a rattler in the grass, it was GONNA' get you, sooner or later, 
	not "if" but WHEN you lost a fan!  He (Tom) said that's why he chose 
	the F-4; it had the extra ooomph! of twin fans but had them nestled
	together in the fuselage center-line...Voila! no assymmetric thrust
	problems.  The same problem exists, by the way, with widely spaced
	engines on twin recip's like the F-7-F Tigercat.  Combine that with 
	a heavy wing loading and you've got short-fused DYNAMITE on yer' 
	hands!!  If you still wanna' try it one day, by all means do a couple
	of single engine jets FIRST, if only to learn how to handle those
	cantankerous fans.  Incidentally, I checked my doc. library last 
	night and all I've got on the -262 is a random picture here and there
	...nothing in depth/detail.

	Hope some of this gives ya' a better handle on the "how's" of getting
	started in scale.  Keep them cards 'n letters comin'.

	Adios amigos,	Al

Al, you mentioned that a first scale project, for those with
moderate flying skills, should be a high wing type.  How about a
shoulder wing, such as the Heath Baby Bullet?  I hear that it is
a relatively easy plane to fly.  Is this true, and can we
generalize to all shoulder wingers?

There's a little more than casual interest in my question...

    John,
    
    Yeah!...You could probably generalize and say that "most" shoul-
    der-wingers would be reasonably friendly for a first project.
    The specific ones that come to mind, e.g. Bristol Bullet, Heath
    Baby Bullet, Moraine Saulner, Eindecker E-1 etc. would be easy/
    safe enough toinsure sucess, though they might be a little squir-
    relier in thegroung-handling department, as most of the WW-I birds
    seem to be.
    
    I saw a Baby Bullet make an absolute fool out of Dan Santich at
    the Masters one year...I think he only got airborne twice.  But
    then, it's widely accepted in scale circles that poor ol' Dan is
    a nice guy but couldn't fly his way out of a wet brown paper-sack.
    Proof of this might be that a fellow from Australia flew a 1/3 scale
    Baby Bullet at the '85 Masters with no apparent problems.  Also,
    Harry Appoian flies th' doggies out of a venerable Moraine Saulner
    at nearly all the western meets (even off water) with no ill effects
    UNLESS there's a crosswind.  At that point, if he can't make a run
    into the wind, Harry parks his bird and has a beer!  Again, this
    syndrome seems to be pretty typical of the WW-I birds...you've got
    acres of lightly loaded wing area, a very high CG, no tailwheel and 
    conventional gear working against you simultaneously, so a crosswind 
    "breaks the camel's back."  
    
    I can't stand it...what's the hidden motive??
    
    Adios,	Al

Well, of course, I have a box with some balsa wood and some
drawings for the Baby Bullet...and I have occasionally been known
to assemble such things into a project, though I prefer scratch
building.

A secondary motive is that I've been toying with committing a
heresy and designing a shoulder wing P-51B for fun.  You may
remember the "Reminder Scale" Aeronca C-3 in Model Aviation (I
think) a while back.  I figure this will give me the jollies of
building and marking a warbird, without waiting for the flying
skills to be acquired (at the rate I'm going it could take
several years).

Actually, I've done some sketches and it is a pretty creditable
Mustang.  I call it a Kinda-Mustang, if you get the pun.

    re .7... Very good points....This what I call dowsing one's dreams
    real good (or putting things back on the ground).. I won't contest
    the statements about flying skills. I am in need of a lot of practice
    in this area. The most distressing aspect of your note is the statement
    about the assymetric thrust line..This I had not considered (or
    expected).. This brings to mind the question: Do other twin engine
    scale ships (say a P38 or a Mosquito) have similar problems ??
    If not, why ?. 
    
    Maybe I'll fall back on my next option: The AVRO Arrow.
    
    In the mean time, I go get some stick time and sulk and grumble..
    
    tx for the input
    
    md

Well I hat to ask but...

I'm building an Art Chester Jeep.

I'm going to finish it and I'm going to fly it
and if it survives I'm going to enter it into
a scale contest - well actually first a scale
fly in (No documentation required).

But Al - with your years of experience maybe you 
can help in the flying department.  

What can I expect it to react like?  What do I 
have to look out for?  This is my second season
so my flying skills are nothing to brag about
and our field has been so bad this year that I
have only hand launched all summer.  It's the 
Coverite kit and has an OS40-FP in it.

There is a previous series of notes about Jeeps
but this seems an appropriate place to ask and
I hope to have it in the air in a week or two.

              _!_      
Bye        ----O----   
Kay R. Fisher / \     

================================================================================

    Marc,
    
    Sorry, 'bout that!  I sure didn't intend to squash yer' dreams...
    only wanted to forewarn and prepare you BEFORE THE FACT that cer-
    tain skills and attentions will be REQUIRED for a project such as
    the ME-262 and, in certain circumstances, even THAT might not be
    enough to save yer' bacon.  If you've noticed the "absence" of the
    -262 from the scale arena, maybe this provides some insight as to
    why.  It's definitely NOT an unachievable project but will require
    LOTSA' preparation and HOMEWORK to have a chance at success.
    
    As I stated in -.7, yes!...some twin recip's have similar behaviour
    in assymmetric thrust (engine-out) situations - the further apart
    the engines, the worse the effect - and a twin recip would be a
    wise step toward achieving your -262 goal.  The P-38 Bob Frey and
    I had a few years back "could" be managed on one engine but could
    NOT maintain flight for very long...if you had to stretch to set
    up a landing you had to use almost full aileron into the live engine
    and full opposite rudder, all the while reducing the throttle steadily
    to keep the bird JUST UNDER the snap/spin threshold.  This REQUIRED
    a lot of "feel" for the aircraft (you HAD to know INSTINCTIVELY
    what to do) and would buy you about 30 seconds to set up your landing.
    
    The de Havilland Mosquito and Hornet as well as the B-25 are not
    nearly as gnarly as their engines are placed as close together as
    the fuselage will allow, reducing the assymmetric thrust effect.
    Some twins were even designed with the prop tip arcs nearly touching
    in front of a short, stubby nose to combat this killer effect.
    
    What makes the -262 PARTICULARLY deadly is the fact that the thrust
    line is well below the wing.  With an engine out, the "powered"
    wing, which is already producing more lift due to higher airspeed,
    is further lifted by the low thrust-line into an un-stoppable roll.
    Yer' only prayer is to recognize the engine-out situation INSTANTLY
    (if you can hear it - otherwise you'll have to "feel" it and that
    could be too late), immediately pull the throttle and land as best
    you can.  As I've said, this would be an advanced project requiring
    advances skills so choose wisely!
    
    Adios,	Al

    yeech.. I guess jet fighter designers have learned something some
    the 1st effort.. I wonder if the real thing (full size proto) was
    as dramatic in its behaviour with one engine out.....
    
    Hey,this is verry educational.. tx... 
    
    I guess this is case of crawl before you walk, walk before you run
    and train a lot before you enter the marathon..
    
    md
    

    MARC,
    
    YOU SAID A MOUTHFUL!!  Yer' crawl/walk/run/compete analogy couldn't
    be more to the point!  Do yer' homework and work up to it and scale
    will be a very pleasurable, satisfying venture but, to do otherwise
    opens the door to LOTSA' heartache and disappointment...that's pre-
    cisely the pirpose of this column/forum, to eliminate, reduce or,
    at least minimize the pain level of getting started!
    
    And yes! the 1:1 ME-262 was a demanding, treacherous bird in engine-
    out situations!  You'll find that scale models emulate the character-
    istics of their "big-brothers" to-a-tee, both good AND BAD.  Therein
    lies the basis of my advice to choose yer' subject(s) carefully!
    
    Adios, 	Al

    
    		Anybody care to comment on the airwothiness of lets
    	say a scale DC-3. Im a couple of years off but thinking of
    	a twin and not nessecarily a war bird. I'd love to do a C-130
    	but four engines I dont think so.
    
    				Mike
    

A C-123, I think, has two engines, and looks like a C-130 except
much smaller; maybe that's a good compromise.  Come to think of
it, I don't remember seeing one in any of the model mag contest
coverages.  

	KAY,

	I had the opportunity to fly a 1/3 scale, Q-35 powered Jeep 
	some five or so years back down in Naples, Florida while 
	visiting a modeling buddy there.  If it was any indication
	of what to expect of the .40-size version (and it should be)
	I can make the following observations:

	1. It must be kept as light as possible due to the small
	   wing...his was.

	2. The bird is extremely short-coupled (short nose and tail
	   moments) so it is very sensitive to excessive elevator
	   inputs or throw.  Keep the throw reasonable and don't
	   get heavy-handed and you'll be alright.

	3. The narrow, wheel-panted gear caused some mild consterna-
	   tion during takeoff/landing in the grass but nothing severe.

	4. The ailerons were quite "brisk" (as were all the controls)
	   so it had to be handled with a soft touch to prevent it
	   "lurching" unrealistically all over the sky.

	My overall impression was that it handled/behaved just as the
	prototype was designed to...it was reasonably fast and had
	crisp, sensitive control response, but not dangerously so. If
	you have a sport ship or two under your belt, you should be
	delighted with its performance and not find too many surprises.
	If in doubt, have an experienced pilot test-hop it and set it
	up for you...I think you'll like it.

	Good luck,	Al

	Mike,

	I've racked my feeble brain and never come up with a good
	reason why, but the DC-3 does not seem to make a good model. 
	I have seen at least a half-dozen of 'em snap and crash on 
	takeoff and the best one I've seen was plenty squirrely! It
	makes no sense and almost belies what I said earlier about 
	models emulating their parents...the 1:1 bird is remarkably
	friendly and honest but, not so the models I've seen. I have
	to strongly believe that overweight and pilot error have a lot
	to do with the failures I've witnessed but I, personally,
	would avoid the DC-3.

	John's idea about the C-123 is a good one.  I've seen several 
	VEEERRY successful C-130's (they fly just great) and the -123
	isn't much more than a smaller, twin-engine version of it.
	
	Also, I've yet to see a bad Royal B-25.  If you don't want to 
	do a warbird, do it up as one of the many post-war civilian
	versions.

	Adios,	Al
                                                                     

    
    	Ok. Lets say for the sake of an argument that I decide that
    	I like the C-123 enough to take it on. How would I expect to
    	find a set of plans to build one from. I know I can't simply
    	scale down a full size set of plans. Is there a place where
    	I might expect to purchase a set, and would these plans also
    	tell me about size engines to use.
    
    					Mike
    

    Mike,
    
    Well, now you've gone 'n asked the tough one.  I am not personally
    aware of either kit or plans for the C-123.  Best thing I could
    suggest is that you write to Bob Holman for his catalog (I call
    it the dream book)...there is a small fee (around $5.00) but the
    catalog's well worth it.  It's chock-full of scale designs from
    around the world...literally hundreds of them.  If he doesn't have
    anything on the _123, you just might stumble across something else
    that lights yer' fire.  Another possibility is Hobby Horn plans
    service...this company bought out several other plans services like
    Hal Osborne Plans and has a large subject inventiry also.  Both
    of these sources advertise in the major model mag.'s do drop them
    a line and request their catalogs...thar's gold in them thar hills!
    
    Sorry I couldn't be more help on the C-123...adios,	   Al

    Wism us luck guys,
    
    I'll be absent from the net tommorrow and next Monday...goin' to
    the Western Scale Regionals (Qualifier for the U.S. Scale Masters) in
    Fountain Valley (Mile Square Park), CA, hosted by the So. Cal. Scale
    Squadron.  This should be a nice relaxed meet for me and the MiG-3
    as I'm already qualified by virtue of the win in Tucson last Memorial
    Day weekend.  But, it'll be nice to get some current practice "under
    fire', with no pressure, preparatory to the Masters Champ's this
    October. 
    
    The primary objective this weekend (besides not bangin' up our toys)
    will be to help get my buddies Bob Frey (brandie-new P-47D) and
    Chuck Collier (brandie-new Byron Staggerwing) qualified and, above
    all, to enjoy ourselves to the hilt.  This makes about 11 consecutive
    years we've attended this meet and we ALWAYS have a blast!
    
    We'll see y'all next Monday...keep the inputs comin',	Al
    

    Wait a minute..  A MiG-3??  Western Scale Nats? Hmmmm....  Off to
    my magazine collection I went...
    
    Sure enough, there it is.  In the December 1985 issue of Scale R/C
    Modeler, on page 22 is a MiG-3.  Hmmm, they must talk about it in
    the article.  Yup, there is is... "The MiG-3 belonging to Al Casey
    of Phoenix...".  They said that they had featured him in an article
    in one of the previous issues..
    
    OK Al, now I am impressed...  Must be nice to have your name in
    print...
    
    BTW - It was not Rhinebeck that I saw the Bristol that you were
    talking about...  On the same page as your picture is the brown/white
    Bristol flown by Harry Apoian.

    Cheers,
    jeff
    
    

    re .-1.. Now, you just reminded of something: WHere do I go to get
    an subscription to Scale RC Mag ?? My local hobby shop doesn't stock
    it.
    
    md

    10968 Via Frontera
    San Diego, CA 92127
    
    This issue say that yearly subs are $14.50...
    
    
    RE - Profile Publications....
    
    Get them now or forever hold your piece....  I talked with the people
    that own all of the remaining Profile books.  They are NOT being
    re-printed.  They are simply selling all off the copies that they
    bought from the publisher when he went out of business..
    
    There is no chance of finding a "new" copy of the profile for the
    Nieuport-11...
    
    If anyone sees one, PLEASE pick it up and send it to me..  I will
    be happy to re-imberse all expenses..
    
    Thanks,
    jeff
    

    
    	Check with a Drugstore or a Bookstore..they usually have them
    on the shelf.  If not, you'll have to find someone who has one 
    and get a form from them.  Any people out there who have one??
    
    	Brian
    

    
    	I've got a question or two...
    
    	I recently saw a picture of a Royal Navy `Short Seamew', a single-
    engine, carrier-based plane used for ASW.  Having never seen one
    of these before...
    
    	1. Who makes the beast?  DH? BAC?  Hawker Siddley?
    	2. Was there ever a `Long Seamew'?
	3. Is the plane still in service?
	4. Does a kit exist for this in the UK?
    	5. Anyone seen any documentation or provide a pointer to it?
    	6. Anyone disagree this would make a nice scale RC plane
    	   (yes, its ugly, but will it fly?)?
    
    Thanks in advance!

    Well, I visited my local hobby shop to pick some odd & sods this
    week end.. On the way out, I aske the manager/owner (?) is he has
    anything on the ME262.. "No", he sez "But I know of this book that
    covers the German Jet fighters of WWII. I even have a copy here
    I borrowed from a friend". SO I looked at it. The Me262 is a proeminent
    figure... I even found out the was a version with engine snugged
    up against the body.. SO I orderes a copy.. This should get me
    started in figurung out if I really want to tangle with this tiger..
    
    md

	Hi guys..., I'm back!

	WHATTA' TRIP!!  I feel like I've gone a coupla' rounds with 
	Muhammed Ali...I'm really beat!  But IT WAS A BLAST, as usual.
	
	Kent Walters, Bob Frey and I drove to Mile Square Park, Fountain 
	Valley, CA, leaving at the devasting hour of 4:00 AM last Friday 
	morning.  The trip (which "normally" takes 6 1/2 - 7 hrs.) took
	nearly 9-hrs. due to car problems: we had taken Kent's suburban
	and I have to "tell" on "the Champ" just a bit...he doesn't give
	his vehicle the same TLC he gives to his venerable 9-year old
	Dauntless dive-bomber.  We blew a tire west of Blythe, CA, lost
	a radiator hose coming into Indio, added 3-qt.'s of oil in Ban-
	ning (to quiet the protesting lifters, raise the oil-pressure
	and lower the temp.), replaced the spark plugs in Riverside, but 
	prevailed 'til FINALLY we arrived at the field "late"...too late 
	to static our birds 'til Saturday AM.

	Anyway, after partying 'til 2:00 AM, we got a little rest (prec-
	ious little) and arrived for static judging and the beginning
	flight rounds not quite bright-eyed OR bushy-tailed Saturday AM!
	Things began to look a little rosier, though, when the static
	scores were posted as we found that Kent had taken top-static
	with a score of 97 and Bob and I were tied for second-high with
	a pair of 96's.  As the flight rounds progressed, Kent immediate-
	ly established an insurmountable lead with flight-scores in the 
	93+ range.  Bob had a brand-new P-47 with only 5-prior flights 
	on it and I, frankly, had not practiced much since winning the
	Memorial Day Qualifier in Tucson, so we both had some barnacles 
	to polish off our stick-hands.  We both found our pace after a
	flight or two, though, and Bob finished 4th while I blew a po-
	tential 2nd place finish with a *BAD* landing on the last round
	and slipped to a still respectable 5th place.  One zero can sure
	be expensive in this game (2nd-thru-6th places were only separat-
	ed by 3 points) but, at least, I didn't cream the trusty MiG-3.  
	I did have the pleasure, at least, to have had the second-high 
	flight score of the meet, a 93.75...yes, Kent had high-flight,
	as usual, with a 95 even.  The man ain't human...HE'S A MACHINE!
	In any event, The One-Eighth Air Force accounted for 3 of the top
	5 places...not bad fer' 3 "good ol' boys from cowboy-land!"

	SEEN AT THE MEET:  A gorgeous Bert Baker P-38; VERRRY impressive
	on a pair of Webra Bullies.  This one's bound to be a top-conten-
	der once the bugs are worked out of the retract system.

	An extremely nice Martin B-26 Marauder for twin .90's.  Keep yer'
	eyes peeled...this one may become a kit.

	A *HUGE* Royal Corsair (I didn't even know they made a BIIGGG one) 
	pulled impressively by a Sachs-Dolmer 3.7.

	OBSERVATIONS:  The cycle continues; not one Corsair or Mustang
	entered in competition (the big Royal was flown as a demo...it
	wasn't very scale) but P-47's in ANY size continue to be very 
	competitive.  There were 3 Jugs entered: a 62", a 72" and an 80"
	version...they placed 4th, 8th and 10th respectively.  

	WW-II fighters, not surprisingly, continue to dominate the top
	places:  of the top-12 places, all were warbirds save for Mel
	Santmeyers' Byron Staggerwing (2nd) and Jim Morrow's Tiger Moth.
	I am glad, however, to see the flight judges appreciating the 
	differences in flight performance between widely dissimilar types 
	and scoring accordingly.  Jim's Moth received some 89 - 90 scores
	even though he was handicapped by wind the entire weekend.

	Jets are still a rough way to go competitively except for the most
	intrepid devotees...gotta' admit I admire their dedication.  Only
	2 were entered - both crashed!  Too Bad.

	Norm Goyer makes a better flight-judge than he does a magazine
	editor.  Don't misunderstand, Norm seems a fine fellow and I get 
	along with him just fine but disagree violently with many of his
	editorial comments.  Even though he "claims" to do so, he needs
	to get out and REALLY fly scale BEFORE he makes some of the rid-
	iculous statements he makes in Scale R/C Modeler.  He WAS well
	thought of for the consistency and fairness of his judging by
	all the contestants, including myself.  Incidentally, Norm was
	wearing 2-hats this weekend as he was also taking photographs
	etc. for upcoming coverage of this meet in SR/CM.  Look for it
	about 2-issues from now...he took photos of the top 5-finishers
	so keep yer' eyes open fer' th' "Desert Rat" and the MiG-3.
	
	We capped the weekend by visiting the Planes of Fame Museum at
	Chino Airport (the Mecca of WW-II "Big-Iron") yesterday morning.
	From there, except for an occasional miss, wheeze or hiccup, we
	had a (thanfully) uneventful drive back to Phoenix, arriving in
	in the middle of a thunderstorm around midnight last night. To
	put it mildly...I'M WHUPPED !!  BUT WHATTA' BLAST !


	REPLIES:

>    Wait a minute..  A MiG-3??  Western Scale Nats? Hmmmm....  Off to
>    my magazine collection I went...
    
>    Sure enough, there it is.  In the December 1985 issue of Scale R/C
>    Modeler, on page 22 is a MiG-3.  Hmmm, they must talk about it in
>    the article.  Yup, there is is... "The MiG-3 belonging to Al Casey
>    of Phoenix...".  They said that they had featured him in an article
>    in one of the previous issues..
    
>    talking about...  On the same page as your picture is the brown/white
>    Bristol flown by Harry Apoian.

>    Cheers,
>    jeff
    

	Jeff...double-check that article and you should find "two" pic's
	of the MiG-3: a 1/2-page color shot and a smaller black and white.
	In the B&W, the big dummy hangin' onto the tail is "the Desert
	Rat" himself while the guy starting it is my buddy Bob Frey.  

	Harry Apoian was flying a big Polish Fighter at this year's meet
	but he still has the Bristol.

	I talked to Bob Banka of Scale Model Research for you and, guess
	what, he has packages on both the Nieuport-11 and -17.  The photo
	pack on the -11 is #262 and contains 37 pic's of the one with the
	Indian-head on the side...it sells for $22.50.  The -17 pack is
	#203 and contains 26 pic's for $17.00.  To order, write:

		Scale Model Research
		2334 Ticonderoga Way	OR	Bob Banka
		Costa Mesa,		CALL	(714) 979-8058
		CA   92626
	


>    re .-1.. Now, you just reminded of something: WHere do I go to get
>    an subscription to Scale RC Mag ?? My local hobby shop doesn't stock
>    it.
    
>    md

	Marc...I'll get the address for you and put it in notes tomorrow.
	You might find it interesting that I climbed ALL-OVER an ME-262
	yersterday at Chino.  Sinister looking machine!  Incidentally,
	the "...In Action" series by Squadron Signal Publications has a
	volume on the ME-262 you'd probably love.  Order it thru Zenith 
	Aviation Books toll-free at 1-800-826-6600 if you can't find it 
	locally.



>    	I've got a question or two...
    
>    	I recently saw a picture of a Royal Navy `Short Seamew', a single-
>    engine, carrier-based plane used for ASW.  Having never seen one
>    of these before...
    
>    	1. Who makes the beast?  DH? BAC?  Hawker Siddley?
>    	2. Was there ever a `Long Seamew'?
>	3. Is the plane still in service?
>	4. Does a kit exist for this in the UK?
>    	5. Anyone seen any documentation or provide a pointer to it?
>    	6. Anyone disagree this would make a nice scale RC plane
>    	   (yes, its ugly, but will it fly?)?
    
>    Thanks in advance!


	1. "Short Aircraft" built the Seamew.
	2. NO
	3. I'm not sure but I doubt it.
	4. I couldn't say...maybe one of our UK noters could check
	   it out.
	5. Can't say I have...check the mail-order aviation publi-
	   cation houses for a start.
	6. If it's got good wing-area and moments, it'll make a de-
	   cent model, regardless of looks.

	Yer' welcome, hope this helps.



	I apologize for forgetting who asked about plans for a C-123 
	but I talked to Bob Holman about it this weekend and, unfortu-
	nately, he's unaware of any such plans, anywhere...sorry.

	Well, for now, buenos tardes and adios,		Al

    re ME262 & "sinister looking machine": Yup.. I will agree 100%.
    
    In fact, every time I look a front view picture, I can't thinking
    to myself: It looks like a shark...Same fluid lines, similar
    cross-section.. A real killing machine.. (Did you ever a pic of
    the version with the 88mm canon in the nose.. Deadly combination,
    including the pilot: The smoke was a thick enough to choke the poor
    guy driving this set-up)
    
    md 

    Marc,
    
    You said it!  I, too, have always connected the ME-262's lineage
    to the shark...we were making that very comparison while looking
    over the example displayed at Chino.  I had no camera so I couldn't
    get any pic's fer' ya' but, honestly, while is was more than present-
    able, Chino's -262 is a little weary lookin'...the one at the NASM
    in DC is much a more pristine example. BTW, a letter or visit to
    the NASM would likely provide a wealth of info on this bird.
    
    Yes, at one time or another, I've seen pic's of the -262 in nearly
    all operational and experimental configurations and yer' right...
    some of 'em were pretty exotic.  As I think I said before, I've
    always been fascinated by this bird-of-prey (as you are) and only
    wish it would model better.  I just patiently await the day when
    fan technology is such that reliability is a GIVEN so more poten-
    tially treacherous projects like the -262 can be attempted with
    some degree of assurance of success AND longevity.
    
    I wrote down the subscription address of Scale R/C Modeler fer'
    ya' this AM, then promptly walked off and left it on the kitchen
    counter when I left for work...hopefully, I'll remember it tomor-
    row.  (The thing that bugs me most about getting older is that yer'
    memory goes.........that, and yer' memory goes!)  Seriously, I can't
    remember when my memory was ever better than it is today (think
    about that one fer' a minute)!
    
    Talk atcha' later senor...adios,	Al

    
    Well, let's talk about documentation some more...  I have seen a
    few booklets that people have put together to document their plane.
    I have also read the rules about it...
    
    Would someone please build an outline of what makes up a good 
    set of documentation regarding a plane??
    
    Thanks,
    jeff
    

    NASM = National Air & Science Museum ??  
    
    If one is to contact these people, how should you approach them
    
    The way I see, If I drop them a line saying something like:
    
    " I would greatly appreciate if you could send me some information
      on the (Insert favorite airplane) ..", one is liekly to be ignored
      or not get what one wants.
    
    Now waht if one ask for a catalog listing (ie a list of things) they
    have on the (favorite airplane)?   
    
    Also, do they charge you if you request  documents and if so, how
    much ?
    
    md

     RE: -.32

>    Well, let's talk about documentation some more...  I have seen a
>    few booklets that people have put together to document their plane.
>    I have also read the rules about it...
    
>    Would someone please build an outline of what makes up a good 
>    set of documentation regarding a plane??
    
>    Thanks,
>    jeff


	Jeff,

	Good question.  Step 1 is to study the AMA rule book as pertains
	to the subject of documentation for "SPORT" scale (as you indicate 
	you've done).  Then re-read it and re-read it again to assure that 
	you're in the right ballpark and understand fully what the require-
	ments are.

	Next, understand that documentation can make an ENORMOUS difference
	in the static score awarded to an otherwise excellent model.  This
	is an area to let yer' artistic and organizational skills loose as
	well presented material will gather in as many as 5 (or more) extra
	points as compared to the identical material presented in a sloppy
	and/or disorganized manner.

	There're no pat answers as to "exactly" what's the right way to pre-
	pare your documentation but here's how I do mine, and I've been ra-
	ther successful with this approach:

	BASICS:
	=======

	1. Use a 3-ring loose-leaf binder, the narrower the better, as you'll
	   only be putting a few pages in it.  The one(s) I use is 1" wide,
	   measured across the width of the spine and is available in various
	   colors, i.e. black, red, blue, etc.  If possible, select a color 
	   that complements or relates to some portion of the airplane docu-
	   mented.  My MiG-3 binder is red, relating to the red stars of the
	   national insignia on the bird.  On the front cover, I've drawn a
	   black star outline with "MiG-3" (in Russian characters) printed
	   within the star.  Also, I've placed authentic Russian coins on the
	   cover and throughout the doc. pages.  SHOWMANSHIP COUNTS BIG IN
	   THIS GAME!!

	2. Obtain acetate page protectors (the kind that have the black paper
	   inserts in them) for use in "displaying" (not simply showing) your
	   documentation.

	3. Place your doc. material in the binder in the order they're most 
	   likely to be viewed by the judges; I place "accuracy of outline"
	   mat'ls first as that is "normally" the first area judged.  Then
	   comes the "color and markings" material.

	4. My affadavit of disclosure (listing items not actually made by me)
	   is actually the first page of my book but this is not counted as a
	   page of documentation.  Word is that this page is no longer requir-
	   ed but I don't know that for certain.

	5. BE CREATIVE!! Don't simply insert a drawing or whatever and leave 
	   it at that...sprinkle little goo-ga's like unit badges, nose-art,
	   national insignia, etc. throughout the presentation *BUT*, be sure
	   whatever you use is relevant to THE aircraft you modelled.  DON'T
	   put *ANYTHING* in that will be in conflict with the SPECIFIC air-
	   craft you modelled!  Ex: I have a Russian magazine cover with a 
	   sketch of the MiG-3 as the front inside cover-leaf...and a page of 
	   an article on the MiG-3 (in Russian print) with another sketch as
	   the back inside cover-leaf of my binder in addition to the Ruskie
	   coins I mentioned.  These pages do not count as documentation, 
	   per se, they're merely window-dressing but add substantially to 
	   the professionalism of your presentation and, who knows...may even
	   distract the judges from seeing something you may not want them to
	   see.

	6. MOST IMPORTANTLY: Be concise, short and to the point!!  Give them 
	   the ABSOLUTE minimum required material and NOT ONE BIT MORE!  All
	   you'll accomplish is clouding the issue with resulting loss of
	   valuable points.  Except for a short note of clarification, DON'T
	   belabor your doc. with WRITTEN material...the judges have only a
	   short time to judge your model and can't/won't waste time plying
	   through written documentation, no matter how good it is!

	SPECIFICS:
	==========

	1. Accuracy of Outline
	   -------------------

	   You MUST provide a line drawing showing a minimum of top, side,
	   and front views. Choose a "SIMPLE" drawing for this; Wylam, Nieto
	   or other complex drawings are the kiss of death...they simply give
	   the judge TOO much to look for!  And don't show more than the re-
	   quired top/side/front views...again, you're giving the man too
	   much to look FOR! SPOTLIGHT the things you know to be good/correct
	   and DOWNPLAY things you know to be wrong or "not quite right."

	   Use additional pic's or drawings ONLY to support something on the 
	   model that can't be seen on your 3-view.  I show a view of the 
	   starboard side of the nose (only) to show the difference in the
	   intake shape of the oil-cooler fairing.  Notice I said the nose
	   (only)...I cut the pic down to show ONLY what I wanted them to see,
	   AND NO MORE!  Hey! Why help the judges do their job, right?

	2. Color and Markings
	   ------------------

	   BE FOREWARNED that neither color photographs nor lithographic 
	   prints constitute "good" color documentation by themselves.  Try to
	   obtain the Federal Standard (FS) numbers for the colors on your
	   model.  Obtain color chips for these colors and mix your paints
	   to match these which, of course, you'll include in yer' doc. to
	   authenticate yer' colors.

	   I show a lithographic print of the top and side views of the MiG-3
	   along with a B/W photo of the actual prototype aircraft. Addition-
	   ally, I show a chart which documents the colors by FS no.'s and
	   include 3-color chips of the FS colors I used.

	That's it...my actual documentation only occupies 4-pages (both sides
	of two acetate page protectors).  You're allowed 6-pages and that is
	due to be increased to 8, but why bother?  My rule is not to show them
	one iota more than the rules require...give them TOO much and they'll
	have a field-day picking you apart!

	In conclusion, I realized while writing this that this sounds a whole
	lot more complicated than it really is (or needs to be).  My doc. was
	preened down from an enormous stack of materials gathered during the 
	building process...you'll be amazed how it magically starts to turn
	up when you start a new project.  The KEY here is to NOT build a gor-
	geous model only to have it fail in the static circle due to inade-
	quate or hastily (and poorly) prepared documentation.

	Hope this helps a little more to understand the intracacies of docu-
	mentation.

	Adios,	 Al

	Marc,


>    NASM = National Air & Science Museum ??  
	
	THAT'S CORRECT.
    
>    If one is to contact these people, how should you approach them

	WRITE: 		National Air & Space Museum
			ATTN: Dana Bell
			Smithsonian Institution
			Washington,
			D.C.	20560

	OR CALL:	Dana Bell @ (202) 357-3133

	Request information specific to your project, e.g. "I need pic's
	of the ME-262 in ..... configuration, or in .... Jagdeshwader, or
	anthing you have (be careful, they've got TONS of stuff).  I'm
	given to understand they do have some sort of "video" catalog
	but I don't know how it works.
    
	I've never used the NASM resource personally.  I got the above from
	Kent Walters who DID obtain photo's, etc. on his SBD-3 Dauntless
	dive-bomber.
    
>    Also, do they charge you if you request  documents and if so, how
>    much ?
    
>    md

	There is a charge but Kent says it's reasonable/nominal.  He guessed
	$.50-to-$1.00 per pic, depending on size, of course.

	You might also give Bob Banka's Scale Model Research a try.  He's got
	photo-pak's averaging 20-25 pic's on aircraft from all ages, types,
	etc.  He gets many of these from visiting museums so chances are ex-
	cellent he'd have a pak on the ME-262 displayed in the NASM.  Of
	course, he might not have a lot (if any) historical stuff as he shoots
	most of his stuff himself of examples extant today.  See yesterday's
	reply to Jeff Friedrichs, re: Nieuport-11 documentation, for Bob's
	address and phone number.

	Adios amigo,	Al

    
    Great, thanks!!  That is just the type of stuff I wanted to hear..
    
    I guess what I have also seen and confused with scale documentation
    is something like a display book.  I have seen booklets put together
    that show the plane as it was built, has articles about the pilots,
    has a bunch of different views and pictures.
    
    re Federal Standards - Where would I find this information on an
    older plane.  Is it really necessary??  In 1916 were 2 cans of paint
    the same???
    
    How do you show off something like internal cabling?  More pictures
    in the binder?
    
    How do things like engines play into all of this??  Supposedly they
    can not take off points for things that inherent to it being a model,
    correct??  Do you place a fake engine in for static display then
    replace it for flying??
    
    I talked with Bob.  Thanks for his number.  However, he does NOT
    take phone orders.
    
    Congrats on you 5th place!  Off to Nevada in October, eh?  If you
    get a chance while you are there, look up Irv Searle.  He will be
    bringing his red/white J�ngmeister.
    
    Thanks for all of your help!!
    
    Cheers,
    jeff
    

	Jeff...re: your reply -.36,
    
>    I guess what I have also seen and confused with scale documentation
>    is something like a display book.  I have seen booklets put together
>    that show the plane as it was built, has articles about the pilots,
>    has a bunch of different views and pictures.
    
	I think what you may have seen was the documentation package on
	an "AMA" (or "precision") scale model aircraft.  They have to 
	show virtually EVERY last nut and bolt right down to the relief-
	tube in AMA scale.  What I'm speaking to here is "SPORT" (former-
	ly "standoff") scale.  AMA or precision scale is, unfortunately,
	becoming extinct, if it hasn't already done so.

>    re Federal Standards - Where would I find this information on an
>    older plane.  Is it really necessary??  In 1916 were 2 cans of paint
>    the same???

	FS numbers have been assigned to virtually EVERY color ever for-
	mulated, foreign and domestic.  You can write to the Federal
	Standards Bureau for color chips on just about any color that
	ever was!  Of course, the trick is to know WHAT FS numbers you 
	need...this info you have to ferret out of the documentation
	available.  A possibility might be to contact the NASM (see 
	-.34) and request the FS numbers of the colors used by the
	American Escadrille on their Nieuport-11's if you can't turn 
	'em up elsewhere.  Is it necessary?...maybe not, IF you can
	"ACCURATELY" match the colors in your color photo/lithograph
	BUT IT SURE HELPS IF YOU CAN *PROVE* YOUR COLORS.  Were two cans
	of paint ever the same?...not likely, but all the more important
	to prove you match "something".....like a color chip.
    
>    How do you show off something like internal cabling?  More pictures
>    in the binder?

	Again, we're dealing with "Sport-scale" which is static judged
	from a "minimum" distance of 15 feet.  NO INTERNAL DETAILS can
	or will be judged so you don't have to document them....if it
	can't be seen from 15', it can't be judged.  Many sport-scalers
	(including me) WILL, however, install a fully detailed cockpit
	anyway, just to please ourselves and complete the illusion. BTW,
	a 3-dimensional pilot figure IS required for flight but not for
	static.
    
>    How do things like engines play into all of this??  Supposedly they
>    can not take off points for things that inherent to it being a model,
>    correct??  Do you place a fake engine in for static display then
>    replace it for flying??

	Correct...a model is not to be down-graded for such things as
	engine heads, clevises, mufflers, anything required to make the
	aircraft operate in model form.  About a half-inch of my inverted
	O.S. cylinder head protrudes beneath the nose of the MiG-3, as do
	the aileron, rudder and elevator clevises.  To my knowledge, I've
	never been docked for this, and correctly so. As to dummy engines,
	this applies almost exclusively to types powered by radial or ro-
	tary engines (as is the case with the Nieuport-11).  The rules say
	that EXCEPT for the prop and spinner, the model MUST be flown in
	the EXACT configuration in which it was static judged.  You'll
	have to install a "permanent" dummy engine using hand-made or com-
	mercial cylinders (such as are available from Williams Bros.).
	You NEED NOT try to conceal the model engine...in fact, the dummy 
	engine is frequently "used" to channel cooling air over the model
	engine head by completely closing off the frontal area of the cowl
	EXCEPT for the area directly in front of the model engine's cylin-
	der head.  Believe it or not, this actually enhances cooling eff-
	iciency (provided you allow adequate air-exit area at the rear of
	the cowl) and the engine will run cooler than if you left the en-
	tire cowling open in front!
    
>    Congrats on you 5th place!  Off to Nevada in October, eh?  If you
>    get a chance while you are there, look up Irv Searle.  He will be
>    bringing his red/white Jungmeister.

	I'll definitely be competing at the U.S. Scale Masters Champion-
	ships in las Vegas, having now, effectively, qualified twice.
	I'll look Irv up for sure...is he a friend, co-worker, fellow
	club member or what??
    
>    Thanks for all of your help!!
    
	Yer' more than welcome (pornada)...adios,	Al    

    Irv Searle is a fellow club member...
    
    OK, so now we have talked about sport scale...  Clearly that is
    the the level that I will be building to.  And we have mentioned
    precision.  Where does FAI scale fit in???
    
   

    Cheers,
    jeff
    

    I asked my father whether he knew of any UK kits or plans for an R/C
    Short Seamew but he couldn't think of any.
    
    There is probably a plan for a C/L version as this would be the
    type of model used in C/L aircraft-carrier events. I know that
    Keil_Kraft produced a rubber powered kit of the aircraft many years
    ago (no longer available). This would atleast indicate that it is
    a relatively stable flying model.
    
    		Andrew.
    

    
    Okay Al, here's a question for you. My winter project this year
    is a 1/5th Scale Aeronca Sedan from Pica. This is going to be a
    "Sport Scale" ship. Now for my question. How do I "document" a plane
    that is rare to begin with, when all I have been able to find are
    b&w photos? There is an actual full size one of these things about
    7 miles from me, but it's on floats! Do I really need color photos
    to verify the paint scheme?
    
    Love this column,
    Dan Snow
    

	REPLIES:
	========

>    Irv Searle is a fellow club member...

	* I'll definitely look 'im up in Vegas.
    
>    precision.  Where does FAI scale fit in???
    
>    jeff


	* I can't confess to a lot of intimate knowledge regarding FAI except
	to say that it is AMA precision *IN SPADES* !!  Recent rules changes
	have at least made weight and total engine displacement a more achiev-
	able matter...prior to this, max weight (for ANY size model) was 15
	pounds and total engine displacement was somewhere around .80 which
	made thins more than a little difficult for such birds as Skip Mast's
	C-130.  It's the "precision" aspect that puts me off regarding FAI.
	I have less than NO desire to have a team of judges climbing all over
	my model for an hour or more with dividers, micrometers, scale rulers
	and such.  Sportscale is, and always will be, my bag...interestingly,
	the "average" sportscale today could likely have won AMA scale events
	as little as 5-years back, so don't feel like "sportscale" necessarily
	equates to loose or semi-scale. They are accurate and must be to win. 
    

>    I asked my father whether he knew of any UK kits or plans for an R/C
>    Short Seamew but he couldn't think of any.
    
>    		Andrew.
    
	* Thanx Andy...keep us posted if you should turn up anything else.  
	I might even be interested in doing one in the 75" span range.

>    			Now for my question. How do I "document" a plane
>    that is rare to begin with, when all I have been able to find are
>    b&w photos? There is an actual full size one of these things about
>    7 miles from me, but it's on floats! Do I really need color photos
>    to verify the paint scheme?
    

	* Im not trying to sound cavalier but, believe me, documentation 
	exists on virtually any subject that ever flew (and many that 
	didn't)...it's just a matter of turning over rocks 'til you find
	what you need.  If all else fails, you "can" use photos in lieu of
	3-view drawings, BUT they must show specific views/angles of the
	aircraft (see the AMA rule book for definition).  However, you may 
	be asked to defend your position that nothing else is available as
	the Aeronca Sedan, while not many survive today, was, in its day,
	quite a common bird.  Somethind MUST exist on it "somewhere"...
	how else could PICA have designed the model...in fact, they (PICA)
	might be the first rock you overturn in your quest for information.
	Do you need color photo's (or lito's) ?...no, BUT they sure simplify
	things.  Kent Walters has no actual color representations whatever 
	for his Dauntless...but this forced him to ferret out verbage des-
	cribing the color scheme, complete with FS paint formulae and to
	include this in his color documentation along with color chips.  As
	I was able to in the case of the MiG-3, I covered ALL the bases by
	including a color litho, a chart of applicable FS numbers AND color
	chips. 

	One thing I should emphasize, and RE-emphasize is that this docu-
	mentation business is not nearly as fearful as it may at first seem
	to be and should not be dreaded but, rather, enjoyed.  As yer' doin'
	the pre-construction groundwork on your project (and during construc-
	tion) you will be (or SHOULD be) beating the bushes for every scrap
	of info you can get yer' hands on relative to the model yer' doing.
	I normally end up with an enormous pile of material which then has
	to be pared down to a 3-view drawing and a couple of appropriate
	photo's (which is harder than "finding" all the stuff in the first
	place).  I actually ENJOY the hunt for documentation and consider
	it an integral part of building a scale model.  Good luck and be 
	sure to let me know if you need a hint, clue or whatever during yer'
	search.
    

>    Love this column,
>    Dan Snow

	Thanx fer' the kind words, Dan...I 'preciate it!

	Adios, 	Al

RE:271.35

>	Request information specific to your project, e.g. "I need pic's
>	of the ME-262 in ..... configuration, or in .... Jagdeshwader, or
>	anthing you have (be careful, they've got TONS of stuff).  I'm
>	given to understand they do have some sort of "video" catalog
>	but I don't know how it works.
    
Don't know if this is the "video catalog" you are refering to or not, but NASM 
has video disks for sale. A friend of mine has a catalog that list three disks.
He believes they have now added two more for a total of five. Each disk has
approximately 100,000 still photos from the Archives on it. The disk run about
$45.00. My friend ordered the first one last week so I ought to be able to
let you know a little more about this after he gets his in.

Dan Eaton

    DAN,
    
    Thanx fer' th' comeback!  That sounds kinda' like what was described
    to me.  If I understood correctly, You could view the pic's contained
    on the video-whatever and use the catalog number(s) to order the
    actual photo's from the NASM.  I'll be very interested to hear what
    you figger' out on this subject as, I'm sure, other RC noters will
    be as well.  I know the NASM is a veritible bonanza of documentation
    type information but I've always felt it's more a mystery than it
    should be regarding how to access this gold-mine.
    
    Adios,	Al

    
    
    Al, 
    	Thanks for the input. But now I have another set of questions
    for you. The kit states just about any one cylinder engine from
    a hot .40 2 cycle to a .90 4 cycle can be used. They reccommend
    the .90 4 cycle, which, however, makes it necessary to stick the
    cylinder head through the cowl. I have been toying with the idea
    of putting a Saito .90 twin in it, but haven't heard too much in
    the way of yea or nay on this engine. The point is, how detrimental
    to judging is the exposed engine?
    
    	Going back to my original documetation question, the reason
    I am trying to find other pic's of the plane rather than use the
    3 views and photos that came with the kit is two-fold. One is the
    fact that I fly from a grass strip, and the relativly narrow stance
    with 3" wheels on an 85" span ship makes me nervous, and two, I
    have heard some real horror stories about wheel pants and grass
    fields. I know that in most cases you are allowed to remove the
    scale prop to fly a model, would you also be allowed to remove 
    scale wheels and substitute larger wheels for flying?
    
    Thanks again,
    Dan
    

    
    As I understand it, they CAN NOT take ANY points off for exposed
    engines through a cowl.  However, do not try to change the cowl
    to fit in the engine, as this would change the outline.  I guess
    where they can get you for an exposed engine is in the workmanship
    category.  Do a clean job of it, and they can't knock you for it.
    
    In regards to the grass and pants...  Yes, I too have heard of problems
    with grass fields.  But the only time that your question is valid
    is when you are being judged AND you are at a grass field.  Normal
    flying at your field without pants should not make any difference.
    (WHEEL pants, that is!!).  Most scale meets are held on hard surface
    runways so that the WWII planes with small wheels (and jets) can
    also take off.
    
    Yes, the narrow stance of the wheels should be considered when picking
    your project.  I don't know how to judge how important it is though...
    
    cheers,
    jeff
    

    
    One fault I see in this whole discussion is that all are seeming
    to create the greatest of Taboo's in scale. That is the purchase
    of plans and or kits and then the investigation of the subject for
    documentation.  I'm not into scale (yet) but all the reading I 
    have done lists the first priority as documentation. Those that
    are into competing choose two or three subjects and search the world
    for information. Only when they are comfortable with the data they
    have do they then look for plane and or a kit. How can you evaluate
    the integrity of scale in a plan or kit unless you have a clear
    understanding as to what is :SCALE"?  Kind of like putting the 
    cart before the horse.  I'd like to build a Hawker Hurricane or
    a P47 but to date I've just started to look for documentation.
    
    I think the corrct steps are;
    
    	Choose subjects per flying ability and home field.
    
    	Search out documentation.
    
    	Sufficient doc. of one subject then evaluate what plans or
    kits exist.
    
    	Make decision to:
    			  a, Build from kit
    
    			  b, Build from plans
    
    			  c, Design from scratch
    
    
    	Keep searching for documentation of other choises and pick
    a new subject to fill the void left by your present project.
    
    
    	What you mnay find is that the documentation exists readily
    for one ship yet the choise of kits or plane is very limited.
    As you search out the documentation for the other subjects and the
    plans or kits for the present first choise the documentation wholes
    on another subject may become filled and now your evaluating two
    designs. You may actually find that the second or third completed
    documentation portfolio is the subject that is built first because
    all the pieces fall together on that subject.
    
    
    						Tom  

    re .-1
    
    As usual, Tom, you hit this right on the nose...
    
    Very good points.
    
    md

    < re.47
    <One fault I see in this whole discussion........
    
    
    ARRRRRGGGGGGHHHHH. My God Tom, you have this incredible knack for
    making some of us (especially me anyway!) feel awful dumb at times.
    (chuckle, chuckle!! :)  :)  :) )
    
    Yep, I guess I did do it backwards. I fell in love with the airplane,
    went looking for a kit, and then started looking for documentation.
    My dream of building the Doodlebug will be following the course
    you have outlined, which really does make a lot more sense.
    
    But getting back to my last question about wheels. The closest I
    expect to get to real competition is at my club's scale contests,
    which I would guess make the question theirs.
    
    Dan
    

    Very good points Tom!!
    
    (Now I will try to defend myself...)
    
    One of the reasons that I picked the kit I did was because Proctor
    sells the kits as "scale" kits. ie enough scale information is provided
    to enter it.  This is *just* barely true, as I found out.  Thus,
    I am searching for better/more complete stuff.  The kit does give
    some pointers to documentation too, which for a beginner in scale
    is a big help.
    
    I also have seen enough N-11s that I knew there had to be something
    out there.
    
    But yes, I am in full agreement with you Tom and that is the approach
    I will be taking with my next project.  After all, what else can
    you do while the glue/paint/stain is drying...
    
    Cheers,
    jeff
    

>    				.....I have been toying with the idea
>    of putting a Saito .90 twin in it, but haven't heard too much in
>    the way of yea or nay on this engine. The point is, how detrimental
>    to judging is the exposed engine?

	* I have personal knowledge of only "1" Saito .90 twin and if its
	performance is typical of the breed, I would avoid it.  It's can
	tankerous to adjust owing to the twin carbs (which require you to
	cut 2-big holes on top of the cowl, ahead of the windscreen) and I
	have watched the owner (a good friend and a "sharp" engine-man)
	spend up to 20 minutes just trying to get "both" cylinders to run.
	As I said, this may not be typical but I'd be wary of it unless I'd
	personally observed plenty of evidence to the contrary.  "The rules 
	say" the judge is to ignore protruding model engine cylinder heads
	but we're fooling ourselves if we believe such things don't make
	"some" unconcious impressions on the "only human" judges.  Keep as
	much hidden as is possible/practical but don't get paranoid if you
	must allow something to show.

>    I have heard some real horror stories about wheel pants and grass
>    fields. I know that in most cases you are allowed to remove the
>    scale prop to fly a model, would you also be allowed to remove 
>    scale wheels and substitute larger wheels for flying?

	* No...you may change to a flying prop and spinner (of same size,
	shape & color) after static "and that's it."  Removing wheel pants
	or changing wheel pants will be cause for reduction of both static
	and flight realism scores.  Try to model a prototype with no pants
	if you can.
    
>    Yes, the narrow stance of the wheels should be considered when picking
>    your project.  I don't know how to judge how important it is though...
    
	* VEERRRY important...you can't compete if you can't get it up (in
	the air, that is)!  However, a lightplane type like the Aeronca Se-
	dan should NOT be a maneater on the ground...I wouldn't lose any sleep
	over it.  On future projects of more exotic types, i.e. fighters, 
	aerobatic bipes, etc., Pay "particular attention to the landing gear
	arrangement...these definitely CAN eat yer'lunch if yer' not up to
	them.
    
>    But getting back to my last question about wheels. The closest I
>    expect to get to real competition is at my club's scale contests,

	* Yer' "still" gonna' have to get it up and down with some degree of
	consistency, if only for the safety/longevity of the airplane.  Of
	course, the people running a given meet DO have the option to make
	any exceptions they wish (that don't compromise safety.


>    		...... I'm not into scale (yet) but all the reading I 
>    have done lists the first priority as documentation..............
>    ......................  I'd like to build a Hawker Hurricane or
>    a P47 but to date I've just started to look for documentation.
    
	* AMEN!  I think I mentioned somewhere back that it can be incredibly
	difficult to "take the mountain to Muhammed," that is , build the 
	model first, "then" try to document it.  There may be instances where
	this is difficult to avoid and it's not quite as critical to the new-
	comer's first effort or two, UNLESS he hopes to be competitive.  BUT,
	sooner or later (and it might as well be sooner), you'll discover the
	value and wisdom of documenting FIRST.  Ex: I've been gathering mater-
	ials on the Hurricane and the Macchi-Castoldi C-202 for well over a 
	year at this point and have yet to glue the first two pieces of balsa
	together.  You don't HAVE to take so long, but receive the point.

>    But yes,.......................................that is the approach
>    I will be taking with my next project.  After all, what else can
>    you do while the glue/paint/stain is drying...
    
	* Right on!  Collect documentation on those future/dream machines!

	Adios amigos,	Al    

    
    Just thought I would toss out this little bit of info on a
    documentation source. When I started looking for information on
    the McDonnell Doodlebug, it was suggested in note 107 that I contact
    Don Berliner, a writer for Model Aviation. I did and was quickly
    rewarded with a list of 3 books that could get me started. I've
    got his address somewhere at home, and will be happy to mail it
    to anyone that would like it. (Not sure if I should publish it here
    without asking him first.)
   
    BTW- Tom, have you every considered the Hawker Sea Fury? That's
    one mean looking airplane!
    
    Dan
    

...
>>    of putting a Saito .90 twin in it, but haven't heard too much in
>>    the way of yea or nay on this engine. The point is, how detrimental
...
>	* I have personal knowledge of only "1" Saito .90 twin and if its
>	performance is typical of the breed, I would avoid it.  It's can
>	tankerous to adjust owing to the twin carbs (which require you to
>	cut 2-big holes on top of the cowl, ahead of the windscreen) and I
>	have watched the owner (a good friend and a "sharp" engine-man)
>	spend up to 20 minutes just trying to get "both" cylinders to run.
>	As I said, this may not be typical but I'd be wary of it unless I'd
>	personally observed plenty of evidence to the contrary.  "The rules 

The Saito 90 is actually two Saito 45's sharing a common crank case.
I've got quite a few flights on my Saito 45 and they have all been frustrating.
Just when I think I have figured out something it makes a liar out of me.
Mostly I think the problems have centered around fuel delivery.  When I have
a good well anchored pump talking to the engine then things seem reasonable.
Problem is I haven't had a place to mount a pump on my engine test stand.
Mine may be an isolated case also and maybe my next few flights will be
better (trying this weekend without a pump again) but I wouldn't buy a 90 twin.

              _!_      
Bye        ----O----   
Kay R. Fisher / \     

================================================================================
 

    Right on Kay,
    
    When I mentioned my buddy's problem with getting "both" cylinders
    lit-off, I should have mentioned that the problem, since day 1, seems
    to be inadequate fuel delivery.  Multiply yer' experience by 2 and
    you have a fair idea of what he's been up against. He's tried a Perry 
    micro-oscillating pump to no avail, particularly in colder temps where
    the little micro-oscillator(?) won't micro-oscillate due (we theorize)
    to the increased viscosity of the lubricants in the fuel. Personally,
    I find the requirement for ANY kind of pump abhorrant...just one
    more thing to go wrong on you; one more weak link in the chain.
    I prefer to stick to proven, SIMPLE, no-pump, 2-cycle engine set-ups.
    
    Adios,	Al

        Re:< Note 271.53 by 29930::FISHER "Battery, Mags, & Gas Off!" >

        Al and Kay,
        
                I have  to  take issue with your statements about Saito's
        45.  I own one and Bill Clark has two.   All three have performed
        flawlessly,  infinitely betther than the OS FS'es that I own, for
        a  large  number  of  flights.    The  Saito needs to be adjusted
        properly to  begin  with  and  it takes a little time because you
        have to continue  adjusting  both  the  low  speed and high speed
        mixtures since they affect one another.  But once it is adjusted,
        you only need to work with the high speed.
        
                It's not just Bill and me, others in our  club  who  have
        the Saitos recommend them strongly.
        
        Anker

    Thar' ya' go,
    
    As I said up-front, any observation I made was based on limited
    (1-example) exposure to the engine.  Obviously, there are folks 
    out there who KNOW how to handle the critters and I readily defer 
    to their expertise.
    
    You might as well know that I know nothing to speak of about 4-cy-
    cles as I'm still waiting to be convinced they can be used effect-
    ively in the type of scale models I prefer, namely WW-II fighters
    where performance (pronounced: speed) is a vital requisite to the
    overall scale effect.  Now understand, I'm not crumbing 4-cycles,
    they just don't fit my preferred application at this time.
    
    Gracias Anker..., adios,	Al

	
	Back from my hols now.. Looks like I missed out on
	several good discussions..


	Someone was after info on the Nieuport 11B. Well here in the
	UK the people who publish RCM&E have a plans service similar
	to RCM, only they are available in other countries (Must be
	hangover from the days of the Empire). Anyway, as well a
	doing fullsize plans for models, they do packs of scale
	drawings for hundreds of planes. the contents of these
	packs varies depending how much effort the contributor
	puts into it, Of course the price varies.. I got one for
	the Jeep. This consisted of a couple of scale drawings,
	showing colou5r detail, wing/fuz sections, panel lines
	cockpit details, and a copy of a magazine article... This
	for the grand sum of (pounds)2, about $3-4... Some of the
	packs contain far more detailed drawings, cutaways etc, but
	of course these cost more.

	They have a whole series of Nieuports, the 11b being one of 
	them. This one is in the (pound)2 bracket, and you can order it
	directly from the States.

	If you're interested let me know your mailstop and I'll send you
	over a copy of the relevent pages, an order form, and the list of
	adresses you can get these thing from....


	On the subject of 4 strokes. The latest generation produce
	similar powers to the equivalent size 2 strokes. So the
	speed arguement is no longer really a valid one.. I feel
	that if any plane is to be considered as really scale then it
	must SOUND right aswell. 

	I've been running a OS40 FS, and am well impressed. I find the
	needle setting is far less critical than any 2 stroke. It 
	sounds great. We fly on common land, and so there are normally
	a lot of Joe Public around.. A lot of people comment how
	good this plane sounds/looks on low passes. I should add that
	it's not a scale model, just a low wing sport design.

	Plus of course they're very frugal with the fuel. There's a
	of crap written about after-care with 4 strokes. They merely
	need to be run dry, then given a shot of WD40. This is simple
	enough cos a breather is provided on the crankcase to squirt
	the oil in..... Iv'e checked the valve clearances twice in 
	9 months, and they didn't need adjusting...

	              	
	    bob

    Guys,
    
    I just  noticed the subscription rates for Scale R/C Modeler magazine
    have gone up (what hasn't) but there's a good reason (for a change):
    They have expanded from 9-issues to 12-issues yearly.  
    
    The new rates are: $23.95/year (12-issues) and $39.95/2-years
    (24-issues) and, if you subscribe for 2-years, you'll receive a
    P-47G Thunderbolt "war Eagle" poster.
    
    again, if yer' even casually interested in Scale, I highly recommend
    you subscribe to SR/CM.
    
    Adios,	Al

    RE: 271.42, 271.35
    
    My friend with the NASM video disc on order gave me a little more
    info the other day. The first two disc in the series contain the
    NASM aircraft photo collection along with some documents. The third
    and fourth include the Air Force photo archive. The fourth disk
    is suppose to be released this summer sometime. 
    
    Coming down the line will be disc with the images from Apollo,
    Surveyor, and Ranger spaceflights followed by the Wright Field
    collection.
    
    Sounds like just the ticket for finding photos of that rare aircraft
    you want to build.
                      
    
    Dan

    Dan,
    
    Hit' do indeed!!!  Please keep us informed as to the details/specifics,
    i.e. cost, where to order, disc only or video-tape, etc.
    
    	Gracias,	Al

    Al,
    you've been too quiet so how's about I stir things up just a bit.
    How about some comments on fabricating bits and pieces that take
    a nice paint job and turn it into a SCALE model. I've got some
    pictures here that I took at the NAT'. I thought they were of scale
    helicopter's when I took them. Between now and then I've spent a
    lot of time with a friend of mine finding out what he meant when
    he said his beautiful Agusta 109 wasn't finished. When I look at
    those pictures now I seen a lot of helicopters with great paint
    jobs but with one exception they all seem to lack something.
    
    What I learned from my friend is that the small stuff really makes
    a big difference. I have a picture here of my friend's Agusta 109
    I took back when I thought it was finished. Missing from it are
    the radio antennas on the tail boom, pitot tubes, and , and, I can't
    thing of the word for it. But it's the lines on the side windows
    where the window separates so that the pilot can slide open the
    smaller window panes on the bottom.
    
    Three small things, one big difference in appearence. And I know
    better know. The helicopter still isn't finished.
    
    So how about it Al? Got some good stuff to share with us on this
    subject?
    
    Dan                                                 
    

>    Al,
>    you've been too quiet so how's about I stir things up just a bit.

	* QUIET??  I'd begun to think I was just about the only one on the
	net this week, especially after baring my soul (in "RAMBLINGS") about
	my (almost) screw-up at Mile Square...I expected LOTSA' "shame-shame's
	and nyuk-nyuk's" in response to that one, but nary a word.

>    How about some comments on fabricating bits and pieces that take
>    a nice paint job and turn it into a SCALE model.................
>    So how about it Al? Got some good stuff to share with us on this
>    subject?
    
>    Dan

	* Well Dan, yer' astute observation couldn't be more correct or to the
	point regarding what makes merely a nice "model" into a miniature rep-
	lica of the genuine article.  As you've noted, the little "details"
	add up to creating the desired illusion of realism.

	I touched a little on this subject toward the end of my 2-part diatribe
	on my favorite finishing method (in "LET US SPRAY," topic 288) but this
	barely scratches the surface of the subject of detailing.

	I'm still learning in the area of detailing/weathering myself but I'd 
	be more than happy to share what I've learned to date. (Actually, I
	don't think one EVER learns it ALL...even Dave Platt tries new things/
	techniques on virtually every new model he builds.  I know 'cause I've
	sat in his shop in Plantation, FLA. and watched him.)  It's not easy
	to pick things up from Dave, however,....not because he's reluctant to
	share (he definitely isn't), but because Dave's a real free-hand artist
	and, unless you happen to be equally gifted, it's hard to apply his me-
	thods to yer' own ship.

	Now understand that it'd be impossible to give a step-by-step descrip-
	tion on how to do every little detailing chore.  There are SOOOO many 
	and they vary so much from aircraft-to-aircraft that the task would ap-
	proach Herculean proportions, even if it WAS possible.  With this in 
	mind, I'll try to touch on a few techniques I've used to apply details
	to some of my own scale ships and some I've observed others using.
	From that point, a question/answer approach would probably best suit a
	discussion on this subject.

	Lessee', where should I begin?....I've mentioned two methods of apply-
	ing panel-lines and two methods for doing rivets (see 288).  OK, the 
	glue-dot rivets I described were simulations of round-head (non-flush)
	rivets...so how about flush-rivets?  These are the easiest of all...
	as opposed to the glue-dot type, these are applied "after" the final 
	color coat and before the clear-coat.  Simply select a piece of brass 
	tubing of appropriate diameter and sharpen one end (I usually sharpen 
	the inside of the tube using a #11 X-acto knife but you can grind the 
	outer diameter to an edge, if you prefer.  Now place the sharpened end
	of the tubing in the desired position and carefully rotate the tube 
	while applying slight downward pressure...CAREFUL NOW, we just want to
	score through the color coat(s) to expose the undercoat (remember the 
	silver undercoat we applied?), not drill a hole!  BINGO! we have a per-
	fect replication of a flush-rivet.  You say you want a screw-head or a
	Dzus-fastener?...simple, just use the tip of a SHARP #11 X-acto blade
	to scratch a slot across the center of one of the flush-rivets you just
	made.

	How about those neat wing and stab fillets, as well as other raised 
	panels like the fairing around the base of a canopy.  (And, for the mo-
	ment, let's talk about small wing fillets like the P-51 has, NOT the 
	large, sweeping fillets like the P-40 and MiG-3, among others, had.)
	The not-so-secret secret here is Micro-balloons.  Tape off the area
	where you want the panel/fairing/fillet (let's use the stab-to-fuse 
	fillet for this example) with a double-layer of masking tape...you
	should have the fillet shape taped off on the fuse side and on top and
	bottom of the stab.  Now, mix up some ballons with K&B polyester fin-
	ishing resin in a small container. DO NOT ADD THE CATYLIST YET!  Mix
	the ballons VERRRY dry (very little resin) or it will be difficult to
	shape/sand.  The correct mixture will be very stiff and fluffy, kinda
	like a very thick yogurt.  OK, once yer' satisfied with the consisten-
	cy of the mixture, NOW it's time to catylize...BUT, don't catylize the
	entire batch.  Scoop out as much as you think you'll need onto yer'
	favorite mixing surface (I use recipe/index cards) and add the smallest
	single drop of catylist you can manage to squeeze out of the little 
	bottle.  Mix thoroughly/quickly and get on with it.

	Now, use a round-tipped pallet-knife (small putty-knifelike tool av-
	ailable from art supply stores) or equivalent to glob this mixture into
	the taped off area...using too much is better than not using enough. 
	Use yer finger-tip, dipped in water, to push, dab, smooth things into 
	the rough shape desired, then let cure.  Once cured, you'll use a var-
	iety of tools to shape the fillet (and you'll LOVE the way this stuff 
	handles IF you didn't mix it "too wet."  I use a combination of rat-
	tail files, precision needle-files, sanding sticks (made by spiral-wrap-
	ping a sandpaper strip around a dowel), etc. finishing up with ever 
	finer grades of sandpaper 'til the desired shape and surface finish are
	attained. The fillet should now be sanded flush with the masking tape, 
	so CAREFULLY pull the tape and Voila!...you've got the prettiest little
	fillet you ever saw and it weighs virtually nothing!  Add some appro-
	priate rivets, screws and/or Dzus-fasteners and yer' all set with as
	realistic a panel/fairing/fillet as yer' likely to see.

	I like to wait with the ballon work 'til I have the ship in glass cloth
	but before primer...you could, of course, do the balloon work before 
	glassing but I've always felt the bare wood is too vulnerable at this 
	point and prefer to have it protected.  

	So let's see, we've talked about surface detailing thus far, those type
	items that would likely be common to almost any aircraft...oh wait, I
	just thought of another one to mention	before we get into the "not-so-
	generic" items: rib-stitching and pinking.  Take a close look at a fab-
	ric covered airplane next time yer' at the local municipal airport. You
	will notice that, unlike our fabric covered model surfaces, these sur-
	faces on the 1:1 bird are NOT perfectly smooth where the fabric contacts
	ribs and other internal structure of wings, stabs, any/all flying sur-
	faces, i.e. rudders, elevators, ailerons, flaps.  The reasoning here is
	that as the airfoiled surface travels through the air, a very low pres-
	sure area (lift) is created on the top and, yes, the bottom of these
	surfaces.  (Positive angle of attack produces vertical [upward] lift,
	there is also negative lift on the bottom of the wing, except on flat-
	bottomed [Clark-Y] and undercambered airfoils.)  This low pressure 
	(think of it as vacuum, if it helps) is sufficient enough, especially 
	when combined with the pressure differential between the air on the in-
	side of the wing (let's say) versus the reduced pressure of the outside 
	air, to actually pull the fabric away from the structure (ribs).
	

	To prevent this from happening, the fabric on a 1:1 aircraft is actually
	SEWN to the ribs (rib-stitching).  This is actually done with a special
	"needle" which is used to create stitches (spanwise) around and through
	the rib(s) binding the fabric tightly to it...you'll find one stitch ev-
	ery 4" or so (chordwise) on every rib. Then, to anchor, seal and clean-
	up all these nasty little bumps, they apply a pinked-edge strip of fab-
	ric over each rib, covering all the stitches and dope it in place. An
	obvious way to replicate this effect is to borrow the wife's pinking-
	shears and actually cut pinking strips from the Coverite (or whatever
	material you covered with) and iron (or dope) it in place, chordwise,
	over each rib.  To simulate the stitches beneath, get out the hypoder-
	mic syringe (or use a toothpick) and lay little lines of white glue on
	the pinking strips the width of the rib, evenly spaced from leading-to-
	trailing edge.  I'd do this BEFORE the single coat of K&B primer is 
	sprayed on the fabric so the primer can sorta' blend the stitches into
	the pinking.  The best advice I can give is to study a real aircraft's
	rib-stitching/pinking to get a feel fer' the proper proportions to use.

	Yeah, it takes a little extra time but the result is strikingly realis-
	tic and shows up from way off, even in flight. Another way to accomp-
	lish this effect is to obtain some of the pinked-edge tapes women use
	to roll their hair in the appropriate size and apply these to the model
	using white glue thinned with water. Then apply the stitches as before.
	Mel Santmeyers used this technique on the foam wings of his Byron Stag-
	gerwing and you'd swear they were really fabric covered.  Try this tech-
	nique on even an Aeromaster and watch it jump out at you and holler 
	"real" instead of "model" or (UGH!) "toy."

	Well, that's enough fer' this go 'round...I'm gonna' hang it up for now.
	Next, we'll talk about some of those "after finish" details as well as
	weathering and some air-brush tricks.

	Adios...see ya'll Tuesday,	Al

    re .1 and others
    
    For what it's worth, there is a photo of an Me-262 on page 29 of
    Model Airplane News, November 1986.  The caption says "Jack Tse
    also built this Me-262 from the Air Flair kit, ......."
    
    This is not necessarily a recommendation!
    
    

	OK Guys, here's the next installment on detailing that scale (or
	scale-like) model.  Before getting started, allow me to direct yer'
	attention to the detailing column by Rich Uravitch which appears
	monthly in Model Airplane News...there's some good stuff in there.
	This month's installment happens, coincidentally, to be on panel
	lines and rivets wherein Rich describes the tape method of applying
	the lines and the glue-dot rivet technique.  The accompanying pictures
	illustrate the end result of some of the techniques I've been describ-
	ing...take a look.

	One more thing before moving on...the real "trick" or art to detailing
	is to "overstate" just enough to enhance visibility of the detailing and
	weathering, but not so much as to caricaturize the model.  There is a 
	very fine line between actual scale size of details and being overstat-
	ed just enough to "look right."  I made a concerted effort not to over-
	do the rivet size and weathering on the MiG-3 and, unfortunately, the
	detailing isn't as visible from the 15' judging distance (or in photo-
	graphs) as I would've preferred.  This is a "feel" sort of thing and 
	only practice and experience will tell you what "looks right."

	We left off at the point where pre-finish details were pretty much com-
	pleted but, before we proceed to post-finish work and weathering, let's
	talk for a moment about the little scoops, widgets and gadgets that are
	unique to each individual ship.  Your imagination is the only limitation
	regarding techniques and materials here.  Small carb-intake scoops can
	be carved from balsa, molded with micro-balloons or Epoxy-lite or even
	formed from card-paper (or metal) sheet like was done on the original.
	My MiG-3 has two long gun-tunnels running from just ahead of the wind-
	screen forward to just behind the spinner backplate.  The tunnels were
	covered with a half-round fairing right up to where the gun muzzles pro-
	truded from the nose. These were duplicated by cutting in half, length-
	wise, 5/8" diameter cardboard tubes (which printer-mechanics parts come
	packed in) and CYA'ing them in position on the ship's nose. The closed
	ends were simply faired into the nose sheeting with a shaped balsa plug.
	Then, the whole enchilada was covered with .6 oz. glass cloth and panel-
	led in with micro-balloons followed by rivets all around the perimeter
	of the tunnel fairings,..came out very effective/realistic.

	The MiG also had large, cheek mounted oil-cooler intake scoops which
	baffled me for awhile.  These were finally done using 1 3/4" diameter
	model rocket tubes (the kind used by the model rocketeers to scratch-
	build rockets).  Again, these were cut roughly in half lengthwise, trim-
	med to fit the compond-curved nose, CYA'ed in place and covered with .6
	oz. glass.  As I've suggested, you may find the solution to yer' detail-
	ing dilemma just about anywhere...keep yer eyes open and be creative.
	
	So, now the model has all the surface detail applied and has been pain-
	ted, insignia and markings applied, etc....looks real pretty, but not 
	real yet.  That's where weathering comes in.  Take a look at some full
	size aircraft...look really close for scuffs, scrapes, etc. where the 
	pilot/passengers/crew enter and leave the ship...and where ground per-
	sonnel climb around fueling/servicing/maintaining it.  How about around
	all Dzus fasteners and/or screws where cowlings, access panels, etc. are
	removed...note the wear, scratches and the like. Note oil drips, grease
	smears, exhaust stains, gun burns, gasoline spills, et al.  Now walk 
	around the model and imagine where all these observed effects might be 
	applied.  

	Wear can be simulated using two basic techniques: by actually scraping 
	through the paint, exposing the silver (metal) undercoat or by burnish-
	ing through using very fine (0000 [4-aught]) steel wool.  Gravel chipped
	paint on wing/stab leading edges is done by "spattering" silver paint on
	by dragging your thumb against the paint laden bristles of a stiff bris-
	tle brush (practice this one plenty "before" doing it on the model to
	learn the proper amount of paint, thumb pressure, etc. to use).  Scratch
	around hatches, compartment covers, access panels, etc. with a knike 
	blade to make the ship look "serviced."  Scuff things up around wing-
	walks, kick-steps, canopy framing, so it looks like someone's been 
	crawling in and out of the bird.  Wear through in places so the "metal" 
	just barely shines through in places of probable wear.  

	Gun and exhaust smoke stains are done with an air brush shooting a mix-
	ture of nearly all thinner with just a drop or so of black in it.  The
	idea here is that one pass of the air brush should "barely" be visible,
	if at all...repeated passes gradually build up the staining without
	totally covering the paint beneath.  Check yer' progress outdoors fre-
	quently...this one is easy to stub yer' toe and go too far with.  To
	enhance the exhaust stain, once the black stain is applied, start adding
	a little white to the thinner/black mixture a drop or two at a time, 
	making a pass or two with each successively lightened mix toward the 
	center of the black stain, for a short distance behind the stack(s).
	The effect  yer' looking for is an almost whitish-gray color immediately
	adjacent to the stack(s) feathering out, ever darker, to the blackish
	stain. This simulates the hotter exhaust gasses contacting the fuselage
	just outside the stack(s) feathering into the black residue further
	away.  If the exhaust exits somewhere near the wing, note that the stain
	roughly follows the curvature of the upper wing surface, reflecting the
	airflow disturbance caused by the airfoil.  Looks pretty neat, huh?

	Now the model is beginning to "live" but we're not through yet.  Mix up
	a dirty wash of mostly thinner with a few drops of black and olive-drab
	and "dirty" things up some around leading edges, panel lines, etc., al-
	ways keeping the air brush spray pattern in the same direction as the 
	airflow would be. Around engine access panels, cowling hinges, snaps, 
	etc. a little oil streaking is appropriate, especially on radial engine
	ships. This is another airbrush trick: dip a small brush in a thin 
	mixture of black/thinner and touch the brush to the place you want the
	streak, leaving a drop on the surface...now take the air brush (with NO
	paint) and blow on the drop of thinned black paint in the direction of
	the slipstream and Voila!...instant oil streak. Again, PRACTICE this 
	technique on scrap BEFORE applying to the model.  You'll love the ef-
	fect.  The black "Rubs" used in Ceramics are effective for applying 
	grease smears and dirtying areas like landing gear struts for added rea-
	lism. Let yer' imagination go ape but don't overdo if you can help 
	yer'self.

	The model should now begin to appear like the real thing, shrunk down
	in some kinda' Star Trek molecular reassembler!  Now fer' th' finishing
	touches.  Wire antennae are easily replicated using appropriately sized
	thread/string/etc. (I use an old roll of radio dial cord.).  Simulate
	insulators with lengths of shrink tubing, electrical wire insulation,
	whatever works.  Other antenna arrays can be made up from various com-
	binations of music wire, telescoped brass tubing etc. soldered or CYA'ed
	together.  Nav-lights are simulated with the transparent colored plastic
	pegs from a child's Lite-Brite toy set.  Shaped lenses for wing-tip nav-
	lights are simply made. I waited 'til the model was nearly done, paint 
	and all, then CAREFULLY cut out the nav-light area with a razor saw...
	the piece of wing-tip I removed became the male mold for the lens.  I
	mounted this to the end of a piece of dowel and placed this assembly 
	securely in a vice. Next I heated a piece of clear .020" butyrate plas-
	tic with a heat gun (I'm not sure a monokote gun gets hot enough, you 
	may have to use yer' wife's oven) 'til it was real "wilty" then quickly
	pulled the hot plastic over the mold and allowed to cool (only a few 
	seconds are enough).  Bingo...just trim to size and you've got a trick
	lookin' nav-light lens.  Fill in the cut-out in the wing-tip with sheet
	stock, remembering to keep these pieces below flush with the wing sur-
	face by the thickness of the lens so the lens has something to be att-
	ached to. Finish the inside of the light area with chrome monokote to
	simulate the reflector, install the colored plastic Lite-Brite peg and
	glue on the lens.  Tape off the lens, add a few rivets and paint in the
	framing...now stand back and admire...neat ain't it?  People ask me all
	the time if my lights really work...they "look" like they really could.

	OK, are we all done??? (Actually, you never REALLY finish a scale model
	...you just finally stop working on it!)  Spray on a coat or two of K&B
	clear epoxy, matte of gloss finish as suits the model, and get ready to
	start answering a lotta' "How'd ya' do that?" questions when you unveil
	yer' masterpiece.

	Those are just a few of the MANY techniques used to breath life into a
	scale model.  I don't profess to know 'em all, but the floor is open to
	questions and if I don't know an answer, I'll try to find it for you or
	we can brainstorm the solution together (which'll probably benefit more
	people in the long run).

	Adios,	Al

    To the notes I've written on detailing (and finishing - in 288),
    let me add something I only touched on briefly.  These methods are
    NOT reserved solely for use on a scale model.  On the contrary,
    the BEST place to learn and practice these detailing "tricks" is
    on yer' everyday sport ship or trainer...I can't think of a better
    place, can you?
    
    NO full scale aircraft was ever as perfect as our average models!
    This fact, in my opinion, contributes, somewhat, to the "toy" image
    our models frequently project. Why NOT make that PT-40, Kavalier,
    Kadet, Kougar, Aeromaster or whatever look more realistic??  I can't
    think of one solitary reason not to, particularly if an individual
    has a scale model in the back of his mind for a future project.
    
    Can't you just see an Aeromaster with some panel detail on the forward
    fuselage complete with rivets, Dzus fasteners, oil streaks and all?...
    rib stitching and pinking on the fabric covered wings??  I guarantee
    that bird would stand out from all the others on the field!
    
    But yer' plane is already finished, you say...OK, how about when
    you "ding" it?  Repairs are frequently difficult to hide, so why
    hide 'em?...make 'em look like they "belong" there!  Put in a de-
    liberate panel line or two, surround the repair with a row of rivets,
    put in some oil streaks, let yer' imagination go wild...you CAN'T
    over-do in this instance so let 'er rip!  The practice you get and
    the "eye" for what "looks right" that you'll develop will be invalu-
    able when you finally have the opportunity to apply them to that
    scale ship.    
    
    Give it some thought and I'd love some feedback from any of you
    who use these detailing/weathering techniques, whether you use them
    on a scale bird OR a sport/trainer type.
    
    Adios,	Al
                  

>    I would appreciate some advice on the aileron linkage. This plane
>    has an 85" span, with barn door ailerons of about 32 sq. in apiece.
>    The plans call for a single servo, driving the ailerons through
>    bell cranks with a single unsupported .080 dia wire. Well, sorta
>    unsupported. The wire is running through a 1/4"dia hole in the ribs.
>    I have two concerns and a question regarding this set-up. First,
>    I just don't get a warm fuzzy feeling about the wire not flexing
>    and possibly causing flutter,......

	* I'd share yer' concern were I building this bird.  You want all
	linkages but, ESPECIALLY, the ailerons to be as tight as possible!
	What I did on the MiG-3 should work for you as well: at every rib 
	station where the wire linkage passes through, I installed a "bush-
	ing" made from appropriate size plastic tubing.  Check the various 
	ID's available with ny-rod, throttle-cable housing, etc. to find the
	size you need.  You don't need an "exact" bushing-fit, just something
	the wire will readily slide through with a minimum of slop and NO
	friction.  If the 1/4" holes are already punched in the ribs, mount 
	the individual "bushings" (one for each rib) into a "scab" made from
	approx. 1/8"-3/16" sheet...the "scab, obviously, will be of some size
	LARGER than the 1/4" hole.  When you install the wire liknage, slide
	one of these scab/bushing assemblies onto it at each rib station but
	DON'T glue any of them to the ribs until AFTER you have the linkage
	installation completed.  Then, one station at a time, operate the 
	linkage back-and-forth, "feeling" the bushing into the place of least 
	resistance (maximum smoothness) and nail it to the rib with CYA.  This
	will eliminate any chance of the wire flexing and insure smoothness.  
	DON'T use ANY type of metal tubing for the bushings...these can promote
	a galling of metals which will eventually bind the linkage and the wire
	rattling around inside the metal tubing can generate electrical noise.

>				.......and second, will a standard servo
>    have the b***s to drive the ailerons?...............

	* About 10 years back, Bob Frey and I flew a Quadra Q-35 powered Mr.
	Mulligan (Bud Nosen kit) with (then) standard Kraft radio system and
	servo's. No servo related problems were experienced in several-hundred
	flights.  I tend to believe yer' Air-knocker will be a lot gentler on
	servo's than that "gorilla" Mulligan was, so I think you'd be OK using
	stock/standard servo's of average torque ( 30+ oz.-in.).  However, if
	you have a gutsier servo, by all means use it, if only for the peace
	of mind, but you don't need an "arm-breakin," heavy-duty, 1/4-scale
	servo to do the job.

>    				.....The question I have on this linkage
>    is "How the h**l do you set up differential travel?" I have very
>    briefly talked with a guy who is flying a Champ, and found that
>    too much down aileron will cause the plane to yaw toward the lowered
>    aileron.

	The effect yer' describing here is called "adverse yaw" and it exists 
	to some degree on EVERY airplane equipped with conventional ailerons,
	barn-door or strip type. The aerodynamics of it are thus:  the raised
	aileron creates turbulance in the otherwise smooth flow of air over the
	wing, killing (or "spoiling") lift which causes that wing to drop. The
	lowered aileron does essentially the same thing to the bottom surface
	of the opposite wing, spoiling "negative-lift," thereby increasing pos-
	itive lift which causes that wing to rise....the result, of course, is
	the well known "bank."  But, the lowered aileron is acting against less
	disturbed air, especially on flat-bottomed, Clary-Y type airfoils, so it
	produces more drag than the raised aileron and this drag is counter to
	the desired direction of bank...has somewhat a bank-cancelling effect.
	You can easily see this effect by viewing the wing head-on, dead-on 
	from a few feet in front of the leading edge while actuating the ail-
	erons...NOTE that you can see MUCH more of the aileron when it's down
	than you can when it's up.  This is how the slipstream "sees' the ail-
	eron and why the down-aileron produces significantly more drag.

	I've seen adverse yaw on models so bad that right aileron "alone" act-
	ually produced a yaw (turn) to the left!  And "THAT," sports-fans, is 
	what the rudder is for...by coordinating right-rudder with right-ail-
	eron, the adverse yaw is overcome and the desired right bank occurs.
	The larger the model, the more significant the effect of adverse yaw 
	which is why as models get larger, it becomes more important to use 
	coordinated rudder with the ailerons when banking.  

	Differential helps this syndrome by giving less down aileron (less drag)
	than up...BUT, it can't totally eliminate it - you'll STILL have to 
	learn to use that rudder!  Don't brood about it, it ain't that tough and
	you'll be a better pilot for knowing what the rudder's for and how to 
	use it.  The differential is accomplished by moving the pivot point of 
	the aileron horn aft of the hinge line.  You'll have to experiment to
	discover how much aft appears to be right.  This was why the original
	Phil Kraft (Jensen) Ugly-Stik had the aileron horns turned around back-
	wards, with the holes toward the trailing edge instead of toward the 
	hinge line...it produced differential by moving the pivot point aft of 
	the hinge line.  How much is enough?...good question, but remember that
	the raised aileron does most of the work in banking while too much down
	aileron produces naught but drag...not very much is really needed.

>    Thanks in advance,
>    Dan Snow

	* Pornada...adios amigo,	Al    

    re .68 : Air-Flite - Who they ??? 
    
    Can you also send a copy of the page  in MAN . I'm At MRO1-1/L26
    
    tx 
    
    md

	John,

 
> When you were talking about finishing your MIG,  you mentioned
> that the wingspan of that bird is something in the 70+ inch
> range.  Isn't that kind of big for the 1/8 Air Force?  I don't
> know anything about the real bird, but that would give it a span
> of 50 or so feet, counting the inches part of the span that I
> forget.

	* Astute observation, John.  When we first founded the 1/8 Air Force
	the "1/8" was an apropos gimmick-name as then (10 1/2 yr.'s ago) the
	"average" scale model was built to between 1/8 and 1/10 scale.  That's
	no longer the case, what with the swing toward 1/5 to 1/6 models in the
	75-to-80" wingspan range, but the name is now well established and we
	like it, so why change?  The Mig-3, with a span of 72 3/4", comes in 
	mid-way between 1/5 and 1/6 scale (1:5.65).  The full-scale ship spanned
	34' 3" (a tiny little bugger) making it one of the smallest fighters of
	WW-II, and one of the fastest (early-on), doing 401+ MPH at 27,000" in
	April of 1940.

> The reason that this struck me is that you talked about extensive
> use of fiberglass on the model.  Is this something that is most
> practical with the BIG birds?   What would be a lower limit for
> this type of construction/finishing?  Also, I see only a small
> advantage, given the complexity, of doing it this way versus
> using something like lite ply in the construction, instead of
> balsa/fiberglass -- the ply should be lighter and just as strong
> for practical purposes.

	* Glassing a model with .6 or .75 oz. cloth and resin is as light as
	most (and lighter than MANY) finishing methods, if properly done. We're
	not doing it to add structural strength (while a small gain in strength 
	IS realized) but, rather, to establish as smooth, durable a base as is
	possible, upon which to apply the finish.  The MiG-3 is a medium-large
	model at 72+" span/nearly 1000 sq." wing area and the norm would be to
	expect to add from 1-to-2 pounds of finish, from bare structure out.  I
	realized only a 14 oz. weight gain on the MiG, including glass, resin,
	primer, color and clear seal-coat.  The MiG's wing loading is only 27
	oz. per sq.' at an all up weight of 11.5 lb.'s WET...pretty acceptable,
	I'd say.  While the smallest bird I've used this method on was a .40
	size Sweet-Stik, the locals routinely use it on .19 powered T-6 pylon
	racers and I see no reason why it couldn't be used on even a 1/2-A ship,
	provided it's done properly.  AGAIN, the "secret" is in sanding virtu-
	ally ALL the resin and primer off!  BTW, don't be fooled by "Lite-ply!"
	It's heavier than you think and NOT proportionately stronger than com-
	parable sizes of balsa.

> While I'm here, your suggestion to practice scale detailing on
> sport models really struck home.  Never thought of that!

	* Great!! Glad I gotcha' thinking about it.

	Gracias amigo,	Al

    
    re .73
    Sorry I can't give you a copy of the MAN page as I junked it after
    I wrote the note. I rip up my magazines when they are 2 or 3 months
    old and file the parts I want to keep in 3 ring binders.
    
    I have no knowledge of the kit manufacturer, perhaps some of the
    U.S. noters could help.
    
    Now if you want to ask me about Australian aeroplanes (sic.)!!!!!
    
    Regards
    Tony 
    Sydney, Australia (not near Villawood!!)
    
    

    In regards to weathering....
    
    Since the note about it, I have been tryign to figure out where
    I read it, but I can't find it... Anyhow, here is the jist of what
    it said...
    
    A scale plane that is modeled after a standard production plane
    should be finished to look like the day it came out of the factory.
    A plane modeled after a historic event should look like the plane
    at the time of the flight.
    
    I took this to mean that weathering should only be done to models
    such as the Spirit of St Louis and the like.  But when you build
    a Nieuport or Aronca or Mig, it should look factory fresh..
    
    Comments??
    
    Cheers,
    jeff
    

    Last night at our club meeting, one of the members brought in his
    latest copy of RC Video Mag. (vol. 9).  The first segment was a
    very good presentation of the IMAA meet.  Excellent scale models
    were shown both on the ground and in flight.  Would probably be
    interesting to anyone interested in the hobby of scale.
    
    Ken

re Note 271.70 by JOULE::SNOW

>    I just don't get a warm fuzzy feeling about the wire not flexing
>    and possibly causing flutter, and second, will a standard servo
>    have the b***s to drive the ailerons? While I don't think this ship
>    qualifies as giant scale, and is a putt-putt not a screamer, I wonder
>    about going to a hi thrust servo. The question I have on this linkage

Dan
  Kevin Ladd is using two micro servos in his Corsair.  They give more
  inch ounces for their weight than standard servos and let you really
  choke up on the linkage.  If you have the radio to support it you can
  just flip a switch and try your hand at flaperons.

  Another big plus is after your first flight - after you pick up all
  pieces and you've had it with powered flight you'll have the ingredients
  for your first sail plane. :-)

  Anyway - it sure sounds like an elegant way to do ailerons on large scale
  craft.

P.S.  Although my Jeep is small - it is 1/4 scale.

              _!_      
Bye        ----O----   
Kay R. Fisher / \     

================================================================================

>    A scale plane that is modeled after a standard production plane
>    should be finished to look like the day it came out of the factory.
>    A plane modeled after a historic event should look like the plane
>    at the time of the flight.
    
>    I took this to mean that weathering should only be done to models
>    such as the Spirit of St Louis and the like.  But when you build
>    a Nieuport or Aronca or Mig, it should look factory fresh..
    
>    Comments??
    
	* Yeah, you bet Jeff,

	Can't say as I've ever read (or heard) anything similar to the thoughts
	you've paraphrased (above).  First I should acknowledge the author's
	right to his opinion.  Next, I must respond, "BULL****!"  The very day
	ANY aircraft is rolled/taxied off the production line, it starts to be-
	come weathered by the simple fact of its being used, i.e. flown, pushed,
	pulled, towed, serviced, tied-down, exposed to the elements, etc., etc.,
	ad infinitum and whether or not it is someday involved in some historic
	event has ridiulously little to do with it!  Would the Spirit of St.
	Louis have been any less worn (weathered) had Lindbergh never flown it
	across the Atlantic but, rather, it had been used to carry mail or dust
	crops?  It's totally ludicrous to suppose that history weathered the
	ship...H***'s BELLS!, useage and WEATHER weathers an aircraft!!

	I will concede that, by the very nature of their existence, small pri-
	vate aircraft will tend to be less weathered (and should be modeled
	that way) since they, normally, receive a little more TLC than other
	types from their proud owners (AND it's easier to do on smaller craft).
	Heck! I used to fuss over my old Airknocker like a mother-hen, washing,
	waxing, touching up, cleaning it incessantly!  But, you don't even have
	to look CLOSELY to see the effects of wear/service/weathering on a com-
	mercial airliner.  Note the grease and gluck around the landing gear,
	the scratched, worn paint around the cabin doors, the brown-black stain-
	ing on the wings/fuse from the jet engine exhausts.  See the faded, ox-
	idized paint and the dull washed/streaked appearance of the sheet metal
	resulting from being flown and/or parked in ALL kinds of weather.  All
	of this is weathering...it's absolutely normal and it's HOW an airplane
	looks.  Without these things a model DOES NOT "LIVE!" it merely looks
	like a "model plane," or worse, a "toy plane" (YUUUUCK!).

	I can't see how the appearance of a warbird can even be questioned?
	These predatory birds were only designed for ONE purpose, to fight!
	Neatness don't count a whole lot when a warbird goes to war...they're
	rode hard `n put away wet!...service `em, fuel `em, arm `em and send
	`em back into battle, that's ALL that counts.  The dirt and mud, faded
	and chipped paint, burnt and stained sheet metal will all have to wait
	'til AFTER the war!  Sure, the ground crews took pride in their charges
	but there was NEVER enough time to keep them "showroom shiney `n bright"
	as our nameless author would have us believe.

	So, if yer' modeling a nice civil or executive type aircraft, by all 
	means, make 'em look shiney and clean (but don't forget that even these
	prima-donnas leak oil, get exhaust stains and gravel chips).  But, it
	yer' doin' a workhorse, make it look like it's been worked...and, if 
	yer' doin' a warhorse, make it look like it's been to war!

	The whole principal can be summed up in one worn, "REALISM!"  The pri-
	mary function of scale is to replicate a full-scale aircraft as authen-
	tically as is humanly possible, including EVERY "less than perfect" de-
	tail you can duplicate, i.e. stains, smears, streaks, dings, dents, 
	chips.............to do less is to create a shiney toy.

	Obviously, it isn't possible to EVER achieve the PERFECT scale model
	but pursuit of perfection is half of the chase.

>    Last night at our club meeting, one of the members brought in his
>    latest copy of RC Video Mag. (vol. 9).  The first segment was a
>    very good presentation of the IMAA meet.  Excellent scale models
>    were shown both on the ground and in flight.  Would probably be
>    interesting to anyone interested in the hobby of scale.
    
    	* Ken, If you can locate a copy (or buy one), permit me to recommend
	the videotape on the 1986 U.S. Scale Masters Championships.  The tape
	is produced and distributed by Werner Kopp of Propwash Videos, Las 
	Vegas, Nevada.  It is about 80 minutes in length and features all the 
	best scale ships flown in last year's Masters.  At the risk of sounding
	immodest, My MiG-3 get's nice coverage in the tape with nice close-ups
	on the ground and some great aerial footage showing slow, 2-point and
	4-point rolls as well as a nice takeoff and landing.  At the end of the
	tape Werner has included the awards ceremony and you can see "The Desert
	Rat" hisself' receiving 10th place.  I don't have the complete address
	handy but Vegas information should be able to provide it and Werner 
	takes phone orders on Visa and Mastercharge.  The price is somewhere
	around $25.00.  If all else fails, lemme' know and I'll try to dig up 
	the particulars fer' ya'.

>    A scale plane that is modeled after a standard production plane
>    should be finished to look like the day it came out of the factory.
>    A plane modeled after a historic event should look like the plane
>    at the time of the flight.
    
>    I took this to mean that weathering should only be done to models
>    such as the Spirit of St Louis and the like.  But when you build
>    a Nieuport or Aronca or Mig, it should look factory fresh..
    
>    Comments??

Did you ever see Dave Mastertons entry in the last two world champs. He had 
bird crap on the wing as the photo he had of the aircraft had crap on one wing. 
(No Bull Sh!!!t that would be too hard to believe)
 
John

>Did you ever see Dave Mastertons entry in the last two world champs. He had 
>bird crap on the wing as the photo he had of the aircraft had crap on one wing. 
>(No Bull Sh!!!t that would be too hard to believe)
 
>John

	* I REST MY CASE!!  "I" wouldn't go to "quite" that extreme but the
	message is to replicate the "very" prototype modeled to the absolute
	Nth degree, history or other circumstances notwithstanding.  That's
	the name of the game in scale.

	Gracias John....adios,	Al

>	I'm about ready to sheet the top of the Aeronca wing, as soon
>as I install the link from the bellcrank to the aileron. Yes, the
>entire, (almost) wing is sheeted top and bottom. I say almost as the
>center section top is not sheeted. Sounds like another application of 
>coverite there. But the question I have is this. Should I glass the entire
>wing, or just 12" out from the centerline on each side of the bottom?
>And another thing, have you ever used carbon fiber? 'twas thinking of using 
>it on the spars prior to putting on the top sheeting.

	* DAN, YOU'VE REALLY GOT ME "SNOWED" (pun intended) REGARDING THE
	LAYOUT OF THE WING...you mean it's all sheeted, simulating (I guess)
	an all metal wing?  Going on that assumption, glass the entire wing.
	Remember, all we're doing here is establishing a smooth, uniform base
	for the finish...We're NOT encapsulating in a heavy-duty glass shell.
	The glass cloth and resin base will be NO HEAVIER than Super Coverite
	or silk `n dope IF you apply it correctly (translation: sand almost ALL
	the resin off leaving a thin, resin filled membrane on the surface),
	then yer' all set for primer and paint.  As to the carbon fiber, I'd
	certainly think the center-section structure was engineered to ade-
	quately carry the expected flight-loads in conjunction with the func-
	tional wing and jury struts.  However, there's virtually no weight pen-
	alty (save for the epoxy to apply it) to using carbon fiber, so why not
	give it a try?  It couldn't hurt.

>....I scrapped the wire push rod idea, and instead will be using the STIFF
>Goldberg Golden Rods. I am cutting the outer sleeve into 1/5 inch lengths
>and using silcon to stick them to each rib where the inner rod passes 
>through.

	* I'd really recommend reconsidering the use of Golden-rods, Ny-rods
	or anything similar on the aileron linkage.  That stuff (even the so-
	called "temperature compensated" variety) expands and shrinks with 
	ambient temperature changes (gets longer or shorter) making it neces-
	sary to constantly re-trim.  Stick with some kind of HARD linkage like
	wire...or another method is to simply install a conventional rudder/
	elevator type push-rod between the aileron servo and the bellcrank.  I
	tried the temp. comp.'ed Golden-rod in the MiG-3's fuse for elevator,
	rudder and tailwheel and the stuff drives me NUTS trying to keep things
	in trim, even just from morning to afternoon.  Additionally, if you must
	use Golden-rod DO NOT  *REPEAT* DO NOT cut the outer tubing into sec-
	tions as you've described above!!!  The unsupported inner tubing (the
	actual pushrod) will flex unmercifully if unsupported for more than a 
	coupla' inches.  You MUST leave the outer tube in place the full length 
	of the run, anchoring it to some rigid structure every 4" or so...other-
	wise, yer' gonna think yer' push-rods are made of rubber bands!!!  Be-
	lieve me, yer' FAR better off (and safer) running music-wire through 
	outer-tube Golden-rod bushings installed in each rib, as you mentioned.
	
>Thanks,
>Dan Snow

	* Pornada amigo...adios,	Al

    Dan another alternative would be to go and buy three control line
    180 drgree bellcranks and some sullivan cable (small stuff)
    pushrods and install the following set up in your wing.
    
    
    
    	/o|------------------------/o|----------------------|o\
       /  |                       /  |                      |  \
      /o  |                      /o  |                      |  o\
      \   |                      \   |                      |   /
       \  |                       \  |                      |  /
        \o|------------------------\o|----------------------|o/
    
    
    The center bellcrank ia attached to the servo, the outer most
    bellcranksare connected to the ailerons.
    
    						Tom

    Dan,
    
    The cable set-up is probably THE best for an absolutely slop-free
    installation.  I deliberately neglected to mention it, however,
    as a cable installation is a lot "fussier" to set up and can require
    semi-frequent adjustment/maintenance to keep things tight and properly
    aligned.  The access hatches we discussed would be mandatory for
    a cable set-up.
    
    Adios,	Al

    
    	Sorry Dan but I don't think that I know what your trying to
    get at.   Thr throw of the bell cranks,
    
    			/o|-------^
    		       /  |       |--- a
    		      /o  |       |
    		      \   |-------v
    		       \  |       ^--- b
                        \o|_______v
    
    	distance "a" abd distance "b" must be equal when measured from
    the bellcranks pivot point. If not then you could induce differencial
    into the set up.
    
    						Tom

		Looks like I'll be getting into scale before I intended,
	someone gave me a rather tatty looking, but well built Hellcat 
	this weekend.... It's 64" span which I guess puts it at 1/4 or 
	1/5 scale. I'll see if I can't get some info on it from the 
	library tomorrow. 
	
		I've stripped the covering off the wings, and will take	
	the paint of the fuz/cowl and start again... It'll give me something
	to practise on before I start the 1/4 scale Jungmann I've ordered
	as a birthday present from the wife.....

		Can you elaborate on the technique for producing panel
	lines mentioned in previous replies... is the tape left on to
	produce lines which stick out, or is it removed, in which case
	you'll've had to paint underneath the tape?.... Can't figure
	this one out....
                                                   

	cheers

	bob

    
    Bob,
    	The methods that I know of produce either butt joints or overlap
    joints. For butt joints a thin tape (drafting tape) 1/16 or less
    in width is applied to the surface. Then several coats of primer
    are added. The tape is then removed. What is left is a depression
    the depth of the primer coats. Then painted with color this shows
    up as a panel line. The second method for overlap joints is to
    apply two layers of clear tape adjacent to the panel line. An
    application of epoxy is then used to create a fillet between the
    surface of the plane and the tape. When dry the epoxy is then 
    sanded until the tape can be removed. When painted this appears
    as a overlap joint.
    	Ditz fasteners can be done by finding the appropriately sized
    piecs of tubing and installing it into a dremel tool. Touch the
    spinning tuping to the primer and you will get a circular depression.
    Follow this up by making a straight depression across the diameter
    of the circle and you get what appears to be a Ditz fastener.
    
    					Tom

    Bob,
    
    Just to eloborate slightly on Tom's reply, for butt-joint panel
    lines (probably used on the Hellcat wing), you can also undercoat
    the panel line area with silver/aluminum or black "after" the surface
    is all prepped for final color coats (I always undercoat the entire
    airframe with silver as a final primer coat [you can REALLY see
    the flaws] and a weathering base), then lay on the tape (1/64"
    is probably about right for the F-6-F) and apply your color.  Now,
    when you remove the tape, the panel line will appear in silver or
    black, giving it a little realistic contrast which makes it stand
    out a little more.  Tom's method may be a little safer, however,
    as there's no risk of pulling up paint when you remove the tape.
    
    On the overlapped joints, I believe these were used on the F-6-F's
    fuselage so you may get to use both techniques.  Tom's description
    is right on the money but, to clarify a point, I think Tom means
    to use epoxy "primer" to actually build up the fillet from the sur-
    face to the tape edge (correct me if I'm wrong Tom)...at least,
    that's what I use.  I think plain-vanilla epoxy would be verrry
    difficult to sand and feather into the surounding surface. The 1:1
    bird's fuse was covered from the tail forward...that is, let's say,
    the tail-cone was sheeted first, say to the lead edge of the stab.
    Then the next forward section was applied with the rear edge of
    this sheet overlapping the forward edge of the previous panel...this
    was to keep the slipstream from getting under the overlaps.  Lay-
    up yer' tape and primer lines in similar fashion, taping to the
    rear of the intended vertical panel line and primering forward of
    the tape.
    
    Incidentally, at 64", I believe yer' bird will come in at between
    1/7-and-1/8 scale...the 1:1 Hellcat was HUGE, nearly the same size
    as a P-47 and had a span of somewhere around 42'!  Before hanging-up,
    what's become of Brian Warwick????  Haven't heard from/of him in
    over a month...did his new chopper finally drive him "round the
    bend?"
    
    Adios amigo,	Al

    This same technique can be used for making the pinked edge strips
    for fabric covered planes...  However, you can use surgical/first
    aid type tape, which already has the edges pinkered.  Lay a piece
    on either side of the area you want and lay on the primer.  
    
    Cheers,
    jeff
    

	Afternoon

		Thanks for the info.. I'll give it a go. So far I've
	stripped all the covering off the wing, and repaired a couple
	of dings in the sheeting. Removed all the control surfaces and
	stripped the paint off the cowl.. Tomorrow I'll have the paint
	off the fuz.

	Underneath the covering on the wing and rudder there were some
	panel lines made up of narrow masking tape. I thought I read 
	somewhere that that was one way to do them. 
	
	I was thinking of modifying the wing to take retracts, but on 
	closer examination it's not really practical..

		You're right about the size Al. I picked up a book from
	the library and the Hellcat was 42' 10" span putting it at 1/8
	scale. Sure was a big plane... Got a couple of small b/w pictures
	but couldn't find anything in glorious megacolour. 
                  
	
		Brian seems to have dissappeared. I saw him at our Fun Fly
	about 1 month ago, but heard nothing since. I sent him some mail
	last week..  P'raps he's in the middle of a field somewhere still
	trying to get his heli up..............

	cheers

	bob

    Bob,
    
    A coupla' more things occurred to me.  First, what Tom suggested
    for simulating Dzus (pronounced Zeus, like the Greek God) will work
    fine for flush rivets as well.  But, I'd think twice about using
    a Dremel tool...a moments distraction or inattention and you'll
    drill a hole right through the structure or have the tool/tubing
    "skitter" wildly across yer' "once" pretty finish.  I prefer to
    actually sharpen the "tool" end of the brass tubing by holding a
    #11 X-acto blade tightly against the ID of the tube and rotating
    the tubing.  Then, place the sharpened end in the desired position
    and rotate it back and forth between thumb and forefinger, applying
    light downward pressure.  I feel more "in control" using this method
    and less likely to have an ill-timed "accident." 
    
    Tape lines beneath the covering, eh?  I guess that'd produce a similar
    effect to just leaving the panel line tape in place after painting,
    unless the builder was trying to simulate the fabric-over-rib structure
    of the control surfaces, i.e. ailerons, elevator and rudder.
    
    Let me suggest this regarding whether or not to modify for retracts:
    lay out and draw on the wheel wells in their scale size and location.
    Now, examine the wing structure and determine whether you'd compromise
    the structural integrity of the wing by cutting out the wells. If
    the wells fall between the ribs, yer' home free...cut out the wells
    and line them all around between the top and bottom wing skins;
    this will re-establish any strength lost by removing the skin. Bare
    minimum, you now, at least have a scale "appearing" landing gear/
    wheel well arrangement.  Now, for the good part...all you'd need
    from this point is a coupla' hardwood rails and you could mount
    a pair of Rhom-Air 90 degree rotating retracts.  It'd be a snap
    to route the air lines through the wing to the center-section, mount
    the air tank, air-switch valve and servo and, Voila!...retracts.
    I suggested this to a fellow with a PICA FW-190 and he did it with
    little difficulty...works great.
    
    Lastly, what kit is the F-6-F you inherited?  I'd almost bet it
    is a Complete-A-Pak from Scotland.  If so, I have one of `em in
    storage in the attic as a "someday" project.  They're sold in the
    U.S. by Bob Holman who also used to sell the P-47 which my buddy,
    Bob Frey, is so bonkers about (he's had 5 of `em), also imported
    from Complete-A-Pak.  Of late, Holman has not had any more P-47's
    ...has Complete-A-Pak discontinued the kit?
    
    Yes, the Hellcat was a giant warbird...it was only inches and a
    few pounds smaller than the Jug, which was the largest/heaviest 
    single-engine, propellor driven fighter ever built.  I stood under
    both a P-47 and a Hellcat just a month back and, without a tape
    measure, you'd be hard pressed to tell which was the larger.  The
    Hellcat appears to stand a little taller than the Jug, further
    compounding the dilemma.  In any case, it's clear, once you see
    one close up, that the F-6-F was definitely NOT just a souped up
    Wildcat, which WAS a tiny little fighter.  Having the highest kill-
    to-loss ratio of any American fighter (11 or 12-to-1 or better,
    as I recall), the Hellcat was one Helluva bird of prey!  I'll be
    most interested to hear how you make out with yer's...all those
    I've seen appeared to be very honest ships, as fighters go, and it'll
    handle a .90 should you come out a little heavy.  Good luck!
    
    Adios amigo,	Al

    A friend of mine who is just beginning has decided that his second
    plane is going to be a scale-type warbird.  He really likes the
    corsair and may opt for it.  It looks to me like it would be difficult
    to build due to the gull wings.  Being a scale type I am assuming
    that it has high wing loading and may difficult to fly.
    
    Does anyone have any experience with corsairs?  What would be a
    good scale warbird for a lesser experienced pilot?  
    
    Chris
    

>    A friend of mine who is just beginning has decided that his second
>    plane is going to be a scale-type warbird.  He really likes the
>    corsair and may opt for it.  It looks to me like it would be difficult
>    to build due to the gull wings.  Being a scale type I am assuming
>    that it has high wing loading and may be difficult to fly.

	* Chris, what yer' buddy wants to do would be an awful lot like a guy
	who just soloed in a Cessna-150 feeling he's now qualified to try his
	hand at flying an SR-71 Blackbird or, maybe, the Space Shuttle!  I can
	guarantee that a Corsair, or virtually ANY other WW-II fighter WILL be
	the "Kiss of Death" as a second airplane (even a third or fourth)!

	Yes, the inverted-gull wings (and the 90-degree rotating retracts will)
	be more difficult to build, but "building" it will be the EASY part. If
	you have any influence over this fellow at all, TALK HIM OUT OT IT!! Or
	convince him him to purchase a "Home-Lobotomy Kit" at the same time...
	it makes just about as much sense, his odds for success are probably 
	better and he'll probably need it after the experience he puts himself
	through with the Corsair.

	The Corsair (or any other fighter) will, indeed, be more heavily wing
	loaded, but wing loading is only part of the story.  My MiG-3 is only
	loaded to 27 oz. per square foot, a VERRRY light loading for a fighter,
	but that alone doesn't make it a trainer.  The friendly MiG has, on
	several occasions, shown me that it definitely requires skilled hand-
	ling or it'll "eat my lunch" for me.  Let's face it, fighters were de-
	signed to be as maneuverable as possible/practical and maneuverability
	translates to inherent "instability."  You can't have high-performance
	aerobatic capabiility without sacrificing stability...otherwise we
	wouldn't have needed Corsairs, Mustangs, Thunderbolts, Hellcats, etc.
	...we could have just gone to war with guns hung on Piper J-3 Cubs, 
	right?  Or, to bring it to the model perspective, we wouldn't need
	Curares, Auroras, Phoenix's and other highly specialized pattern ships,
	we could simply fly pattern with our Kadets and PT-40's.

	Convince yer' buddy to be patient; once he's mastered his trainer, he 
	needs to move to a mild, low-winged sport-type ship, then to a much 
	more maneuverable type, like an Aeromaster, and he should transition
	to taildraggers as soon as possible...right now isn't too soon.  ONLY
	THEN will he have a chance to be successful with his first warbird.

>    What would be a good scale warbird for a lesser experienced pilot?  
    
	* Chris, take my word for it, there just ISN'T any such animal!!  There
	are NO SHORTCUTS, you just gotta' do yer' homework before you're ready
	for a WW-II fighter.  Tell yer' friend the ONLY scale bird he "might" 
	have a chance with at his present experience/skill level would be some-
	thing in the lightplane category like a J-3 Cub or a Citabria and even
	these are not nearly as friendly as his present trainer.  Run a hardcopy
	of this reply and let him read it if that'll help convince him and get
	you off the hook.

	Adios amigo and good luck with yer' buddy,	Al
    

    
    	Hey Al,  Only fighters were used in the WAR? Me thinks not.
    
    As a suggested "WAR BIRD" that could be built as a second, third
    of fourth ship I would suggest a "CUB, CESSNA L19 BIRDDOG" These
    were both used during the war. It doesn't have to have guns on it
    to be a war bird in my book. Just had to be commissioned by the
    military during the war.
    
    						Tom 

    Tom,
    
    Yeah, yer' right...any bird in military service can be classified
    as a "warbird."  However, since Chris' buddy was specifically in-
    terested in the Corsair (and since I talked to Chris on the DTN
    yesterday and he confirmed this fellow was talking fighters) I di-
    rected my reply toward fighters.       
    
    Yer' point is correct, however, in that an aircraft need not have
    carried guns, bombs or other ordnance to qualify as a warbird....
    as you mentioned, the Cub donned a uniform and went to war as the
    L-4, Cessna had the L-19, Stinson had the L-?? Sentinel and even
    the Beech Staggerwing was widely used for "Brass" transport and
    sundried other duties.  MANY civilian types were "drafted and "re-
    trained" for military service...look at the DC-3/C-47....and ther're
    gobs of others.  I don't mean to slight ANY of them but, when I
    use the term "Warbird," I usually mean "fighter."  I'll have to
    watch that and qualify my references to "warbird" when the meaning
    is not obvious.
    
    Adios amigo,	Al

    I can reinforce Al's warnings by relating my observations of a novice's
    attempt to build and fly a Corsair at our field.  To make the story
    short, he never got more than 10 seconds in the air before snapping
    it into the trees or the ground, usually right on takeoff.  He must
    have built it out of bricks because it flew about 5 or 6 times before
    it was totally destroyed.  This guy thought that horsing around a high
    wing over powered trainer qualified him to fly anything.  I give him
    credit for trying, but not for intelligence.  

		Picked up my Bucker Jungmann kit today. Trouble is
	the Boss won't let me open the box till my birthday...
	Plane is 72" span, all wood, Other than that I don't know what
	is included in the kit..  I do intend to make this into a decent
	scale model, with rib stitching and all the good stuff. Maybe put
	it in the club static comp next easter.

		I would really like to put a 90 4 stroke in this one, but 
	I've spent enough	on models lately, and the Boss still wants
	a car so I guess I'll stick with the 90 2 stroke.. unless
	someone make me an offer I can't refuse...

		The Hellcat is progressing nicely. I stripped the paint
	off the fuz yesterday. In doing this I lifted some of the solartex
	edges, so I took it all off.. I'm now left with the bare airframe.
	I've filled all the dings in the wings/fuz, and replaced several
	bits of wood... It's now about ready for recovering...

		The cowel is ready for the final coat. The glue rivets
	worked out ok. I've fitted a dummy radiator grill in the cowel
	and I'm trying to figure out how to make a dummy engine to fill 
	the rest of the hole in the front up...

		I guess I'd better get hold of a picture or two
	and find out what colour to paint it.... There were some in
	service with the RAF, so it could be camoflaged.. Back down
	the library next week to see what I can find...
                                               

	cheers

	bob

    Bob,
    
    (Whatcha' doin' around the salt mine this {your} time of day??)  If
    you want to do a dummy engine, here's one method:
    
    Cut out a plywood baffle which will be installed inside the cowl
    at an appropriate depth from the rolled front lip of the cowl to
    accept the dummy cylinders and keep them just a little behind this
    lip. Carefully cut out the baffle to "just" clear the crankshaft,
    carb and cylinder of the model engine.  Note: the cutout for the 
    cylinder  should be nice and snug...the purpose being to direct/duct 
    incoming air directly over the cylinder (through the cooling fins) 
    and immediately out the backside of the cowl (probably through the 
    cowl flaps).  Believe it or not, this improves cooling over leaving 
    the entire front of the cowl open.
    
    Once you have the baffle cut to shape and properly clearanced to
    the engine, install it in the cowl, tack-gluing it `til yer' sure
    it's in the required position.  Then glass it in from behind with
    2-oz. cloth and resin.  Now, acquire some Williams Bros. cylinders
    of the appropriate size (or fabricate them from alternating disks
    of balsa and 1/64 ply).  You'll only be using the front half of
    each cylinder so don't glue them together (if you rolled yer' own,
    carefully saw them in half from top-to-bottom).
    
    Lay out the cylinder positions on the ply baffle and glue the cylinders
    in place with 5 or 30-min epoxy.  When cured, trim cylinders out
    of the clearance area for the model engine.  The dummy crankcase can
    be made from the rounder end of the little egg-shaped plastic container
    that LEGG'S panty hose come in or built up from assorted small balsa
    blocks.  Rocker-arm push-rod covers are made from brass tubing or
    equivalent as are exhaust collector rings and/or fuel-feed rings.
    
    Make sure everything is glued down solidly (it takes a lot of
    vibration) and have at it with the paints.  You'll be surprised
    at how realistic it looks and how much it adds to the realism of
    the model while serving the very practical function of enhancing
    engine cooling.
    
    Adios,	Al
    
    P.S. You never responded to my last questions about the Hellcat.
                                          

			Working late shift this week.. Nearly
	time to go play with the sandman, pile up some Zeds etc...

	
		Some of the Williams Bros stuff is distributed over here,
	I'll check out my catalog, but I prefer to make as much as 
	possible... More satisfying that way.......

                	
		Sorry Al I must've missed it, like I said it's
	getting late.... What was the question again?....


		cheers

		bob

< Note 271.103 by THESUN::DAY "Just playing with my chopper...." >






		Thought...... so the dummy engine is built into
	the cowl, rather than fixed to the bulkhead......

		Won't the silencer get rather warm without any
	airflow over it?....

    Bob,
    
    See reply -.93, specificall the next to last paragraph.
    
    See ya' Monday..., Adios	Al

    Bob,
    
    Re: -.104....Yeah, I suppose the muffler might run a little warmer
    but remember that air is being "rammed" through the opening in the
    baffle and forced out the rear of the cowl which means that air
    within the cowl is being withdrawn/exchanged constantly so this
    should not be of any significance.  Bob Frey has used this EXACT
    setup on at least 4-P-47's and 2-Zero's and Kent Walters has used
    it on 2-Dauntlesses with no problems whatsoever.  BTW, make the
    baffle from 3/32" or even 1/8" plywood...1/16 or less is to flexible
    and is subject to excessive vibration...keeps popping all yer'
    nice little dummy engine components off.          
    
    Adios, 	Al

>    						...........Question
>    for ya Al, when the mfgr, states to use anything from a 12-7 to
>    a 14-6 or 7 , where on earth do you start?

	*  I'm not that familiar with 4-cycle techniques so any of you noters 
	who are experienced 4-cyclers, please feel free to correct me if you
	don't agree.  For break-in, the idea is to load the enging and make
	it work a little but not TOO much.  I think I'd start right in the mid-
	dle with something like a 13-6 or 7.  After break-in, prop selection
	kinda' depends on the application, i.e. smaller prop for a hot-dawg and
	larger for a bigger/slower ship.  My guess (and that's "all" it is) is
	that yer' Airknocker Sedan will be real happy with a prop in the 14-6 
	range (14-6 is the ideal prop for a .90 2-cycle so the 4-cycle should 
	pull it with ease...you may even want to go larger).
    
>    		........Do you think the FAA would be willing to give
>    me the owners address? This is the first land based Sedan I have
>    seen that DOES NOT have wheel pants. I would love to get more info
>    on this bird.
    
	*  I've never had any experience with this but the Dept. of Motor Ve-
	hicles gave the previous owners' names/addresses/phone no.'s when I was
	researching the history of a Corvette I once owned so, it's not unrea-
	sonable to expect the FAA might provide a similar service, particularly
	if you explain why you want to contact the Sedan's owner.  Give it a 
	whirl...you can likely start with a phone call to yer' local FAA office
	explaining what you're trying to do.  Let us know how you make out.

	Adios,	Al

Here's sort of a scale question.

I would like an easy way of making a canopy from sheet plastic as supplied
with my Coverite kit.  

I cut the pieces as per the pattern and (1) they were too small, (2) they
defied installation by not wanting to take the compound curve.

I know I could build a mold out of a large block of wood.  But that
sounds like a lot of work and I really want to do this in the next night
or two.

So How can I induce a little (I don't need much) concave-ness into a sheet
of clear plastic.  No I can't buy a performed canopy that is close enough
to the one required for my Jeep.

              _!_      
Bye        ----O----   
Kay R. Fisher / \     

================================================================================

> I would like an easy way of making a canopy from sheet plastic as supplied
> with my Coverite kit.  

	* I'm not sure there "is" any such thing as an easy way to make a can-
	opy, Kay.

> I cut the pieces as per the pattern and (1) they were too small, (2) they
> defied installation by not wanting to take the compound curve.

	* I never trust patterns printed on the plans...except as a place to 
	start making patterns.  I always make up patterns made from card paper
	(like manilla folder stock) and trim/adjust `til they fit just right.
	ONLY then do I start cutting plastic.

> I know I could build a mold out of a large block of wood.  But that
> sounds like a lot of work and I really want to do this in the next night
> or two.

	* Agreed, it's a lot of work but I know of no other way of fabricating
	an acceptable canopy.

> So How can I induce a little (I don't need much) concave-ness into a sheet
> of clear plastic.  

	*  Trying to get a little "concave-ness" may be a lot like trying to get
	"a little bit pregnant!"  I assume you want to put a little shape into 
	the Jeep's windscreen, or the sliding/hinged portion, or both...all I 
	can suggest is to find something (a bottle or whatever) as close as pos-
	sible to the desired shape and use this as the plug/form.  You'll need a
	"real" heat gun, not a mono-kote gun, but the industrial-type like man-
	ufacturing uses (to shrink heat-shrink tubing) and an extra set of hands
	(pronounced: helper).  Have the helper pull the plastic down over the 
	form while you play the heat over the area where you want the concave
	shape...keep the heat gun moving and watch the heat `cause you'll melt
	through the plastic in a heartbeat if yer' not careful.  Or, if you want
	to try a real "Fred Flinstone" method, you "could" try the same thing as
	described above but forming the desired "concave-ness" by using yer'
	fingers, wrapped in an old T-shirt, to press up from beneath the sheet
	of plastic.  I just recently used this method to remove some kinks/flat
	spots from Bob's (Frey) P-47D bubble canopy.  It worked fine but reshap-
	ing a canopy and fabricating one from scratch are two different animals.
	Make sure you have "lots" of plastic available as this is definitely a 
	trial-and-error method!

	Adios and good luck, let us know how you make out,	Al

    Kay,
    
    Haven't heard from you in a coupla' days...you still out there?
    How'd you make out with the Jeep canopy; any luck?  Sounds like
    you need to be finished if you plan to make that 495th scale meet.
    How's it comin'??
    
    Adios, 	Al

>    Kay,
>    
>    Haven't heard from you in a coupla' days...you still out there?
>    How'd you make out with the Jeep canopy; any luck?  Sounds like
>    you need to be finished if you plan to make that 495th scale meet.
>    How's it comin'??
>    
>    Adios, 	Al

Well - I still haven't gotten to the Hobby shop for the plastic yet.
Maybe tonight.  After examining the kit further it shows the completed
picture on the front.  It looks like they just bent flat plastic as per
supplied in the kit and the results are a rather pointed front.
I don't have a good 3 view of a real Jeep yet but I'd bet that Art
Chester's real one was nice and round.  I intend to put the quick one
on for now and if the plane flies well and survives then maybe this
winter I will rip of the ultracote and canopy and paint and do things
right.  

Speaking of building.

Ultracote:
	Quick review.  It does bubble less then Monokote but it does bubble.
	It does peel back up to undo mistakes but not if you iron the sticky
	side against the sticky side.  The color DOES separate (although 
	infrequently) when you pull stuff up.  You can put ultracote on 
	ultracote and peel it back off to eliminate bubbles or mistakes.
	I liked the fact it had no Monokote type boarders and the backing
	was paper.  With Monokote I have a heck of a time separating the
	backing.  Also it is obvious which side has the stickum on it.
	With Monokote I try not to remove the backing till just prior to
	application just so I can tell which side is which.

Paint:
	I'll never ultracote (or Monokote) another pair of wheel pants again 
	as long as I live.  It took about 2 hours per pant.  4 hours just
	to put on your pants is ridiculous.  Other parts were just as
	frustrating.

EZ Hinges by SIG:
	I used the new SIG EZ hinges (I think that is what they call them).
	SIG claims that these hinges are the greatest thing since CA.
	You just cut slots with your Exacto knife and slip them in.  If the
	slot if too high you just cut a new one cause you haven dug any wood
	out of the piece - only sliced with the grain.  After you have all the
	hinges in and flexed the surface you ZAP all of them at once.  The 
	instructions say then that they will get hard and brittle sounding.
	Just flex them 20 times and they will be OK.  The instructions say
	not to worry that they are virtually indestructible and flexing to
	break up the dried CA can't hurt them.  

Aileron servos:
	After I finished the wing I hooked my radio up to flex the Ailerons
	and guess what.  When I moved the stick to the left both Ailerons 
	went down.  Gad.  So now I've cut a hole in the wing and I am 
	changing the linkage.  My excuse is that I've only built barn door
	ailerons before and I always just hooked one to each end of the servo
	arm - never gave it a second thought.

Now about those rudder procedures for takeoffs, landings, and very slow
(near stall) flight.  No problem - turn on the Aileron/Rudder coupling
switch.  If your radio don't have one just pack it up and mail it to that
guy in North Carolina that we talked about in the radio note.  He want's
about $20 to add it to most radios.  It is like driving a car.  Some
have a hard time getting used to the clutch.  Some buy an automatic.
I admit I wish I was properly using my rudder but I haven't crashed
because I didn't lately just because I consider the Aileron/Rudder
coupling switch to be the Landing/Takeoff switch.

Estimated time of completion for the Jeep - one more DEC week.

              _!_      
Bye        ----O----   
Kay R. Fisher / \     

================================================================================

    Kay,
    
    You mentioned in .112 that you were using SIG EZ hinges.  Let me
    know how they work.  My SIG Kougar kit included them and if they
    are as they claim, they will be the best thing since sliced bread.
    
    Chris

    Kay,
    
    Just a word of caution/warning:  that aileron/rudder coupling might
    be fine/safe for a higly stable trainer type bird but, if you should
    get in trouble low/slow/nose high with a more sensitive/responsive
    bird (and the Jeep is a short-coupled little ship that should be
    just that) and hit coupled aileron and rudder, I can almost guarantee
    a snap/CRAAAAAASH!  My advice to you (everyone, for that matter)
    is to throw away those crutches and learn to use the controls properly.
    The day WILL come when they'll hurt rather than help you!!!
    
    Yer' analogy about standard versus automatic transmissions really
    doesn't hold water in this example as both of these devices will
    utilize the SAME "controls."  With coupling, there are MANY instances
    where you DON'T want (indeed, it's dangerous to get) both aileron
    AND rudder.  Rudder (with throttle) will provide the control necessary
    to fly out of trouble in the deadly low/slow/bent-out-of-shape syndrome
    where combining it with the assymmetric drag resulting from stalled
    ailerons could be the "kiss-of-death!"     
    
    Think of it this way; what controls do you use to "intentionally"
    do a snap roll.  In case you've never done one, allow me to enumerate:
    pull the nose up, then slam the rudder AND ailerons full left (or
    right) with simultaneous full-up elevator.  Now, what controls do
    you think you'd be holding while trying to extricate yer'self from
    the low/slow/nose-high syndrome with coupled aileron/rudder?  Would
    you believe lots of (or full) left (or right) aileron AND RUDDER
    and lots of (or full) up elevator?  Sound familiar??  I REST MY
    CASE!
    
    The only possible use I can see for coupled aileron/rudder is "during"
    normal flight where the airplane "requires" coordinated aileron/rudder
    turns and it should be switched OFF at takeoff or landing.  To
    consider the coupling switch yer' takeoff/landing switch is tantamount 
    to making it the "SUICIDE" switch.  I strongly suggest you readjust
    yer' thinking regarding this coupling feature "before" it bites you in
    the a** and costs you an airplane...better yet, STOP using the switch
    immediately and learn to fly without these potentially dangerous
    crutches!  Believe me, you'll be a better pilot for it.
    
    Just trying to help, Kay, HONEST I am.....adios,	   Al
                                                           

re .113 EZ hinges

Just installed the last of them on the Jeep last night.  I'm not flying them
yet - but I love em.  Where I used to dread putting in the hinges these are
fun.

re .114 -< AILERON/RUDDER **SUICIDE** SWITCH!! >-

>    a snap/CRAAAAAASH!  My advice to you (everyone, for that matter)
>    is to throw away those crutches and learn to use the controls properly.
>    The day WILL come when they'll hurt rather than help you!!!

Well in the case of the Jeep - I don't plan to use the coupling till after
I have some experience on it.  The reason for this is the radio is my 
brand new JR single stick.  I figure the rudder usage will be much more 
natural here.
    
>    Yer' analogy about standard versus automatic transmissions really
>    doesn't hold water in this example as both of these devices will

>    Think of it this way; what controls do you use to "intentionally"
>    do a snap roll.  In case you've never done one, allow me to enumerate:
>    pull the nose up, then slam the rudder AND ailerons full left (or
>    right) with simultaneous full-up elevator.  Now, what controls do
>    you think you'd be holding while trying to extricate yer'self from
>    the low/slow/nose-high syndrome with coupled aileron/rudder?  Would
>    you believe lots of (or full) left (or right) aileron AND RUDDER

Nope - if I'm low slow and nose-high - then I won't be applying lots of 
(or full) up elevator.  Also I will not apply Aileron in the direction that
the wing is falling.

>    and lots of (or full) up elevator?  Sound familiar??  I REST MY
>    CASE!
    

But Al - I wasn't proposing using this for emergency recovery - tho I have
to admit that if the switch is on the switch is on.  I propose that you
won't put yourself in the emergency position if you are coupling during
landings and take off.  I'm not talking about slamming the Aileron but rather
a gentle application as you charge down the runway.  For instance - all
tail draggers want to make a left turn on take off as the tail lifts up
and you loose the effect of the rear time but haven't got the rudder up into
the prop wash fully.  At this time giving some right Aileron (with rudder
coupled) straightens everything out cause the Ailerons have no effect yet.
Seconds later as you start your lift off you usually need some right rudder
on take off to compensate for torque (and other things I don't fully understand)
and a little right Aileron (with rudder coupling) "just enough to keep the
wings level!" makes a beautiful take off.  Aileron only takeoffs get you
in trouble because they are near their cross over point of having any effect.
Rudder only get's you in trouble because that won't keep the wings level
on a plane with no dihedral.

Now as for landing - At some point the ailerons start working in reverse.
That is applying right aileron increases the drag on the left wing and
because you are going so slow rather than add lift the tip starts stalling.
Sooooooo the left wing drops and you apply full right aileron and the problem
avalanches.  Sound familiar.  That is the way all my takeoffs and landings
were before the switch - why - cause I only flew with the right stick.
Now suppose your coming in for a landing and the left wing drops slightly.
If you apply right aileron (with rudder coupling) even tho the aileron is
at or near it's ineffective stage (reverse effect stage) the plane corrects
normally and things look normal.

>    The only possible use I can see for coupled aileron/rudder is "during"
>    normal flight where the airplane "requires" coordinated aileron/rudder
>    turns and it should be switched OFF at takeoff or landing.  

Normal flight is for real airplanes where mistakes can kill you.  Once up
I'm a barnstormer and the coupling gets in my way!

>    To
>    consider the coupling switch yer' takeoff/landing switch is tantamount 
>    to making it the "SUICIDE" switch.  I strongly suggest you readjust
>    yer' thinking regarding this coupling feature "before" it bites you in

OK - given what appears to be good advice I will rethink my position.

>    the a** and costs you an airplane...better yet, STOP using the switch
>    immediately and learn to fly without these potentially dangerous

No - not immediately.  The difference between using it and not using it 
is snap rolls during landings and exiting trips down the runway on take off.
If I stop using it before my left thumb can handle it then I have to constantly
retrieve a plane that gets hung up in the tall grass beside the runway during
take off and rebuild after bad turns on landing approaches.  Sorry Al but I
have empirical proof that the Aileron/Rudder coupling gives safer takeoffs
and landings for people who only fly with the right stick.  In fact I have
one radio that doesn't have Aileron/Rudder coupling and I will probably send it
in this winter for the addition.

>    crutches!  Believe me, you'll be a better pilot for it.
    
I believe you but at this point it is just more important to accumulate more
stick time.

>    Just trying to help, Kay, HONEST I am.....adios,	   Al

I know - It's actually Futaba's fault I don't use the rudder.  If I could 
tighten the throttle up really tight so that I could wiggle the rudder
without messing up my throttle setting I would.  If I could move the throttle
to a channel other than the one on the left stick I would - the problem there 
is (1) no other channel has trim only at the low end and (2) no body else
would be able to fly the plane.

              _!_      
Bye        ----O----   
Kay R. Fisher / \     

================================================================================

    Kay,
    
    OK, I hear and understand yer' rational (tho I may not necessarily
    agree with all of it).  Bottom line, yer' the guy on the sticks
    experiencing the benefits (or vice-versa) so yer' in the position
    to best assess the results.  I couldn't agree more that the primary
    mission is to accumulate stick-time but bear in mind that habits
    (good or bad) are harder to break the longer they're practiced.
    
    As to the rudder being on the wrong (left) stick causing you prob-
    lems, I believe this too is something that will work itself out
    with time and "practice."  After all, the overwhelming majority
    of R/C fylers "do" fly mode-II and have learned to "finesse" the
    rudder or throttle without disturbing the other control. Single-
    stick may (or may not) be the solution for you as, now, you have
    "3" controls on the same stick to try to operate with no unwanted
    interaction. 
    
    There will be times (like in crosswinds) when you will need to hold
    cross-controlled aileron and rudder (e.g. left ail. and right rudder)
    to contend with the wind yet keep the flight path down the runway
    and, for this and other reasons, I still maintain the position that
    you (or any other fledgling R/Cer) must learn to think of all flight
    controls as seperate entities and use them as such as quickly as
    yer' learning curve permits.  You may not "intend" to get into a radical
    attitude while landing/taking-off with coupled ail./rudder. but
    "Murphy's" always hiding in the bushes and it "will" happen one
    day, at which time the coupling is more likely to spill ya' than
    help ya'.   
    
    Adios and Good luck with the Jeep,	   Al

	Al, I think you're giving the aileron/rudder coupling switch
a bum rap.  I highly recommend it for beginners and experienced fliers
because if used properly it has several advantages.

   1. Beginners - let's say you start with a PT-40 or something like
	that, a nice choice because you can build it with ailerons and
	have both a rudder and aileron trainer in one.  I prefer to
	start teaching people the right stick first, and with the
	coupling you can build the plane like a normal 4-channel,
	crank ailerons almost completely off and crank in full rudder
	coupling.  Result is rudder-only trainer.  When proficient
	at flying with rudder in right stick, start training the left
	hand - all you do is stop using the right hand and start using
	the left hand.  If you get into trouble just take over with
	right hand, a simple and safe way to train the left hand.  NOW
	you're ready for ailerons!  Crank in ailerons with the pot, turn
	off coupling and away you go.

   2. Scale - I'm certainly no expert but have found that I can make
	much more consistent scale-like turns with coupling than I
	can manually controlling both sticks.  I know that a lot of the
	reason for this is inexperience but I also know some scale
	experts that use it all the time.

   3. Takeoff/landing - the combination of dual-rate and coupling are
	the key here.  For takeoffs and landings, very low rate aileron
	plus coupling give right hand control of roll on ground and
	takeoff/landing.  Switch in high rate aileron and switch off coupling
	once air speed and altitude are ok.  Lets the left hand worry
	only about throttle control, which can be handy in emergencies!
	Of course special conditions such as "slipping" in crosswind
    	and such require indeoendant controls and would require coupling
	to be turned off.

I would never recommend that you shouldn't learn to fly with your left hand.
If you do you won't be able to fly many planes other than your own.  But
I disagree with the statement that coupling is nothing but a crutch.  If
used properly it can be a very handy tool, and I would not buy or recommend
a transmitter without it.

Bill

P.S. ALREADY SUFFERING FROM WITHDRAWAL AS HUNTING SEASON HAS STARTED AND
	OUR FIELD IS ON STATE LAND.  CAN'T FLY UNLESS READY TO DODGE
	BULLETS!  OUR LUNCHTIMES ARE SO BORING NOW! IS IT SUNDAY YET?
	IT'S GETTING COLD OUT TOO!  AND I DON'T WANT TO HEAR ANY MORE
    	GLOATING ABOUT THIS BEING THE BEST SEASON FOR FLYING OUT THERE!

    Bill,
    
    I'll certainly defer to yer' experience(s) with coupling/dual-rates
    but I'm just old-school enough to cling to the proposition that
    yer' only "really" a pilot at the point where you can divorce yer'self
    from the bells/whistles and "take command" of the airplane.  That's
    why I consider such "features" crutches.
    
    I'll grant some usefulness as "training aids" when these "whoopee-
    buttons" are used as you described but still subscribe to the belief
    that grief will inevitably visit itself upon the flyer who hasn't
    (or is unable to) cast aside these wazoo devices.  I've personally
    witnessed more needless crashes directly caused by these "features"
    than I care to remember.  Just recently I saw a guy snap on a high
    landing approach, then recover-snap-recover-snap all the way to
    the ground.  Turned out his elevator/rudder coupling switch had
    been on so every time he'd recover and try to pull the nose up,
    he got rudder too and immediately re-entered the snap.  I've zeroed
    out ALL rate pots and where I couldn't disable a coupling switch,
    I've gone into the Tx and defeated the "feature" by snipping the
    wires off.  I had two very close calls and d**n near lost both the
    Bucker AND the MiG due to bells/whistles being on when I didn't
    want them so I'm "sudden death" on them anymore! If I could get
    around it, I wouldn't have a radio with rates/exponentials/couplers
    on it, Thank God you can still defeat them.  Just my personal opinion
    and preference...I'm honestly glad if someone is getting some benefit
    from them but I just flat don't trust them; I want "TOTAL" control
    of the airplane, just as though I was sitting in the cockpit myself!
    
    Adios amigo,	Al
    
    P.S.  I won't mention that, after a week of unseasonal 100-degree
    days, we had temps of 80-85-degrees Sat. and Sun. on the flying
    field, winds calm at ~ 5-MPH, puffy white clouds to keep the sun
    outa' our eyes.  Nope! You asked me not to, so I won't mention anything
    about that.  Cross my heart...my lips are sealed...mum's th' word....
    ;-) :-}                                 

    Al,
    
    Since Bill Lewis was my flight instructor, (by the way he is the
    best there is) I tend to agree with him in the usefulness of the
    coupling.  I also agree with you that it can be trouble if relied
    upon in the wrong situations.  I'll bet that your friend that crashed
    had a Futaba transmitter.  They have a very bad feature on the FGK
    series radio that has two coupling functions on the same switch.
    One way is aileron-rudder coupling, the middle is no coupling, and
    the other way is rudder-elevator coupling.  We call this last mode
    the "crash mode" around here.  It is easy to get the switch in the
    wrong position when trying to turn coupling on or off.  The first
    thing I did was disable the rudder-elevator coupling by snipping
    the wire on the switch.  Now, I can use aileron-rudder coupling
    without the fear of getting the "crash" mode.  By the way, the
    Airtronics Championship radio does not have two coupling modes
    available from a switch.  You have to make a change inside the
    transmitter to get v-tail mixing if you need it.
    
    Charlie
    

	
		My club held it's annual auction last week.. There
	wasn't a lot of goodies for sale... But I managed to pick
	up a 1/4 scale Pitts S1... It's not finished, but has been
	covered and painted in Dunlop colours as flown by Brian
	Lecomber. Needs engine/radio installed, plus detailing..
	Should be fun to fly.....

		While I was hunting through books looking for info
	on the Hellcat I looked up the Mig-3, real mean looking
	machine that one...
                     

	bob

    
    RE .118 - c'mon Al, don't you wish you could just program your
    transmitter to perform your contest flights so you could sit
    back and enjoy it?  You old timers just love to make it hard on
    yourselves! (har har).
    
    Being a design engineer might be part of the reason I like to try
    new gadgets.  But I've been an engineer just long enough to
    realize that great new gadgets can come back to get you in the long
    run.  Thats why I hear you loud and clear when you say you like the
    KISS approach (Keep It Simple, Stupid!).  One of the strangest
    gadgets I've heard of so far is the "snap roll" switch, and that's
    not one I feel like trying!  And as Charlie said, the Futaba setup
    with coupling and "crash" mode on the same switch is so obviously
    dumb that I can't believe a good company like Futaba would do it.
    
    So anyhow, I hear you Al and agree to some extent, but I'll probably
    end up with a microprocessor controlled setup while you're still
    using (and just as happy) with your traditional setup.  And as long
    as we can still fly side by side - who cares?
    
    Bill

    P.S. Thanks for not mentioning anything about flying conditions
    	out there.  It really would have broken my heart.  I'll think
    	of you while raking my autumn leaves.  Snarl grrrr.

    
>    RE .118 - c'mon Al, don't you wish you could just program your
>    transmitter to perform your contest flights so you could sit
>    back and enjoy it?  
    
    * NEVER! NOT EVEN IF I LIVE TO BE 50!! :-)

>    			.........And as Charlie said, the Futaba setup
>    with coupling and "crash" mode on the same switch is so obviously
>    dumb that I can't believe a good company like Futaba would do it.

	* AMEN! I don't believe they've ever done it again on subsequent
	radio designs...maybe they learned their lesson, eh?
    
>    So anyhow, I hear you Al and agree to some extent, but I'll probably
>    end up with a microprocessor controlled setup while you're still
>    using (and just as happy) with your traditional setup.  *{And as long
>    as we can still fly side by side - who cares? }*
    
	* YOU GOT IT, BILL!  THAT'S the bottom line; I just hope the radio 
	mfgr.'s "allow" me to continue "flying me my own airplane" and don't
	"bell & whistle" me outa' the tub.

>    P.S. Thanks for not mentioning anything about flying conditions
>    	out there.  It really would have broken my heart.  I'll think
>    	of you while raking my autumn leaves.  Snarl grrrr.

	* Yer' welcome, amigo, glad to oblige!  If it makes you feel any better,
	it's overcast, threatening to rain (30% chance) today but will be sunny/
	clear with temp.'s in the mid-80's for our 1/8 Air Force Fall R/C Scale 
	Fly-In this weekend.  BTW, besides a very pretty song, whut's "autumn 
	leaves?"  :-}

	Buenos dias, amigo,	Al

    
    	Does any one have the June (or July) 1986 copy of `Scale RC Modeler'?
    If someone does, could that person please Xerox the article starting on
    page 76 about the electric version of Krick's Klemm l25d?  I have
    the kit, but I have never done electrics, have no idea how motors
    are rated, how much 1200/1400ma cells weigh, ... ("Geez, Fred, don't
    you know nothing?")
    
    	Thanks in advance!  My mail stop is NKS1-3/E3, addressed to
    Fred Zayas.

    Fred,
    
    Lemme' check, I may be able to help ya' if no one closer to you
    can.
    
    Adios,	Al

Just so happens I have some data on Gould Nicads here because I'm
designing a battery charger.  1.2 ampere hour C cells weigh 1.6
ounces. Sanyo lists their 1.2AH C size nicad at 70 grams (approx.
2.46 oz). Howzat?

There has been considerable discussion of electric motor rating
systems in both Model Aviation and RCM in recent months; I
suggest that you will find more information there than in Scale
RCM.  Also, be sure to pick up the electric flying book by Mitch
Poling, I believe, at your local hobby shop. 

Insert embarrased smile here -- be sure your flying skills are up
to par; electric powered models hit the ground with appreciable
force...

    If I may, I'd like to say something here about learning to fly.
    I myself have only been flying off and on for about one year. I
    started with a high wing trainer, 3 chanels, and flat bottomed airfoil.
    In between, I've flown for fun, a two chanel glider with an .o51
    engine. The trainer is gone now (pause for a moment of silence)
    and the equipment has been moved to a falcon 56 mkII.The one thing
    I wish I did was to start with the four chanel, rather than learn
    on three and when ready switch hands. I know I'm still a rookie
    and have'nt been in this to long but if anyone should ask me where
    to start I'll definatly suggest four chanels and maybe even a tail
    dragger, (my next stumbling block).Please correct me if I'm wrong
    on any of this, thanks
                                                              Jim
    

    
    Re: .126 - Easy to say now after you've learned the basics, but in
    reality most people have enough  of a handful learning one
    hand at a time (think back a little to your first flights).  I still
    believe the best approach is to teach the right hand first and then
    the left.  That doesn't mean you can't start with a 4-channel setup,
    as I mentioned earlier.
    	Sorry Al, I think we've gotten this note off track!  
    
    Bill
    

    Yeah, I agree Bill...looks like we've launched into an unresolveable
    debate which no one will ever win/lose owing to the fact that no
    one's really right/wrong.  We're simply dealing with personal opinion
    as to what's best.  I'm not about to change my position and, obviously,
    neither are those who don't happen to agree with me which makes
    neither of us right or wrong.
    
    One last point before we get back to talking about my favorite subject,
    scale:  I agree with yer' proposition that beginners learn one hand
    at a time but, think about it, isn't that exactly how most of us
    "do" learn (this applies to mode-II only)?  Don't we learn to stick
    the plane around using the right hand (aileron/elevator) only, except
    to steer on the ground, then try to educate the left hand to the
    benefits of rudder later?  `Nuff said; as we've agreed, this is
    a no-win discussion so we should drop it and move on to more productive
    topics.
    
    Adios,	Al

>    .......What do you think of the idea of converting my new trainer
>    to a tail dragger, and installing a 4 stroke. My reasoning (naive
>    as it is) is that I might be better off learning about the care
>    and feeding of four strokers and taildraggers on my little (relativly)
>    trainer than on the 1/5 scale Aeronca. 

* I think it's an excellent idea for both of the reasons you stated.  Flying a
taildragger is not a thing to be dreaded but is "IS" different and requires that
new techniques be learned and "practiced."  I've always recommended a simple
high or shoulder-wing plane, setup as a taildragger, as a beginner's first bird.
Learning to handle a taildragger is not a whole lot more difficult than a tri-
geared bird, particularly if the trainee has no tri-gear experience to relate
to.  My reasoning parallels that of my full-scale instructor who said "a tail-
dragger teaches you to `fly' while a tri gear teaches you to `drive.'"  The 
question was asked in topic 230 whether I drive a car with automatic transmis-
sion.  I really don't feel the question is germane to the topic of whether `tis
wiser to rate/couple or not to rate/couple, but it "does" apply here:  I can 
drive automatic "or" manual transmission equipped vehicles with equal ease be-
cause I "learned" on manual...by the same token, I fly taildraggers "and" tri-
gear (full scale and model) with equal ease because I "learned" on taildraggers.
This analogy DOES NOT apply in reverse, however,....the techniques/skills learn-
ed on (automatic) tri-gear do not prepare one to move right into (manual) tail-
draggers.

Yer' logic is quite sound, also, regarding getting yer' feet wet with 4-cycles
before moving up to the more critical scale job, the Airknocker.


>		........Which reminds me of yet another
>    question. Saito 45, OS 48 Surpass, or OS 61????????
    
* I've mentioned before that 4-cycles are not my area of expertise but I've al-
ways understood that you need to think roughly 1/3 larger displacement in terms
of replacing a 2-cycle with a 4-cycle.  Based on that rule of thumb, for a .40
2-cycle bird, I'd reckon the .48 or .61 4-cycle would be the wise choice.  My
personal approach would be to stuff all the engine (4-cycle) I could convenient-
ly fit in the nose of the Trainer-40, figgering' I can always throttle back if
needs be.  I'll gladly defer to the noters with 4-cycle experience to validate
or correct my thinking.

Just a word about the Trainer-40, nee RCM Trainer-40:  This is a simply excel-
lent bird.  I have no wish to get into a harrangueabout flat-bottom versus semi-
symmetrical airfoils on trainers; suffice to say I prefer the semi-symmetrical
because, once mastered, the airplane can be used to proceed into advanced train-
ing, right on into aerobatics...no need to shelve the trainer and build a new
ship.  Yes, I suppose I'd have to admit the semi-symmet bird will be a little
less forgiving than a flat-bottom, but any competent instructor should be able
to get his student over the critical learning stages with ease, without busting
the plane.  I've successfully trained several students on Trainer-40's and -60's
with no problems whatever.

Adios,	Al

    re .-1
    
    Sorry we've gotten off of scale, Al, but I think the analogy of
    car transmissions is germane. But I guess it's what's already
    been agreed to a couple times already, there's more than one
    valid point of view. You say you learned on a standard and now
    can drive both auto and standard with equal ease. Well, I learned
    on an auto, and then after becoming a good driver (without worrying
    about shifting) I learned to drive a standard. I can now drive
    both with equal ease.
    
    I'll have to prove my point next spring, though: I learned on tri-gear,
    but intend to build a tail dragger this winter. I believe it will
    be quite easy to learn the differences. I admit coupling is harder
    to wean because it's easy to turn it on a little (like those
    semi-automatic transmissions, you shift but no clutch?) but I've
    been trying to wean myself to use the rudder independently and
    I intend to complete that process next year (yes, I'm talking about
    winter and next year like this year's flying season is about over,
    which it is).

    I love this conference - there's so much to learn from everybody's
    varied experiences!
    
    Dave

    p.s.
    
    Most cars have the equivalent of exponential rate in the steering
    system, and most people don't even know it!

Dave,

The reason I say the auto-versus-manual transmission analogy doesn't hold up re-
garding the issue of whether a newcomer should use bells/whistles as training
aids is that we're talking of two methods of accomplishing the exact same end,
that of producing motion, forward or reverse, in only one plane.  For the analo-
gy to be germane, we'd have to introduce the "coupling" of another "control" in-
to the scenario.

For example, let's say that the latest/greatest innovation for an Indy-car was 
to provide a driver-selected control that mixed steering with the brakes, such 
that application of the brakes produced a proportional left turn in the steer-
ing, making turns more-or-less automatic.  (Yeah! a far-out concept but, maybe,
not so far-fetched as it sounds and, for purposes of discussion, quite similar
to what we do when coupling rudder to aileron.)

Now the highly experienced race driver (who already has learned the basics of
driving a race car) has a tool to, perhaps, enhance the precision of his driv-
ing skills, making it possible for him to turn in even better sppeds and lap-
times.  To suggest that a green, rookie, newcomer driver be introduced to this
sophisticated (and potentially dangerous in the hands of the inexperienced)
"special-feature" would be ludicrous...naturally, the trainee would be thorough-
ly grilled in mastering the basics "before" he'd be allowed to start experiment-
ing with this bell/whistle device.

That's ALL I'm trying to get across:  the basics "must" be mastered "before" ex-
perimenting with what the bells/whistles can do for you.  Otherwise, there are
just too many potentials for being hurt rather than helped by them, the learning
period is extended measurably and many bad habits/dependencies must be un-learn-
ed down the road.  Of the dozens of students I've had, the average time-to-solo
has been 4-to-6 weekends and NOT ONE of them has ever lost his aircraft, which,
I think, speaks well to the benefits of learning the basics FIRST.

As I've said in topic 230, this is just about the last I want to say in defense
of my position/opinion.  I feel it is a matter of common sense to start into any
new endeavor by learning the basics first. Some may never agree with me and it's
their right/priveledge to believe as they will.  Nobody's right, nobody's wrong,
just clinging to their own opinions, as am I.

Adios amigo,	Al

OK, guys, let's try to get this topic back on course...I think we've detoured 
long enough on an issue that's reached an impasse, has become a no-win situa-
tion.

In Tom's Magazine Cencus topic, Scale R/C Modeler has received some (deserved)
criticism, some from yer's truly.  The issue of cost was mentioned and I'll be
the first to admit that $3.25 for a 75-80 page magazine IS a bit much!  In de-
fense of the cost issue, however, let me say that that's the news-stand price;
the per-issue cost to a subscriber is really pretty reasonable: at $29.00 per
year, that's $2.42 per issue and it's even cheaper is you subscribe for 2-yr.'s.

DISLIKES:
=========
1. The editor, Norm Goyer (I've met him numerous times and know him quite well),
is a jerk! For all his "claimed" knowledge/activity/interest in scale R/C model-
ing, no one I know has ever seen him with a transmitter in his hands.  For me,
this disqualifies him from making some of the outlandish statements/proposals he
makes. (Just this month, for example, being appalled at museum-quality models 
being crashed in competition, Norm proposes that we static a museum-quality bird
but fly a plain-jane, look-alike "stand-in."  ABSURD!!)

2. Product/kit reviews are shallow and incomplete.  Norm's kit reviews normally
follow the outline: describe the box, open the box, describe the contents, com-
ment on "percieved" wood/hardware quality and plans (2-3 paragraphs) then spend
remainder of 2-3 page article describing the full-scale prototype.  You NEVER
hear of the kit actually being built OR FLOWN.

3. I intensely resent having the cover on my "scale R/C modeling" magazine look
like it belongs on Penthouse or Hustler. I'm no prude but, if I want cheesecake,
I'll go out and but a copy of Playboy;  LET MY MODEL MAGAZINES DEAL WITH MODEL 
AIRCRAFT!  It insults my intelligence that they (the editor/publisher) feel they
have to "seduce" me to buy their magazine with a cover full of skin.  That was
just one of the many reasons I cancelled RCM after subscribing for over 15-
years.

4. Not nearly enough "How-to" type information.  There just can't BE too much of
this!

LIKES:
======
1. For his other failings, Norm is an "excellent" photographer and NO ONE can 
accuse him of being lazy.  Norm runs his buns off at contests shooting hundreds
(maybe thousands) of pictures and gathering data.  The photos of magnificent
scale aircraft printed in SR/CM take a back-seat to no one. (Now, if we can only
get him to get the facts/captions/names right...)

2. Through Norm's energetic attemts to cover any scale activity, anywhere, the 
reader gets the opportunity to tune-in on scale all over the country and many 
foreign countries as well.  This month's issue (November) is almost exclusively 
contest reports: included are the Abingdon Ducted-fan Fly-In in the U.K.; the
British Columbia Float-Fly; the `87 AMA Nats; The Coasta Rica Fun-Fly; Byron's
Expo-`87, the New England Scale Masters Qualifier (this meet was witnessed by
several noters and reported on back in July-Aug.); The King Orange; the Trinity
River 1/5 Air Force Scale Meet (yes, they're modeled after the 1/8 Air Force)
and the Valley Forge Scale Qualifier.  This issue should be of particular in-
terest to all you eastern troops and, MARC, the Abingdon article has 2-pic's of
the Harrier's innards and plumbing...not real detailed, but better than nothing.

3. Maybe the most important LIKE of all, SR/CM, for all it's failings and short-
comings, is the ONLY all R/C Scale magazine around!  If not supported, we'll 
even lose the one "bugle" we DO have.  I keep trusting that things will get bet-
ter in time, even if it takes an editor change to happen.

If yer' interested in scale, especially to the extent of planning to build/fly
scale sometime in the future, you really "should" be reading SR/CM.

Adios fer' now,	   Al

    The one issue of scale RCM that I purchased (to see what it is like)
    was totally written by the jerk that you described.  Almost every
    article and review had the same author.  I can not believe that
    he could not get experts in scale (Like AL) to submitt quality
    material for articles.  My first and only taste of this mag was
    too sour for me to pay even the reduced subscription price.
    I will agree that the photos of the aircraft were well done.
    
    Charlie
    

    Charlie,
    
    Yer' right but what you "don't" know is that many of the other
    "authors" are "still" written by the same "jerk" under pseudonyms
    like Robert Celeste and Dick Camille.  In defense of this, I can
    only offer that Norm's working on a starvation budget from Challenge
    Pub.'s and, were it not so that he write essentially the entire
    thing, there'd be no magazine at all.
    
    Norm "does welcome input from other sources (modelers) but tells
    you up-front that he can't pay for them.  `Til this policy changes
    at the publisher level, things're not likely to change.
    
    I still think it's worthwhile reading for the scale afficianado;
    you just keep wishing things could be different/better.
    
    Adios,	Al

    
    	To .124:  Thanks, Al.  Just wanted to try something different.
    An FS40 was going into the Klemm, but I keep hearing about electrics
    and the Klemm seems like a super choice with its low weight (less
    powerplant) and huge wing area...  Wing loading makes it more of
    a sailplane than a power job.  A copy of the article would be very
    welcome!
    
    	Thanks for the NiCd masses.  Didn't know I was going to add
    1.5 to 2 lbs to the sucker with just batteries!  My biggest concern,
    I guess, will be ventilation and anchoring the cells well enough
    to prevent unexpected exits through the fuselage!
    
    	Yes, I've looked at the recent articles in RCM about wire and
    connector losses.  Good data there and easy to recheck in the lab
    here.
    
    	Maybe next year I'll have some interesting news...
    
    	Thanks all!

Al, you mentioned in a note some time back that since Ramon
Torres cracked up his T-34 he probably wouldn't be a factor in
the upcoming Scale Masters'.  What with a new plane and all.

Well, in glancing through the Nov. MA I noticed that his new twin
Beech took all the marbles.  Guess a new plane doesn't slow him
down!  Whatcha think of that?

And, while we're on it, what makes Ramon so good?  That T-34 took
home a lot of iron in its day, and yet, from the photos it
doesn't seem particularly outstanding against, for instance, that
FW-190 (or is it a ME-109) with the little hatch in front that
pops up to reveal machine guns in full detail.  The Beech didn't
seem that spectacular either,  I mean a lot of those guys fully
detail things like WWI fighters, which seems a good deal more
difficult. 

Kind of reminds me of one of the acid tests for a HiFi system,
when it doesn't sound spectacular, its very close to perfect.

>Al, you mentioned in a note some time back that since Ramon
>Torres cracked up his T-34 he probably wouldn't be a factor in
>the upcoming Scale Masters'.  What with a new plane and all.

>Well, in glancing through the Nov. MA I noticed that his new twin
>Beech took all the marbles.  Guess a new plane doesn't slow him
>down!  Whatcha think of that?

*  I think what you have to consider here is that Ramon's twin flew in the FAI
team selection competition against a small number of similar caliber models.
(His T-34J won all the marbles in the AMA Nat's, even though it was totalled in 
the third round.)  At the Masters he'll be competing against 70 or more top
scale models, "most" of which will be of equal quality to his new bird.  Add to
this levelling effect the fact that his new bird is a twin, with all the eccen-
tricities and aggravation that "can" accompany 2-engines, plus the fact that he
can't possibly be as intimate with it as with the T-34, and you have the basis
to reason that Ramon'll have a longer row to hoe this year.  If he's got all his
stuff together, however, he could well still do it.

>And, while we're on it, what makes Ramon so good?  That T-34 took
>home a lot of iron in its day, and yet, from the photos it
>doesn't seem particularly outstanding against, for instance, that
>FW-190 (or is it a ME-109) with the little hatch in front that
>pops up to reveal machine guns in full detail.  The Beech didn't
>seem that spectacular either,  I mean a lot of those guys fully
>detail things like WWI fighters, which seems a good deal more
>difficult. 

*  Ramon's T-34J was a verrry well executed model!  Sometimes lack of complexity
can work to one's advantage because what little detail exists can be replicated 
to the n-th degree.  I must confess to not being terribly impressed with Ramon,
personally.  At the 2-Masters I've flown where Ramon competed, he was just an
awful cry-baby; complained and protested everything but, of course, was all
smiles and "Mr. Cordiality" when he won last year.  My biggest objection to his
"style," however, is Ramon's conservativeness (pronounced: lack of guts) on the 
flight-line.  By using such "non"-flight scored options as brakes, nav-lights/
strobe, proto-taxi (gimme' a break), etc. Torres had 30 "gimme" points before
his wheels left the ground.  Once airborne, all he did for options (remember, he
already did 3 of `em "on the ground") was straight flight and procedure turn.
Pretty exciting stuff, huh?  Kinda' like watching a can rust!

It don't take no rocket scientist to figure out that all Ramon has to do is get
a good static score, fly smoothly and avoid crashing to win!  Well, any means to
an end, I guess...obviously, it works for Ramon.  One day, however, the flight 
rules will change to require options be performed "in the air" to qualify as 
"flight" options and/or difficulty factors will be incorporated and ol' Ramon'll
find himself out in the cold unless he changes his approach!

Incidentally, let me quickly clarify that I have no problem with operating fea-
tures like brakes, nav-lights, strobes and the like.  On the contrary, I love to
see these things done on models, *BUT* I feel strongly they have no business be-
ing scored as "flight" options...they should only apply to the flight realism
category where a max of 10-points can be earned.

Adios,	Al

It occurred to me that the last few entries in the "RAMBLINGS" topic, regarding
preparations for the U.S. Scale Masters Championships in Las Vegas this coming
weekend should, more properly, have been placed here in the scale discussion.
Rather than repeat those relpies here, I'll just refer those who may not've seen
them to topic 239 and say that the Masters report I'll submit next week will be 
placed in this topic (271).

I have to report that the retract problem I thought I'd corrected still has a 
few remaining bugs in it.  After rectifying the high-pressure air leaks in the
supply line from the tank and in the air-switch, I found I "still" could not 
maintain system pressure for more than 10-15 minutes. (Very aggravating this 
close to the "moment-of-truth!)  So, once again, I got out the hypo-syringe,
filled it with dish-soap and proceeded to start stalking leaks.  This time, I
discovered the leak in one of the plugged outlets on the air-switch.  (Since
I'm not using a trike-gear setup, the nosewheel nipples on the air-switch must
be plugged off.)  Since it was easy to do, I replaced "both" nosewheel plugs and
am currently testing the system again.  So far, the system held pressure with
gear-up over night and I'm now in the process of testing it with gear-down, 
which is more critical.  I'm hopeful this is the last of the "gremlins" as time
is becoming critical at this point.

Otherwise, everything's all set; batteries cycled and recharged, field support
equipment all squared away, etc. and things look good for a trouble-free meet.
So far, every meet the MiG-3's flown in, I've never had to do anything but fuel
up and fly...no fiddling/fussing in the pits between rounds.  The ship's been
dead-reliable and I'd like to keep it that way!  It's a lot easier to concen-
trate all yer' energies on the business of precision flight maneuvers when you 
have "nothing" to do between rounds except relax.

I'll be using the same flight-plan I've used for the past 2-years: all flight 
maneuvers, no "scored" mechanical options.  Might as well lay it out for the 
benefit of those who are unfamiliar with a scale flight maneuver schedule:

	1. (Mandatory)  Unassisted Takeoff	10-pt's
	2.      "	Horizontal Figure-8	10-pt's
	3.      "	Low Fly-past @ 10-20"	10-pt's
	4. (Optional)	1 Military slow-roll	10-pt's
	5.      "	1 2-point-roll		10-pt's
	6.      "	1 4-point-roll		10-pt's
	7. 	"	Immelman turn		10-pt's
	8.	"	Victory-roll		10-pt's
	9. (Mandatory)	Landing			10-pt's
       10.     N/A	Flight Realism		10-pt's

	Totals:
	-------
	4-mandatory and 5-optional maneuvers	100-pt's max. possible
	with flight realism being the overall
	impression of realistic flight during
	the entire schedule, including turn-
	arounds and fly-by's.

Items 4-thru-8 are the optional flight maneuvers and 2-mechanical options (re-
tracts, flaps, etc.) can be used here.  In AMA competition, 3-mechanical options
may be used.  I, personally, dislike the mechanicals as they reward the flyer 
for merely "flicking a switch" and tend to discourage "really" flying the air-
plane.  When you see a flyer using mechanicals (like Ramon Torres, f'rinstance),
you're surprised to see him back on the ground so soon, "Didn't he 'just' take-
off, Chauncey?"  To me, it just makes for a lackluster performance from a ship 
that is "obviously" capable of high-performance flight.  I've been told (and I 
agree) that I hurt myself, competitively,  by flying difficult, precise flight
maneuvers for options, "Wyoncha' use yer 2-mechanical's?  You'll get better 
scores, ya' know?"  Yeah, I know, but I just can't make myself fly a high per-
formance ship without demonstrating its capabilities.  Leave the "gimme-points"
for the aircraft types that are not of the high-performance genre (and the gold
seekers who're out, mainly, just to collect trophies).  I prefer to "do it my 
way" and take whatever comes my way as a result, knowing I did it the old fash-
ioned way, "I earned it!"  Sheeeesh!  Sorry `bout that, I didn't intend to get
up on the ol' soap-box.

Cross yer' fingers fer' th' ol' Desert Rat.  I could sure use one of them nice 
shiny new PCM radios they're awarding to the top-10 places.

Adios,	Al

	
		Good luck Al..... Win or lose have a ball

		

				bob

    Bob,
    
    Thanx, I plan to do just that!!  There's always plenty of "bennies
    `n goodies" included with a Masters invitation including a gorgeous
    "eagle" trophy and some cash just for showing up. Of course, Vegas
    is "Party-town, USA" and I have a few friends there, one of whom
    is a show musician for one of the best shows in Vegas, so it should
    be nearly continuous party the entire time we're there.  I fully
    expect to have a ball!!
    
    Adios, amigo,	Al

    Before someone catches it and questions a 10-20 "inch" low pass,
    lemme correct the error:  Item-3 of the scale flight plan in -.148
    should read "Low Fly-past @ 10-20 feet," not inches.  Thigns can
    be dicey enough in competition without propeller-height low-passes
    being mandatory.                                    
    
    Adios,	Al

    All the best Al, let's hope you bring back all the hardware! (awards
    that is!). Keep us posted.
    
    Keith.

    Al,
    Good luck, hope you get the PCM, ( you might even luck out and have
    it be a JR system.)  Most of all, have a ball.  
    
    Ken

    GOOD LUCK, AL...
    
    And thanks for laying out the "drill".  It gives us "non-scalers"
    an idea of how these scale meets work.
    
    Frank.

    Keith, Ken & Frank,
    
    Gracias, amigos...I'll give `er my best shot!!  A final note on
    the retract system:  it held pressure for 24 hours and can now be,
    once again, pronounced trustworthy.  Once in this condition, it's
    not unusual for a system to hold pressure literally for months.
    
    Adios,	Al

    A QUICK NOTE TO LEDS::ZAYAS
    
    CLAUDE MCCULLOGH, SCALE BUILDER AND DESIGNER FOR SIG IN MONTEZUMA,
    IOWA, ENTERED A SHORT SEAMEW IN SCALE AT THE NATIONALS IN THE '60s.
    HE MIGHT BE ABLE TO HELP YOU A BIT IF YOU DROPPED HIM A LINE IN
    CARE OF SIG.

    
    	Thanks!  For such a strange airplane, it sure has its followers...

Hi, Guys, I'm back,

The reason I haven't replied `til now is that I wound up taking an extra vaca-
tion day to recover from the long, grinding weekend in Vegas. I find I can party
as long and hard as ever but the recoup-time seems to be increasing by degrees 
(Hah!).  Anyhowsomever, here's the report on the `87 U.S. Scale Masters:

I have some good news and some bad news...let's start with the good news.  The
contingent from Phoenix (including the Desert Rat) all flew (in clear weather 
AND in the rain) and not one of us so much as scratched our ships.  The bad news
(for me, at least) is that it just wasn't my weekend...it sorta started out med-
iocre and deteriorated from there.  I'm not exactly sure where I finished but my
guess is somewhere around 15th-20th.

The weekend started right off with an ominous tone; we drove through driving 
rain for 3/4 of the trip to Vegas.  The rain had cleared by the time we arrived
but we had to static in gale-force winds, a nervewracking experience in itself.
I was disappointed to learn when static scores were posted after the first round
of flying the next day that I'd received 3-points less than the MiG-3's average
score with a 93.5.  This meant I was going to need some good flight scores to 
stay in the hunt as there were LOTSA' scores between mine and the top of 97.75.
It would definitely be a flying meet!

Friday morning looked good and, indeed, we had nice weather all day, calm and
clear with pretty, puffy-white clouds. My first flight was my usual "throw-away"
with a slight hook in the takeoff roll and some wandered headings due to "first
flight jitters" and failure to dial out my right-rudder takeoff trim...I was en-
couraged to receive an 86.5 score for what I considered a blown flight.  Next
round, I had a clearly superior flight; good takeoff, maneuvers right down "the
slot" and properly staged before the judges...one judge gave me a 92 but the 
other cancelled this out with a "76!"  A 16 point differential between judges is
just a little out of bounds...pulled an obviously better flight down to 2 1/2
points lower than the first "throwaway" flight with an 84.  Early indications
are that I'll need two strong 90-flights if I'm to grab a top-10 position....I
"really" need two barn-burners in rounds 3 and 4 (they only ran 4-rounds).

Saturday morning dawned(?) ominously...it was raining when we left the hotel and
weather at the field was no better.  After standing around for nearly 2-hours a
poll of the contestants was taken and we voted unanimously to go for it, "Let's
fly!"  There were come-and-go light showers and total cloud cover but no wind to
speak of.  When my turn to get on deck arrived a series of (almost) comical er-
rors commenced: first, for some inexplicable reason, I tried to fill the fuel
tank through the overflow vent, running fuel all through the engine compartment
and loading the inverted engine; then, while frantically trying to get the en-
gine cleared, the rains returned making it verrry difficult to use my starter
(wet starter-cup + wet spinner = slipping starter); then the timer for my flight
line informed me I was on the 3-minute clock to show up at the line or lose the
round so I hurried to the line, just in time, and got on the 15-minute clock to 
get my round in; wouldn't you know it, the engine was "still" loaded so I lost 
time getting started and was behind the clock again;  Once finally started, I
went to hook the Tx to my neckstrap, only to discover I didn't have it on...no
time to go get it, gotta' get going, so I hastily taxi out and firewall the
throttle.

So, I'm finally airborne but, "What's this?" "The trims are "way" out of whack!"
I had to dial in full right-aileron and full-up elevator and still had to hold
up and right stick.  I needen't tell you that it's d**n difficult to fly pre-
cisely when you're having to hold an "artificial neutral."  If all this isn't
enough, I've got rain spattered all over my glasses, am worried about water get-
ting indide the Tx and Bob Fiorenze is "all-over-me" with his F-4 Phantom.....
seems like something has upset him so he's taking it out by "beating up the 
field" with on-the-deck, mach-2 passes (Bob was warned after this flight that, 
if he came anywhere close to the runway again, except to takeoff/land, he'd be
ejected from the meet - this was his 5th and final warning for the same thing).
I've always liked ol' Bob, but he's sure inconsiderate of others trying to put 
in official rounds when he's got that jet up.  Man! It's unnerving as H*LL to 
hear that thing screaming by close-in when you've got yer' hands full of out-of-
trim airplane and can't look to see where he is.

Suffice to say, this was a clearly awful flight for me.  I DID get a terrific
landing and really enjoyed seeing the water spray and splash from the wheels but
this needed to be one of the 90+ flights I needed or I could forget placing this
year, and I, obviously, didn't get it. (Next morining I discovered what had hap-
pened to my trims as I assembled the ship; the "entire" airframe had "grown" 
from the absorbed moisture and all contron surfaces, including flaps) were 
"Whomp-jawed" out of shape something fierce...I had to re-trim everthing prior 
to assembling the ship and now, of course, I had no idea what to anticipate af-
ter takeoff, trim-wise.)

Sunday morning looked only slightly better that Saturday had been and I left the
MiG in the car `til it was determined what would happen.  Still no significant
wind so flying proceeded with the completion of round-3 from Saturday and the 
beginning of the 4th and final round.  As my turn approached, I assembled the 
MiG, discovering the problems mentioned above, and arrived in the pits 1-or-2
planes from the on-deck position.  I was really unsure whether flying again was
really a wise thing to do, considering the uncertain trims, etc., and, when the 
rain resumed, just as I began fueling the ship, I just figgered' someone was
trying to tell me something, so I scratched the 4th round.  I really wanted to 
get in one barn-burner flight, just for me and the MiG but, even if I could've
turned in a 100-pointer, I doubt it'd have done me any good, so I opted to save
the ship to fight another day.  Ironically, the weather began clearing almost as
soon as I'd decided to scratch the last round and kept improving `til, by 2:00
or so, it was nice and sunny, just like Friday had been, but too late for the 
Desert Rat...once you've scratched, that's it!

I met/re-met Charlie Nelson, Irv Searls, Jack Buckley and Steve Sherwood at the 
meet.  They're all a good bunch but they sure talk funny (Hah!)  Steve had a de-
vil of a time with takeoffs and landings on the Staggerwing all weekend and it
sure looked to me like it was tail-heavy, which fact I mentioned to Charlie who
commented they had had a horrible time from day-1 trying to dial-in the force
arrangement and balance on that bird.  Irv's Bucker was a typical Jungmeister...
flopping from wingtip-to-wingtip on takeoffs and landings (mine behaves the
same way though I think I've finally mastered the techniques to prevent this).
Charlie appeared to be doing well with the Waco-cabin `til he crashed in the 
rain Saturday.  He later discovered that all control-functions were normal, ex-
cept the rudder had run over full-left but, when he'd flex the Tx case, the rud-
der'd return to neutral and operate normally `til the flex on the Tx was relaxed
wherein the rudder'd run over hard left again...obviously a bad solder joint,
component or circuit board in the Tx.  Too bad; Charlie said it was "20%" dam-
aged but would live to fly again. Unfortunately, I don't recall seeing Buckley's
Waco fly.  Charlie tried to take a shot or two of the MiG-3 to circulate around
back there amongst y'all.

The only other crash was a gorgeous JU-87G-1 Stuka by Bob Heitkamp of Juneau, 
Alaska.  (Only two crashes from 59 scale ships in this adverse weather was, I
thought, quite remarkable.)  Bob's Stuka had the 40mm cannon pods slung under 
the wings and these were rigged with compressed-air tanks and white powder of
some sort such that, when "fired," a very visible muzzle-blast of "smoke" was
seen.  Bob crashed on the second round Saturday when his Tx battery went south.
He began missing signals immediately after takeoff and tried to get it down, 
which he succeeded in doing, but that viciously stiff Stuka landing gear bounced
the bird back into the air and, when Bob tried to make a go-around, he ran out 
of what little range remained, right at the end of the runway; the big JU-87 
rolled over on it's back, fired the cannons and dove-in from about 10 feet doing
major, but repairable, damage.

I regret to report that Ramon Torres was his usual "endearing" self throughout 
the contest.  Seemed like every time you saw him, he was jamming his finger into
the AMA rulebook which he was rudely waving under some contest-official's nose.
It looked for a time that Dennis Crooks fabulous, folding-wing TBM Avenger was
going to win, so what does Torres do?  He rudely (and quite illegally) goes down
and stands right next to Dennis while Dennis is trying to put in an official 
flight, to me, the epitome of unsportsmanlike contest etiquette!  It didn't take
a rocket scientist to figure out that Ramon was trying to intimidate/rattle Den-
nis and the officials advised him to cease this practice immediately.  I can al-
most abide a guy wanting the gold and glory so bad that he "uses" the rules to 
the max to achieve same but I just can't tolerate the use of unsportsmanlike 
tactics as well!!  End of editorial, except to say that his was, again, a very
unpopular victory among his fellow pilots.

Since I've already revealed the winner, let's go ahead and list the winners:

 1. Ramon Torres	Beech King-air
*2. Dennis Crooks	TBM Avenger (only 4/10ths of a pt. behind Torres)
 3. Bob Fiorenze	F-4 Phantom (black one seen at New England Qualifier)
 4. Bob Hanft		T-34C (Torres' kit)
*5. Shailesh Patel	P-47D (Baker's kit)
*6. Kent Walters	SBD-3 Dauntless
*7. Bob Frey		P-47D (Holman plans)
 8. Chuck Fuller	Ryan PT-22
 9. Dave Pape		Kinner Sportster (handmade 5-cyl radial 4-cycle engine)
10. Unknown: 10th was mistakenly awarded to Charlie Nelson but recalled after 
    the awards ceremony and I never heard who won it.  (Charlie and I must've
    finished very close to each other.)

* = 1/8 Air Force member

Best Military:  Charlie Chambers metal-covered P-51D "Contrary Mary"
Best Civilian:  Glen Roberts' 1/3 scale J-3 Cub
Pilots' Choice:   "     "      "    "    "   "
Sportsmanship:  Bob Heitkamp

Incidentally, radios were only awarded to the top 5-places and, of these, only
the top-3 received Futaba PCM's.

So, I was wrong; Torres was, indeed, familiar enough with the new King-air and 
all his systems worked flawlessly while Kent, who normally has totally trouble-
free meets, experienced engine and mechanical problems throughout the meet and 
felt lucky to hang onto a top-10 finish.  My buddy, Bob Frey, on the other hand,
had a very good meet, finishing a respectable 7th and proving that smaller, .60
size models are still very much competitive.

A delight at this Masters was the opportunity to meet three fellows from South
Africa; Dave Armitage, Glen Roberts and Digby Cranke.  These guys were absolute 
jewels and I enjoyed meeting them immensely.  Digby told some hilarious jokes
and stories at the Saturday night banquet and we swapped some more on the field 
all day Sunday.  Glen's J-3 was simply magnificent; it had "everything" replica-
ted from the full-scale bird right down to a girlie-magazine and a pack of cig-
arettes in the map-pocket on the back of the front seat and it was superbly 
flown to boot!  Armitage flew a pre-WW-I Blackburn Monoplane complete with wing-
warp roll axis control and Digby flew a verrry nice Tiger Moth.  I hope to run
into these "gentlemen" again someday.

But, what of Vegas, you ask?  Well, the win/lose stories flew in abundance but I
can only speak for my wife who won $300.00 on the slots, defraying (nearly) our
entire trip expenses.  Rumor had it that Frank Tiano won around $4000 but we 
were never able to confirm or deny this report..Frankie wasn't admitting/denying
anything.  BTW, Frankie had a very nice 1/5 Tony powered with an O.S. 1.08 that
flew like a homesick angel...I was very impressed with the 1.08 he and several
others were running at the meet (I have a brand new one still in the box).

Sunday night, we went to the Frontier Hotel to see the Sigfried and Roy Beyond
Belief show. The wife and I'd seen it 5-6 years ago and it was still just great!
If yer' ever in Vegas, by all means try to catch this show...if the magic/illu-
sions aren't enough to boggle yer' mind, the gorgeous animals they use are 
enough to be worth it alone.  The White Tigers and Snow Tigers are simply in-
describably beautiful!!!

So, completely spent, we departed for home (in the vile rain again), not totally
disappointed; we had, after all brought our ships through totally unscathed, but
wished we'd placed a little better in the final tally.  At that, 4 of the top-10
were from the One-Eighth Air Force and that was certainly respectable, I'm just 
a little bummed-out at the notion I failed to make the top-10 this year..it just
flat wasn't my weekend, I guess.  Oh well, wait `til next year, right?

Adios amigos,	Al

    Dan,
    
    Yer' absolutely correct about the stress/tension of the weekend
    which was much elevated by the inclement weather.  We, too, arrived
    home on the evening of the 2nd after a 7-hour drive in the rain which 
    also takes its toll on the ol' nervous system.  Yep!  The extra
    day off was more necessity than luxury.
    
    What you read about Torres was that he lost his old T-34C at the
    `87 AMA Nat's.  His new twin is indeed a gorgeous bird and deserving
    of the top-static score it received.  If only Ramon could learn
    that sportsmanship during the hunt would go a long way toward making
    him a lot more popular among his peers...I don't know, maube he
    flat doesn't care, who knows?
    
    The controversy revolved around Dave Platt (and to a lesser extent,
    Frank Tiano) who, if he had his way would turn the Masters into
    an extremely stiff and formal competition wherein only he and a
    handful of others could even qualify.  It'd be more a static
    competition than anything else and the simple fact is that the majority
    of Masters-class flyers don't happen to agree with Dave's philosophy.
    Dave and Frank were beating the drum to form an Eastern-based "Top-
    Gun" competition, similar to the Masters but with the Platt-philosophy
    heavily in attendance.  I don't feel like an eastern Masters-style
    meet is a bad thing but little support was drummed up for Platt's
    interpretation of same.  Most prevalent attitude was "let Platt
    go off and do his own thing, then he'll leave the Masters alone."
    
    Adios,	Al
    
    P.S.  My particular posture was to stay the H*LL out of it!  I just
    hate controvery, especially when it soils an activity I enjoy to
    the extent I do scale.  Besides, I happen to like Platt...I just
    don't agree with him!  Heck!  He gave me the neatest "Coors-can"
    lighter this past weekend in return for one I gave him 3-years ago
    when he and his family were house-guests at mi casa.  He may be
    coming to Phoenix for our 1/8 A.F. Fly-In next March and he's more
    than welcome to stay with me again...I just wish he'd be more realistic
    about his views/attitudes regarding what's right for scale and realize
    the tremendous influence his name carries and the responsibility
    that goes along with it.

    Re: -.123...Fred,
    
    Sorry about the delay on the Klemm 25 article in SC/RM but I've
    been rather preoccupied, what with prepping for and attending the
    Masters just past.
    
    I'm not sure I've found what you wanted but I found a kit review
    on the Klemm L 25 d in the March/April 86 issue (vol. 12, no. 2)
    of SR/CM and have Xeroxed it for you.  It's only 2-pages long and
    doesn't deal with "conversion" to electric power though it does
    show pictures of a Mabuchi motor and English gear-drive unit intended
    for installation in the review model.  This review was carried on
    pages 12 and 13 of the issue mentioned above.
    
    Is this the article you wanted or should I keep on looking??
    
    Adios,	Al

The Jeep is Done!

Brought it in to work today for show and tell.

Al - I saw the pictures you sent Dan Snow.  The MiG looked real nice
but that old Yeller Peril you keep criticizing looked great.

Now on to something else.

Are there any plans for Super Aeromaster Bipes or would I have
to get the Great Planes kit?  I kinda wanta build from plans on the
next project.  Along those same lines I was just looking an article
about a strange looking electric powered glider called a Gooney Bird
in the Oct 1979 issue of RCM&E from England.  Caught my eye cause I
reasoned that I already have an extra 540 motor that I pulled out
of my Hot Shot for a hotter replacement and I have battery packs that
are not in use.  One hitch tho - the author says that you must have
a geared reduction unit to be successful.  Do I hear a long discussion
starting?  If so maybe the first expert to comment should start a new
note - I'm only in the scale note cause the Jeep is DONE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sooooo my question is - why did he say that?  I swear the picture in the
mag shows no reduction unit.  Where can you buy a gear reduction unit
that takes a standard 540 car motor and how much do they cost?  I started
paying attention to the adds for this in the last issue of RCM but didn't
see anything that looked like it would work.  Second question is how
can I hook a prop to the shaft of a 540?  The picture in the mag shows
something that looks like an independent prop assembly (maybe from rubber
flight technology) and a set of rubber bands (elastics for you native
New Englanders) coupling the prop and motor shaft.  Since this was 1979
I assume there are better ways now?  This hole problem centers around
a more fundamental question I have always had.  Suppose you don't like
the idea of high start or wench launching a glider.  I have only seen
motor pods that take .049 size motors.  How come nobody wants a .10 or
.20 size motor mounted on top?  How come these gliders don't have .20s
in the nose?  I saw a guy at the action field that claimed (on a windy
day) that he had 9 pounds of ballast on board.  NINE!  Just so Al doesn't
yell at me - I say a full scale glider at the Orange airport that had
a little motor just aft of the pilot on a pod.  Are there any scale
model plans for such animals around.  I was just about to place an order
for an Great Planes "Super Aeromaster Bipe" when I started having second
thoughts and started thinking about plans.  The "Cargo 40" in the latest
(Dec 1987) RCM looks interesting - any comments.  What I really want to
build is a Corsair that is so light it can be a thermal glider yet win
scale contests and pattern competition and still be easy to land.
Oh yah - it would also have to carry a camera.  Beginning to sound like
I should have put this into the ramblings note.  Sorry for being so long
winded but the original point is "The Jeep is Done".  Bob Day - are you
listening?  Maybe we could get together and fly our Jeeps together some
day soon.  You are done building it aren't you?  You wouldn't push all
that good balsa wood aside to play with your over priced Woop, Woop, Woop,
Woop, Woop, Copter would you?

              _!_      
Bye        ----O----   
Kay R. Fisher / \     

================================================================================

      

Revised standings of the contest...

 1. Dennis Crooks	TBM Avenger 
 2. Bob Fiorenze	F-4 Phantom 
 3. Shailesh Patel	P-47D (Baker's kit)
 4. Kent Walters	SBD-3 Dauntless
 5. Bob Frey		P-47D (Holman plans)
 6. Al Casey		MiG 3
 7  Charlie Chambers    P-51D (metal-covered "Contrary Mary")
 8. Bob Heitkamp	JU-87G-1 Stuka

*   Chuck Fuller	Ryan PT-22
*   Dave Pape		Kinner Sportster (handmade 5-cyl radial 4-cycle engine)
*   Ramon Torres	Beech King-air
*   Bob Hanft		T-34C (Torres' kit)

* = Disqualified because the aircraft did not have GUNS!

P.S.  Al - I know what you mean about being nervous being around the F-4.
      When he was out here I watched his high speed low passes from behind
      somebodies truck.  It is a hellava scary plane.

              _!_      
Bye        ----O----   
Kay R. Fisher / \     

================================================================================

    Guys,
    
    Before too much more time elapses, it occurred to me that I should
    probably clarify the fact that I had a BLAST at the Masters despite
    the weather, some minor (behind-the-scenes) controversy/politicking
    and my failing to place as high as I might've wished.
    
    I mean, how can you "not" enjoy a meet where you have the opportunity
    to meet and greet some of the brightest luminaries in the world
    of scale, not to mention the "bennies?"  Upon registering, you received
    a complete, complimentary 10 x 12 x 2" plastic display-quality box 
    crammed full of every Pacer product made (ZAP adhesives, etc.);
    a nice Masters baseball cap; a Masters pullover (polo) shirt; a
    complimentary program with pictures and bio-profiles of all the
    Masters contestants (there were 60 this year) and a magnificent
    12" tall Masters eagle trophy for being a participant.  In addition,
    we got half price rates on our rooms in the BRAND NEW Gold Coast
    Hotel & Casino, free tickets to the Saturday night banquet and a
    really nice Masters pin to attach to our caps, trade or whatever.
    
    Really, add to that the fact that I brought my ship home totally
    unscathed and it'd be hard to describe the weekend as anything other
    that totally successful.  Now add the fact that my show-musician
    friend happens to play in the orchestra for the top-rated show in
    Vegas (the Sigfried and Roy Beyond Belief Show) and got us in as
    "invited guests" and my wife nearly paid for the trip with her slot
    machine winnings and what's not to like, right?
    
    I'd be less than honest not to admit some diappointment at not placing
    higher (I'm only human, y'know) but top-20 isn't all that shabby,
    considering the quality of competition, and there'll be other times,
    other places.  Over all, participating in the Masters is one of
    the most rewarding experiences available in R/C scale modeling and,
    win, lose or draw, it's d**n difficult not to feel like you've accom-
    plished something special just by qualifying and competing.  I had
    an absolute, unadulterated *BALL* and I highly recommend the experience
    to any and all R/C scalers.  You might be surprised to find that
    it's not as hard to do as you might think...just set a goal and
    GO FER' IT!  I guarantee it's worth the effort.
    
    Adios amigos,	Al

Kay,

> The Jeep is Done!

* Terrific! when do you think you'll make the test-hop?  Did you get the canopy
cleared up (polished-out)?  How - and does it look OK?

> Al - I saw the pictures you sent Dan Snow.  The MiG looked real nice
> but that old Yeller Peril you keep criticizing looked great.

* Gracias fer' the kind words.  The ol' Yeller Peril is definitely a "stand-way-
off-scale" bird.  Close examination'd reveal myriad scratches, scrapes, dings 
and assorted hangar-rash accumulated over 5+ years of using it for a knock-about
Sunday-flyer and practice ship but it "does" still photograph nice, I guess.  I
just might consider stripping/recovering/refinishing it now that I've finally
learned it's idiosyncracies and know how to keep it off its back (most of the 
time).  I could probably strip up tp 3-lb.'s off it easily in so doing.

> Are there any plans for Super Aeromaster Bipes or would I have
> to get the Great Planes kit?  I kinda wanta build from plans on the
> next project.  


* I don't believe plans were ever available for the Aeromaster, either the An-
drews (AAMCO) or Great Planes versions.  However, I see no reason why you 
couldn't scratch-build one from the kit plans...I'm sure they're complete 
enough to fabricate (self-kit) all the parts.  Bear in mind that many heavy 
music wire parts will need to be bent for the landing gear and cabane-strut 
structure.  Maybe Anker could loan you the plans from the Aeromaster he recent-
ly built to use or copy.

I'll have to defer to someone with knowledge/experience with electrics on yer'
questions regarding same...I claim total ignorance of them.  However, I'd sure
like to find a "wench" to launch "my" airplanes...sounds interesting (Hah!).

As to scale glider/sailplane plans, I'm sure scale plans exist for nearly any
subject you might name but, again, this is out of my particular area of exper-
tise and I'll have to defer to the sailplane crowd on this one.  I "do" know
that special interest groups like these frequently have plans services available
within their national organizations, e.g. SAM (Society of Antique Modelers for
oldtimers) and LSF (League of Silent Flight for sailplanes).  A place to start 
might well be to contact the LSF or a local chapter/member of same with your
questions.

> ..................I saw a guy at the action field that claimed (on a windy
> day) that he had 9 pounds of ballast on board.  NINE!  


* This isn't surprising.  `Til I started poking my nose into oldtimers, I always
kinda' thought penetration into wind was mostly a function of angle of attack;
ya' wanna' go forward, drop the nose, right?  Not necessarily so...there "is" 
such a thing as being "too light."  With unpowered planes (like sailplanes and
oldtimer R/C assisted free-flights after the engine's cut-off), a point is 
reached where a stiff headwind can no longer be penetrated solely by dropping 
the nose...you'd wind up "so" nose down that vertical speed far exceeds any 
negligible ground speed and the airframe would have to built "like a bridge" 
to withstand the pull-out!  That's where the ballast comes in; the extra weight
allows reasonable penetration at less severe nose-down attitudes.

> 					..........What I really want to
> build is a Corsair that is so light it can be a thermal glider yet win
> scale contests and pattern competition and still be easy to land.


* I doubt you'd like it much if you "could" get it that light.  For a scale 
fighter to handle well and fly in a nice solid "groove," some amount of bulk
is desireable, even necessary.  Otherwise, you'll get into the floaty, too
light envelope similar to that described above.


> P.S.  Al - I know what you mean about being nervous being around the F-4.
>       When he was out here I watched his high speed low passes from behind
>       somebodies truck.  It is a hellava scary plane.

It's called "there's a right and a wrong place for everything."  When Bobby flew
a demo flight after the awards ceremony, it was gorgeous to watch and not nearly
so frightening/intimidating as when yer' standing on the same flight-line with 
a Tx in yer' hands and don't dare look to see where that screaming jet is.  The
point is that Bobby needs to be more cognizant and considerate of his fellow pi-
lots during competition and save the hot-dawgin' fer' later!  Like I said, I 
like Bobby Fiorenze, he just needs to be more selective as to "when" it's the 
proper (and safer) time to let it all hang out.

Adios amigo,	Al

    
    	RE: .161
    
    	That must be it, Al.  Suprised it was that early.  I thought
    it was June/July issue.  But I'll take anything I can get.  Thanks!
    There is ABSOLUTELY NO RUSH on this thing.  Winter isn't really
    here yet in the Northeast and work has prevented me from doing just
    about everything for the last few months.  Matter of fact, I've only
    taken about 6 flights this entire year.  And one of them caused me to
    bone up on my building skills...
    
    	Reason for all this is I got this kit, see?  I figured it was
    do another scratch-built or get the Klemm built before the wood
    rots in the box.  For the Klemm, it was either put an OS FS 40 in
    it or try something new.  Electric sounds like fun (I know, I know...
    "sounds like quiet") and the Klemm seems designed for the job.

    	So... AFTER work gets a little less demanding and AFTER I finish
    me wife's plane THEN I'll take the Klemm out of the box, vacumn
    up the basement, and go to town...
    
    	Thanks for the help.

    Fred,
    
    The article is on its way...I dropped it in this afternoon's DEC
    goat-mail so you should receive it in a few days.  I'm not sure
    how much "really" useful info you'll get out of it but it "does"
    speak to prop sizes, battery sizes/capacities, etc. so it'll be
    better than nothing, I'd expect.
    
    A friend who's mainly into R/C assisted oldtimer free-flights has
    a 2-cycle powered Klemm and says its a great flying plane.  He also
    says the Klemm kit came closer to being worth every penny he paid
    for it than any kit he's ever built.  Keep us posted as to yer'
    progress.
    
    Adios amigo, glad I could help,	Al

> "The Jeep is Done".  

	You seem rather pleased that the jeep is ready to roll..


>						Bob Day - are you
>listening?  Maybe we could get together and fly our Jeeps together some
>day soon.  
              
	You never know Kay.. Stranger things have happened...



>	      You are done building it aren't you?  You wouldn't push all
>that good balsa wood aside to play with your over priced Woop, Woop, Woop,
>Woop, Woop, Copter would you?

	Er um... got to admit it's still lurking on top of the wardrobe..
	it's kinda taken a back seat to the Hellcat and Jungmann. I also
	ordered my Christmas prezzy the other day, a 1/4 scale Laser, so
	I gotta lot of building to do before the Jeep comes out. If only
	it didn't have all those wing ribs to cut...

	The Heli takes up very little of my building/repairing time....
	but a good portion of my flying time.. I tend to only go flying
	1 day a week, and I guess time is split 50-50 tween wobbly and fixed
	wings...                                                           


         I've seen prop drivers advertised in UK mags for 540 motors.. They
	are made from bar stock ali, only cost a couple of quid....

	Simple little device, a hole drilled in one end for the motor shaft,
	held on with a grubscrew. Other end is cut to the diameter of a
	10 size propshaft and threaded for a standard prop nut...

        cheers

	bob
	                                                               

    I've seen a number of book advertised on the subject on building/designing
    scale model airplanes. WOuld anyone be kind enough to scan their
    library an possibly lend me one for a couple of months (It'll take
    me that loong to read it)
    
    tx,
    
    md

>> The Jeep is Done!
>
>* Terrific! when do you think you'll make the test-hop?  Did you get the canopy
>cleared up (polished-out)?  How - and does it look OK?

Should have been the day before I finished it - set record Highs in the area.
Now it's 30 Degrees - very windy and it was snow flurries on the way to
work this morning.  Hopefully I can get an expert to take it up.  But
expert or not - it's going up real soon.  I hacked the canopy pretty bad.
If the plane is fun - I may redo it.  I spent about 1 hour of elbow grease with
tooth polish on the canopy.  There was improvement but not success.  From 10
feet it looks pretty good - I'll send you a picture sometime.

              _!_      
Bye        ----O----   
Kay R. Fisher / \     

================================================================================

I hope that you find some good books out of this note.  But I've
looked the literaure over, and really, the best stuff has been
published in the magazines.  The series that Chuck Cunningham has
been doing off and on for over 20 years still stands as the
classic.  He last published it, I believe, around the beginning
of '86.  If you can't find it I'll send you my stuff, though its
mostly from the series he published in the mid-late '70s.  Hasn't
changed much.  Chuck's only drawback is that he uses what I call
the "Good Ol' Boy" school of model design.  Make this part a
percentage of that part, and so forth, and you can't go wrong.
True, his proportions are the time honored classic ones, and if
you want to do a sport model, they're perfect.  But if you want
to break the mold, you're taking a chance to go outside his
numbers.

A better approach is in the Van Putte equations, published in MA
in the late '70s and summarized in a computer program a couple of
years ago.  I have that article.

What I've done (and its been a while, since I've decided I should
learn to fly before designing airplanes.  I have to tie my hands
to keep from it!), is combine the classic proportions of Chuck's
with cross checks from the Van Putte and other equations.  This
works fine, for what I've done, a slope soarer glider (flew
great, but I was in over my head).

One last one, was a set of proportions, nearly identical to
Chuck's that were published in RCM, I think in the late '70s.
Really, these proportions are so good, you can throw out all
Chuck's verbage and go from there.  I have these too.

The reason why I haven't just said that I'll send these to you
without your asking is that you did ask for books, so I assume
that you've seen most of the above, and are looking for more.
Contact me (anyone else who wants to play too) offline and I'll
get it into the snail mail ASAP.

    Re: -.169..., Marc,
    
    I don't have any of the materials you've inquired into but I can
    offer a good rule of thumb: if the full-scale aircraft flew well,
    so will a model...conversely, it the full-scale was a squirrel,
    the model will be too, maybe in spades.
    
    The key to designing a successful scale model is to select a prototype
    that was a good honest aircraft.  At that point, proportions, ratios,
    moments, force arrangements, etc. are more-or-less irrelevant "IF"
    you faithfully reproduce the original.  The days of increasing wing
    and/or tail surface areas or fudging moments, incidence angles and
    the like pretty much went away with the disappearance of "multi-reeds"
    radio systems and the advent of digital proportional.
    
    Some of the old-timers (like Chuck Cunningham) still cling to the out-
    moded belief that a scale model design must be "fudged" to fly correctly/
    safely but the proof is in the fact that "exact" scale models, accurate
    right down to the airfoil, fly just fine and replicate the behaviour,
    good and bad, of the prototype to a tee.  This "dated" approach
    to scale design is fine if you're looking for a "semi"-scale model
    with trainer-like characteristics but even so-called sport-scale
    models are designed with accurate outlines and, frequently, airfoils
    nowadays.  The only trick to designing a scale model today is to
    lay out the "accurate" outline in the desired size and then draw in
    the "model" structure/framework.                            
    
    All other formulae, etc. are fine for successfully designing a sport
    model but, except for what can be learned about engineering the
    model airframe, are really unnecessary for a true-to-scale model.
    
    Adios,	Al

When I replied to Mark's note I didn't notice that it was in the
scale topic, so I addressed design in general.

Al, you commented that the true scale models fly well; isn't that
a function of the size of the models nowadays?  I mean, if we
were doing something in the 1/8 to 1/10 scale range, wouldn't
some "fudging" be necessary?

    John,
    
    It's no secret (and even less mystery) that the larger the model,
    the better (and more prototypical) it flies.  That's the primary
    reason I recommend .60 size ships for trainers...the smaller the
    model, the more it tends to "flit" rather than fly.
    
    While the laws of aerodynamics apply to "anything" that flies, they
    were drawn up around what we tend to refer to as "full-scale" so
    the larger the model, the more it tends to behave like it's "big-
    brother" prototype.  It's pointless to enter into a discussion around
    "Reynolds Numbers" but suffice to say, the smaller the aircraft,
    the higher the Reynolds number which, loosely translated, means
    the higher the "effective" altitude.  What "is" important is to
    understand that the larger the model, the closer its Reynolds number
    becomes to that of the prototype, or the lower the effective altitude.
    
    Now, as to yer' question; yes, a smaller P-51 model (say) will be less
    solid/stable than a larger one and "could" benefit from some "fudging"
    in the wing/tail-surface areas.  However, you no longer have a scale
    model.  All the smaller "fun-scale" models have incorporated some
    greater or lesser amount of fudging to achieve a measure of
    friendliness but these would not/could not be competitive scale
    models.  What I guess I'm saying is that, from .60 size on up, "true"
    scale outlines/areas/moments/airfoils/force arrangements can and
    should be used and below that size, it can be difficult to achieve
    a friendly scale model without fudging...so build bigger!  
    
    I feel that 70-75" span is the ideal size and 80" is maximum though
    the 60-65" birds (like Bob Frey's P-47D) have been proven to be
    able flyers and every bit as competitive as the "biggies" but I'd
    never go smaller than that with a scale bird intended for competition.
    Jim Meister (founder of JEMCO) argued for years that the .40 size
    scale ship was the optimum but, in the end, even he saw that really
    good flying characteristics from a true scale ship could only be
    attained from .60 size and larger ships.
    
    Adios amigo,	Al
    

    ok, lets put this in context. I've got a couple a drawings for the
    ME-262. These are actual scale blueprints. I can get more detailed
    stuff from NASM. Now I want to build model from these plans.
    
    The materials and construction techniques are going to be different.
    I guess what I'm looking for is something that can guide me in 
    transfroming the proto built out of metal to a model built out of
    wood and/or carbon fiber. Does such stuff exist ? If so and you
    some of said stuff, can I borrow it or can you make a copy for me
    
    tx,
    
    md

    Marc,
    
    That could be a tall order.  You'll most likely have to borrow
    techniques from a variety of sources like from the articles John
    mentioned, kits you've built or observed, etc., etc.  Other sources
    might be the "how-to" videos available from such manufacturers as
    Satellite City (Hot-Stuff) and general information sheets from Bob
    Violett and others who distribute graphite, carbon fiber, and the
    like.  The greatest source, however, is going to be your own personal
    experience.  The project you're contemplating is definitely not
    one for a novice...it, would, indeed, give many so-called experts cause
    to stop and consider the gravity of it before proceeding.
    
    I guess what I'm trying to say is, by all means, study
    everything/anything you can find relevant to engineering/building
    from the materials available to the modeler but, in the meantime,
    you're gonna' have to get heavily involved in kits and/or established
    plans for projects similar in scope to your intended one...in short,
    start building/flying jets and learn from them in order to avoid
    the pitfalls others have already dealt with and overcome.
    
    I wish I could point you to one or two manuals that contained all
    the answers to the questions you already have and the hundreds more
    you'll surely come up with regarding the -262 project but, unfortu-
    nately, if such a thing or things exist, I've never heard of it/them.
    I'm afraid yer' simply gonna' have to dive into jets with both feet
    and learn by experience/observation of how others have handled certain
    aspects of building this very specialized type of model.  
    
    Adios amigo,	Al
                          

    Hey Al,
    I finally got to see that 'Commie' airplane of yours. Tonight I
    attended my first meeting of the St. Charles Saints. Thats the club
    I belong too so I have a place to fly as opposed to the St. Louis
    Whirley Birds which is the club I belong to in order to talk to
    other chopper nuts. Anyhow, during the new business part of the
    meeting this gent mentions how he just got back from being a spectator
    at the Scale Masters. 
    
    When the meeting adjourned I went over and had a little chat with
    him. "Yup", he says, "I saw that Mig-3. It was the only one entered".
    You mean theres more than one of those things? 8^)  He then opens
    up this book with pictures of everybody's plane in it and I finally
    got to see the Mig. Wish the picture was a little better but I'm
    impressed by what I saw. SHarp looking little devil isn't it?
    
    What came next was even better. This gent had his camcorder with
    him and has shots of the Mig in action. (Chris, we can make a deal!)
    He also got the Stuka's crash and the Phantom's low runs across
    the field. The tape is in the hands of the club secretary right
    now. After he's done with it a copy will go into the club's video
    library and little ol me can check it out next meeting.
    
    Something else I found out was that the Best Military entry hails
    from St. Louis. The P-51D "Contrary Mary" is owned by Charlie Chambers
    who is a member of the St. Louis Spirit's club. That field is maybe
    eight miles from my house so I'll have to wander over there some
    weekend and check it out.
                                                               
    Well it's getting late and I want to get some work done on my big
    scale project so cat'cha later.
    
    Dan

    Dan,
    
    Glad you got a chance to see the MiG-3, and in action yet but, Gawd,
    I hope this fellow got pieces of the "one" good flight I got at
    the Masters...I couldn't seem to buy a takeoff all weekend and the
    1st and 3rd round flights left something to be desired in the maneuver
    department.  In answer to yer' question/comment, as far as I know,
    I have the only MiG-3 flying in competition.  A fellow in california
    built one about 3-years before mine and claims to still have it
    but he doesn't compete; just uses it for sport/Sunday flying as
    it was not done very scale or very detailed.  His is the only other
    one I've ever seen (or heard of) so chances are better than excellent
    that mine would be the only one seen at a given meet...(and I like
    it that way).
    
    Adios,	Al
    
    P.S. Try to get Chris in on seeing the pic(s)/video if you can.

    Dan,
    
    I forgot to comment on yer' discovery about Charlie Chambers living
    in St. Louis.  Fact of the matter is that he "doesn't" live in St.
    Louis at all, he actually calls Coral Springs, Florida home...I
    correspond with Charlie semi-regularly and am currently painting/
    detailing a couple of pilot figures for him.  Charlie (one H*ll
    of a nice guy, incidentally) is an Airline Captain for TWA and I
    suspect he's "based" in St. Louis (therefore his membership in the
    local club) but lives in Florida.  So, you might, or might not,
    see Charlie at the local field...I'm not sure how he works his modeling
    schedule into his work situation but he invited me and several others
    to the warbird races held annualy by the Saints so he's obviously
    active in that club's activities. 
    
    Adios again,	Al

    
    	Thanks, Al.  I got the article copy TODAY.  You sure you sent
    it DEC-mail and not Federal Express?  Wow...
    
    	You were right.  The article says little ("Gee, what a nice kit
    these folk have") about what modifications they made for electric.
    They hint of a future article describing this, but I guess they
    gave up.
    
    	I'll wing it (ha!).
    
    	Enjoy.

    As a follow-up the the report(s) on the Scale Masters, these few
    lines are directed to John Chadd down in Oz...ya' listenin', John?
    
    Bud James, our Australian ("way" out-of-town) member of the One-
    Eighth Air Force, popped up, out of nowhere and was in attendance
    all weekend, spectating at the Masters.  Real GENTLEMAN, that one!
    He's so d**n quiet I accused him of being bad P.R. for Oz as the
    stereotype we get of the "typical" Aussie is the wild, hard drinking,
    loud talking, self-made he-man and Bud is just the opposite.
    
    We did get to him with a joke (ask `im to tell it to you) about
    a wealthy widow who, in fulfilling a fantasy about finding a virgin
    of her own age, spends the night with a half-wild Aussie fresh from
    a cattle-station in the outback.  I thought Bud was going to hyper-
    ventilate himself, he was laughing so hard.
    
    I believe Bud departed for home from the Masters so, chances are,
    that he's back in Villawood, NSW by now.  He mentioned something
    about an upcoming meeting of the RCAS(?) where he expected to make
    contact with you, John.  Be sure to let us know when he does and
    solicit his impressions of R/C American style to pass along to all
    the NOTERS on the net.
    
    Adios amigo,	Al

    Guys,
    
    If anyone's interested (and I'd certainly understand if you weren't)
    a B/W photo of the ol' Desert Rat and the MiG-3 appears on page
    63 of the current issue (Dec. `87) of Scale R/C Modeler as part
    of the coverage on the Western Scale Nats I attended last August
    at Mile Square Park, Fountain Valley, California.
    
    At the top of the same page is a picture of the 5-new qualifiers
    for the `87 Masters and the guy on the far left is my flyin' buddy,
    Bob Frey.  At the top-left of page 62 is a picture of Bob's (then)
    new P-47D, Earthquake McGoon.  You can't see it in any detail but
    I did the nose-art (ol' Earthquake his'self) and detailed the
    pilot for Bob (which he acknowledges in his documentation, making
    it legal). 
    
    The article mentions the 5-new Masters qualifiers but says nothing 
    about who finished where so I'll iterate on that fer' ya's: 
    
      ~* 1st: Kent Walters	Douglas SBD-3 Dauntless
      	 2nd: Mel Santmeyer	Beech Staggerwing
      ~* 3rd: Gene Barton	P51-B Mustang "Excalibur"
       * 4th: Bob Frey		P-47D T'bolt "Earthquake McGoon"
      ~* 5th: Al Casey		MiG-3  
         6th: Jim Morrow	Tiger-Moth
         7th: Jerry Kitchen	CAP-21
    	 8th: Jerry Ortego	P-47D
    
    ~ = Previously qualified
    * = One-Eighth Air Force member; we took 80% of the top-5 places
                                   
    Since Kent, Gene and I were previously qualified, the 5-Masters
    qualifying places were extended through 8th place and that's why
    the three of us weren't included in the picture of the "new" quali-
    fiers from this meet.                  
    
    BTW, if yer' wonderin' `bout the rather strange lookin' pose I've
    adopted in the pic, it's because I was hiding something (probably
    a cervesa [Coors]) from the camera.  (The meet "was" over and we
    wuz' celebratin', don'tcha' know.)
    
    This is a better than average issue of SR/CM with some interesting
    "how-to's" from a New Zealand modeler so you might want to pick
    up a copy, in spite of the pic of the Desert Rat (Hah!)...it's the
    issue with a full-scale, maroon w/black trim, F-8-F Bearcat on the
    cover.  If nothing else, you can put a face (such as it is) on the
    ol' Desert Rat and my good buddy Bob Frey.
    
    Incidentally, a photog was preparing an article on the Masters for 
    (I think) Model Airplane News and he took lotsa' shots of the faithful
    Mig-3 so it may appear in that mag's coverage when it comes out.
    I'll keep ya's posted.                 
    
    Adios,	Al
         

Misc - but I'll try to keep on the scale subject...

1.
Remember those discussions we had about picking appropriate color
schemes for sport ships to help with the orientation problem.

Well what about scale ships.  Is there a way to have a good scale
ship that can change colors?  What I mean is wouldn't it be nice if
you could build a plane with an all white paint scheme (scale) and
for practice sessions you snap on some cloth covering over the wings
and lower fuzz - say bright red on bottom with yellow wings.

Not maybe "snap it on" is not a workable solution but you get the
general idea.  Short of having an extra wing I would like to
have camelionability built into my next scale plane.

2. 
A friend just dropped in and gave me a "Ghosts" calendar.
Advertised in all our RC magazines about WW2 aircraft.
I've seen these advertised and was interested but never had seen any
in a book store where I could get a hands on look.  Wow it is very
large and great pictures - recommended.

3.
Been looking into a scratch kit(s) for winter scale project.
Kinda sticking to high large wing type of things tho I wouldn't
mind building another Jeep in the background.  The Mr. Mulligan
looks nice - but what is a Monocoupe 90A?  Is Monocoupe the brand
name like Piper?  The Spirit of St. Louis has always intrigued me.
Any input on it's flyability?  I'd like the plane to double as both
a competition (novice class) and sport plane.  Citabria is probably
along the right idea but I haven't found plans yet (tho Tom T has
some more in the mail to me) and I'd like something less common.

4. 
Now about those angle of incidence conversations.
In the latest AMA magazine they have a plan for a fun fly ship and
they say to set the angle of incidence as per the drawings.  Well
I looked high and low and couldn't find it in the drawings.  Is there
a secret way that they mark the angle of incidence in drawings like
they do with the special CG symbol?  I've never seen anything in any
of the planes I've built (all form kits so far).

5. 
I recently saw mention of mounting the aileron servo so that you could
move the servo to adjust for the differential.  I forget where I say
it.  It showed a normally mounted servo in the center of a wing with
full length ailerons.  I thought about this for quite a while and although
I'm sure you could change the differential a tad by moving the servo
for and aft I can't believe it would be enough to bother.  It may have
been the AMA magazine in the article about the fun fly plans now as
I think about it.  Any insight folks?

              _!_      
Bye        ----O----   
Kay R. Fisher / \     

================================================================================

Kay..., ref: .-1,

> 1.
> Remember those discussions we had about picking appropriate color
> schemes for sport ships to help with the orientation problem.
> Well what about scale ships.  Is there a way to have a good scale
> ship that can change colors?  

*  Nice thought...the dull, camouflage paint schemes indigenous to the WW-II
ships [fighters] I'm partial to took a long time to get used to in the air. 
The camouflage "really works" and you find yer'self flying on instinct a lot of
the time as the ship is barely visible.  I haven't the foggiest notion how you'd
go about accomplishing what you suggest but be sure to lemme' know if you come 
up with something workable/practical.

> 3.
> Been looking into a scratch kit(s) for winter scale project.
> Kinda sticking to high large wing type of things tho I wouldn't
> mind building another Jeep in the background.  The Mr. Mulligan
> looks nice - but what is a Monocoupe 90A?  Is Monocoupe the brand
> name like Piper?  The Spirit of St. Louis has always intrigued me.
> Any input on it's flyability?  

*  Monocoupe was, indeed, the manufacturer's name.  As far as I know, the 90-
series was the only plane they ever produced...looked a lot like a miniature Mr,
Mulligan.  The Spirit of St. Louis, like most [if not all] high-wing light air-
craft, makes a fine flying model.  The landing gear, integral with the wing 
struts would be challenging to build as the ground handling [with only a tail-
skid/no tailwheel] might be also.

> 4. 
> Now about those angle of incidence conversations.
> In the latest AMA magazine they have a plan for a fun fly ship and
> they say to set the angle of incidence as per the drawings.  Well
> I looked high and low and couldn't find it in the drawings.  Is there
> a secret way that they mark the angle of incidence in drawings like
> they do with the special CG symbol?  I've never seen anything in any
> of the planes I've built (all form kits so far).

*  The plane you refer to is, I believe, the Scorpion .60 featured in this
month's Model Aviation.  After reading yer' note, I went over the plans with a 
fine toothed comb and yer' right;  there are NO incidence settings shown on the
plans.  They "do" show the fuse centerline so the angle(s) could be measured or
calculated but that's the extent of it.  To the best of my knowledge based on
nearly 25 years of building/flying R/C models, there is NO special symbol simi-
lar to C/G used to indicate angle of incidence.  Normally, only the more sophis-
ticated models, e.g. scale/sailplanes/racers/pattern ships/etc., show incidence
settings on the plans.  I don't agree with it but there seems to be some unwrit-
ten convention that says sport models don't require this information.

> 5. 
> I recently saw mention of mounting the aileron servo so that you could
> move the servo to adjust for the differential.  I forget where I say
> it.  It showed a normally mounted servo in the center of a wing with
> full length ailerons.  I thought about this for quite a while and although
> I'm sure you could change the differential a tad by moving the servo
> for and aft I can't believe it would be enough to bother.  It may have
> been the AMA magazine in the article about the fun fly plans now as
> I think about it.  Any insight folks?

*  What you saw was the caption under the picture showing the Scorpion .60's
aileron servo setup.  I too question the statement that the mount allows for 
adjusting "up" differential.  I studied the plans and text and could find no 
further reference to this "magic" feature.  Moving the servo forward/aft would
NOT provide differential...this can only be accomplished by moving the control
horn pivot-point fore/aft.  Moving the servo forward "would" provide some "up"
kick in "both" ailerons, effectively creating washout, but this is "definitely
not" differential.  Consider that if, having moved the servo forward, you 
mechanically retrimmed the ailerons back to neutral...what did you accomplish?
Nothing at all, certainly "not" differential.  The only thing I can imagine is
that [perhaps] if you tilted the servo's front-edge up/down, you "might" induce
some minimal amount of differential but I doubt it'd be enough to amount to very
much.

Adios amigo,	Al

Re:

>The camouflage "really works" and you find yer'self flying on instinct a lot of
>the time as the ship is barely visible.  


  Hey Al, wouldn't it then be preferrable NOT to add a flash of color while
practicing with the airplane?  If you get use to seeing that yellow panel
or whatever on the bottom of the plane, aren't you likely to look for it
during competition flying?  I would think that this would make it very hard 
to keep track of the plane.  On the other hand, if you get use to picking 
out the outline of the plane from the background of trees and bushes, it 
will be the same when you get into competition.  You will know what your
looking for and be able to keep track of it better.

  The only time I could really see where a splash of color would be
preferable would be while your learning to fly the plane.  Once you
have mastered it's quirks I would trash the colors.

  Does this make sense?


  Jim

    Jim,
    
    Re: .-1, yer' exactly on target!  You just learn to watch/fly the
    ship in its camouflage feathers in all kinds of sky conditions.
    Yer' correct [im my opinion, at least] that using a color flash
    of some sort to aid visibility during practice with a scale ship
    could easily be more of a liability than an aid when you have to
    fly without it.
    
    The best approach for the low-experienced scale neophyte is to select
    a subject with a bright/colorful scheme for the first coupla' projects
    and work up to the dull camouflage schemes as confidence/skill
    increases. 
    Adios,	Al

    I just today remembered to flip the page of my DC Aviation (Dennis
    Crooks of folding-wing, TBM Avenger fame) R/C Scale calendar and
    what did my wondering eyes percieve?  A gorgeous in-flight shot
    of Charlie Nelson's Waco VKS-7F cabin biplane.  That got me to 
    thinking that all you R/C'ers, especially those who appreciate scale,
    are missing a bet by not having one of these calendars for yer'
    office, workshop, home or all of the above.
    
    Each month has a great, 8 1/2 x 11, full color shot of a scale R/C
    ship, frequently in flight and many of which are shot by Dennis
    at our One-Eighth Air Force Spring R/C Scale Fly-In's every March
    and at the Masters Championships.  Regrettably, I haven't yet made
    Dennis's calendar but the 1988 version has 2, count `em, 2 pics
    of my buddy, Chuck Collier's, Byron Staggerwing.  Dennis's photog-
    raphy is excellent and you'll have fun with yer' non-modeling friends
    defying them to tell you whether the planes are real or models.
    
    Calendars sell for $6.00 each and can be ordered directly from Dennis
    at:
    			DC Aviation
    			8S.603 E. Bergman Dr.
    			Big Rock, Illinois   60511
                        (312) 556-3729
    
    Try one (or two), I know you'll love the calendar and, when ordering,
    tell Dennis or his lovely wife, Linda, that Big Al (the Desert Rat)
    Casey says "Que Paso?"  I don't think they'll double the price on
    ya'. :-)
    
    Adios amigos,	Al

After pouring over Tom Tenerowicz's RMC planes all weekend I have decided
to make this winters project a Berliner-Joyce.

Soooooo
Anybody know anything about this beast?
Could somebody please send me a copy of the construction article from
the DEC-1974 issue of Radio Control Modeler?

If I get sufficiently warned that it is beyond my ability I could be
convinced not to build it.  There are a couple of things that make it
interesting.  1.  It looks neat.  2.  It was a trained and comes with
an olive drap fus, yellow wings, and a red, white, and blue vertical
stab.  3.  The wings both mount on the fuz so there are no cabane struts.
4.  There is tons of optional details.

It's hard to tell from the small picture but I think it may also be called
a P16/P8-1 if that makes any since?

Bye
Kay R. Fisher

    Kay,
    
    Can't admit to being familiar with the ship you mention.  Can you
    describe the Berliner-Joyce in more detail??  The P-16/P8-1 desig-
    nation does not sound like a training designation as "P" was the
    alpha designator for pursuit [fighter] from the late `20's-thru-
    the late `40's when it was replaced by "F", e.g. P-51/F-51.  Trainers
    were usually designated "PT" [primary trainer] except in the Navy
    whose designation system defies understanding/explanation.  
    
    Adios,	Al
    
    P.S. I can't help you with the RCM article you need as I haven't
    subscribed to the mag for nearly 20-years.  Hopefully some other
    noter can help.

>    Can't admit to being familiar with the ship you mention.  Can you
>    describe the Berliner-Joyce in more detail??  The P-16/P8-1 desig-

I'll quote the RCM paragraph.

#579		BERLINER-JOYCE		$6.75

Shades of 1932!  This .40 to .61 size Stand-Off Scale
version of a 1932 Army biplane is a must for scale
buffs and for "super detailers" who can add all the
accessories their heart's desire.  Anyone who can
handle an Aeromaster Bipe will not have any trouble
flying this one.  The results are well worth the effort
when you see those yellow sings against a cloudless
blue sky!  By Jack de Vries.
	1 sheet: 40 x 60

STAND-OFF SCALE				DEC. 1974

    I might be a little worried about them calling it a "stand off scale"
    model.  Often times you have to stand WAY off.  (ala Mark's Models
    kits).  
    
    Are you looking to build it scale (for competition)?  If so, you
    may have to make substantial changes in the plans.  
    
    Just something to consider...
    
    Cheers,
    jeff
    

re Note 271.201 by K::FISHER >
>                       -< Berliner-Joyce - info needed >-
...
>Could somebody please send me a copy of the construction article from
>the DEC-1974 issue of Radio Control Modeler?

Belay the request for the article - Just called RCM and they are mailing
me the back issue.

Still looking for any info/documentation I can find...

              _!_      
Bye        ----O----   
Kay R. Fisher / \     

================================================================================

Since there's been little activity in this topic the past coupla' weeks,
lemmesee' if I can stir things up again.

After a coupla conversations with Tom Tenerowicz this week, it dawns on me that
the term "scale" might stand a little definition/clarification.  To begin with,
if the word scale conjures up images of museum quality, exact-scale masterpieces
that most of us [including yer's truly] consider out-of-reach, yer' dead wrong.
That level of perfection is just one [very small] facet of scale aero-modeling.

If scale translated to "only" this precision level of perfection, I, like most
other modelers, would be intimidated by it and hesitant, if not reluctant, to 
venture into it.  Fortunately, scale is "not" limited to museum quality models
that are accurate to the last rivet and require so much intense effort that the
builder is afraid to fly it.

Scale, to me, is almost as much a state of mind as anything else.  By that I 
mean that the simplest model can be totally satisfying to the builder/pilot and
as deserving of the term "scale model" as the most exotic model if it pleases 
the modeler and gives him the feeling of flying something more closely resembl-
ing a full scale prototype.  Fun-scale, stand-off scale, sport-scale, Ha-ha 
scale, precision scale, Masters-class scale...these terms all have "one" thing 
in common; the planes involved "all" resemble, to a greater or lesser extent, a
full-scale ship that flew at one time or another.

It matters little the degree of scale to which a model conforms as long as the
resemblence is there and the builder feels a closer association with full scale
flight than he might with the average R/C model which was designed as nothing 
more "than" a model.  I think all of us have fantasized of flying some hot, 
sleek fighter, racer, aerobatic ship or whatever from the first time we were
introduced to R/C and realized the possibilities.  Most of us concede that the
chances of ever flying the full scale examples are P**-poor to below and we 
realize that modeling provides an opportunity to do the next best thing; fly a
model of our dream ship(s).

Unfortunately, not many modelers ever realize their fantasies.  They see the
museum/Masters-class models in the magazines or at a scale contest and are in-
timidated by the obvious blood, sweat and tears that went into them and decide 
they either don't have the skills/talents to build/fly one of these masterpieces
or, if they do, they are disinclined to put that much time/effort/$$$ into a 
model that could be dashed to confetti at the whim of an errant radio signal or
a moment's lack of concentration.

First off, allow me to submit that these "masterpieces" are "not" the modelers'
first scale models.  On the contrary, most all scale modelers started with sim-
ple, time/effort efficient models and worked up gradually to the level at which
they felt anything more would constitute diminishing returns.  Dependant on the 
individual modeler, that "cut-off, enoughs' enough" level varies all the way 
from the entry level fun-scale to the ultra-precision, world-class scale model.
The levelling factor is that the modelers at every concievable level of scale
involvement are experiencing the self-same level of returned satisfaction and 
enjoyment.

So, what's all this about?  I'm simply trying to make the point that you don't 
have to build a 13-foot B-17 with every last bell/whistle to enjoy scale.  The
"Sunday-flyer" wringing out his Mark's Models fun-scale Mustang is every bit as
much a scale modeler as a Kent Walters, Tom Cook or Ramon Torres.  He's just
enjoying a different level of involvement and this may be enough to satisfy him
throughout his modeling years.  This modeler is getting the same "Walter Mitty"
kicks out of his model as do the Masters and this feeling, in my opinion, is 
unique among the many facets of R/C aircraft modeling.

The message is this.  First, don't be ashamed of fantasizing...I guarantee you 
we "all" do it to some extant and there's no reason to be embarrased about it.
Second, we have the unique opportunity [unavailable to most other dreamers] to
realize our dream(s) in model form, so why "not" build a scale ship??  The an-
swer is, no reason at all.  Once you've got the basics of R/C flight down, that
next model might as well be a scale model.  Try a fun-scale anything and find 
out for yourself what I'm talking about.  There's a certain, special satisfac-
tion from flying a scale/scale-like ship that just doesn't come from any other
kind of model.  Third and last, you owe it to yourself to experience this spe-
cial feeling...why deprive yourself of one of lifes "attainable" pleasures?

Adios amigos,	Al

    Re: _.200,
    
    Just thought I'd mention that my new, 1988 R/C scale calendars from
    DC Aviation arrived in less than a week after ordering them by phone
    and putting them on the VISA card. In fact, after ordering them
    on Friday, Dec. 4th, the calendars arrived the following Tuesday,
    Dec. 8th...pretty good service from the Chicago area.
    
    As usual, Dennis [Crooks] has done an outstanding job on the
    photography and layout.  This calendar should be a must for all
    R/C'ers, particularly those with any interest, passive or active,
    in scale.  I encourage you to order one soon and ask Dennis or Linda
    about the plan where they'll imprint your club's name/logo on the
    calendar. Also, ask about the reduced, bulk purchase rates.  These
    would make excellent door-prizes on club meeting night or great prizes/
    awards at yer' local fun-fly's, not to mention looking great on
    yer' workshop and/or office wall(s).
     
    See note 271.200 for ordering and price information.  	Adios, Al
                                                                      
     
    P.S. Before you ask [Chris], no, I don't get any commission from
         Dennis on calendars or from Parsons on .6-oz. cloth sales. ;-)

    Attn: Tom Tenerowicz,
    
    I looked through the latest Model Aviation last night and didn't
    find anything on the 80" MiG-3 kit you saw.  Can you elaborate as
    to page number or is it possible you saw it in some other mag??
    
    Adios amigo,	Al

    
    
    Yes, it's very possibile that it was in another mag. I'll check
    some time in the next couple of days. Get back to you on it.
    It might have been Scale RC Modeler.
    
    						Tom

    TOM,
    
    Re .-1, I've looked through the last several SR/CM's and haven't
    spotted the MiG-3 ad you saw.  I know that someone(?) advertised
    a 101" span MiG for a while a year or two back but I've yet to see
    anything on one in the 80" range.  I could possibly be interested
    in one of the latter dimension if it does exist.  Lemme' know if
    you can figger' out where you spotted it.            
    
    Adios,	Al

    Dan,
    
    Hmmmmmm, possible, I guess, though Tom did specifically mention
    a wingspan of 80".  What about it, Tom??
    
    Adios,	Al

    Bob,
    
    Received [and responded to] yer' off-line mail message regarding
    the RCM&E plans service.  I just now noticed that no phone number
    is listed for the service so that'd be the first priority before
    I could consider calling in an order. Can you supply??
    
    Say, I just had a thought...if I were to supply you with my plastic's
    number and expiration date off-line, could you phone in the order
    or would that be a good idea??  BTW, Dan Parsons also accepts plastic
    on cloth orders and will send the order within a day or two of receipt.
    Maybe we could reciprocate services and I could call an order in to
    Dan for ya'.
    
    Out of curiosity, the P-51B plan sells for #13.10...what does that
    come to in Yankee dollars??
    
    Adios Cuzzin,	Al

Anyone out there have plans, or a construction article, on the
J-3 Cub?  I have the article from MAN on the J-3 with the
undercambered wing, but am suspicious of its quality.  I'd like
to borrow plans from the SIG kit, if possible.  Contact me
offline if you can help.

    If the Sig Cub interests you then you could buy a copy of the plans
    from Sig. Realize that the only things that you would get in the
    kit is ribs, diecut formers, cowl and landing gear.
    If you would like a larger ship then try "Scale Plans and Photo
    Service" (919)292-5239. They list plans for a J3 Cub Trainer and
    a PA-11 Cub Special. Spans are 106 and 85" for both.
    
    						Tom
    
    Personally, The old timer that taught me to fly always said that
    if you can buy a kit of "X" plane it isn't any cheaper to scratch
    it. Why not try a kit?? There are a few on the market.  If the
    size of the SIG J3 is what you like I would suggest the Carl Goldberg
    J3 rather than the Sig. The Sig's had a repretation of being weak
    in the cabin structure.

    Dan,
    
    The williams/wylam type drawings are definitely of highest possible
    quality.  It boils down to a question of whether they're overkill!
    
    These drawings are ULTRA detailed to the last Dzuz-fastener and,
    if one had the inclination, time and, especially, the money, a full-
    scale replica could be built from them.  The issue is that we [scale
    builders] are more concerned with accurate external shapes and have
    little use for full-scale construction details.  A simple [accurate
    3-view] is probably more beneficial that the Williams/Wylams might
    be.
    
    Adios,	Al

    Dan,
    
    Yes, I'm sure rib/former/bulkhead shapes are shown for each every
    station.  Realize these will be "scale" shapes, resulting in a scale
    airfoil section.  I'm riding the fence on this question but there
    are schools of thought that scale airfoils don't "always" produce
    the best sections for model application.  Case in point: the debate
    still rages as to whether the laminar flow airfoil in an asset or
    a detriment to models of the P-51.  Dan [Parsons] opines that, "If
    it worked on the full-scale ship, it'll work on a model."  Yet,
    he invariably uses a non-scale 23000 series airfoil on all the scale
    birds he designs.
    
    Adios,	Al

    Dan,
    
    23-thousand is a series of airfoils, Parsons' favorite, as I recall,
    is the 23015, which airfoil he's used on both his Martin-Baker MB-5
    and his DeHavilland Hornet.  These are semi-symmetrical sections
    which purport to have an excellent compromise between high and low
    speed characteristics and the performance of both of Dan's ships
    seems to validate this.
    
    Dan gets a lot more deeply involved with the aerodynamics than I
    care to and, while I'm sure there are aerodynamic engineering handbooks
    that'd provide tech. data on virtually any/all airfoil(s), I wouldn't
    have the foggiest notion where to tell someone to ontain them. 
    I'm from the old "lay it up with french-curves `til it looks about
    right" school and much prefer to use a section someone else worked
    up and found to perform satisfactorily.
    
    Adios,	Al

    Dan,
    
    I'm sure there is just such a book/handbook but I couldn't begin
    to point ya' in the right direction to obtain it.  If yer' sin-
    cerely interested in obtaining one, I'd suggest you give Parsons
    a call [@ (505) 296-2353] and pick his brain on the subject.  I'm
    sure Dan'd be more than happy to accomodate you.
    
    Adios,	Al

    Dan,
    
    Too bad I didn't know of yer dream-ship about 18-months ago.  There
    was a WW-II gathering/fly-in at Litchfield Park Airport [formerly
    the Naval Air Station which oversaw mothballing of hundreds of acres
    of obsolescent aircraft] and Planes of Fame's P-47G ["Spirit of
    Atlantic City, N.J."], P-40, F-4-F, F-6-F and others were there
    and flew.  In addition, Frank Sanders was there and put on a simply
    spectacular aerobatics demo with his Sea-Fury.  Don't know when
    I might get another opportunity to see it but, if I do, I'll be
    glad to get some pix for ya'.
    
    Adios,	Al

    Dan,
    
    Yer' right.  Sanders ship is in standard Royal Navy colors and
    insignia, i.e. pale green, black antiglare panel forward of the
    canopy and British roundels.
    
    BTW, I sent yer' Pop a flyer for our Spring 1/8 AF Scale Fly-In this
    AM.  Hope he can make it but certainly understand if he finds the
    distance prohibitive.           
    
    Adios,	Al

     Dan,

 	Look for a copy of AIR RACING UNLIMITED magazine volume 1, 1988. 
	It has a 10-12 page article on 'Dreadnought' including a couple
	of fine color pictures. The magazine is published by the same
	outfit that publishes AIR CLASSICS and you should be able to 
	find it at the news stands now.

	The lettering on the gear doors includes the names of the crew
	and suppliers of such things as the prop, etc.

	I was at the Reno Air Races a few years ago and it was very
	impressive to see a plane as large as the Sea Fury running
	as fast as the Mustangs.

     Jim

RE: NASM video disk

Gee, this update took a lot longer to come about than I expected it to. Last
time we visited this subject it was still warm out in most parts of the 
country. 

My friend Cam finally got a video disk from the NASM. He never did get the 
disk he had ordered last summer. To resolve that problem he finally ended
up telling them he wanted a copy of each of the disk and to send him what
they had in stock. The disk he ended up with has the Air Force photo collection
from the start of the collection up till 1954. The disk has approximately
50,000 frames per side so you're talking about 100,000 pictures minus the
index and title frames. The indexes are arranged so you can find the planes
by number (B17, P51), by manufacture, or country.

Started out by looking for the F82. Always heard about the beast but never 
seen one till know. Then I decided to take a look at the B.J. our friend's
working on. Went to the index for makers and found Berliner(sp) listed but
no B.J. Went to that listing and found something to warm the heart of a 
rotary wing person like me. Imagine a WW1 Biplane. Now cut the top wing off and
take the engine and rotate it by 90 degrees so its pointing up and down. 
Put a pylon with a big rotor out on each wing tip and add a small (normal)
propeller facing upward just in front of the tail. If you can imagine all that
you've got a good idea of what a Berliner(sp) helicopter looks like. The date
on the prints was 1925. They  even had a couple of shots of the beast in a 
hover. Next came a visit to the Ruskie section to see if there really was
such a thing as a Mig 3. Sorry Al, they only had two frames on the Mig and
the pictures were not all that great. I should mention that with a good
picture you have an excellent image on the screen. Just as good as having a
print in your hand and in some ways maybe even better.

From then on I sort of hopped around the disk just gawking at all the planes
I've never seen much less heard of. My two favorite planes were the C47 on 
floats and an Italian sea plane. I've seen big sailboats a lot smaller than
those floats on the C47! To describe the Italian plane takes a little work.
First, take two old trolly cars and butt them together end to end. Now add
a boat hull under that structure. To generate lift put a BIG tri-plane wing
up front, another in the back, and for good measure throw a small single
wing in the middle. I don't remember exactly where the engines mounted but
I seem to think they might have been mounted as a pusher/puller in a pod in
the middle of each of the big wings. It was quite a sight. 

If anybody has a video disk player then I'd definitly recommend this disk. It
be a great thing to goto to figure out what project to tackle next. How about
something that looks like a biger version of the P37 Air Cobra (hope thats 
the right #) but has two three bladed counter rotating props. Or maybe
the bomber that looks like somebody took a PT19 trainer, cut it in half between
the cockpits, and added in about thirty feet of fuselage tube. I'm not
sure exactly how it works but there is suppose to be a way to take a picture's
frame number and go back to NASM with it to get a hard copy of that print. If 
someone has a pet plane they're thinking about building I'd be glad to put
in a 'research' request to my friend to see what's available on the disk. I'm
sure Cam won't mind looking. He's figured out that there just isn't time for
him to look at everything on the disk so it might as well be by the hunt and
peck method.

Dan Eaton

    Dan,
    
    The NASM disk sounds great!  This is the sole occasion upon which
    I kinda' wish I had a video disk player.
    
    The Bell Airacobra was designated the P-39 but I wonder if this
    is what you meant to refer to.  Bell's larger version of the same
    design concept, e.g. V-12 engine behind the cockpit driving the
    prop via a long driveshaft running forward between the pilot's legs,
    trike landing gear, etc., was the P-63 King Cobra.  They (Bell)
    did have a large twin boom affair with [I believe] pusher props
    called an Airacuda.  And, how many of you knew that the Navy tested
    a carrier version of the P-39 with conventional (taildragger) gear
    called the Airabonita?  (I've forgotten the designation.)
    
    Adios,	Al

RE: 271.231
    
>   The Bell Airacobra was designated the P-39 but I wonder if this
>   is what you meant to refer to.  Bell's larger version of the same
>   design concept, e.g. V-12 engine behind the cockpit driving the
>   prop via a long driveshaft running forward between the pilot's legs,
>   trike landing gear, etc., was the P-63 King Cobra.  They (Bell)
>   did have a large twin boom affair with [I believe] pusher props
>   called an Airacuda.  And, how many of you knew that the Navy tested
>   a carrier version of the P-39 with conventional (taildragger) gear
>    called the Airabonita?  (I've forgotten the designation.)
    
Al, I'm sure the plane is there but this was last week when I looked
at it and all the numbers have run together on me. My friend Cam was in
the Navy during WW2. He described to me a plane that was looked like
the P-39 but was covered with 1/2 inch armor plate (probably not the entire
plane). It also had a spotlight mounted in spinner hub for the prop. Cam
said this plane was used for target practice of some type. When the plane 
was being hit the pilot would turn on the spotlight. Anyway, we found that
iron pig on the disk. Maybe it was what the navy ended up doing with the 
Airabonita?

The disk is a neat reference. We can all console ourselves though with the
thought of all the time we're saving by not having the disk. If Cam spends
an average of three seconds looking at each frame, the poor guy is going
to have to spend around 83 hours to look at the entire collection!

Dan Eaton

    Dan,
    
    Nope, the Airabonita failed carrier trials and was never adopted
    by the Navy, therefore, Bell never produced it.  The target plane
    yer' friend spoke of was a [more-or-less] production model P-39
    with armorplate added to protect pilot and vital systems.
    
    This bird, called the "Pinball Machine," was painted a bright day-
    glow orange overall and was, indeed, fired at with live ammo during
    airborne gunnery practice with hits being indicated by variously
    placed blinking lights.
    
    Adios,	Al

    Dan,
    
    The Ruskies loved the P-39s we exported to them cause it was pretty
    rugged and the 20mm cannon in the nose made it an excellent ground
    support machine...they used it particularly as a tank-buster.
    
    BTW, do you suppose the "Pinball Machine" pilots got hazardous duty
    pay??  I figger either the pay was excellent or those who volunteered
    had IQ's equal to their age [or both].  :-)
    
    Adios,	Al

>          -< A DIRTY JOB BUT SOMEBODY HAD TO DO IT, "I GUESS?"...... >-
...
>    This bird, called the "Pinball Machine," was painted a bright day-
>    glow orange overall and was, indeed, fired at with live ammo during
>    airborne gunnery practice with hits being indicated by variously
>    placed blinking lights.

My guess is - this is when the Navy inaugurated the enlisted pilot program.
Hmmmmmm - "Son - how would you like to be a pilot just like the Lieutenant
here?"  "Gee sir - do you really think I could?"  "Sure boy - our Navy is
looking for a few good targets - ahhh pilots!"  "Well call it the Bulls Eye
Squadron - they may even name a chain of drug stores after you."

P.S.  Do you suppose they still had all the little "NO STEP" labels even on
a plane that they shot at?

              _!_      
Bye        ----O----   
Kay R. Fisher / \     

================================================================================

    Kay,
    
    Oh yeah! I'm sure they retained all the little stencilled nomenclature
    as the idea was for this to be a survivable/reuseable target and,
    as such, would require service/maintenance just like any "normal"
    aircraft. (Loved yer' little scenario, incidentally.  :-) )
    
    I've seen the "Pinball Machine" modelled a few times but a thought
    just occurred that might be dynamite in competition:  Suppose you
    could round up detailed info on the location of all the "hit-indicator"
    lights and how they functioned...then, as an optional maneuver,
    you could call a "gunnery target pass" and fly by with all yer'
    lights blinkin'.  Should be an automatic ten-points every time,
    eh?
    
    Adios,	Al

    Al, Why not send this idea in a letter to Ramon?? It would probably
    be a ground manuaver so the judges could see the lights. Better
    yet it could be an interactive option. You could have one of your
    buddies try and hit the ship with a 12 guage as you flew by??
    
    						Tom

>    Al, Why not send this idea in a letter to Ramon?? It would probably
>    be a ground manuaver so the judges could see the lights. Better
>    yet it could be an interactive option. You could have one of your
>    buddies try and hit the ship with a 12 guage as you flew by??

From what we've heard of Ramon - if you asked for volunteers it would
probably look like the death scene from "Bonnie and Clyde".

    Re: .240/.241,
    
    Exact-a-vous!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    Al

You know, I was thinking about the poor pilot of that plane, and
it occurred to me that if the pilot was fully protected by armor
plating, along with some vital plane parts, that they could shoot
at him with solid rounds and not cause much damage.  By solid
rounds, I mean non-exploding shells, since most of the fatalities
came from flak (as I understand it).

Chuck Yeager, in his biography (go buy a copy if you haven't read
it) was quite enthusastic about the P-39 which he did his early
combat training in.  Apparently the plane was called the Iron Dog
because it could get into many attitudes from which there was no
recovery, the most common being a flat spin.  Of course, this and
its great maneuverability are two sides of the same coin, and a
pilot of Yeager's stature could make music with the thing.

But what a neat model -- I bet that one would be a show stopper!

    The advantage of being of ancient age is that one's mind can reach
    far back into the dim mists of antiquity and pluck forth luscious
    tidbits of devastating fact and romantic prose. Can one imagine
    how the horrors of past wars can become a sentimental time of warm
    reflections? In other words, IF YOU CAN'T REMEMBER THE FACTS, then
    advance the CONCEPT of the EXAGERATED, and "LIE". If nobody is as
    old as you, how can they contest the story.
    
    The armored, red P-39 was called the "FLYING PINBALL" and, despite
    rather lousy performance because of weight, and lousy performance
    of the "ENEMY" gunners, did serve the purpose of a flying, controllable
    target. ONLY THE BULLETS WERE CHANGED. They used a form of soft,
    frangible slug that turned into powder when it hit anything really
    hard. The P-39 skin had sensors that would cause the lights to flash
    and signal the gunners, ho, ho! There were some articles about these
    birds back in the orvile and wilbur daily gazette.
    
    By the by, AL, I have a mag at home with a Mig 3, U-Control by
    Musciano. If need be, it shows how to add two wires out of the left
    wing for non-radio failure flight.
    
    don

    Don,
    
    Thax fer' the enlightening blurb on the P-39 target planes.  As
    you suggest, we now know [probably] more than we ever wanted [needed]
    to know about this ship.  :-)  Good ta' hear from ya' again, inciden-
    tally...had just about given up on ya'.
    
    I'm afraid I'll have to graciously decline yer' offer to U-control
    the MiG-3 [though I'd be interested to see the plans/article out
    of curiosity regarding fidelity to scale].  I never was very good
    at U-kie...oh, I knew how to do all the stunts but never got real
    good at it.  I was constantly getting in trouble by doing a maneuver
    it the wrong place, relative to the wind, with the result that the
    bird would come in on the lines and I'd have to run like a madman
    trying to restore line tension  and "control."  Even the sole surviving
    relic of my U-control days, an original Bob Palmer [Veco] Thunderbird
    was crashed and broken into 3-major groups on the day I was promoted
    to S/Sgt. while in the USAF.
    
    While I broke "everything" I ever built for U-control, my luck has
    been infinitely better with R/C, having only lost a total of [maybe]
    4-airplanes in nearly 25-years.
    
    Adios,	Al

    Kevin,
    
    It's probably a little early to look for it but have ya' seen anything
    of the flyer I sent ya'?  How're things looking...plans any closer
    to a committment yet?
    
    Adios,	Al

    al, found the flyer in my mailbox today.  first thing i noticed
    was the p47 razerback with what looks like 56th fighter group markings.
    
    the info you supplied in addition is excellent.  i have an ok from
    my boss to take a week off.  sue hopefully already has done the
    same.  i'll start calling for reservations at some of the motels
    you mentioned and hopefully i will be committed (institutionalized)
    tomorrow!
    
    i am psyched.  and maybe next year i'll bring a plane.
    kevin

    stolen without permission from a book whose title i forget.
    this is only mildly related to scale but is neat info.  statistics
    often lie and you can make all sorts of arguements as to whats
    unfair about this chart.  all in all, its pretty hard to deny the
    p51 as the most potent air to air weapon.  the p38 loss rate is
    kinda alarming but maybe thats because they were used for LONG
    RANGE fighter escort for bombers in the relatively early days of
    the war...
    
    
    			AAF WWII fighters in Europe

				US AC	enem AC	enem AC	mission
		total	bomb	lost in	destroy	destroy	loss rate
	plane	sorties tonnage	combat	in air	on grd	per sortie

	p47	423,435	113,963	3,077	3,082	3,202	0.7%
	p51	213,873	  5,668	2,520	4,950	4,131	1.2%
	p38	129,849	 20,139	1,758	1,771	  749	1.4%
	p40	 67,059	 11,014	  553	  481	   40	0.8%
	p39	 30,547	    121	  107	   14	   18	0.4%
	spit	 28,981	    212	  191	  256	    3	0.7%
	a36	 23,373	  8,014	  177	   84	   17	0.8%
	beau	  6,706	    -	   63	   24	    -	0.9%
	p61	  3,637	    141	   25	   58	    -	0.7%
		------- ------- -----   -----   -----   ----
		927,460	159,272	8,471	10,720	8,160	0.9%
               

    Kevin,
    
    Fascinating stuff.  It's interesting to note that the P-51 had nearly
    double the loss-per-mission rate as the P-47, in roughly half the
    total sorties, yet destroyed considerably more enemy AC in the air
    and on the ground.  There must be a message there and I'd speculate
    it is that the P-47's extreme ruggedness came to the fore in the
    high mission count but the Mustang, while more vulnerable [as most
    liquid-cooled fighters were], was a deadlier dogfighter, it's agility
    prevailing over enemy fighters with a higher kill ratio/total kills
    than the Jug in considerably fewer total missions.  Any other opinions 
    out there?                          
    
    BTW, I'm really pleased to hear yer' 90%+ committed to a visit to
    our fly-in next month.  I know you won't be disappointed!  Keep
    me updated and lemme' know if you need anything from this end. 
    See ya' in just short of a month, I hope.
    
    Adios amigo,	Al

    Al,
    
    When is the 2nd meet you told me about, October?
    
    My wife said she might OK the trip west.
    
    Chris

    Chris,
    
    This year's October meet looks like it'll be on the weekend of the
    22nd and 23rd.  This is the smaller of our two meets but still hosts
    about 160 airplanes.
    
    Adios,	Al

    in defense of the p47 you could argue that the p47 was used in the
    relatively early days of the war, when germany still had plenty
    of good planes and, more importantly, good pilots.  also the p47
    was at first in the bomber escort business and had to deal with
    whatever trouble found it rather than pick and choose its engagements.
    also, as the mustang arrived, the p47 was pretty much demoted to
    ground attack weapon, a less glamourous but more dangerous occupation.
    most p47 aces lost were due to ground fire, not air attack.  it
    would be interesting to see the us aircraft column broken up into
    those lost to ground fire vs air attack like the enemy destroyed
    is.  also i wonder how much the mustang's "enemy aircraft destroyed
    on ground" stat was run up during last weeks of the war...

    in defense of the mustang, you could say that the "enemy killed/
    being killed" ratio is the stat that really counts, then the mustang
    is almost twice as good.

    the longer range of the mustang was maybe the p51's greatest asset.
    for the 47, it was indeed ruggedness.

    Kevin,
    
    I couldn't agree more with yer' statements regarding the beloved
    Jug.  The adversities the Jug faced in the early stages of the war
    are what I was alluding to when I cited it's ruggedness coming to
    the fore.  This makes it all the more impressive that it achieved
    a loss rate of nearly half that of the mustang though it flew nearly
    twice as many sorties and saw combat at least 18 months longer than
    did the P-51.  Both were undeniable superior fighters in their own
    right!               
    
    Adios amigo,	Al
    
    BTW, Champlin's Fighter Museum [where you'll join us at next month's
    scale fly-in banquet] is home to a pristine P-47D razorback named
    "Big Stud."  I'm not sure what outfit Big Stud originally served
    with but it's plenty colorful; lotsa' black/yellow checkerboard
    and a poker hand of plawing cards on the nose.  Yer' gonna' love
    it!  Oh, and you picked up on the Jug on our flyer being from the
    56th Fighter Group...correct, in fact it is the "Little Chief" of
    Lt. Frank Klibbe.  I mentioned elsewhere that I'd done the nose
    art on Bob Frey's model of Little Chief several years ago and that
    I'd had the opportunity/pleasure to meet Col. Klibbe at the `86
    Masters.  I can also tell you that Bob's model [with my nose art]
    now hangs in a place of honor in Col. Klibbe's den in his home in
    Denver.  Neat, huh?

    Kevin,
    
    As additional enticement [in case you needed any] to attend the
    1/8 AF Spring R/C Scale Fly-In, there's just an outside chance that
    honorary 1/8 AF member ROY ORBISON may attend.
    
    I sent flyers to both Roy and his R/C buddy and road manager, Benny
    Birchfield, but have been unable to contact Roy by phone as he's
    been out on the road touring almost continually of late.  This morning
    I called Benny in Nashville and was told by his wife, country singer
    Jeannie Shepherd, that Benny is on the road with Roy but she "thinks"
    they're both planning to be here for the fly-in.  She'll have him
    call me the minute he returns home next week to confirm.  Keep yer'
    fingers crossed!                                   
    
    Roy has attended three of our meets and the `85 Masters [held in
    Phoenix] but has missed the last two due to business committments.
    He's a delightful guy and we've missed him and hope he'll be able
    to take a breather from his reigniting music career to come and
    play with us for the weekend.  You'll really like Benny too...his
    current love is a twin O.S. .77 DF powered Tom Cook F-4 Phantom
    which I hope he brings along.
    
    As an aside to any southern states located noters, Jeannie told
    me that Roy and Benny are organizing an R/C tradeshow [a'la Toledo]
    to be held in Nashville this fall.  She reiterated Benny's frequent
    comment that model products, supplies, information, etc. are hard
    to come by in the south so this is Roy's and Benny's attempt to
    bring modeling out of the dark ages in that area.
    
    Benny's quite an accomplished pilot, which he amply demonstrated
    last April.  He and Roy were in town for a private concert [which
    I was able to attend as Roy's guest] and we took the ol' "Yeller
    Peril" out for some hole-punchin' the afternoon before the concert.
    Benny wringed the ol' Jungmeister out quite skillfully and even
    Roy took a turn on the sticks.  (See, you'll get to fly a "famous"
    junker while yer' here.)  Interestingly, not only did Benny teach
    Roy Orbison to fly R/C but he'd been contacted by Elvis Presley
    to teach him, apparently in an attempt to find an interest to help
    occupy himself and shake the drugs.  Unfortunately, he [Elvis] died
    before this could come to pass.  Fascinating, eh?
    
    Adios amigo,	Al

    Dan,
    
    I've still been unable to contact the guy who flew the Sea Furys
    way back when...seems he's literally buried with his business and 
    keeps really strange hours. 
    
    However, there's a glimmer of hope: I was out of town last weekend
    so I missed it but there was a warbird race held in the valley last
    Sat/Sun and guess who was there?  You got it!...the guy with the
    Sea Fury.  First time anyone'd seen him flying in the past dozen
    years.  More remarkably, guess what he was racing?  Right again...
    the Sea Fury!
    
    I got this info from a friend who was there and who was impressed
    enough with the Fury to ask some questions.  So, second hand though
    it is, here's the dope: the Sea Fury was built from a glass fuse and 
    foam cores obtained from [yer' gonna' like this] Bob Holman!  It's
    been a while ago but chances are excellent that the kit/semi-kit
    or whatever is still available from Bob...check that shiny new catalog
    when it arrives.
    
    Meantime, as I said before, Bob will surely be here for our R/C
    scale fly-in next month so I'll corner him and ask for ya'...howzzat??
    (See whatta' peach of a guy I am?...willing to help ya' out despite
    the continuous stream of flack I get from ya'.  ;8^}  )
    
    As memory serves, this ship spanned in the neighborhood of 70" and
    flew just great on a .60.  Remember, that was as much as 15-years
    ago and today's engines are much stronger so that combo should produce
    a great flying/performing warbird.
    
    BTW, before you ask, I don't know where the Sea Fury finished in
    the races...sorry.
    
    Adios amigo,	Al

    Dan,
    
    Yes, I was referring to "model" warbird races.  The "model" Sea
    Fury in attendance was the same one this same modeler flew in scale
    _AND_ pattern some 15 or so years ago.
    
    Honestly, I'd be surprised if you found the trainer version.  More
    likely you'll have to start with the single-seater and modify to
    suit.
    
    I'm fuzzy on whether I'd ever heard of the Sea Fury killing a MiG
    or not but I don't doubt it.  The first MiG killed by a U.S. fighter
    was shot down by [would you believe] an F-82 twin-Mustang and the
    first MiG shot down by a U.S. Navy fighter was the victim of a Corsair.
    
    BTW, were you aware that over 75% of the ground support missions
    flown in Korea and a large percentage of the bomb-tonnage dropped
    were by Corsairs?
    
    Adios amigo,	Al

    Kevin,
    
    Received a call from Diego Lopez over the weekend and Dee said that
    he doubted Bert Baker would make it to our sprinf fly-in this year.
    In a recent phone conversation with Bert, Dee asked him about it
    and Bert replied that he had so many orders for his new P-38 that
    he's simply "under-water" trying to keep up and doubted he could
    afford the time to come to Phoenix.  [Too bad, you'd like "Big Bert,"
    he stands 7' tall but is a real teddy bear.]
    
    On the brighter side, it sounds like there's a good chance Shailesh
    Patel will be here with his Baker Jug done up as "Little Chief."
    Diego said Shailesh was "thinking about it" and, with Shailesh [who
    lives and breathes flying], that usually translates to mean he'll
    be here.  Brian O'Meara will be here for sure with his Baker -47
    so there'll be at least one [quite probably more] to look over and
    witness its magnificent flight characteristics.  Oh, just remembered
    Bob Olson; Bob usually comes every spring and he has a very nice
    Baker Jug too.
    
    Are you all set?  Gotcher' reservations made, etc.?  What motel
    will you be in and do you know yet what time you'll arrive in Phoenix?
    
    I mentioned to Bob Frey and several others that you were coming
    and they were all real pleased to hear it...expect some red-carpet
    treatment [Arizona style] while yer' here.  Hope you don't mind
    being an _active_ spectator `cause we'll putcha' to work as a pit
    lizard/helper/spotter if you'd like.  That way you'll be part of
    the action and in a position to see things closer-up and talk to
    whomever you please in the pits instead of hanging on the spectator
    ropes drooling.  Also, if you'd like, we could give you some small
    work assignment to satisfy the criteria of having helped put on
    a 1/8 AF function should you have some desire to apply for out-of-town
    membership after seeing what we're all about.  Just say the word.
    
    Adios,	Al

    hi al,
    so far we have reservations at the hilton pavillion on 1011 holmes
    street, mesa, az for march 17-21.  yup, we will be arriving thurs
    night late at least by eastern time.  will be pooped i'm sure. 
    i will show up at the field sometime friday, fri-sat-sun will be
    dedicated to checking out the scale action.  can't wait!
    sorry to hear bert won't be there.  i've talked to him on the
    phone enough times so he might've even recognized my name/voice.
    i've seen shaliesh's and omeara's jugs in srcm.  would love to talk
    to them and watch them fly.
    yes, i'm ready and willing to help.  let me earn my spot in the
    pits (which will be a thrill, bigtime).  i'll do almost anything,
    park cars, sell hotdogs, you name it.  also sue and i will also be
    glad to donate any pictures (still and vhs) we take.
    
    kevin

    Re: .-1, Kevin,
    
    Glad ta' hear we can expect to see ya' for the entire weekend...
    I assume we can look for ya' first thing Friday AM, right?  I should
    arrive around 9:00 to get the motorhome parked and assist with field
    setup, where necessary.  That goes rather quickly and the entire
    remainder of the day is devoted to informal meetin', greetin' and
    flyin'.  That'll be our chance to see if you and the Yeller Peril
    can get along [it's pretty friendly in the air but a maneater on
    the ground, especially hard surface].
    
    We'll find ya' something more interesting to do than park cars or
    stuff hotdog buns...that's all taken care of by the host club anyway
    for a 50% split of the net.  You might take a shift as a flightline
    coordinator, flightline safety person or even take a turn on the mike for
    awhile.  Whatever we find, it'll be to enhance yer' access to the
    meet and we'll fix you and Sue up with pit-passes.  Many wives attend
    so Sue should make lotsa' new acquaintances.  Kathi [mi espousa]
    will be glad to take Sue under-wing and introduce her around.  Kathi
    handles banquet ticket sales Saturday so Sue might get involved
    also in an area where she can meet lotsa' good folks.  BTW, Kathi
    won't arrive at the field `til about 5-or6 PM Friday as she chose
    not to take Friday off from work.
    
    I'm not familiar with the hotel or the street it's on so I can't
    help too much with directions from there to the field.  The key
    point is Main/Apache and Bush Hwy.  From there, just head north
    on Bush and follow the map I sentcha'.
    
    A copy of the VHS you make would be appreciated but is certainly
    not mandatory.  Just come and enjoy!
    
    Adios amigo,	Al
    
    P.S. When asked [which is frequent], Bert gives his height as 6'
    13".  :8^)  He's a big one, even I have to look up to him and I'm
    6' 4"!!

    yes, staying in style.  sue made all the arrangments and claimed
    she got a good deal with triple a.
    
    yes, i'll come out and find ya friday morning, probably soon after
    9.
    
    you're kidding about the mike, right?  sue's still laughing about
    that one!
    
    kevin

    Kevin,
    
    Kidding?  Not on yer' life!  If I can do it, anyone can...all you
    do is provide a little color commentary on the flying [for the
    spectators' benefit], call pilots when their turn comes and announce
    drawing winners [free merchandise drawing for registered pilots].
    Besides, you have the best seat in the house for watching the flying
    and have a radio headset connecting you to the flight line safety
    people who are working traffic control...real interesting; sounds
    like listening to the tower at any busy airport.  You'd enjoy it
    and a little Colorado Kool-Aid will help you over any mike-fright.
     ;8^}                                     
    
    Adios,	Al

>    As additional enticement [in case you needed any] to attend the
>    1/8 AF Spring R/C Scale Fly-In, there's just an outside chance that
>    honorary 1/8 AF member ROY ORBISON may attend.

OK - I can't stand it any longer.  I called and made reservations last night
for the airline and got motel reservations this morning.

Count me in!

Al - most important - be sure to get reservations for the four of us
(Kevin and Sue and Pat and I) for the Banquet at the Fighter Museum.

I'll try not to have a Boston accent but do I have to go flying without
a parka and hot tea?

              _!_      
Bye        ----O----   
Kay R. Fisher / \     

================================================================================

    Kay,
    
    What can I say bedides T E R R I F I C !!  No sweat on the banquet
    tickets...as mi esposa is selling them, there'll be no problem setting
    yer's aside.
    
    As to uniform of the day, unless the weatherman doublecrosses us,
    a T-shirt and Bermuda shorts will be _much_ more appropriate than
    the parka and Colorado Kool-Aid will supplant the hot tea. Evenings
    still get pretty cool though, so bring along medium-weight jackets,
    sweaters or whatever.  That should be all you'll need; daytimes
    should be in the 80's.
    
    Be sure to call me when you get in Thursday PM.  The number is
    863-1456.  Write it down `cause I'm not in the phone book but
    information will give you the number...ask for Allen L. Casey at
    13148 N. 21st Ave, Phoenix.
    
    Can't hardly wait to meet you guys.  Oh, BTW, I have yet to make
    contact with Roy Orbison or his buddy, Benny Birchfield.....they'd
    been touring in the northeast, then went on to Denver and I'm not
    sure _where_ they are just now.  Benny's wife said she _thought_
    they were planning to come but she wasn't sure...I'll keep trying.
    Roy's doing a concert here on April 8th so maybe our meet'll fit
    into his _BUSY_ concert schedule.
    
    Adios, see ya's next week,	Al

    Dan,
    
    As I replied to yer' offline query, Bob Holman will almost certainly
    be here for the scale fly-in this weekend...if he missed, it'd be
    the first time in ages.
    
    As I said, I can ask about the catalog for ya' but it occurs to
    me that we can possibly shortcut the system.  If they don't mind,
    either Kevin or Kay could very likely hand-carry the catalog back
    for you.  Bob normally has plenty of catalogs with him as well as
    a trunk full of glass fuselages and other accessories so K&K'll
    probably want to get some literature for themselves and could get
    yer's at the same time.  Sound like a plan?
    
    Adios amigo,	Al

    Re: .-1, Dan,
    
    Since no one's replied to yer' question, I'll take a S.W.A.G. at
    it.  I strongly suspect the only difference in the kits is the label
    itself, probably the result of using different printers and/or poor
    proof-reading.
    
    Regarding the increase in recommended engine size, I'd guess that
    someone decided [wisely, in my opinion] that suggesting a 58+" scale
    model will fly on a .35 approaches false advertising.  Indeed, unless
    a builder _really_ pays attention to weight [which means _no_ detail,
    retracts, etc.], even a .40 is gonna' be marginal.  H*ll's Bells,
    a full size Ugly-Stik only spans 62", is built much lighter and
    _needs_ a .60.  I think Royal's just being realistic by suggesting
    that a .40 is minimal and something bigger, up to a .60, will be
    more desireable.                                               

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    Bob Wischer's R/C column in the latest Model Aviation has some good
    info for us scale afficianados on cockpit detailing.  While many
    of the techniques described are pretty exotic, to the point of being
    a little much for most of us [myself included], there're still a lot
    of good ideas in the column.                                        
    
    I mean, talk about far out;  Bob talks about someone's model of
    a Volksplane which, apparently, has the control system(s) built in
    just like the real bird.  Servos for primary flight controls are
    mounted _IN_ the dummy pilot such that "he" actually operates the
    controls, e.g. to get rudder, the Tx stick is moved, the servo _IN_
    the pilot moves the pilot's legs in the appropriate direction, which 
    moves the rudder pedals, finally producing the desired control
    movement.  The same applies to the elevator and ailerons, maybe
    even throttle.  What this means is yer' actually only radio controlling
    the [robot] pilot who, in turn, flies the plane...[cut me some
    slack!].   Better strap him in _good_ and be careful during rolls,
    loops, etc.  ;8^}                                     
    
    There are some good hints and kinks in the article, in any event.
    I always read _all_ the scale columns in M.A.; R/C, Giant, U-control
    and even free-flight/peanut...you can pick up some good ideas from
    any/all of them.

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    Hey, that's a great idea.  Putting all of the radio stuff into the
    pilot body means that you can swap your radio into any of N aircraft
    as fast as you can unstrap the pilot and slap the dummy into another
    ship.
    
    And when things get too hairy (midair collision, control surface torn
    loose, unrecoverable flat spin) the pilot can "bail out" (eject, for
    those high-performance ducted fan types) and at least the radio is out
    of harm's way. 
                   
    How many contest points do you get for a successful punch-out in
    scale flight mechanicals/realism?  :-O
                                             
    
    This is _worse_ than using that 3HP compressor to simulate carrier
    catapult launch operations!
    
    Next thing you know, someone will be playing "Danger Zone" on their
    boom-box when they take off their scale F-14's.

    
    	A couple of weeks ago I broke down and sent in for a set of
    plans for a Fly Baby. It's a low winger home built. Ed Bower
    designed it and build the full scale bird in the early sixty's.
    Since getting back into modeling in 1981 I've had a passion for
    this bird. So having the OS90/4 and knowing of these plans for a
    .60/2 powered bird I hade to go for it. Also this months SCRC had
    something to do with it. The spec's for the Fly Baby is a wing span
    of 72 inches, fuse length of 47.5 inches and anything fron 6 - 12
    lbs. I won't be using the construction techniques that are on the
    plan. It was originally a free flight that was redrawn for RC. As
    the real bird had a sheet side I'll be using construction techniques
    that have a sheet side.  I got the plane wednesday night. Since
    then I've ordered the wood and a cowl.
    
    
    						Tom 

    Here's one for Al,
    
    I'm trying to locate planes for Soviet WWII aircraft particularly
    fighters for either scale or stand-off scale RC.  What I've found
    so far is limited:
    
    	Carstens Plans - MiG-3 and Yak-9 both standoff scale
    
    	American Modeler - Back in the 60's (Am I that old!)
    		Lavochkin La-7, Ivan Kozhedub's plane, but I
    		can't find a source for the plan
    
    I'm particularly interested in the La-7 and also the Il'yushin Il-2
    "Shturmovik".  Can anyone help me put together a list?
    
    Scott Cox
    TOWNS::COX
    DTN 341-2527

    SCOTT,
    
    I wasn't aware of the Carstens Plan for the MiG-3.  What's the vintage
    and how "stand-off" is it?  Or have you seen the plan personally??
    
    The MiG-3 plans that mine is based upon are still available through
    Hobby Horn (who bought out the Hal Osborne Plan Svc. who originally
    offered them).  The Osborne/Hobby Horn plans are close to but not
    exact scale.  I did extensive modification (mostly cosmetic) to
    get mine closer to true scale.                          
    
    You might want to try to contact Bob Underwood (I don't know his
    address but you could get it through AMA as Bob is chairman (or
    some such) of the scale committee.  Bob flew a Sturmovick(sp?) quite
    sucessfully a few years back and more recently has had success with
    some sort of twin-engine Ruskie bomber, the name of which escapes
    me.  At any rate, Bob may be a resource for you regarding WW-II
    Russian aircraft.

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    I'm building a flying scale model of the P-47D Thunderbolt
    but the plans do not come with a 3-view of the original
    plane.  Do you have a side, top, and front view of the
    beast?  It would help me in detailing and eventually I
    will need the 3-view to enter competition.
    
    Thanks,
    Glenn

    glen, i'm using 3-views from the "p47 in action" book.  tower i
    think now sells much of the "in action" series from i think
    squadron publications.
    kevin

    Re: last-2, Glenn,
    
    Kevin beat me to it but 3-views and other (documentation) is a thing
    the scale builder must get out and dig up for himself.  As Kevin
    mentions, the "In Action" series by Squadron Signal Pub.s is a good
    source as are many other similar magazine-type books.  I'd advise
    you to check the aviation section of local book stores and order
    catalogs from the mail-order aviation book services like Zenith
    Aviation Books, P.O. Box 1, Osceola, WI, 54020. 1-800-826-6600.
    Other similar publishing houses advertise regularly in the major
    modeling magazines.  (I've never collected any material on the P-47
    so I have nothing I could copy and send to you...sorry.)
    
    From these (and other) sources, order whatever you see on the subject
    aircraft that appears to contain the type material you seek.  By
    the time you've finished a scale model, you'll have accumulated
    a veritable reference library on that particular aircraft from which
    to select the drawings/photos needed to document the model.
    
    There's no easy way (I know of) to obtain documentation material
    other than to pursue the line I mentioned above.  There are a few
    outfits like Scale Model Research, 2334 Ticonderoga Way, Costa Mesa,
    CA, 92626, (714) 979-8058 that offer photo-packs on a variety of air-
    craft and these can also be useful.  Again, these services advertise 
    regularly in the major model mag.'s.
    
      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    Al,
                                                                      
    Thanks for the great tip!  About that Carsten's MiG-3, I quote:
    
    "CF-715 MiG-3.  A Stand off scale version of the famous Russian WWII
    fighter features a span of 62 inches and is designed to accept .60
    size engines and four channel RC systems.  By Dan Reiss.  FM 1-86."
    
    I haven't seen the plan.
    
    Scott

    Scott,
    
    Hmmmm, the blurb on the plan seems to indicate the plan comes from
    the January '86 issue of Flying Models magazine...must've missed it.
    It sounds a little small though; mine is 72" at a scale of 1:5.65,
    right between 1/5 and 1/6 scale.    

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

I recently received a letter from my friend and fellow 1/8 Air Force member, Bud
James, from Villawood, New South Wales, Australia.  Bud gave the letter to our 
own John Chadd who forwarded it to me. 

Contained in the letter are Bud's impressions of scale activity in the southwest
U.S., gained as a result of visiting our 1/8 AF Fall Scale Fly-in and the U.S.
Scale Masters Championships last October ('87).  Hoping that a typical Aussie's
impressions of U.S. scale modeling will be of general interest, I'm excerpting
pertinent parts of Bud's letter below.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

G'day Al (The Desert Rat),

Received your letter courtesy of John Chadd, and will now give you my impres-
sions of the October 1/8th Fun Fly and Las Vegas Scale Masters.

To begin, I Bud James holds the Altitude Record for Arizona State flying Jim
Pinchon's Hellcat, 11,426 ft 3 1/4", also Horizontal Distance from Takeoff 
Point, 4 miles and 33 ft flying Tony Arand's MB-5.  (G'day Tony)

{Verrry tongue-in-cheek description of his flying during the 1/8 meet.  Al}

Now for the serious stuff.  First the models, and the flying of, would be diffi-
cult to beat.  To name just a few, Frank Noll with his Extra-230 and Christen 
Eagle was the most precise aerobatic flying (scale) this modeler has had the 
pleasure of witnessing.  The formation flying (3 MB-5's), me mate Dan Parsons,
Tony Arand (Smacked Ass) and Lewie Kear all very impressive stuff.  The lunch 
break Peoples' Choice lineup quite definitely the largest display, most models
I ever saw in one place, at one time and I have the pic's to prove it.  A great
3 days and worth flying 9000 miles for.  And I'll be back!

{In a letter to the 1/8 AF a few weeks ago, Bud expressed his intention to at-
 tend our Fall, '89 Scale Fly-In so I think he's serious.  Al}

The people; too many to name here but people I'd be proud to call _mate_.

The Masters being a scale _contest_ is of a more serious nature but the models
absolutely magnificent and, for the most part, expertly flown.

To name just a few, Dennis Crooks with the wing folding TBF would be hard to 
beat.  The big, black F-4 of Bob Fiorenze and the Canadians also very impres-
sive.  Also the J-3 from S. Africa.  Chuck Fuller always comes up with a magnif-
icent model.  

And all the other contestants at the Masters, a real dedicated mob (Aussie ex-
pression for a lot) of people.

To answer your question, no I don't fly competitively at this point but that is 
about to change.  Will forward pic's as soon as film is finished and developed.

Will finish here with best regards to all 1/8th members,

Bud James,

The Kangaroo Konnection

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I thought you might enjoy knowing that a modeler from half-way around the world
is pretty much the same critter as we know here at home.  Fact is, modelers I've
met from all parts of the globe are cut from pretty much the same cloth and are,
as a lot, a very decent sort of people.

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    Well, the motorhome's all loaded and stocked with "refreshments"
    and ready to roll.  Bob Frey, Kent walter and I are going down to
    Tucson together, hoping to "Whup up on the Philadelphians" big-time.
    (Any Brother Dave Gardner fans out there?)  I'll be leaving early,
    shortly after lunch so we can get on the road for the 3-hour drive
    before the rush-hour traffic.
    
    Mi esposa has opted to stay home and play couch-potato, preferring
    that to a hot weekend on the flying field.  That means the boys
    are on their own and can play as hard as they desire...should be
    a blast.  It's been a long time since Bob, Kent and I went to a
    contest, just the three of us.
    
    Wish us luck and. particularly, no crashes as we go into combat.
    I'll fill you in on the contest and results next Tuesday. 

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

OK guys - I need your help.  I have a Hot Canary that I bought at auction.
I would like to throw together some documentation quick.  I have a basement
full of planes but none scale.  It's my own fault I know - I totaled
the Jeep and have been giving the Aeromaster priority over the Berliner-Joyce.

Never the less there are some scale things coming up soon (5-Jun-1988
Hadley, Ma.  Scale fly in).  I'm not after good documentation at this
point - just something.  So if you can dig deep down and remember any
place that you saw a picture or article about the Hot Canary please do.

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
================================================================================

    Thanx fer' the well-wishes, Charlie 'n Dan.  They must've helped
    as I had a most satisfying contest in Colorado Springs. 
    
    We hit the road at 5:15AM, drove the 460 miles and arrived at Dan
    Parson's house in Albuquerque at 1:50PM.  After loading up Dan's
    stuff, stretching our legs and tire kickin' a little, we were off
    on the second leg of the trip at 3:15PM.  Stopping only for gas
    when required (and supper in Las Vegas, New Mexico), we arrived
    at the RV-park in Monument, Colorado at 12:20AM.  Total time was
    just over 19-hours but backing out a coupla' hours for the layover
    in Albuquerque and lunch/gas stops, total driving time was a little
    less than 17-hours.  (Note: all times are Arizona time.)
    
    We bedded down for the night and were up bright 'n early Friday
    AM for breakfast, then off to the field for a reconnoiter.  We stopped
    at a phone booth along the way and gave John Tavares a call at work
    to let him know we'd arrived and firm up plans for the BBQ at his
    house that evening.                                
    
    Arriving at the field, we were impressed with the scenic beauty
    of the site; a 75 x 2500 foot auxilliary strip sitting out in the
    middle of nothing more than gorgeous scenery with the Rockies and
    majestic Pike's Peak in the backround.  Several early arrivals were
    already test-flying and we were immediately met and welcomed by
    Ivan Munnighoff, one of the co-CD's.  Dan had his Martin-Baker MB-5
    out and limbered up in a trice, firing up and making 3-or-4 flights
    through the afternoon.  After a time, Bob said that looked like
    too much fun so he got out his P-47 and put in a flight also.  Ob-
    sevring that the altitude (7000') seemed to have little detrimental 
    effect on either of these birds, I elected to leave the MiG-3 packed 
    away clean and ready for static judging the next morning. 
    
    We left the field about 4:30PM, returned to the RV park where we
    set up the motorhome, cleaned up and waited for John Tavares, who'd
    generously offered to come pick us up in his new Aerostar van, thus
    saving us to have to uproot things to make the trip to his house.
    John arrived on schedule and shortly we were at his place enjoying
    Colorado Cool-Aid and watching Dan Eaton pretend to be BBQing chicken
    on the backyard grill.  A fine meal was enjoyed and we watched Kevin's
    1/8 AF tape as well as the '86 Masters tape, kicked tires and checked
    out John's workshop 'til, before we knew it, it was time to pack
    it in and prepare for the contest Saturday.  Our sincere thanks
    to John, his wonderful mom-in-law, Muriel, and Dan Eaton for showing
    us their warm hospitality and providing a great BBQ'd meal...it
    was just great and we enjoyed ourselves to the hilt!
    
    Saturday AM we arrived at the field at 7:00Am, parked and set up
    the motorhome, then assembled the airplanes and prepared them for
    static judging.  The static judges did fine job processing 40+
    airplanes in a very reasonable length of time.  My only suggestion
    here would've been that early arrivals could've been judged on Friday 
    and/or an area other than the runway could've been used for static whereby
    flying could've started earlier on Saturday.  I was to learn later
    that I'd tied for top static score with a 92.5 so I certainly can't
    complain, however.  (BTW, Bob Frey got an 89.25 for his Jug so I
    was a 12-pack ahead on some off-track betting Bob and I had going.)
    
    I had what turned out to be my high flight for the meet on the first
    round (a first for me) and also had high overall first round flight
    score. (Rack up another 12-pack from Bob.)  The altitude was definitely
    "feelable" but not adversely so.  I determined that about 5-degrees
    of takeoff flap angle would shorten the takeoff run a bit and used
    it on all subsequent flights.
    
    By round two, the wind had kicked up considerably but I got an
    excellent takeoff and subsequent flight up 'til time to land.  I
    did my usual [unscored] tactical approach (pitchout) for realism
    and centered the bubble right down the white centerline on final
    approach.  Things were proceeding solid as a rock until, just 5'
    off the ground, I caught the edge of a small thermal which suddenly
    drifted the MiG to the left and slammed it to the deck.  Bouncing
    back 4' into the air, the MiG hung precariously on the edge of
    destruction and I had to react instantly;  easing in full power,
    I held the nose down and ruddered my way out of trouble...application
    of aileron would've surely been a death sentence for the nearly
    stalled ship!  Circling around, I painted the MiG neatly on the
    centerline, but all for naught; I'd already gotten a zero for landing
    on that round.  
    
    Round three was, to _my_ mind, my best flight of the meet but the
    judges only paid me an 82 for it. By now, Bob had found his rythym
    and we were dead-tied for first (average of 2-best flights added
    to static).
    
    Saturday night's banquet was nothing fancy, just a very nice dinner
    catered by the folks at the Air Foce Academy's golf club.  It was
    very informal, just the way I like it, and I won a $75.00 gift
    certificate to Doug's Hobby Shop (mail-order house in Maryland) so
    I came away a very happy camper.
    
    Sunday AM we were greeted by a heavy ground layer of mist/overcast
    and the ever-present winds, plus a rather cool air-temp.  My first
    flight, I had a quartering crosswind to contend with but thought nothing
    of it 'til my takeoff run, during which I pulled power 3-times,
    squared things up and reapplied power only to have it hook left
    on me again.  Having already blown any takeoff points, I just yanked
    it into the air, retracted the gear and cussed to myself at what
    had happened.  The rest of the flight was the best I'd flown that
    weekend, but to no avail with a zero for takeoff.  (Later, I found
    that the cooler temperature had affected the nyrods and changed
    my rudder trim drastically, causing the heading problem I'd experienced
    on takeoff...please take my advice; DO _NOT_ use nyrods unless you
    like the idea of bungee pushrods.)
    
    By now, Bob had stacked up a substantial lead in flight score and
    (I was to find out) I only had one flight to make up the difference.
    My next flight (5th-round) was as good as Id flown all weekend but
    I got no pay from the judges...my first and third-round flights
    would stand as my two highest and they weren't enough to catch Bob;
    he wound up beating me by somewhere around 1-point, give-or-take.
    
    Bob and I had [surprisingly] dominated, however as the 3rd place
    Piper Pawnee of Ron Compton was nearly 6-points back of me.  Brian
    O'Mears's P-47 was 4th, even though he was unable to complete all
    5-rounds.  I forget who was 5th and 6th, but Dan Parsons (who couldn't
    have cared less) placed 7th and qualified for the Masters since
    Bob and I had already qualified and dropped the masters places to
    3rd-thru-7th.
    
    All during the meet, a team was doing zero-distance judging for
    a magnificent craftsmanship trophy, a chain-saw sculptured eagle
    hewn from a single piece of solid ash...simply gorgeous.  I didn't
    give myself much chance for this as there were some extremely nice
    birds there.  I came closer than I thought, however, placing 2nd
    [again] to a gorgeously done Byron Pitts Special by Olen Trenary
    which, unfortunately, was lost to pilot-error during the contest
    (1-too many outside spins...too low to recover - ouch!!)
    
    There were, perhaps, more crashes than there should've been (probably
    10 or more out of 40-some odd entries) but most that I witnessed
    were clear-cut cases of pilot-error, though the pilots claimed radio
    problems.  At least three underpowered ships couldn't negotiate
    the downwind turn in the 20mph+ wind and the pilot clearly didn't
    know what the rudder was for, aileron stalling one way, then the
    other all the way to the ground...damned pity!
    
    In critique, I have only two observations for the meet, as a
    whole...not complaints, mind you, just observations: 
    
    1. The judging-teams were constantly being stirred up, i.e. every
    contestant did _not_ have equal exposure to the "SAME" judge-sets. 
    For example, I _never_ got to fly for the same judges that awarded 
    Bob his 89 flight score since, after round one, this exact judge
    team no longer existed.  This can be a very important factor in 
    the outcome and accompanying fairness of a contest.
    
    2. An even number of rounds should _always_ be flown, again, to
    ensure equal exposure to all judge-sets for all contestants.
    
    Aside from these two minor wrinkles, the contest was very well
    organized and run.  People were very accomodating and made us feel
    right at home, for which we're very grateful...it really _does_
    mean something, especially when yer' on someone else's turf for
    the first time.  We're already considering going back next year.

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    
    Hey Al, we heard about the 12-packs you won from Bob, but since
    he beat ya (overall) isn't there a final tally you should relate
    to us?  Seriously though, congratulations!
    
    Bill

    Bill,
    
    Hey, yer' right; I never continued the sub-plot of the off-track
    betting we had going on the meet.
    
    We'd bet on high static, best first round flight, best overall flight
    and final placement in the meet.  I won the first two and Bob won
    the last two so we finished in a dead heat.  BUT, Dan Parsons took
    a piece of the action for highest overall flight and lost to both
    of us so we both netted a 12-pack from him.  
    
    At meets end on Sunday, we cleaned/packed up and were back to the
    RV park early to BBQ steaks ang hamburgers.  We'd invited Brian
    O'Meara to join us on the spur of the moment and Brian stopped and
    bought a case of Colorado Cool-Aid as his "offering to the victors,"
    as he put it, so we had plenty of "ignorant-oil" to go around.
    
    As an aside, My wife's sister visited us at the field Sunday and,
    jokingly, suggested we drive up to their place in Littleton to "avoid
    the tornadoes."  We gratefully declined as that would've meant going
    60 miles in the opposite direction to our route home and camped
    at the RV park in Monument, unloading the planes and equipment onto
    a picnic table, sheltered somewhat by the motorhome's awning.
    
    The night was dead-calm, as was the morning for the first 20-30
    minutes.  Then, all of a sudden, a brutal, gusty west wind picked
    up and we had to hustle to get things packed back safely inside
    the motorhome.  (The winds persisted all the way back to Albuquerque,
    by the way.)  All packed up, we drove to a Village-Inn restaurant
    for a sit-down breakfast and, on the way in, Dan spots a headline
    on the Denver Post newspaper, "Tornado Hits RV Park North of Denver"
    accompanied by a half-page picture of savagely wrecked RV's.  Phew!!
    Talk aboutcher' deja-vu!
    
    To John Tavares:  In case I haven't done an adequate job already,
    Thanx a million again for your help in making this trip come off
    so successfully.  The ground-work you did scouting campgrounds,
    the maps you provided, your hospitality at the Friday night BBQ
    and the transportation you provided to same all combined to make
    the trip work like a well-oiled Swiss watch.  We really appreciate
    all yer' efforts on our behalf and hope to have the opportunity
    to repay the favor someday.    

      |                                         
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

>    5-rounds.  I forget who was 5th and 6th, but Dan Parsons (who couldn't
>    have cared less) placed 7th and qualified for the Masters since
>    Bob and I had already qualified and dropped the masters places to
>    3rd-thru-7th.

I know Dan is a flyer first and everything else comes second.  Is that
why you say he couldn't have cared less.  I really liked his MB5 and am
personally glad it qualified.  Love the paint scheme.
    
>    (1-too many outside spins...too low to recover - ouch!!)

What exactly is an OUTside spin?

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
================================================================================

    Re: .294, Kay,
    
    You remember correctly that Dan would rather fly than eat, everything
    else, including placement in a contest, being secondary.  Also,
    Dan is carrying on a personal crusade against the Masters, feeling
    it's not what it should be in that too much (in his opinion) emphasis
    is placed on static.
    
    An outside spin is essentially the same as a normal spin except
    that the plane is spinning inverted rather than right-side-up. 
    It is entered from an outside snap-roll rather than an inside one.
    From a shallow climb, imagine suddenly/nearly simultaneously cramming
    both sticks forward , either to the near or opposite corners such
    that you have full down elevator, full right aileron and full left
    rudder (or vice-versa).  The plane pitches tail-over-nose into an
    outside (inverted) snap-roll and, if controls are held, continues
    in an outside (inverted) spin.  Careful if you try this one; if
    the putside spin goes flat, yer' gonna' have yer' hands full recovering!    

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

Thanks for your good review, Al.  I can tell you one thing: since
the contest I've gotten an appreciation of what it takes to
compete at that level.

Been gone for the month, but ASAP I'll enter something on the
Reno Fun-Fly.  Need to catch up on the notes.

    Well, I'll be gone from tomorrow through next Monday for the Western
    Scale Nats in Riverside, California so I won'tbe back in the notes_file
    'til next Tuesday.
    
    Bob Frey, Chuck Collier and I will be leaving before daybreak tomorrow
    AM on the 7-hour drive over.  Somehow, I'm not really _up_ for this
    meet like I have been for the previous two Masters Qualifiers I've
    attended this year.  Can't really say why as the California meet
    has, traditionally, been one of my very favorite get-togethers.  I
    think part of the reason is that the meet's been moved from Mile
    Square Park to the Riverside which will be _much_ warmer and, most
    likely, windier.  Quite frankly, I've had more than enough windy
    contest conditions this year; enough to last me quite awhile.
    
    Oh well, our primary objective on this trip is to get Chuck qualified
    just in case we should decide to compete in the Masters this fall
    so there's no particular pressure on Bob and I outside of flying
    well and bringing the ships home unscathed.  Bare minimum, it'll
    be fun, as always, to see and fly with Diego Lopez, Gene Barton,
    Denny DeWeese, Bert Baker and the whole California crew.
    
    I'll enter a full report upon my return to work next Tuesday.

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al                     
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    Good luck, Al.  Hope you get in some good flights and have no mishaps!
    We're looking forward to your report next week.
    
    CHarlie
    

    Thanx, Charlie,
    
    Yer' well-wishes helped to the extent that this was the best contest
    I've flown in the last 4; I had 3 [out of 4] dynamite flights, any
    one of which "should" have been worth 90+ points.  However, I just
    flat could not _buy_ a score...I got 90.5 for my last flight but
    only 83 and 83.75 for the other two which were on a par with the
    last one.  Therefore, I *officially* finished 7th but they had the
    scores//tabulation so screwed up they had to fall back and recalculate
    twice _AFTER_ starting the awards presentation.  I'm almost positive
    I _actually_ finished about 4th but I threw up my hands in frustration
    at the fiasco and let it go.  After all, I had nothing to gain/lose
    as I'd already qualified for the Masters twice and 7th was good
    enough to qualify again if I'd needed to.  So, technically, I've
    qualified three times this year and, likely, still won't go to the
    Masters.                            
    
    Also, uppermost on our priority list was to get Chuck Collier qualified,
    which he did with an 8th place finish so our mission was accomplished
    as we came, flew, had a ball, took our ships home in one piece and
    got Chuck qualified to boot.  's hard to ask fer' more than that,
    right?
    
    Other finishers you may recognize are: Shailesh Patel (P-47) 1st;
    Gene Barton (P-51C) 2nd; Bob Frey (P-47) 3rd; Mel Santmeyer
    (Staggerwing) 9th; Diego Lopez (Hellcat) 11th.
    
    The flying and the camaraderie was the best in recent memory but,
    overall, this was _not_ a very pleasant meet.  It was so oppressively
    hot and humid Saturday, without a whisper of a breeze, that I was
    just about ready to chuck it in, pack up and go home where I could
    get out of the heat.  Fortunately, Sunday was a little cooler with
    a morning overcast keeping things cooler 'til the afternoon breeze
    picked up.  And the dust!!!!!!  The dust was fine/powdery like talcum
    and it stuck to EVERYTHING!  The poor ol' motorhome is _really_
    a mess and will require a regular G.I. party to get it clean again. 
    The only redeeming factor was that it cooled down real nice at night;
    temperatures in the low-60's made for perfect sleeping in the motorhome.
    
    I usually hate to see these meets end but, in this case, I felt
    it was a blessing.  We left early yesterday AM and, after gassing
    and having breakfast, drove straight through (except for one more
    gas-stop), arriving back in Phoenix at 3:00 PM.  I gotta' admit
    I've _never_ been more tickled to get home where I could jump in
    the pool, unload the motorhome and sit under the air-conditioner
    trying to forget how miserable I'd been nearly all weekend.  Don't
    ever let _anyone_ try to convince you it don't get hot in California!!

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

Glad to see you and the MIG back in one piece!  You raise a
question in the last reply; I thought only the top 5 of the
Master's class qualified for the championship meet.  You
indicated that it went to at least 8th.  Did the CD there use the
same waiver and extended qualification by the number of folks
that already qualified?  I thought that it was something special
that we did in our meet...not the general rule.

    John,
    
    Nothing special about it.  The practice has been used since day-
    one of the Masters Program and, if you think about it, it's only
    fair to slip down past previous qualifiers 'til you have 5 *new*
    qualifiers.  Also, if this were not the case, previous qualifiers
    would be about as welcome as a case of VD when flying at subsequent 
    meets since a top-5 finish would reduce/eliminate someone else's chances
    to qualify.
    
    In the case of the Riverside Qualifier just past, 4 of the top 5
    finishers were already qualified so only _one_ new qualifier woulda'
    made it unless they kept slipping down 'til they got 5 _new_
    qualifiers.  The net of this is that previous qualifiers are actually
    _welcome_ as, if they finish well, they make more room for new
    qualifiers.  
    
    So, what does this really mean?  It means that, if 10 previous-
    qualifiers enter a contest and all finish in the top-10, then the
    new qualifiers are 11th-thru-15th places.  See what I mean?  It's
    actually beneficial to aspiring qualifiers to have previous quali-
    fiers entered, provided they finsh well, that is.     

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    John,
    
    Just thought I'd add that Bob and I received follow-up letters from
    Ivan Munninghoff (as, perhaps, all contestants did) requesting feedback
    and critique on the Colorado Springs meet.
    
    I felt this was another of the very nice touches to this meet (which
    I enjoyed more than any other meet in recent memory).  I answered
    Ivan's letter very much in the positive and added the critique items
    I mentioned to you and highlighted in my report of the meet earlier
    in this topic.
    
    You may be interested to know that the Riverside meet just past
    did many of the same things (to the consternation of many pilots)
    around mixing the judges and _not_ flying a number of rounds equal
    to a multiple of the flightlines...and _they_ should know better!!
    
    Something's amiss in the Scale Squadron of late as the super-organized,
    class-act complexion of their past meets was most definitely _not_
    in evidence last weekend.  You got different stories from each contest
    official you asked the same question of, there was the embarrassing
    mess-up of score tabulation, etc., etc.  Lemme' say that you guys
    looked like real pros in comparison!  Consider that the Scale Squabble
    (Ooops! That's Squadron) has been doing this for 14-years and _should_
    have it cast-in-concrete by now!!
    
    Apparently, enough discontent between the _flyers_ and the non-flying
    club leadership exists that several of the flyers have started a
    new, informal group dubbed "The _Flying_ Squadron" as a way of visibly
    expressing their dissatisfaction with the downhill direction the
    Squadron has been taking the past 2-3 years.  Decked out in their
    new, distinctive shirts, they figuratively thumbed their noses at
    the club's hierarchy all weekend.  They all remain loyal Squadron
    members but are trying to influence a change back to the former
    glory-days of the first all-scale organization in the country (the
    1/8 AF was the second such group).  

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al        
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

Thanks Al.  I'll tell you I'm darn proud of what I saw that
weekend. As we discussed before the meet, I was prepared to be
embarassed by it all, so I really came prepared for the worst.  I
talked to Ivan this weekend and he said the club made about $200
on the deal -- I was especially anxious on this point because it
looked like we would lose money on the deal.  Turns out that the
big tent had been loaned from the AF Academy; it would've cost us
$800/day to rent.  But really, I think it was Ivan who pulled it
off.

That looked like so much fun, I want to fly next year! 

    John,
    
    Yeah, it's fun alright but, while I'm never outwardly aware of it,
    I always tense up to the point of nearly tossing my cookies before
    the first flight.  After that, I'm alright but, man! the pressure's
    incredible!!                               
    
    I'd agree in a heartbeat that Ivan's responsible for pulling the
    meet off so well.  Obviously, a lot of people were required to make
    everything work but it appeared to me that Ivan was the catalyst
    that pulled it all together.

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    John (Tavares),
    
    If you (or anoune else) are interested, the current issue of Scale
    R/C Modeler carries coverage (such as it is) of the Colorado Springs
    Scale meet and Masters Qualifier of this past June.
    
    Written by a Denverite named Lee Urmy, you won't want to blink while
    reading this article or you'll miss the fact that Bob, Dan and I
    were even there, let alone the fact that Bob and I blitzed the contest.
    There's a small, maybe 5-6 line, paragraph towards the end that
    says I was there with my "award winning MiG-3," Bob had his P-47
    and Dan flew his "vintage" Martin-Baker MB-5 and _that's_it_!  No
    mention that Bob won and I was second..., nothing!!  He _did_ mumble
    something about the fact that Brian O'Meara entered and "won" with
    his Baker P-47 which provokes the question: "won _what_?"  Brian
    crashed in the 5th round and was lucky to hang onto 4th place!
    
    At the beginning of the article, nearly hidden in the dark blue
    backround of an in-flight pic of one of the two Mustangs entered, 
    there's a tiny matrix showing Masters qualifiers in the order of 
    finish (but _nothing_ specifies that this is the case unless you 
    interpolate that the numbers after each name are total points).  
    Verrry poorly written article, I'm afraid.
    
    This fellow, who volunteered to Goyer to do the article _during_
    the meet, was so preoccupied with the Cubs and other civilian types
    he all but ignored the military entries, even in the photographs.
    I mean, Sheeesh!  Bob won and I was second so you'd have _thought_
    a picture of our planes might've appeared, but noooooooo...on one
    page we're treated to, not one, but _5_, count 'em, _5_ pictures
    of the _same_ L-4 Cub/Grasshoper.                            
    
    Now, Goyer has, on numerous occasions, said that he doesn't like
    to run pictures of the same airplanes all the time.  OK, fine. 
    But, on an equal number of occasions, Norm has expressed his love
    and self-admitted prejudice for Cubs, _any_ Cub, doesn't matter!  
    So I have to conclude that Goyer's no more than a hypocrite as he'll 
    print pic's of [his favorite] Cubs 'til Hell freezes over while
    simultaneously espousing this don't-want-to-print-the-same-airplanes-
    all-the-time editorial policy.  To my mind, he's simply exercizing
    his prerogative to print what he damn-well pleases, never mind that
    this action detracts from the _point_ of covering a meet in the
    first place which is to mention who was there, what were they flying
    and _who_won_what_*with*_what_!  I'll tell you that I'd _REALLY_
    have been p*ssed if I'd won or placed in any of the 3 _other_ events
    besides Masters as _they_ got no mention AT ALL!
    
    Oh well, it's his magazine so I'll get off the soapbox.  FWIW, read
    the article and reply here with _yer'_ impressions/opinions of it.
    In all honesty/humility, I don't _think_ I'm being unfair simply
    because it was Bob, Dan and I who got left out...I just think it
    was p*ss-poor coverage which, unfortunately, seems to be becoming
    the _Norm_ (pun intended) for SR/CM since Goyer took over editorship 
    of the mag.  I've said it before and it still stands: if SR/CM wasn't
    the _ONLY_ scale R/C mag we've got, I'd cancel my patronage in a
    heartbeat!!   

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

>    page we're treated to, not one, but _5_, count 'em, _5_ pictures
>    of the _same_ L-4 Cub/Grasshoper.                            
...
>    But, on an equal number of occasions, Norm has expressed his love
>    and self-admitted prejudice for Cubs, _any_ Cub, doesn't matter!  
...
So Al - does this mean your ready to enter our Winter Cub building contest?

Bye
Kay R. Fisher

Yeah, and since he published that cover last Sept, and presumably
got some heat for it, his covers have been pretty mild.  I mean,
pictures of airplanes on a model mag cover! Really!  I can't
think of any reason to even look at the cover, let alone the mag.

Consider the source.

    Re: .306, Kay,
    
    H A R D L Y !!
    
    
    Re: .307, John,
    
    Frankly, (and I've said this before), I prefer the magazine covers
    the way they are _now_!  I appreciate the curves of a well-turned
    female anatomy as much as the next guy but, when _that"s_ what I 
    wanna' see, I'll buy a copy of Playboy or Penthouse.  I strongly
    resent having it thrown at me, for too obvious commercial purposes, 
    on the covers of my hobby magazines!    

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    Al,

    I think you guys have a right to gripe, specifically because you
    won, and did not really receive mention.  I'm pretty sure that
    you, like me and so many others, are not into Model Airplanes, as
    a hobby, for the spiritual solitude and Zen like aspects of
    enlightenment we might feel when we look at our creations, but
    instead are involved because of the group (no, not grope) high we
    all feel when we get together and fly our planes (although it is
    fun sometimes to just go and fly, I'm sure most of us would lose
    interest if we didn't have our peers to tells us what a nice
    finish we put on our plane, or how well that last flight went). 

    I think you should send your note to ALL the airplane mags, and
    let em' know what you think (I'm sure if you sent it just to SR/CM
    they wouldn't publish it).  I'de be really PISSED.

    Just my opinion.

    Randy (8^D)

    Randy,
    
    Gracias, amigo.  It's reassuring to know I'm not just being petty
    or selfish about it.  Sometimes it's hard to maintain perspective
    when _you_ are the affected/injured party and I always approach
    this sort of thing rather tenuously as I don't want to come off
    seeming like I'm overreacting to an imagined slight.
    
    Would you believe we (Bob and I) have never yet received our trophies
    for placing in the Tucson Masters Qualifier last Memorial Day
    weekend?   Still, wanting _not_ wanting to appear trivial or trophy-
    happy, I've waited patiently, trying to give them the benefit of
    the doubt, 'til just recently.  Feeling like I've been _more_ than
    patient/fair, however, I'm now going after them hammer-and-tong,
    not because I _need_ another trophy, but because I earned it, therefore
    I'm entitled to it...it's become a matter of principle.   BTW, to
    fill you in, we were told at the contest's end that the truck carrying
    the trophies from the supplier in California had had an accident
    and burned, destroying all the contents, including our trophies.
    OK, sounds a little flaky but we can accept that IF the trophies
    are received in the mail promptly, as they promised.  From Memorial
    Day-to-Labor Day seems just a little less than prompt to _this_
    cowboy so I/we are goin' after these varmintss with guns smokin"!

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    Al,
    
    Deep down inside, *ALL* of us RCers are still children
    (personally, I try quite hard to keep my "child" not so deep
    down). There is nothing that hurts more than to be told you've won
    a prize for something, and then not get the prize and/or
    recognition (except maybe being told by someone what a really nice
    plane you have just minutes before he trips and falls,
    spread-eagled, on top of it).  No one who is "in touch" with
    themselves (I hope I'm not getting too touchy-feely here) could
    possibly fault you for wanting what you have rightfully won.

    to quote someone I'm sure you know, "Go 'Fer It !"

    Randy (8^D)

    al, it sure sounds like you got the shaft.  perhaps you are a
    victim of too much success?  that is, if you continue to travel
    there and mop up all the trophies, some bozo is bound to behave
    badly.  if so, thats their problem, not yours!
    
    reminds me of one time i saw bill cosby on the tonight show.  he
    proudly brought a beautiful trophy with him.  it seems some rag
    had given him some award (best humanitarian, or something like
    that) which was nothing but a promo gimmick.  bill rightly asked
    for the trophy for this "honor".  the rag ended up buying a rather
    expensive trophy and bill made his point.
    
    kevin

    Kevin,
    
    "Victim of too much success?"  Yeah, perhaps.  The (my) point is,
    however, that I spent enough dues-paying years _outside_ the winners
    circle that, now that I'm having a little success, I resent being
    denied the recognition and/or awards that [supposedly] go with it.
    
    One thing that continues to frost me is that, for years (when I
    wasn't winning) I watched the winners taking home all sorts of neat
    merchandise, e.g. kits, radios, engines, accessories, etc. but, about 
    the time I started penetrating the winners circle, that all dried up
    and, save for two Airtronics servos (which I don't think I can use), 
    I've yet to win anything except tropies/plaques, etc.  Yeah, I know...
    poor me.  :B^)
    
    But, yer' right; perhaps I protesteth too much 'cause I certainly
    wouldn't trade the present situation for my previous (non-winning)
    one!  :B^)  :B^) 
                  
      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    Has anyone ordered and/or received their 1989 R/C Scale calendar
    from Dennis Crooks' DC Aviation yet?  I'd love some feedback as
    to yer' impressions of it.  It's the nicest calendar of its type
    I've yet to see (even if my MiG-3 _wasn't_ in this year's) and all
    R/C enthusiasts would find it a great addition to their workshop,
    home or office.
    
    BTW, if any of you who are acquainted with Charlie Nelson and/or
    Jack Buckley would like a sneak preview, ask them to show you their
    calendar(s).  I know they have one as it's Dennis' practice to send
    advance (complimentary) copies to all the modelers who's aircraft
    appear in the calendar.  Both Jack's and Charlie's Wacos appear
    in the 1989 calendar.   

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    Well, despite my inclination to the contrary, it looks like I'll
    be attending/competing in the U.S. Scale Masters' Championships
    after all.  Vacation time, not to mention the money, is tight about
    now but Bob Frey, Kent Walters and yer's truly will be setting out
    in Kent's suburban early next Tuesday AM on the 27-30 hour drive
    to Fort Know, Kentucky.  We expect to arrive Wednesday afternoon/
    evening a tired (if not a wiser) crew of outlaws from Arizona.
    
    Static judging is to take place Thursday with flying Friday, Saturday
    and Sunday (16/17/18 Sept.).  We'll have to leave at the conclusion
    of the awards ceremony and start the long westward trek back to
    God's country Sunday afternoon in order to be back in time to go to 
    work the following Wednesday.  I expect to be one exhausted hombre
    following this ordeal!
    
    I'm looking forward to attending/competing but I gotta' admit I'm
    really dreading all that travelling/driving.  
    
    At any rate, if any noters are located anywhere near Ft. Knox or
    might be inclined to pay a visit, please stop by and introduce
    yer'selves to th' "Rat," Bob and Kent.  We'd love ta' meet cha's!

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

>    Well, despite my inclination to the contrary, it looks like I'll
>    be attending/competing in the U.S. Scale Masters' Championships

I figured you would and I'm glad you are.

First I hope you win all the marbles.
Second I hope they give you the marbles if you do win.
Third I hope the MiG has no problems.

Have a safe trip and wish your partners good luck also from me.

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
================================================================================

    
      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

RE: < Note 271.316 by K::FISHER "There's a whale in the groove!" >

> I figured you would and I'm glad you are.

> First I hope you win all the marbles.
> Second I hope they give you the marbles if you do win.
> Third I hope the MiG has no problems.

Ditto, and:

Fourth, I hope they print a nice article about you and all your marbles.

As they say in show business, "Break a leg!!"  (but not a prop...)
(yes, sad excuse for a pun was intended...)

                       _____
                      |     \
                      |      \                          Silent POWER!
      _        ___________    _________   |            Happy Landings!
     | \      |           |  |         |  |
     |--------|-  SANYO  + ]-|  ASTRO  |--|              - Dan Miner
     |_/      |___________|  |_________|  |
                      |       /           |     " The Earth needs more OZONE,
                      |      /                       not Caster Oil!! "    
                      |_____/

    good luck al!  can't wait to hear and read all about it.
    yikes, sounds like a lonnnnng trip in the car.  i hate
    driving/riding.
    
    if you figure gas and wear and tear on car and credit
    yourselves $10 per hour for riding in a car, it might be
    cheaper to fly.  course you gotta get your planes there
    too.  sigh.
    
    anyways, we're rooting for ya!
    kevin

    Kevin,
    
    Transporting the planes is the rub!  It costs a small fortune to
    build a sturdy crate, ship it at oversize-rates and risk having
    it lost or damaged.  No thanks...If I can't take it with me, I guess
    my plane didn't really need to go there after all.
    
    Thanks to you and all the other well wishers for the , er, ah...,
    well wishes.  Hopefully this will be a better contest for me than
    last year at Las Vegas (in the rain).  I'd like very much to finish
    somewhere (the-higher-the-better) in the top-10 again as I seriously
    believe I'll take a little hiatus from competition for awhile after
    this one's over.  I know, I made similar noises last year but I'm
    closer to believing it now than I was then...I'd like to lay-off
    for awhile and build something new.  Besides, the trusty ol' MiG-3
    deserves a well-earned rest.    

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    
          |
    -------------
         ( )             Brian
    -------------
        /   \                 
    

    In addition to wishing Al well in the Master's I'd like to announce
    the second Western noter's convention (the first convention was
    this past June in Colorado when Al, John, and I all got to meet)
    to coincide with the Master's. Chris Spohr and I will be making
    a day trip out and back to cheer Al on. How about it John? Think
    you can make it out of Colorady to the convention 8^)?
    
    Dan Eaton
    

    hey al,
    
    you say your taking kent's suburban?  is this the same one that
    went thru a few spare tires, radiator hoses, and many quarts of
    oil on a trip a year or 2 ago?  this otta be fun to read about
    when you get back, heh heh.
    
    your friend,
    kevin

    Kevin,
    
    Yup, one-and-the-same.  However, since our eventful trip to the Scale
    Squadron's Masters Qualifier/Western Scale Nats a year ago this
    past July, Kent's put a brandie-new engine in it.  Tires, belts,
    hoses, et al are all new also so we're hopeful of a trouble-free
    trip _this_ time.  (_Now_ the trannie'll probably blow, right?)
    :B^)  :B^)  Let's hope not!!!!!!!!!
    
    BTW, Kevin, something I've been aching to ask ya' for over a year
    now: has anyone ever explained to you what the "shift" key on yer'
    keyboard is for??  ;B^}    

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    Good luck, Al.  Say hi to Charlie Nelson and the other Easterners.
    I hope you and they both improve on last year's finish.  Charlie
    had radio trouble which ended up requiring serious repairs to his
    Waco.  I'm looking forward to some great stories when you return.
    
    Charlie
    

    Charlie,
    
    Thanx a heap!  Here's hoping that Charlie, Jack and I don't _need_
    too much luck.  Yeah, Charlie went down in the rain and everyone
    thought his transmitter'd gotten wet.  I remember him saying (the
    next day) that something was amiss with his radio, batteries it
    seems, but I can't remember the specifics...indeed, he may not have
    _known_ the specifics 'til after he got home.  At any rate, he said
    he thought the ol' Waco deserved to be rebuilt one-more-time and
    I'm glad it's flying again.
    
    Now, if it just stays DRY!  I know too well from last year how my
    bird reacts to moisture/high-humidity and I'd just as well throw
    -in-the-towel if we have to contend with rain again.  Here's hoping!
    
    Have you ever had a chance to sneak a peek at Charlie's DC Aviation
    R/C Scale Calendar.  Try to, if you haven't already.  I think you'll
    be impressed by what you see and have to have one of yer' own.

      |                                                               
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    al, both my car and my truck is a standard but i never "shift"
    at work!  incidently, you have my permission to go back to using
    double quotes instead of underscores!
    
    sounds like the suburban will hang in.  with 3 people taking
    turns driving (and talking), it wont be so bad.
    
    good luck again,
    kevin

    Kevin,
    
    Yeah, it'll be an OK trip unless we get "cabin-fever" (or should
    that be "suburban-fever?") after being cooped up together a total 
    of 60-hours or so.     

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    Well, today's the big day, the last one before the big adventure,
    that is.  Spent much of the weekend just tinkerin' with the MiG-3,
    getting all the systems checked out and in first-class working order;
    cleaning, inspecting and generally sprucing things up.  BTW, it was 
    a little messy to use but, failing to find any Metal-Kleen or Sunbeam
    Aluminum cleaner, I used Easy-Off oven cleaner and it worked just
    fine.  It scared me a little at first as, when I started brushing
    it off with a toothbrush and water, it "looked" like it had turned
    the aluminum black, plus there was a strange whitish-looking crud
    all around.  However, I kept after it and, in the end, everything
    came out clean, bright and shiney.    
    
    I cycled the battery-packs and was pleased to see they're still
    quite healthy...which makes th' "Rat" a much happier, more relaxed
    camper going into a contest, or "combat" as it were.  So, everything
    is ready and all that remains is to meet with Bob and Kent early
    tomorrow morning, pack and shove off on the long drive to Fort Knox.
    
    I talked to Roy Orbison over the weekend and he and his buddy, Benny
    Birchfield are planning to be at the Masters to spectate, provided
    Roy doesn't have a schedule conflict.  That'll be great!  I haven't
    seen Roy since last March.  He muttered something about free-passes
    to the Grand Ole' Opry and a place to stay if we can spend a little
    time in Nashville.  I had to tell him that our schedule was pretty
    tight but that we might be able to swing it Sunday night after the
    conclusion of the Masters.  He said Nashville is only 115 miles
    south of Ft. Knox and our route takes us right through there anyway,
    so we'll see what happens...just playing it by ear for now.  But,
    how many chances might we ever have to go to the Opry as guests
    of Roy Orbison?  So, if the opportunity presents itself, we'll probably
    jump on it like a duck on a june-bug!!  :B^)
    
    Looking forward to seeing Dan Eaton again and meeting Chris Spoor,
    er Spore, er, ah Spohr for the first time.  They're figgerin' to
    drive 400-500 miles up from St. Louis early Saturday, stay the day
    and drive back that same night.  Sounds like a _powerful_ lot of
    driving to me!  Better they than me!!  We're gonna' have a belly-full
    of driving by the time we get back home.
    
    So, keep the notesfile moving and I'll see ya'lls about next Wednesday
    or Thursday.  I'll post a complete report on the Masters as soon
    as I can after returning.  (Which reminds me; I wonder how Jeff
    Friedrichs made out at the Old Rhinebeck WW-I bash last weekend.....
    how 'bout a report, Jeff?)

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

RE:271.329

>    Looking forward to seeing Dan Eaton again and meeting Chris Spoor,
>    er Spore, er, ah Spohr for the first time.  They're figgerin' to
>    drive 400-500 miles up from St. Louis early Saturday, stay the day
>    and drive back that same night.  Sounds like a _powerful_ lot of
>    driving to me!  Better they than me!!  We're gonna' have a belly-full
>    of driving by the time we get back home.
    
Al, I think you need to switch your miles to hours and then divide by 100. It's
about a 4 to 5 hour drive, mayby, 280 miles or so.

You haven't mention Bob Frey (sp). I thought he was all fired up to go to the
Masters? Speaking of which, did your wife ever put together that kit that
Bob won in Colorado?

Dan Eaton

    well, i just picked up the latest srcm this weekend, the one with
    al's favorite article in it.  yup, pretty deceiving article but
    i wont beat a dead horse.
    
    however, in the editorial norm goyer took serious potshots at the
    builder of model rule.  he argues emphatically that this rule is
    ruining scale, that good flyers such as himself are being excluded
    (he uses strong words like prejudice) from scale competition simply
    cause they dont have the building skill to build a competitive
    model.
    
    to that i reply EXACTLY (note uppercase, al).  thats the whole
    point of scale, to give builders a chance to creep out of the
    basement once in a while for a glimpse of limelight.  if there
    were no builder of scale rule, we'd all be competing against jerry
    kitchen flying joe builders 8 year project.  life is tough enough
    already.  i'm not sure contests would be much fun if i had to
    watch someone else fly my plane because that was the only way to
    be competitive.  nor would i want to compete at a contest where 
    every said, "nice plane, wonder who built it for him?"
    
    i vote leave the builder of model rule alone.

    Re: .330, Dan,
    
    Whaddya' talkin' about, Pilgrim?  I've mentioned Bob Frey AND Kent
    Walters every time I've mentioned the trip to the Masters.  The
    3 of us are driving to Kentucky in Kent's suburban.  No, the little
    .40-powered. Kawasaki Ki-61 Hein (Tony) that Bob won is languishing
    under the bench in the workshop (I'd be surprised if Kathi _ever_
    did anything with it...but she _talks_ a good game, eh?).
    
    
    Re: .331, Kevin,
    
    What many are picking at regarding the Builder of the Model (BOM)
    rule is an offshoot of a Dave Platt movement to have fiberglass
    fuses, foam wings, etc. eliminated or severely downgraded in static.
    Dave went on this tangent after being outraged that a Byron Staggerwing
    took top static at the '86 Masters.  Dave objects to ARF's being
    competitive in Expert/Masters-class competition and I'll agree in
    a heartbeat that an E-Z P-51 or Chipmunk should NOT be allowed but,
    as you well know, building a quality model out of a fiberglass/foam
    kit HARDLY equates to assembling an ARF.  Dave's concept for automatic
    downgrades fo fiberglass/foam parts not actually made by the builder
    will be in force at the Top-Gun Tournament next April but the
    contestants have the option to change the rules, any rules, after
    the first year's competition so I don't expect this to stay very
    long...at least, I hope not!
    
    I couldn't agree more with you that throwing out the BOM rule would
    hurt scale and turn it into a who-can-buy-the-best-airplane
    competition.  At that time, I'd bail-out of competition altogether
    and build/fly my scale stuff strictly for fun and my own satisfaction.
    It is to hope this will not happen!

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    I know it is getting late, but good luck, Al. I met Jeff at Rhinebeck.
    Saw 100+ rc WWI models, with about 20 odd being AMA Scale. Full
    report should be in b4 u get back.
    
    Waiting to hear the good news...
    
    ajai
    

RE: .332
    >    Re: .330, Dan,
>    
>    Whaddya' talkin' about, Pilgrim?  I've mentioned Bob Frey AND Kent
>    Walters every time I've mentioned the trip to the Masters.  The
>    3 of us are driving to Kentucky in Kent's suburban.  No, the little
>    .40-powered. Kawasaki Ki-61 Hein (Tony) that Bob won is languishing
>    under the bench in the workshop (I'd be surprised if Kathi _ever_
>    did anything with it...but she _talks_ a good game, eh?).

Yep, I knew I should have stayed in bed this morning.  I know Bob is coming.
Must not have had enough caffine this morning.

To bad about the Tony. I thought it was really neat that Kathi was so interested
in the plane. I wish I could get my wife interested in a scale helicopter.
Something nice like a Morley Bell 47G. Guess I'll just have to buy one for me.

Dan Eaton

    Al,
    I was on vacation the end of last week and this Monday, so I did
    not get a chance to wish the Arizona Outlaws the best of luck in
    the Masters.  However, I am rooting for you and looking forward
    to a good detailed write-up telling how the group of you took the
    top three spots.  Also, hope you make Nashville OK.

		________
	 /	  __|__  
	=========[_____\>
	/	__|___|__/  BREAK A BLADE,
			    Ken    	

Since we all watched the RCM Video Magazine Vol 2 last night at the
DECRCM meeting there is a question that I have always been wanting to
ask.  Has there been an article or something published raveling exactly
how Dennis Crooks implemented the folding wings on his retired TBM-3E
Avenger?  If not - how about you taking a stab at it Al?

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
================================================================================

    Last week my Father travelled down to Italy for the World R/C scale 
    championships. I can therefore give you a quick preview of the results.
    
    In the Individual competition:
    	o 1st Philip Avonds, Belgium.
    	  F-15 Twin engined ducted fan.
    	o 2nd Pete McDermott, Britain.
    	  DH9a - Top Static score.
    	o 3rd Max Merkenschlager, Germany.
    	  Bristol Scout.
    
    There were apparently only 5� points between 1st and 2nd place out
    of a total of 3400.
    
    The Team Prize went to Britain, whose Team placed 2nd, 4th and 6th.
    
    	Regards, Andrew.
    

    Well, I imagine our favorite rat is on his way back from Kentucky
    by now.  I hope someone can give us an update on how he made out.
    Dan or Chris, did you get over to see him and do you know how he
    was doing?

		________
	 /	  __|__  
	=========[_____\>
	/	__|___|__/  BREAK A BLADE,
			    Ken    	

    Ken,
    
    Dan and I made it to the Scale Masters on Saturday midway thru the
    3rd round of flying.  Al had already flown by then.
    
    Upon arrival at the main tent we took a deep whiff and followed
    the smell of desert rat and castor oil... a few feet later, there
    he was...the infamous Al Casey (aka Desert Rat) doing a magic act
    (he was making "Colorado Kool-aids" disappear).  We were able to
    get his attention and he graciously offered to let us be his magic
    assistants (we helped make them disappear too.)
    
    We got signed up as part of the Al Casey Pit Crew (what an honor)
    and Al introduced us to several notables...Kent Walters, Bob Frey,
    Diego Lopez, Dan Parsons, Bert Baker, and many, many more...
    
    Al flew near the end of round 4 and I (being official Pit Crew)
    stayed right behind Al and the judges while he flew.   Needless
    to say I was impressed with Al's presentation and flight line edicate.
    The flight was very good although Al stated he could do much better
    (that's what we all think, right).  I did'nt see the scoring on
    the contest but word of mouth had Diego Lopez 1st thru 4 rounds,
    and Bob Frey 2nd, with the desert rodent near or in the top ten.
    
    We had to head back as flying was ending for the day and we had
    a long drive ahead.  Sunday was scheduled for the 5th and final
    round.  
    
    We'll just have to wait and see what the rodent has to say upon
    his return on Wednesday.
    
    Chris

Did you know the sun's not up in St. Louis at 4:45 AM? I found that out Saturday
morning when the alarm went off. Even though I went to bed early, I couldn't 
get to sleep till after 12:30 AM. GAWD, my head hurt. I drove over to pick up
Chris and we left for Fort Knox a little after 6:00 AM.

We wound up in Ft. Knox about 4 1/2 hours later. Just about the time we were 
wondering how to find the place, I looked off to my left and saw an RC plane
flying around. We homed in on that and hi pay dirt.

The first thing we saw when we got out of the car was a F18 Hornet getting
ready to take off. This was a new proto for a kit that Bob Fiornze (sp) is
putting together. Wow, what detail. Chris and I have seen plenty of F18's
out at McDonnell Douglas. This jet looked real. Chris and I were both 
impressed with the landing gear. A lot of work must have went into them. 
I think the plane had two Rossi .71's in it. It was impressive in flight.
During one flight he flew around untill both engines were out of fuel. The
dead stick look so easy! After watching the plane during the day, I came to
the conclusion that it was a neat project. Sorta like Byron's B-29. I'm
glad someone built it but I wouldn't want to own it. You should of seen the
amount of runway it ate up getting off the ground.

We wandered on down the flight line looking for Al. When we found him, he set us
up with a couple of pit passes and then passed out the Kool-aid. After getting 
up early and driving there it was a great welcome from my point of view! Thanks
again Al.

After the F18 came in, they had a couple of demo flights. First an A4 from some
company went up. Went like a bat out of hell. Seemed like it had pretty good
vertical performance too. One thing I noticed was that the front gear on the
plane looked like the wheels were about the size of a tail wheel. I guess if
you're going to spend the money on a jet you have to belong to a club with
a paved runway. 

Next up was Dennis Crooks SR-71. This was the one that he didn't have quite
ready for the 1/8 scale AF funfly. Al told us that Dennis had said the plane
was tricky near the ground but flew well. We got to see what he ment. On both
take off and landing the plane looked like a real handful when it was below
ten to fifteen feet. Above that it was really something to see. Flying it must
be interesting. We all commented on the interresting perspective changes the 
plane went thru as it turned. Being all black, it was had for me to tell if
the plane was right side up or upside down.

After the SR-71 came in they had the line up on the runway. I guess if I had to
use one word to describe the Masters, it would be overwelming. So many 
excellent planes in one place. Here's a partial list of some of the planes we
saw. F18, A4, SR-71, DC3 (my favorite), C130 Hercules, TEXAN, P-38, bunches of
P-47's, Forker (sp) D-7. The DC-3 was interesting. It wasn't excellent. It was
nice, but the fairings were way too big and the nose wasn't rounded enough. It 
was well built though and seemed to fly ok. I guess I liked it because it 
looked like something fun to fly.

Another interresting multi-engine plane was the C130. A big plane with 4
20's in it. Al said it was built with foam and weighed less than 15 pounds.
Flying, it still seemed like it was going a bit too fast but not near as
bad as the B17 I saw in Colorado Springs. On one of the low passes, he dropped
the cargo door open and shoved out a load with parachute. The landing was
just like the full size ones. Real steep decent then flare and the wheels just
kissed the runway.

Al pointed out a Forker(sp) D-7 that had impressed him. The plane didn't look 
that special at first glance. Then the more you looked at it, the more you 
noticed. The builder had spent about a year and a half on it. The fake engine
was a work of art. All of the pinking and stiching details were on the wings.
The turn-buckles were even safety wired.

Another plane that both Chris and I liked was a TEXAN. With all the great
planes there it was easy to overlook but there was this TEXAN sitting there
that kept catching our eye. It had a sheet metal finish. It looke very real 
because the panels had different finishes like you see on real birds.

One plane I was disappointed in was this P-38. It looked like a pretty neat 
ship but I didn't get to see it fly. The pilot had problems with the wind
and ended up aborting his takeoff into the grass. I think he ended up flipping 
the plane.

Lot's of Jugs present. Bob Fry did some impressive flying with his. I guess
that's why he was in second place when we left. Al was not having a lot of luck.
We saw him fly. Lot of good and a lot of bad. Al said the key to winning is 
consistency.

Less see, I talked about the planes, how about the people. Al introduced us to
Bert Baker, Dennis Crooks, Bob Fiornze, Dan Parson (I met him and Bob Frey in
Colo.), Bob Frey, Kent Walthers (sp), and about four or five other people whose 
names I can't remember but you can find in most RC mags. Oh yeah, there was 
also a guy running around with cameras and no plane. Al pointed out but did not 
introduce us to Norm Goyers (sp).

Hope this fills in the details a bit untill Al gets back. He said the drive in
was pretty horrid what with the truck having tire problems. Al was not looking
forward to the drive back and said if he made it to work Wedsday, he be one
tired puppy.

Dan Eaton

    I forgot to mention. I had a real problem with being distracted
    while watching the planes. It's hard for a heli nut like me to
    watch an RC plane in front of me while a full size Heuy is landing
    behind me over on the active runways at Ft. Knox. The contest was
    being held on an unused runway.
    
    Dan Eaton

    Hi, GUys,
    
    Well, I'm back, a mere exhausted shell of my former self.
    Unfortunately, I find myself under-water with backed-up work which
    will prevent my posting a detailed blurb on the Masters 'til probably
    Monday...got some Friday deadlines which _must_ be met.  Thanx to
    Dan and Chris, you have some preliminary coverage to chew on 'til
    I can get a blurb posted.  Until then, lemme' add that Bob Fiorenze
    won with his F-18 Hornet.  Bob Frey was second with his Holman P-47;
    Gene Barton was 3rd with his P-51B Diego Lopez was 6th with his
    Hellcat and Shaleish Patel was 8th with his Baker Jug.  I'll hafta'
    give some thought to filling in the blanks in the finishing order.
    Oh!, the kid with the magnificent Fokker D-VII, Tom Kozewski (one
    of Charlie Nelson's proteges) placed 10th.  Me?  I finished well
    out of the money at about 18th-19th place but brought the faithful
    MiG home undamaged so, in that vein, I won again.  Details and film
    at 11.        

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

  Welcome back Al!
 
  Sorry to hear you didn't take first place, but congratulations on 
bringing the Mig home in one piece.  


   Jim

    Gracias, Jim,
    
    And thanx to all who wished we well in the Masters.  Yer' well-wishes
    were not wasted as the trusty MiG performed flawlessly (much better
    that did its pilot) and returned to its nest undamaged whic puts
    me a leg-up on many less fortunate contestants at the Masters.
    
    There's a lot to tell so I think I'll start putting the story in
    by installments.  Here goes Part-I, "The Trip to Ft. Knox."
    
    Kent picked Bob and I up early last Tuesday AM and we were on our
    way by 7:00, Arizona time.  We would cross 6-states and 3-time zones
    before reaching Ft. Knox some 40-sleepless hours later, spending
    something close to 36-hours actually in motion.
    
    Our first gas stop was made in Gallup, N.Mex., and here, one of
    the few highlights of the drive occurred,  When pulling back onto
    the interstate (I-40), I looked up and saw, "Could it be?  Yes!
    It's a MiG-19 trundling across the overpass, heading the same direction
    as we're going."  We hurried back onto the interstate, hoping to
    catch this spectre but it had vanished.  Was it a mirage?  Were
    we hallucinating already, only 5-or-so hours into the trip??
    
    We'd about decided this was the case when, near Grants, N.Mex.,
    the MiG came sailing past us on a trailer being hauled by a truck
    with the name "Aviation Classics Ltd." painted on the side.  "Aha!"
    I said, "that's the same outfit that provided the 3-MiG-17's for
    the HBO movie 'Steal the Sky' which I'd just seen a few days earlier."
    
    The MiG was the genuine article and in obviously pristine, flyable 
    condition.  We followed it all the way to Albuquerque where it turned
    south toward El Paso leaving us to wonder where it was being taken,
    and for what?  We reasoned that it _might_ be going to the Confederate
    Air Force show in Harlingen, Texas next month.  Time may tell how
    close we may've guessed.
    
    We overtook a storm in Albuquerque and were in-and-out of it for
    many hours afterward.  Outside Moriarity, N.Mex., all Hell broke
    loose (in more ways than one).  The rain became blinding in intensity
    and driving rain and hail forced us to stop several times as we
    were unable to see much past the windshield.  About this time, chewing
    away at some munchies, I bit into something much harder than the
    munchies and, upon investigation, found that one of my lower incisors
    had split in half leaving a jagged edge, sharper'n a #11 X-Acto
    blade, to slash away at the inside of my mouth and my tongue (which
    I found impossible to keep away from the broken tooth.  This was
    to bother me the rest of the trip and, if only subconciously, doubtless
    set the tone for the lackluster performance I was to put in at the
    contest.
    
    We sailed through Oklahoma City at 2:00 AM, AZ-time, and daybreak
    found us entering the state of Arkansas, heading for Fort Smith
    and Little Rock.  Breakfasting outside Little Rock, we pushed on
    and evening found us entering Nashville, whereupon a strange noise
    and vibration signaled something amiss in the rear end of the Suburban.
    
    Stopping to investigate, we found that the tread of _both_ rear
    tires had separated from the casings.  These were the last of the
    original set of tires Kent had on the vehicle, the first two of
    which had gone bad on last year's trip to the California Qualifier.
    Having little choice, Kent had two brand new Atlas tires installed,
    tied the old ones on the roof-rack to have adjusted back in Phoenix
    and we were off on the last leg of the trip.  I called Benny Birchfield
    before we left and he said he'd be up for static and test-flying
    the next day and that he and Roy Orbison would be there Sunday,
    weather permitting.
    
    After losing the third hour crossing into Kentucky, we at last arrived
    in Radcliff, KY (Ft. Knox) at 10:30, local time, checked into the
    motel, unloaded and settled in.  Before hitting the rack, however, we
    went to the restaurant next door and had something to eat.  Here
    we ran into Greg Namey and a coupla' Texas invitees.  A mercifully
    short bull-session ensued while we ate, then to bed and prepare
    for static judging in the morning.  (I got a file outa' my tool box
    and tried with limited success to knock the sharp edge off'n my
    busted tooth before retiring.)  Finally, I just wadded some chewing
    gum around the jagged edge, collapsed and died after being awake
    for something over 40-consecutive hours.
    
    Next Installment:  Thursday: Static Judging and Test-Flying.  Stay
    tuned, you don't wanna' miss this one............

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    al, glad to hear you and the mig made it home ok.  sounds like you
    and not the mig took the wear and tear!  you're losing a tooth on
    the first day of the big adventure is so typical of murphy and his
    laws - could there have been a worse time!
    
    i'm still amazed at your ability to not damage airplanes.
    
    what did diego do to suddenly make his hellcat competitive?  whats
    the poop with the p38 gene had in arizona last march?  did bob frey's
    jug out-static or out-fly shailesh's jug?  etc etc.  can't wait
    to hear more.
    
    kevin

    Part-II, "Static Judging." 
    
    After about 7-hours sleep (not nearly enough), we arose and I
    discovered I was nearly lame;  my left knee was inflamed and swollen
    in protest to being cramped in the same position for the entire drive
    and was sore as Hell!  Not only that, I must've done a Mork-from-Ork
    trick and slept on my head 'cause my neck, right shoulder and upper-arm
    were stiff and achy too.  Then a slashing pain inside my mouth reminded
    be of the broken tooth.  "Oh fine!" I thought.  This is a teriffic way
    to start a contest.  
    
    We had breakfast and drove to the Best Western Gold Vault Inn which
    was contest HQ and the site of static judging.  After registering,
    we proceeded to an area behind the hotel, adjacent to the swimming
    pool, and found static judging well under way.  As usual, the judges
    had their hands full as the quality of models was very high, as
    it should be for a Masters competition.  Waiting our turn to be
    judged, we renewed old acquaintances and made some new ones.
    
    Charlie Nelson walked up with his hand out and a wide grin on his
    face as did Steve Sherwood, both well known scale modelers from
    the central Mass. area.  I guess Jack Buckley didn't make it and
    Steve came as his alternate.  Charlie saw me gawking at a magnificently
    executed, museum quality, 1/3 scale Fokker D-VII and introduced
    me to its builder, one of his proteges, Tom Kozewski.  In talking
    to this talented young newcomer to the sport, I learned he'd modeled
    his ship after the full-scale replica which resides and flies out
    of Champlin's Fighter Museum right here in Phoenix.  Charlie'd taken
    a gob of pix for him when he visited Phoenix last March.  Then,
    needing more information, Tom had flown to Phoenix himself, expressly
    to take more pix, make sketches and crawl all over the prototype
    ship...now _that's_ dedication!!
    
    I looked for Jeff Friedrich's friend, Bill Sitzler, but was unable
    to spot either him or his Eindecker.  I learned later that a minor
    crash at the eleventh hour prevented Bill from attending...too bad.
    
    There wasn't a whole lot of new stuff to be seen.  Many Masters
    veterans were back again, like my MiG-3 (its 4th Masters), Bob Frey's 
    Holman P-47 and Kent Walters' Dauntless which had flown in _all_8_ pre-
    vious Masters Championships, winning three of them.  Gene Barton's
    fantastic P-51B, "Excalibur-II," was back as was Shailesh Patel's
    Baker P-47, "Little Chief." 
    
    THEN, we spotted it; Bob Fiorenze's fabulous new F-18 Hornet!  What
    a magnificent (and expensive) model.  This bird had absolute scale
    landing gear which was rumored to have cost over $2600.00 to machine.
    And, no part of the model had been spared the same treatment; this
    was a top-drawer, top-dollar model if ever I saw one.  If you'll
    permit me one useage of the overused word, this was a truly awesome
    model.
    
    After the three of us processed through static judging, we drove
    the short 3-or-4 miles out to the field, located right on Fort Knox.
    The runway we were to use for the next 3-days was an auxilliary
    strip running parallel to, but comfortably removed from, the
    main/active runway.  Green-stuff was everywhere, surrounding and
    running right up to the edges of the runway.  I asked what it was
    and was informed that this was "grass."  Since we were in Kentucky,
    I had to ask, "Why isn't it blue?"  No one seemed to have an answer
    and I never _did_ see any bluegrass...is this stuff merely a rumor
    meant to confuse out-of-staters or just a figment of Stephen Foster's
    imagination? 
    
    Kent and Bob assembled their airplanes to get in a practice/tune-up
    flight while I sat down in this "green-stuff" with my wing trouble-
    shooting an air leak.  Soon I heard Bob's Jug fire up so I put my
    leak-hunt on hold and went up to the line to stand-by and spot for
    him.  Bob's flight was uneventful so I returned to my problem while
    Bob assisted Kent who was preparing his faithful, 10-year old SBD-3
    Dauntless for its four hundred and somethingth flight.  By now,
    Dan Parsons had arrived and assembled his well known deHavilland
    Hornet which he was also preparing for flight.
    
    I heard kent takeoff as I sat with my nose in the MiG's wheel-well,
    then heard the unmistakeable sound of the twin .61 FSR's on Dan's
    Hornet as they clawed at the sky.  Preoccupied as I was, I wasn't
    paying attention to the flying...then Bob walked past toward Kent's
    Suburban and said, "Well, it;s gone!"  "What's gone?" I asked.  "The
    Dauntless," Bob replied.  Already knowing the answer, I asked,
    desperately hoping to hear something besides the obvious, "What
    Dauntless?"  "Kent's Dauntless," Bob said, "It just rolled over
    and went straight in.  All three of us were stunned; this sort
    of thing just isn't expected from an airplane that's been around
    so long as to become an institution.  Especially when one appreciates
    the care and maintenance Kent puts into his planes.
    
    Bob and Kent drove to the crash-site and came back with the carnage
    in a body-bag (trash bag).  The damage wasn't as bad as we'd expected
    but still qualified as a write-off.  As Bob got out of the truck,
    he asked, "What happened to Parsons?"  Questioningly, I asked what
    he meant and Bob repied, "Didn't you see it?  Dan crashed too!"  No,
    I hadn't seen that one either, being distracted by repairing the
    leak I'd found in one of my air-lines.  Unfortunately, Dan's 7-year
    old Hornet was a total loss also.  Within 15-minutes, two great
    scale veterans were lost.  _NOT_ a particularly auspicious way to
    start a weekend we'd worked so hard, driven so far to participate
    in.  Dan admitted to getting himself disoriented while fumbling
    for his flap-lever just prior to landing and dumb-thumbing the Hornet
    to its demise.  We never did find out what happened to the Dauntless
    but Kent found that there was a HAM repeater station in the area
    just 50khz from his frequency (53.4) and is investigating whether
    this is what got him.
    
    A still exhausted and now somewhat subdued crew returned to the
    motel, changed clothes and went to the cocktail party that evening
    to salvage what we could of the day and try to help take the sting
    out of Kent's and Dan's losses.
    
    Next episode:  "Day-4: Competition Begins."
    
      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    Part-III, "Competition Begins,"   
    
    I awoke staring sightlessly at the ceiling, wishing to God I could
    roll over and sleep another 4, 5, Hell, 10-hours.  The adrenalin
    we'd been running on was gone and the exhausting effects of the
    trip had settled in, HARD!  We'd managed to enjoy the cocktail get-
    together despite the losses suffered by our comrades.  Still, a
    pall seemed to hang over things and we'd left reasonably early to
    try to get some desperately needed rest.
    
    As I lay there wondering what time it was, I honestly hoped it was
    raining so I could just go back to sleep.  I got up, grimacing at
    the fire that still raged in my knee and hobbled to the window,
    almost hoping for the worst...no such luck; it's overcast but no
    rain.  Finding my glasses, I groped for my watch and discovered,
    to my horror, "Hey, Guys!  It's after 8:00 and we were supposed
    to be at the pilots' briefing at 8:00."  In our death-like trance
    simulation of sleep, we'd slept through our wake-up call and we're
    already behind the 8-ball.
    
    We all agreed that we absolutely _HAD_ to have breakfast if we were
    to have any chance at all of surviving the day so scratch another
    hour.  We arrived at the field 2-hours late and I've _never_ felt
    LESS like flying in my life.  All that'd transpired thus far had
    served to totally remove any desire I'd had to compete.  BUT, we'd
    worked awfully hard, even suffered a little to be here so we unloaded,
    assembled the birds and reconnoitered to see where we were.  We
    found that Bob and I'd both been slipped to the bottom of our
    respective flight-lines.  We really appreciated it when we were
    told that it was well appreciated how exhausted we were and that
    they'd made allowances for that fact.
    
    Bob and I wound up being up at the same time so we couldn't call
    for each other as we are used to doing.  I gave my spiel to the
    judges, wondered again whether I really wanted to do this, fired
    up, taxied out and called takeoff.  Advancing the throttle, I got
    an arrow-straight takeoff run, smooth rotation and straight climb-out.
    "Hey!" I thought.  "What's so hard about this?  I'm gonna' get a
    good first round in in spite of everything."  Then I flicked the
    retract switch and the entire mood changed when the gear remained
    in the down position.  I did the best I could but the flight was
    a throw-away from the instant the gear failed to retract.  Meanwhile,
    Bob's engine had quit just as he broke ground and he got a first-round
    score of 21 (out of 100), having only completed takeoff, landing
    and flight realism as scored maneuvers.  "Oh fine!" I thought...great
    way to start.
    
    Static scores were posted after the first round was completed and
    I was in for another disappointment.  After beating Bob's static
    for the past 3-contests, I watched as his 95 was posted and figgered'
    I was gonna' be in great shape.  But, nooooo, when they posted my
    score, I'd received a 92 which just barely put me in the hunt for
    a top-10 finish.  Bob's 95 was second only to Tom Kozewski's 96.5
    for the Fokker D-VII; he'd beaten Fiorenze's Hornet by a full point
    and won $10.00 from Shailesh Patel for outstatic-ing Shailesh's
    Baker P-47, Little Chief by 2-points.  Virtually everyone I'm used to 
    outscoring in static had 93's-94's and it was clear I was gonna' have 
    ta' play catch-up ball to do any good as many of these guys'd already 
    received 1st-round flight scores in the 90's.  My first flight had
    earned a deserved 82.
    
    Diego Lopez has finally found the handle on his recently detailed
    and painted Hellcat and, at the end of round-1, he looked like the
    man to beat with Barton, DeWeese and Fiorenze barking at his heels.
    
    Round-2, I had a tussle keeping the MiG from going on its nose during
    takeoff (*!#%^& Ny-Rods) but the remainder of the flight was quite
    good.  Still, I only received an 88.25 and it was clear it would
    take two flights in the 90's to place.  Bob's gremlin was still
    with him; after replacing the immediately suspected glo-plug, he
    took off and completed the first two mandatory maneuvers before
    flaming-out and making an emergency dead-stick landing...his second
    round score: 31.
    
    Bob was pretty frustrated at not being able to cash-in on the best
    static position he'd ever enjoyed.  Kent, obviously, was disappointed
    at not being able to compete, not to mention being totally out
    of character in his unaccustomed role as pit-lizard.  Me?  Though
    the pressure's on to make two gang-buster flights, I'm not in too
    bad a shape...if only my tooth, knee and shoulder'd gimme' a break
    and stop aching.  Believe it or not, the three of still had a great
    time that evening at the hospitality hour held at the Officers'
    Club on Ft. Knox.
    
    Again hanging it up early, this curious trio headed back to the
    motel and sacked out, still trying to catch up on our rest and be
    ready for the crucial rounds to be flown the following day.
    
    Stay tuned.  You won't wanna' miss the next thrill-packed episode
    when "Competition Continues." 

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    
    	Hey Al, you ought to write a book!  Or make a Movie!
    Are there any little guys in the story that I could portray?
    
    Ken

    Ken,
    
    Little guys, huh?  Maybe you could play Bob's "gremlin."  :B^)  

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    Part-IV, "Competition Continues,"    
    
    A wave of deja-vu drifts over me as I find myself, again, staring
    at the ceiling in the darkened motel room.  I sit on the side of
    the bed rubbing my knee and, what's this?  My knee doesn't hurt
    anymore.  "Great," I think as I stand to walk over to the window
    to check the weather.  (This was a daily ritual as the fringes of
    hurricane Gilbert were causing some unusual weather patterns in
    the area all weekend.)
    
    I take a coupla' steps toward the window and, "Oh fine!"  Now my
    right ankle, the one that still carries more than an ounce of stainless
    steel pins and screws as a souvenir of highschool football days, now
    aches, no doubt from all the standing around and walking over the
    uneven ground at the field.  "Oh well, win one, lose one," I'm
    thinking.  But what's this familiar feeling I'm sensing?  Where's
    my watch..."Oh Hell, guys, wake up...we're late again!!"  Yep! We
    slept right through our wake-up call again but, since they've inverted
    the flight order for today, Bob and I are near the bottom of the
    round so no need to panic.  
    
    "I finally feel about half-human again," I said at breakfast, strug-
    gling to keep my tongue out of the mass of raw hamburger that used to 
    be the inside of my mouth next to the broken tooth.  Bob was still
    frustrated; before leaving the field the previous day, we'd worked
    hard on the S.T .75 in his Jug and felt we'd cleared some congestion
    outa' the spray-bar of the carb but this was still a question mark.  
    We both knew that we _needed_ some excellent flights today if we meant 
    to stay in the fray.  Bob's next two flights would be in front of the
    better, more generous judges which encouraged him but, having already
    flown for these judges, I was gonna' have to do it before the tough
    ones.
    
    At the field, my 3rd-round flight had come up and I went through
    all the motions and pre-flight machinations feeling really confident
    that I was gonna' put in a 90+ barn-burner, which I desperately
    needed to do.  Taxying into position, I opened the throttle, the
    nose began to drop, I eased back on the throttle, then eased it
    in again only to see the MiG go right over and break the prop...
    the first time that'd ever happened.  "SH*T," I screamed under my
    breath, "just what I needed."  Asking for my options, I was told
    that I could continue the flight right then or go to the end of
    the round but that, in either case, I'd get a zero for takeoff.
    It was pointless to continue so I scratched the round, Knowing that
    a chance to place well had just flown out the window.  Bob, meanwhile,
    his engine problem solved, proceeded to put in a good flight which
    paid him 92 and change, putting him right back into the hunt.
    
    Between rounds, Dan Eaton and Chris Spohr arrived.  I got pit passes
    for them and showed them around, introducing them to everyone I
    thought they might ever have heard of.  By the time my next round
    came up, I'd made the point to Chris and Dan that this next flight
    was do-or-die for the "Rat" and, in so doing, probably increased
    the pressure on myself (to do well) to some measure as well.  Determined
    that the MiG would not again go on its nose, I dialed in som extra
    up trim and probably held some back-stick to boot for the MiG leapt
    into the air from a 3-point attitude.  I immediately got the nose
    down and retracted the gear but the takeoff eas already a write-off,
    scorewise.  The remainder of the flight contained elements of
    brilliance (I did a 4-point roll that was probably the best I've
    ever done) and mediocrity (I failed to allow for the crosswind and
    let my Immelman drift over the deadline for a zero).  But, other
    than that, it was OK....riiiight.  ;B^}    
    
    A little later, Bob got another 90+ flight and, just like that,
    our fortunes had changed 180-degrees.  Suddenly, Bob was firmly
    in second place, threatening for first, and my hopes for a top-10
    finish had vanished like a desert mirage.  Dan and Chris waited
    around awhile and got to see the F-18 go again before leaving to
    head back to St. Louis.  I really enjoyed meeting Dan again and
    Chris for the first time...I only wish I'd shown you a better flight.
    
    This night, it was _I_ who was frustrated/depressed.  Bob, now rolling
    in tall cotton,did what he could to encourage me but now I was mad;
    bad enough I'd embarrassed myself, I'd embarrassed the airplane
    and it deserves better than that.  At the banquet, I resolved to
    fly a barn-burner in the 5th and final round, for _me_ and the
    _airplane_, the Hell with score, it was a matter of pride.  
    
    Frank Tiano did his traditional roast at the banquet and a great time
    was had by all.  Held at the Ft. Knox Officers' Club, the food and
    camaraderie was first class.  We retired early again as we'd have
    to check-out of the motel and get everything packed for the return
    trip before going to the field in the morning.
    
    Awaking fresh for the first time since arriving, I found a fresh
    inner-resolve to do well (if too late) this final day of the contest.
    We actually arrived at the field early and prepared for the final
    day's battle.  When my round came, there was no question about it,
    I was convinced that _this_ would be the flight that'd been eluding
    me all weekend.  A quick calculation showed that a 94 or better
    might still get me back into the top-10.
    
    Sure enough, I put in one of the 2-or-3 best flights I ever done
    in competition.  Everyone who witnessed it said, "That was a 94+
    all day long."  But, it wasn't to be; I got a 92 and, honestly,
    didn't even care at that point.  I'd gotten what I wanted and _I_
    and my peers knew what the flight was worth...I was happy as a clam!!
    
    Following completion of the official rounds, I was invited to fly
    in a mass WW-II demo.  Normally, I don't go in too much for these
    deals as, too frequently, someone gets too loose and accidents happen.
    But, THIS TIME, I accepted immediately.  I was, at last, on a high
    and I wanted _more_!  All I could think was, "WHy _NOW_? Why not
    from round-1 on??  Placing highly'd a been a piece-of-cake, had
    I only _started_out_ flying like this."  
    
    Gene Barton, Diego Lopez, Frank Tiano, Shailesh Patel, Bob Frey,
    Denny DeWeese and I all fired up, took off, joined up and started
    making mass fly-bys, doing a different maneuver each pass.  I was
    actually faster than any of the other planes, even with the smallest
    engine, so I had to fly a little wider than the rest then join up
    for the maneuver pass.  During one pass, Gene made a pass at about
    6', _inverted_ with his gorgeous, blood-red Mustang with the MiG-3
    tacked right onto his tail about 20' back and a foot or more lower.
    IT FELT GREAT, _I_ FELT GREAT and I knew I was gonna' be much better
    company during the long drive home as a result.  Too soon it was
    over; I was the last to pitch out and land after making a coupla'
    solo-passes, one being the first 8-point roll I'd tried with the
    MiG and the last being a slooooooooow roll which took the entire
    length of the contest area (about 500').  My landing, like the takeoff,
    was as near perfect as I've ever done and I taxied back to the pits
    to the accolades and backslapping of my friends and peers.  It felt
    great and I wanted to do it again but it was time to pack up and hit
    the road westbound toward home, some 36 or more hours distant.  I'm
    still disappointed that I didn't do better but these last two flights
    made the whole ordeal worthwhile!
    
    We hit the road, stopping at Benny Birchfields home outside Nashville
    for an hour or so.  Benny and Roy Orbison had come up for Sunday's flying
    and wouldn't have it any other way than that we'd stop and visit
    awhile.  Pushing on, we drove as far as Memphis, packed it in for
    the night, then drove straight through to Phoenix Monday AM.
    
    So Murphy had his way with me this time.  I brought the MiG home
    unscratched and had one Hell an experience the last day of the meet.
    How could anyone say I didn't win after all?
    
    I don't remember all the finishers but here are the ones I _do_
    recall:
    
    Best Military:  Tom Kozewski   	Fokker D-VII
    Best Civilian:  ??? from Canada     Cessna Ag-Truck
    Pilots' Choice: Bob Fiorenze	F-18 Hornet
    
    1st place:	Bob Fiorenze		own F-18 Hornet
    2nd place:  Bob Frey		Holman P-47D
    3rd place:  Gene Barton		own P-51B
    4th place:  ???
    5th place:  ???
    6th place:  Diego Lopez		Lien F-6-F Hellcat
    7th place:  ???
    8th place:  Shailesh Patel		Baker P-47D
    9th place:  ???
   10th place:  Tom kozewski		own Fokker D-VII
    
    I'll fill in the blanks as and/or if I remember them.
    
    Highlights:  Fiorenze's F-18 was certainly impressive.  However,
    Dennis Crooks' SR-71 Blackbird was a real show stopper when flown as
    a demo each day.  It's extremely fast and presents a really strange
    profile.  Many compared it to a broom but I liked Charlie Nelson's
    description:  "It looks like a big black guitar flying around up
    there!"  :B^)
    
    Lowlights:  Let's not go over those again!
    
    Things learned:  I'm truly glad I went and participated in the Masters
    but this trip now _tops_ my list of "Things I'd never done before
    that I'll never do again!"  Next year's Masters has already bee
    set for St. Louis and I'm afraid they'll hafta' do it without the
    "Rat."  No sour grapes, believe me.  It's jut too d*mn far to travel
    to one of these things without _ample_ time for travel allocated
    to both sides of the event.  The fatigue factor had a significant
    and, I believe, negative effect on my performance, not to mention
    my sense of humor.  :B^)
    
    So, as the sun rose in the east, Tuesday AM, I wearily hauled my
    dragging hulk into the house, collapsed into my recliner, picked
    up the phone....................and called the dentist! 
    
    				F I N I S
    				=========

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    Well done, Al.  Sorry you didn't place better, but the last day
    sounds like it made things worth the effort.  Reading your excellent
    commentary makes me wish I was there to cheer you and the eastern
    group on.  By the way, how did Charlie do?  I probably won't see
    him for a couple of weeks.  I saw Tom's Fokker several times last
    winter during various stages of construction, and it was really
    impressive.  He spent a great deal of time on it.  I'm glad he fared
    well with his first masters attempt.  His model engine really got
    my attention.
    
    Glad you made it back in one piece (almost)
    
    Charlie

     Sounds like you had quite an adventure. Indiana Jones don't have
    nothin on you. Glad to hear it end on a happy note though. At least
    you and the plane made it there and back in one piece. At least
    the plane did anyway. Take a break Al, you earned it!!
    
                                                Bernie

Sure glad the MiG made it back safe Al.

Don't worry - I've been practicing crashes and I think I can assure
you that statistically speaking your MiG will be in safe hands when I
fly it.  By the time I get to Phoenix I will have used up several quotas
of crash allotments thereby guaranteeing the safety of your MiG.

Welcome back - great story.

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
================================================================================

    Charlie,
    
    Thanx to you and the others for the welcome back...gives me a nice
    warm feeling (nausea?).  :B^)  No, seriously, thanx; ah' 'preciate
    it!
    
    As to Charlie, I'm not sure but I think he also finished in the
    high-teens or somewhere in the 20's.  When last we compared notes
    on Sunday, he said he was having a meet not unlike mine in terms
    of getting his s**t together.  I never got to watch one of his flights
    but saw him cruising by several times looking just fine.  I know
    he took his Waco home in one piece this year so he won from that
    aspect.  I saw more of Steve Sherwood's flights on his Staggerwing
    than I did Charlie's flights and, this meet anyhow, his plane was
    aptly named.  He seemed to be "Staggering" into the air or back
    onto the runway every time I looked around.  That little beastie
    looks as ornery around the ground as my ol' Yeller Peril!  I'd bet
    his lower wingtips are paper-thin following the Masters!! ;B^}    

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    I really hadn't intended to write an autobiographical novel on the
    Masters; it just sorta' swung that direction and came out that way.
    In describing the fortunes (and/or lack of same) of the Arizona con-
    tingent, I find I omitted some of the items of general interest noted
    at the contest.  So, the following is an overview of things/events
    that occurred during the meet.
    
    1. Fiorenze's F-18 was suitably impressive, as well it should be
    considering the _BIG_ bucks that went into it; perhaps approaching
    $10K.  It's a large ship, weighing 29lb.'s, and is powered by twin
    O.S. .77's driving Tom Cook Dynamax fans.  The Hornet uses _LOTS_ of 
    runway and never seems to have attained flying-speed at the time of 
    rotation.  But, it climbs out rather authoritatively as the main gear 
    straightens out ang retracts just like the prototype.  Nowhere near as 
    fast as the Cook F-4, the Hornet appears rock-solid and very groovy.
    
    2. I found it interesting that Bob Frey's little, lo-tech, Holman
    P-47 threatened the hi-tech, hi-dollar F-18.  I think it's encouraging
    to realize that throwing money at it is not yet a guaranteed tactic
    for winning at scale.  Should that ever become the case, I feel
    a "professional-class" will need to be established so that those
    of us who cannot (or choose not to) put enormous quantities of money
    into our sport still have a fair arena in which to compete.
    
    3. Tom Czikk (pronounced Chick) of New York had a gorgeous P-40C
    Tomahawk, one of the early models with the 3-guns faired into the
    upper nose, behind the spinner, and the chin-radiator moved farther
    aft than later models.  Done in the colors of AVG (Flying Tigers)
    ace, R.T. Smith, this was an impressively executed model.  Powered
    by a mere Rossi .90 swinging only a 14-6 prop, this large (1/5 scale)
    model flew amazingly well once airborne and clean (gear and flaps
    up).  Tom admits that he needs more power, however, and plans to
    install a larger engine.  My single criticism of this ship was that
    the engine head hung out in front of the chin-radiator where use
    od an extension shaft would've allowed it to be hidden within the
    radiator scoop.  Oh well, you couldn't see it on a 90 mph pass from
    the back of a galloping horse, so......
    
    4. Interestingly, the hosting clubs were severely strict about crossing
    their safety deadline (I got a zero when, on my first flight, I wandered
    across the line while fiddling with my retract switch about 1/4
    mile or more downwind of the flightline area).  However, they had
    no reservation whatever at allowing pilots out on the runway to
    stand behind their planes on takeoff or even go clear across the
    runway to takeoff from the grass adjacent to the runway.  This,
    to me, is a _TOTAL_ contradiction;  let's zero pilots for crossing
    the deadline any time, at any place, but let's allow people to wander
    all over the runway, _THE_MOST_ dangerous area of all, to perform
    their takeoff, something they SHOULD be professional enough to do while
    standing at the flight-station when they're flying in a "Masters" level
    competition.  Incredible...makes no sense whatever to me!!
    
    5. The humidity was stifling at times.  And this was not an especially
    warm weekend, to boot!  I told Dan and Chris that this was the first
    time since I left Korea in '62 that I could remember standing around
    in a lather in 65-degree temperatures.  Yeah, it was pretty, but
    you can have it...I was elated to get back to hot-and-dry.
    
    6. Skip Mast took his C-130 Hercules up after the meet and did loops,
    rolls and sustained inverted-flight with it.  No, not very realistic
    I'll admit, but you could tell the airplane wasn't crazy about being
    made to do these things and Skip's flying ability was obvious.
    
    7.  Chuck Fuller had a new, not quite complete Ziroli T-6 Texan on 
    display and it was gorgeous!  Chuck has a knack for making polished-
    aluminum aircraft really _look_ like polished aluminum and the T-6
    was no exception.  He shades each panel a little differently and
    achieves a real metal look.
    
    8. Frank Tiano called yesterday needing names and info on the WW-II
    mass demo flight we did after the contest for the article he's writing
    for M.A.N. and I recalled that Frank finished 4th in the Masters.
    We're not sure when he did it but Frank must've gotten two pretty
    good flights in somewhere.  Every time we saw him he was floundering
    around on the runway trying to takeoff, running his nose in the
    ground, etc.  But, I'm glad for him; Frank finished dead last in
    the first Masters and established the traditional "Being Last Sucks"
    T-shirt for each year's last place finisher.  Diego Lopez "won"
    this award last year and both he and Frank finished in the top-10
    this year.
    
    9. For those interested, coverage of this year's Masters should
    look for coverage in three major magazines;  Norm Goyer was there
    covering for Scale R/C Modeler, Dan Parsons is doing the coverage
    for RCM and , as previously mentioned, Frankie T's doing the bit for 
    M.A.N.
    
   10. In retrospect, I'm glad I had the experience and once again took
    part in the Masters; just qualifying for an invitation is quite
    a compliment.  I met a lot of new people, saw a lot of new things
    and travelled through 3-states I'd never been in before: Arkansas,
    Tennessee and Kentucky.  The disappointment of not showing better
    when I was fully capable of doing so will wear off and a lot of
    pleasant memories will remain.  I'm still adamant, though, that I'll
    never make another such trip under the same circumstances.  The
    smart ones were Diego, Denny and Gene who conned a guy into pulling
    a trailor loaded with their airplanes and equipment to Kentucky
    so _they_ could fly to the meet in a few comfortable hours.  That's
    for me, compadres!  I've done my first-and-last long distance
    travelling to a contest by car!!!!!!!

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    I almost forgot. Somebody asked about how Dennis Crooks did the
    swing wings on the Avenger. Al was kind enough to introduce Chris
    and I to Dennis so we asked about the wings. Dennis said the
    simple answer is that you start with a retract servo, a piano hinge,
    and a copy of the orginal engineering drawings for the wing. He
    said the real trick is getting all the angles right. The engineering
    drawings gave him the correct angles. To lock the wings down he
    uses a second servo to actuate the locking mechanism. Dennis said
    that on the full size ship, there are some little flags that pop
    up to indicate the wings are locked. Since these flags would be
    far to small for him to see on the model, he made use of some
    triangular panels that pop out of the wing to give it clearence
    while its swinging. The locking mechanism pulls the panels into
    place. If the panels are up, the wing isn't locked. If the panels
    are down, the wing is locked.
    
    Hope this helps.
    
    Dan Eaton

    Just to further clarify or confuse things, it should be mentioned
    that the actual wing folding/unfolding operation is driven by air
    using Robart tanks, cylinders and hardware in addition to some other
    parts handmade by Dennis.  ONLY the lock/unlock function is
    accomplished via a servo.
    
    Dennis' stock reply when [frequently] asked this question is that
    he "did it the same way Grumman did," only in miniature.    

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    Al,
    Your reports made real engrossing reading! The good news is you
    got the MIG home in once piece. Too bad the travelling wiped you
    out until the last day! I am sure every one of us reading your 
    report would have associated ourselves with our own experiences
    when things didn't work out despite the best of preparations.
    
    Hope that tooth's been fixed.
    
    ajai
    
    

    Eric, Ajai,
    
    Gracias fer' th' kind words.  Yes, I honestly believe I might've
    fared quite differently (better) had the travelling not been so
    gruelling.  Too many things on my mind to distract my concentration
    I fear; broken tooth, aching knee, shoulder, ankle, etc.  The most
    important commodities for successful competition are concentration
    and consistency; lacking either if these one can hardly hope to
    fly with the precision necessary to finish well and it doesn't take
    much to throw one off his competitive-edge.
    
    As to Eric's comments, some of them are closer to the mark than
    I care to admit.  Frequently, the pilotage seen is inferior to the
    quality of the model.  I shuddered when I saw Tom Kozewski's gorgeous
    Fokker D-VII as I was afraid this was such a case and I'd hafta'
    be witness to this museum-piece being dumb-thumbed to extinction.
    I was especially convinced of this when I heard that Tom had only
    been in R/C for 5-years.  Fortunately, Tom proved my fears to be
    unfounded as he did a very adequate job of piloting his beautiful
    creation.
    
    Also, it's too true that many/most very able pilots choose very
    simple "gimme" maneuvers when in competition.  These low-risk but
    high-percentage maneuvers make for rather boring flying.  Bob Frey
    and I, among a handful of other rebels, flatly refuse to do this
    and fly a full schedule of prototypical aerobatic maneuvers, figura-
    tively thumbing our noses at the notion that scale ships, especially
    fighters, should be flown conservatively.  That makes it all the
    more sweet when we are victorious but, at the same time, adds some
    degree of self-imposed pressure when we're having an "off" contest.
    
    Eric, good luck with the Reeves Hurribus.  I have a kit for this
    ship but haven't yet convinced myself to do it, especially after
    Dave Platt pointed out a major departure from scale in the wing.
    The wing should have a flat center-section with dihedral in the
    outer panels, emanating from a break just outside the landing gear
    location.  Mick's wing has a straight-V dihedral, i.e. the dihedral
    is constant from the center-section joint out to the tips.  The
    error is subtle but it's there.  What are you powering yer' Hurri
    with, what retracts, etc., etc.?  When you get it into competition,
    I hope you'll fly maneuvers as yer' optionals as opposed to straight
    flight out-back, procedure-turn and other "wuss" maneuvers.   

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

Eric,

Here're some replies/comments to yer' blurb on the upcoming Hurricane project.

>    Back to the present: I intend to build the Hurri. as scale as possible.
>    I have invested in a large library of books on the subject and am
>    probably at the "obsessed" stage of my reading. I feel really hooked
>    and figure this is going to be a good building winter.

*  This is definitely the correct approach.  One of the biggest and most com-
mon mistakes made in scale is to build the model first THEN try to document it.
My advice is to select ONE set of documentation BEFORE starting construction, 
then build the model to this documentation, to the total exclusion of all other
material.
    
>    				.......The MR Hurri is 80" in span and
>    will be a little heavier than the 72" 'munk. 

*  I figure the Hurribus' ideal weight is between 15 and 17 pounds.  I saw a
15-pounder fly with authority with an O.S. .90 a few years back.  More recently,
I saw an 18-pound example fly even better with an O.S. 1.08 which is what'll
go into mine, should I decide to build it.

>					......I intend to braze up
>    "real" kidney exhaust outlets and duct the gasses through them.

*  I'd advise you against this.  I put a fully functional scale exhaust system 
in the MiG-3 and, yeah, it's kinda' neat to see smoke boiling outa' all 6-stacks
on the ground but you can't see it in the air and (this is the bad part) the ex-
haust oil and goo is wrapped by the propwash _completely_ around the fuselage,
from nose-to-tail...almost no part of the model is spared from a coating of
nastiness, making cleanup less than a joyful experience.  I guarantee that 
_I'll_ never do it again!! 

>    The ENYA does not use a pressure feed and has a sound like a Harley
>    D. Not quite a Merlin but as close as we will want. 

*  This may be good but you should know, if you go ahead with the functional 
exhaust system, the scale pipes offer NO muffling whatsoever.  Matter-of-fact,
I think it makes things louder, kinda' like holding my 2-cycle O.S. .60 FSR
up to a megaphone!

>							....[Did you know
>    that the socialist government of the time refused to fund the
>    development of the RR Merlin and it was a private donation of 100,000
>    pounds sterling, donated by Lady Houston that saved the free world?]

*  Yes.  According to what I've read, the Rolls-Royce Merlin, as well as both
the Hurricane and the Spitfire were privately developed, meaning that Britain
would NOT have had a modern fighter and woulda' been putting up Gloster Glad-
iators, Hawker Fury's and the like against the Germans in the Battle of Britain
and things'd well have taken a different turn..."Sprechen ze Deutch, Englander?"
    
>    						......The dihedral
>    is not a problem because I am going to change it to the correct
>    set up. 

*  I'll be interested to hear how you accomplish this as that's what prevents
me from building the one I have.
    
>    The covering is still bothering me. Due to the open rear half of
>    the fus. I can't use .6 oz cloth all over. I currently hate all
>    the shrink films, coverites etc because of their slackening with
>    age. [any pointers are welcome].

*  I can't speak to yer' part of the country and how its climate may affect
the material, but I've had absolutely satisfactory results using super-shrink
Super Coverite.  I put a bead of CYA around the seams/overlaps so that they stay
put during heat shrinking.  After shrinking, I apply 1, 2 at the most, coats of
K&B epoxy primer (preferrably sprayed), sand carefully and paint.  That's all
there is to it.  I'd planned to cover the Hurri's open-structured after-fuselage
with Super-Coverite with no reservations whatever.
    
>    I would also like to be able to close and open the canopy in flight.
>    A buddy of mine had this in the old country and had the canopy tied 
>    to the pilots hand. looked absolutely real.

*  This is a nice touch I fully intend to incorporate someday.
    
>    The last thing that I am struggling with is cooling the engine. Is
>    it allowable to have a flight time removeable section in the nose
>    to permit a cooling venturi to the engine?. 

*  The model _MUST_ fly exactly as it's displayed for static judging.  The ONLY
allowable changes are: 1.) flying prop and spinner may be substituted for the
scale/static display prop but spinner must be same size, shape and color; 2.)
protruding items such as pitot-tubes, scale antennae, etc. may be removed.  
There is not 'supposed' to be any downgrade for parts of the model engine and/
or muffler being exposed but I'm sure it happens.
    
>    I cannot yet see how to cool the engine with ducting; certainly
>    not from the air scoop. The dessert variants had lower cowl air
>    filters but thats cheating???.

*  What's cheating?  That's exactly what I figger'd to do on my Hurribus; do
a desert variant with chin-mounted sand-filter and hide the engine head in this
filter, even if I had to set the engine back a bit and use an extension prop-
shaft.
    
>    I hope that I have been able to give you a "feel" for where I am
>    coming from with this project. Flying is not enough. I need a
>    challenge, but at the same time I also need lots of help, advise,
>    criticism and last but not least inspiration of those that have
>    gone before me. I must repeat that I just loved your acounts of
>    the competition and the trials and tribulations surrounding it.
>    Hey I have to pay money to RCM etc. to get what you give us.
    
*  I'm more than glad to lend any assistance I can to yer' project.  I appre-
ciate the kind words about the Masters-saga.  I kinda' got carried away with
it but had a ball writing it.

>    Thanks again 

*  Pornada, amigo.......

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    
    Al, when you mentioned Tom Kosewski's above-average flying ability
    with only 5 years of experience it sparked my memory a bit.  When I
    met Tom it was about a week after his first flight with Charlie
    Nelson as instructor.  I seem to recall that Tom landed
    his trainer (a First Step) on his first flight, and was soloing
    almost immediately after picking up his transmitter for the first
    time.  He really had the "bug" then, and has really channelled his
    enthusiasm, with impressive results.
    
    Bill

    re. .362 by Eric Henderson
    
    Eric, you mentioned a Super Chipmunk in you note.  You said you
    had a 1.08 INVERTED in it.  I'm presently building a Goldberg
    Super  Chipmunk and I'm putting a OS.90FS INVERTED into it.  My
    only concern is the engine head is hanging down and will be the
    first thing to hit the ground if it noses in!  Did you have any
    problems with this?
    
    Ken

    Don't forget to hook up the pilots head to the rudder so that when
    you move the rudder, the pilot is looking in the direction that
    he is going.  This was done on a Sopwith Pup at Rhinebeck and it
    really looks neat!!
    
    As for the exhaust...  Perhaps a small cylinder (retract cylinder??)
    charged with a CO2 fire extinguisher could be used to create the
    exhaust look...
    
    Cheers,
    jeff
    

    al,
    how did our buddy ramon torres do in the masters?  was he there?
    how bout dave platt?
    also, what ever happened to that gorgeous fw190 which was at the
    1/8 af meet last march?
    
    kevin

    Kevin,    
    
    Ramon was not in attendance at the Masters this year.  Word was
    he was in Europe (or wherever) competing in the FAI World Scale
    Championships.  (I don't blame him...I'da had to make the same choice
    if I had an opportunity for an expense-paid trip overseas.)
    
    Dave Platt hasn't participated in the Masters since 1985.  At the
    '86 Masters he told me he'd built a minimum of one Masters level
    scale ship every year for the past 15-years and [unfortunately]
    crashed the same number.  He said that the pain-level was getting
    to him and he was taking a hiatus from R/C competition for awhile.
    (He also allowed as how he was envious of those of us who _were_
    competing.)  I think he'd have flown in the '87 Masters except,
    true to his past fortunes, he lost a brand new Macchi C-202 at that
    year's NAT's.  Dave wasn't in attendance in any capacity at this
    year's Masters as he's been in and out of the hospital with undisclosed
    heart problems of late.  He _did_ send his regards via a message
    from Frank Tiano at the banquet saying that he was much improved
    and was sorry he had to miss the opportunity to be among his friends
    this year.
    
    The "gorgeous FW-190" you allude to belongs to Rick Hosking, a vet-
    erinarian from Sedona, AZ.  Rick allowed as how, since his work
    would prevent him fron attending the Masters in FT. Knox, he'd postpone
    any thought of flying it 'til the Masters moved west again.  (Of
    course, we now know that'll be two years hence as next year's
    championships are already scheduled to be held in St. Louis.)  Rick
    is _not_ unaware that his ship will be treacherous at an elevated
    weight of over 28lb.'s and is not anxious to try it 'til he's gained
    lots more flying experience.  Mutual friend, aviation artist Jerry
    Crandall, also of Sedona, opined at the Masters that he expects
    that Rick may never fly the bird, opting instead to build something
    at a more reasonable weight and donating the FW to a museum or such
    rather than risk trashing all that incredible work.  A wise idea,
    methinks;  Rick had already mentioned that he wanted me or Bob to
    make the test-flights and we (Bob and I) had discussed it and felt
    we'd have to graciously decline, due to the weight/wing-loading
    situation.   

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    i'm real sorry to hear "mr. scale's" health aint good.  he sounds
    like quite the character.  i liked the story you told about him
    at some contest.  dave had just demolished a scale plane and was
    picking up the pieces when a reporter and camera man stuck a microphone
    in his face and the reporter asks, "can you tell us what happened".
    dave looks up and replies "it hit the ground and broke".  end of
    interview...
    
    ah, the california guys had some stories too.  seems a good deal
    of dave's problems were caused by building excessivly light.  he
    apparantly smashes all formers out with a broom handle once the
    fuse is built and glassed.  one plane of his was built so lightly
    that upon touchdown the wing simply exploded.  he apparently hit
    the lip of the runway, but still...
    
    if you look at daves catalogue, he's advertising 88" wingspan
    spitfires at about 15 pounds if i remember right.  thats light.
    
    that fw190 sure was incredible.  had it proven to be airworthy,
    it'd be tough to beat, at least static anyways...

    Kevin,
    
    The "Hit-the-ground-and-broke" story was about the model (brandie-new
    FW-190, prototype for his [then] newest kit) that had the [right]
    wing explode upon heavy touch-down at the 1985 Masters held in Mesa,
    AZ (at the same field you and Kay visited last March).  The 'hit-the-
    lip-of-the-runway bit was/is a figment of someone's (maybe Dave's)
    overactive imagination.  I was standing directly in line with the
    point of touchdown talking to Roy Orbison when the mishap occurred
    and I can swear that the ship touched down a full 12-feet from the
    lip of the runway.  In fact, I know of at least two video-tapes,
    taken by different people that prove this to be true.
    
    The truth of the incident is that Dave limped around on a too-lean 
    engine (one of his favorite tricks), trying to complete an official 
    round.  The poor engine got saggier and saggier, the head probably
    turning blue in the process until, finally, it quit.  Dave set up
    a dead-stick landing that would've turned out fine had he not tried
    to stretch it to the paved portion of the runway...he coulda' set
    bown in the graded, decomposed granite approach overrun with no
    difficulty or damage.  But, Nooooooooooooo, he tries to stretch
    it and, just short of the asphalt, the bird pays off, stalls, tries
    to snap in from about 4'.  Sure, it hit a little hard on the right
    main but the worst I'da expected was a bent/damaged gear leg or,
    at the most, the unit torn outa' the wing.  Everyone who witnessed
    it was stunned to see the entire right wing panel literally EXPLODE
    as though a bomb had gone off in it.  That's when Dave gathered
    up the pieces and retired to the shade of the ramada to sit down
    with a bottle of zap and put the wing back together, jigsaw-puzzle
    fashion.  It was during this time he was approached by the local
    TV news team with the question and response you cited.
    
    Amazingly enough, Dave got the ship repaired and test-flown by dusk
    that evening and was ready to resume competition the following AM,
    having missed only one round.  But, Dave hadn't learned anything
    as, on his very first flight, he again tried to ignore an overly
    lean engine and, this time, went in among the tall Saguaro cactus
    north of the field, totally destroying the unfortunate model.  It
    should be mentioned that this was as fine a scale model as I ever
    saw, easily in the same ballpark with Rick Hosking's model and Dave
    took it all as though he'd just lost a greasy, 10-year old Ugly-Stik.
    I had to hand it to him for that!!
    
    Yer' right, Dave falls short in the building and rigging of his
    otherwise beautiful models.  He's stated to me many times that he
    considers the entire airframe merely a canvas upon which to create
    a masterpiece of realism through artistic use of detail and paint,
    not really caring much what's under the surface.  Unfortunately,
    this is his downfall too many times; the Macchi C-202 I mentioned
    him losing at last year's Nat's went in due to the pushrod wire
    pulling out of the arrowshaft...Dave'd merely plugged the end of
    the arrowshaft with balsa, drilled a 1/16" hole in it and stuffed
    the 'straight' wire in with a gob of epoxy.  The correct way is
    to drill a 1/16" hole in the side of the arrowshaft, an inch or
    more from the end, then bend a 90-degree in the end of the wire;
    then the wire is inserted into the end of the shaft and the 90-degree
    bend inserted into the hole just drilled...NOW, a balsa plug with
    beau coups epoxy is forced into the end of the shaft, trapping the
    wire against the inside of the shaft and securing the bent end theough
    the hole in the side.  I DEFY this pushrod to fail.  Anyhow, Dave
    didn't do it this way and, after only a few flights, the elevator
    load pulled the wire outa' the arrowshaft and, scratch one beautiful
    Macchi C-202!!!!!1

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    
      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    Dan,
    
    I just got in touch with the British Aerospace PR Dept. at
    
    	Brooklands Road
    	Weybridge
    	Surrey
    	KT13 0SJ
    	ENGLAND
    
    	'phone:		44(country code) 932(area code) 853444
    
    	telex:		27111
    
    I said that you were looking for some help and they promised to
    call me back with a contact name.
    
    Will add that to this note as and when.
    
    Regards
    
    Brian
     

    Dan,
    
    There's an article on the history of the Reno air-races in the current
    issue of Air Classics magazine and, in it, there is one full color
    picture of the Sea Fury, "Dreadnought."  At long last, I 've seen
    the aircraft yer' wantin' to model.  Must admit, even though I prefer
    fighters in their 'battle-dress,' that it's an impressive looking
    machine.
    
    In the same issue, on a page called "For the Wreckord," there's
    a blurb about a hangar fire which totally destroyed a number of
    classic aircraft, among them a Stearman, PT-22, P-51 and, you guessed
    it, a Sea Fury.  An accompanying pic showed the remains of the Sea
    Fury and stated, as evidenced by the pic, that the heat was so intense
    that the aircraft literally disintegrated, leaving nothing but the
    barely recognizeable Bristol radial engine to identify the onve
    pround bird-of-prey.  Damage/loss is estimated at $2-million and,
    can you believe this, neither the hangar nor the aircraft which
    occupied it were insured...what a shame.
    
    To whomever it was that's considering building a Sterling Stearman
    PT-17, the latest [newspaper style] flyer from Tower has 2 of them
    listed in its 'Scratch-an-Dent' sale. The first is listed as having
    broken/missing parts and is priced at $70.  The second is listed
    as 'new condition' with a damaged box and is priced at $79.  With
    the regular price listed at [I think} $129, this might be an excellent
    opportunity to pick up the kit for yer' future project at a great
    price.  

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    Dan,
    
    Here's the latest scoop on British Aerospace contact:-
    
    British Aerospace
    Richmond Road
    Kingston-upon-Thames
    Surrey
    KT2 5QS
    ENGLAND
    
    'phone:	44(country code) 1(area code) 546 7741
    
    telex:	23726
    
    contact name:	Mr John Coombes
    
    If you would like to pose specific questions I can call him for
    you and get answers.
    
    Regards
    
    Brian
    

    somewhere in this note al casey described his flight routine for
    scale comp.  i can't find it but rembember it as something like
    takeoff
    landing
    figure-8
    low pass
    roll
    2 pt roll
    4 pt roll
    victory roll
    ???
    
    the last 4 or so are optional?  whats the diff between a roll and
    a victory roll?  how big must/can the figure 8 be?
    being the wimp that i am, i would probably opt not to do the 4pt
    roll.  gee, maybe proto taxi in its place.
    
    al, how long are you up in the air for a single flight?  do you
    do the exact same routine every time?
    
    thanks,
    kevin

    Kevin,
    
    A typical flight maneuver schedule looks something like this:
    
    1. UNASSISTED ROG (Rise-Off-Ground; takeoff)
    2. HORIZONTAL FIGURE-8
    3. LOW FLY-PAST (10-20' over edge of runway)
    4. Optional #1
    5. Optional #2
    6. Optional #3
    7. Optional #4
    8. Optional #5
    9. LANDING
   10. FLIGHT REALISM
    
    The maneuvers in all-cap.'s are the mandatories.  The maneuvers
    may be done in any order you desire, this to accomodate the plane
    that takes off with a load of ordnance, drop-tanks, etc. and wishes
    to get rid of them before beginning the mandatotry maneuvers.  Optional
    maneuvers may include up to 3-mechanical options, e.g. retractable
    gear, flaps, bomb/tank drop, etc. in AMA competition but you are
    limited to only 2-mechanicals in Masters competition.  (Personally,
    I'd like to see this reduced to 1 or even none to force more flying
    maneuvers except for those types that are incapable of much
    aerobatics.)  In most contests, you may change your optional maneuvers
    after each round should you so desire.
    
    I've flown the same schedule of maneuvers for nearly 4-years with
    the MiG-3.  The optional maneuvers I use are;
    
    1. Military roll (pitched through a shallow arc)
    2. 2-point roll
    3. 4-point roll
    4. Immelman turn
    5. Victory roll
    
    The victory roll is performed by making a shallow dive for speed,
    then pitching up about 35-40 degrees and rolling, the aircraft being
    level upon completion of the roll.
    
    At the Masters, I changed my schedule for the 5th round as the
    Immelman was giving me fits;  I moved the Victory roll to option
    #4 and substituted a pitch-out/tactical approach for the 5th option.
    I always do this as an unscored maneuver (for realism) prior to
    landing anyway so I just changed it to a scored maneuver, hoping
    to improve my chances for a good score.  (It worked but not to the
    extent I needed to get back into the running for a top-10 finish.)      
    
    Careful selection of high-percentage optional maneuvers can definitely
    enhance ones chances for success in competition.  I admittedly make
    it tough on myself by insisting upon using aerobatic maneuvers as
    options but I happen to believe it's a travesty to fly a fighter
    conservatively and I _must_ do it my way, whatever the cost.  Besides,
    when I do win, I take pride in the knowledge that I did it the hard
    way over guys who were taking the easy way out.

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    Al,
    	I would think that with a little brain power on the part of
    those that make the rules one could come up with a "K" factor
    method of scoring as used in Masters pattern. Kind of like what
    is used in diving competition. The score would be tallied up and
    then multiplied by the "K" factor and a total given. An example
    of this would be gear retraction. With todays retracts I would think
    that this would be a low "K" factor manuaver say a 1. But a four
    point roll would be a 3 or 4. An average four point roll would
    should then be scored as a 3 or 4 by the judges and then multiplied
    by the "K" factor.  In this way an average flying manuaver would
    be equal to a gimmy retract option....
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    							Tom

No, that would force only planes that are capable of high
difficulty maneuvers.  Personally, I like seeing things besides
WWII fighters, and if some bozo were to want to build a scale
Cessna 172, say, he, the bozo, would be out of luck by default
:-).

>No, that would force only planes that are capable of high
>difficulty maneuvers.  Personally, I like seeing things besides
>WWII fighters, and if some bozo were to want to build a scale
>Cessna 172, say, he, the bozo, would be out of luck by default
>:-).

Gee John,
have I ever met this bozo your talking about? 8^)

>    1. Military roll (pitched through a shallow arc)

i admit i don't have an ama rulebook and i need one.  can you tell me
what you mean by "pitched through a shallow arc"?
    
>    The victory roll is performed by making a shallow dive for speed,
>    then pitching up about 35-40 degrees and rolling, the aircraft being
>    level upon completion of the roll.

neat, that i can handle.  was afraid it might have to be made real low...
    
>    when I do win, I take pride in the knowledge that I did it the hard
>    way over guys who were taking the easy way out.

for now i will take pride in just doing well.  or even surviving the
meet!

thanks for the info.
kevin

    Kevin,
    
    By "pitched through a shallow arc" I mean pulling the nose up slightly
    at the beginning of the roll, being level through the inverted portion
    and the nose dropping slightly as the roll is completed.  This was/is
    how virtually all fighters perform a roll as failure to pitch the
    nose up at the outset causes the ship to fall off badly, recovering
    the roll in a considerable nose-down attitudr.
    
    On the Victory roll, this maneuver looks best when you dive in to
    maybe 10' altitude before pitching up into the roll...don't start
    it from 100' or it looks like Hell.
    
    
    Tom, John, Dan,
    
    K-factoring is an ongoing discussion in scale but, as John has already
    discerned, the problem is trying to figure a way to apply it equitably
    to _all/any_ types of aircraft modeled.  John's hypothetical "Bozo"
    with the Cessna-172 could very likely do many/most of the aerobatic
    maneuvers with the higher difficulty factors but-he'd-look'-totally-
    out-of-place-and-unrealistic doing so.
    
    K-factors work in pattern and in diving for the same reason; everyone
    has the same basic potentials to work from as a common base.
    Unfortunately, in scale modeling, there is no common ground other
    than the fact that all aircraft fly.  Applying a difficulty factor/
    bonus to a maneuver that one type of model simply is incapable of doing
    (or at least the prototype was) would be patently unfair.  The problem
    remains how to fairly apply a K-factor; the only solution, ultimately,
    may be to divisionalize contests according to performance of various
    general aircraft types.  If such were the case, Fighters would only
    compete against other fighters and aircraft of similar performance
    characteristics, light civil/utility types against each other,
    the same for commercial types, WW-I, etc.  Logistically, this could
    be a nightmare for the people throwing contests but I see no other
    equitable solution at the moment.
    
    As to mechanical options, my opinion is that they shoul be worth
    absolutely nothing, _unless_ they aren't installed, aren't used
    or fail to operate correctly, in which case they should count _against_
    the modeler in the form of negative/debit points.  My basis for
    this attitude is quite simple: if the full scale was equipped with
    and used certain mechanical options, basic to the aircraft itself,
    like retracts and flaps, then, bare minimum, the model should include
    and utilize these features simply to avoid a deduction...no points
    would be awarded for flicking a switch and proving you read the
    instructions and installed the option correctly.  How is awarding
    an automatic 10-points for retractable landing gear fair to John's
    "Bozo" who doesn't have retracts?  Shouldn't Bozo get 10-points
    also for using his landing gear prototypically, the way the designer
    intended??  The same applies to flaps.  I'm slightly less critical
    of other mechanicals external to the actual taking off, landing and
    flying the aircraft; bombs, tank drops, ag-spraying, cargo/parachute
    drops, banner towing , etc. are all legitimate 'special' features
    and should be useable as options _provided_ they're done in a realistic
    fashion.  I still maintain that a maximum of one mechanical option
    should be allowed.  I've watched certain pilots come in on a bomb-run
    and drop a bomb...OK, great; but then, Ive watched as the same pilot
    makes another pass and drops yet _another_ bomb.  Should this count
    as two separate 10-point options??  Personally, I think not!!! 
    
    The bottom line difficulty we've exposed here is how to make judging
    infinitely fair to all types of models without discriminating against
    (and forcing out) any specific type.  Frankly, I'm not sure it's
    altogether possible...if it is, it's gonna' require a monumental
    effort to accomplish.

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

        Re:< Note 271.388 by THOTH::SNOW >

                You oaf!    To  calculate  area you divide by 7x7=49.  Do
        calculate scale volume divide by 7x7x7=343.
                      _ 
                     / |
        |  _====____/==|
        |-/____________|
        |    |        o \
             O           \ 
                          O
         Hang in there! o_|_
                          |
             Anker      \_|_/

    Sno-man,
    
    You'll be interested (I think) to learn that my buddy in Ft. Walton
    Beach, Fla., Jack Dorman, has already located me a set of plans
    for Vito Tomeo's ~80" Hawker Sea Fury.  I can't think of the name
    of Jack's company, but he has a business making/selling vacuum-molded
    ABS cockpit kits, mostly (so far) for Dave Platt's kits (he and
    Dave are good friends.  Jack also won precision scale at this year's
    Nat's with a Platt Zero.
    
    I mention this 'cause Jack offered to pull me a fiberglass cowl
    and vacuum form the plastic fairings, blisters, gun-ports, etc.
    that Vito used to offer with his plans but which are no longer
    available.  Only problem is he can't provide a canopy unless I make
    a plug.  He _did_ mention, however, that he has a Hawker Tempest
    canopy that might work which I am welcome to.  Hopefully, I can
    get Jack to gin me up a cockpit kit as well...Helluva deal, eh?
    Jack also provided me with Vito's address but speculated that it
    was pretty unlikely that he'd have anything left as he's been out
    of the business for nearly 5-years now...too bad.
    
    Since Vito's planes were originally intended for .60's driving a
    belt & pulleyed or geared prop driver, the construction should be
    reasonably light and be ideally suited for a .90 or 1.08 2-cycle
    which is exactly what I prefer.  I just don't care for the large
    gas and/or glo engines.  The O.S. .90/1.08 maintains the friendli-
    ness and reliability of the smaller 2-cycles and represents the
    upper limit of what I'll build/fly.   

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    Dan,
    
    Wouldn't I?  You bet I would.  I've liked the Sea Fury for years
    and had always considered doing one some day if I could find the
    right plans, right size, etc., etc.  But, yes, it would definitely
    be a single-seater in military livery.  To restate my philosophy,
    "There are only two kinds of airplanes: fighters and targets!"
    
    I figgered' ~80" was too big fer' yer' purposes and, honestly, didn't 
    think you'd be interested in a bird this size.  However, if you thought
    you were, I expect we could copy the plans somehow.   

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    Dan,
    
    Obviously, I'll also have to start accumulating documentation for
    the SF fi I decide to build after studying the plans.  Can you steer
    me to any good sources.  I don't recall Squadron Signal having a
    "______ In Action" book out on it.  I'll need to find some 1st-class
    3-views and as many color schemes as possible to select from.  If
    possible, I want to model an actual combat ship, not a modern-day
    restoration as you lose the option to weather the finish, add exhaust
    smoke, gun burns, etc.  Where do I order the 1989 GHOSTS calendar from?    

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    Dan,
    
    Yeah, I figger' to start haunting the aviation book services etc.
    as I've done in the past (and recommended herein) as well as hook
    up with the IPMC and an aviation artist I know in Sedona as soon
    as I get serious about things.  I just thought you may've ferreted
    out some material/sources which I could follow up on too.   

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    Even though it is a fixed wing aircraft, there was a Hawker Sea
    Fury XI at the National Aeronautical Collection, part of the
    National Museum of Science and Technology at the Rockcliffe
    Airport on the eastern outskirts of Ottawa, Ontario.  
    
    To quote from their pamphlet,
    	"The Sea Fury was the last piston-engined fighter to serve
    	 in the Royal Canadian Navy before being replaced in 1954 with
    	 McDonnell Banshees. Because of its powerful Bristol Centaurus
    	 engine, the Sea Fury had a performance comparable to the best
    	 land-based fighters of its time.  Aircraft TG119 was donated
    	 to the collection by Bancroft Industries Limited."
    
    Maybe someone from Kanata can enter the address for sending for
    information from the museum.

		________
	 /	  __|__  
	=========[_____\>
	/	__|___|__/  BREAK A BLADE,
			    Ken    	

					      
      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al		     __
    |_|_|      ( >o				* __|__|__  *    *    *     *
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)*     	    (**)   V *  *  *   |* *   *
					       *   (    )--| *  _______0_______ 
					     _____(______)_|_________U___U______
	                
							        "The Sno-man"

I've been trying to figure out how to hide the control horns for
the rudder and elevator inside a fuse.  The elevator is fairly
easy, but the rudder horn just doesn't have much room at all.  In
researching this one, I've noticed that some serious scale models
hide the elevator horn and leave the rudder horn out in the breeze.
Is this normally overlooked by the judges?

The best scheme I've been able to come up with is to put the
elevator horn on top of the elevator and route the pushrod up to
it inside the fin.  Then the rudder would have a tiller inside
the fuse and be actuated by the rotating motion of the servo,
just like in the old days.  But I know that no one does this! 

Also, is it the usual practice to use very short control horns,
like just enough to hook on to?

    John,
    
    What you ask is a common bugaboo for the scale modeler.  To a great
    extent, hiding the control horns inside the fuse is a function of
    size.  Obvious, right?  The larger the fuse, the more room to hide
    the horns within.
    
    On the MiG-3, I located _both_ the elevator and the rudder horns
    outside; the pushrods exit underneath (and as close as possible
    to) the horizontal stab to keep them outa' sight as much as is
    possible/practical.  The rulebook states that no deduction is to
    be made for any items necessary to model operation, such as pushrods
    engine heads, mufflers, needle valves, etc.  My cylinder head also
    protrudes 1/4" or so beneath the lower nose hatch.  To my direct
    knowledge, I've never been penalized for these things but you never
    know what influenced the judge's score.  On my next scale job, I
    intend to try to conceal the items a bit more.
    
    As to rudder horns, yes, it's fairly common to use a very short horn
    so that only the clevis attachment is visible outside the fuse.
    For a taildragger, you want all the throw you can get anyway, right?
    Probably the best method for concealing rudder linkage nowadays
    is a push-pull cable setup; short horns or other type attachment
    points are mounted to both sides of the rudder, cables attached
    to each and run forward in the fuse to a U-control type bellcrank
    which, in turn, is driven by the rudder servo.  In both these examples,
    total throw is controlled by the length of the servo output arm.
    
    I don't recommend a short horn be used on elevator or ailerons as
    the closerthe actuating point gets to the pivot point, the sloppier
    the surface becomes, not only robbing the surface of efficiency
    but exposing it the probability of flutter as well.
    
    Hope this helped to answer yer' questions, John.

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    Dan & Al,
    
    I spoke with John Coombes at British Aerospace re: drawings for
    Sea Fury but have drawn a blank.
    
    John spent some time going thru' his database while I was on the
    phone but did not come up with anything about a T20 trainer.
    
    He also said that they do not generally let drawings go to the US
    anyway as they are afraid of someone building/rebuilding a plane
    from them which is not airworthy and then getting a law suit against
    them!
    
    He did say that one of the best books available on Hawker aircraft
    is:-
    
    	"Hawker and their Aircraft" by Francis K Mason
    
    apparently Francis(sp?) is regarded as the definitive source.
    
    Sorry this is not very helpful.
    
    Good luck with the project.
    
    Brian
     
    
    

    Eric, Your building a scale bird?? Great. I too am to embark on
    that journey. I called Holman tuesday night and ordered a plan set
    cowl,canopy and ribs for his Brian Taylor P47. Figure at 10-11 lbs.
    the OS long stroke should pull it well. I have a set of H&D air
    retracts that been sitting on my shelf for a coupple of years. They
    should work great.
    What does that wing on your Hurri look like? Is it scale or due
    you have the same issue Al does with his kit?
    
    
    Tom

    Tom,
    
    I'm pretty sure Eric has the Mick Reeves kit which is what I have.
    That, naturally, means he has the same wing with non-scale dihedral.    

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

Eric, do call ACE and explain your problem; I've always had the
best treatment from them, and I'm sure that the action of the
retracts can be made as you wish.  Sometimes ACE's documentation
is a little strange.

    What do you mean by operational???
    
    One option is to use electronics to create the sound and mechanics
    to make the guns recoil (if that is needed).  (I've done a little
    work on this, let me know if you want more details...)
    
    A second option might be to use CO2 power, although I don't know
    if that will be loud enough.
    
    A third option would be to build operation guns, with firing pins
    (but obviously no projectiles).  You could use pistol primers as
    charges.  They are uniform, easy to obtain, loud and of a very uniform
    size.  Obviously, you would have to read the fine print of the rules
    to insure that this is allowed.
    
    Cheers,
    jeff
    

    Jeff, Eric,
    
    Please read the rulebook regarding pyrotechnics to check me but
    I think, as long as nothing is being launched/ejected/fired/dropped
    from the aircraft, the cartridge primer idea would be legal as purely
    a noise simulator.  BTW, I sure wouldn't waste a lot of time/effort
    on making the guns recoil as I guarantee that neither you nor the
    judges will be able to see it in flight.                   

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

I've often skylarked on that one, and here is the best idea I can
come up with.  Radio Schlok sells two very interesting chips; one
is a sound generator and the other is a high power amp.  I've
experimented with the sound chip and it does indeed make a fairly
good gunshot.  I figure that if one were to take the output of
this chip and hook it to the high power amp, with a small
speaker, one could make a pretty good sounding machine gun.  Now,
this gun might use up one 9V battery per flight, but for a
contest, nothing is too expensive.

    I think that, unless you intend to demonstrate the guns as part of
    the static display of the plane, you might as well not bother.
    You would need a particularly quiet engine, or an excessively
    large power amp/speaker to be heard over the racket most glow fuel
    motors make.

    Of course, electric planes make hardly any noise at all.

    Also, how do you expect to explain the loud speaker sticking out
    of the bottom of your plane to the scale judges ?


    Randy "Mr. Electric" Cohen.
    

    A coupla' years back, a fellow whose name I can't scrape up at the
    moment though he placed 4th at the '87 Masters, was campaigning
    a Fokker D-VIII Flying Razor (high wing parasol) which had electronic
    simulated gun noise installed.  As Randy said in .-1, even with
    the engine throttled back, the noise was barely audible and sounded
    something like a noise you'd hear in a Warner Bros. cartoon at that.
    
    I'm sure the day _will_ some when simulated gun noise will be a
    viable commodity but I haven't seen/heard it yet where I'm prompted
    to make it a must on my next fighter.    

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    re the radio shack chips, et al...  I have a schematic of the entire
    device that some helpful fellow in the "ELECTRO_HOBBIES" notesfile
    drew up for me...  I tried it a few times, but I could not get it
    to work at all.
    
    I am interested in at least getting a prototype working, even if
    it wasn't loud enough (just so I could say I did it!!).  If there
    are any hardware type person in the greater maynard/NH area that
    would like to spend a lunch or evening figuring it out, please 
    let me know; I'll be happy to share what I have...
    
    
    Now, on a whole new thought...  At Rhinebeck, they fire their machine
    guns in the planes and can be heard from some distance away, even
    with their engines running.  I *think* that they use some kind of
    gas (hydrogen or something) and spark it off.  You can even see
    the flash of light!  I wonder what exactly they use??  Any thoughts??
    
    cheers,
    jeff
    

RE: 271.417
                     
>    Butane and a spark! Any knowledge out there on this please?
    
Eric,
this sounds neat! Just think, if you could arrange for a slow leak to fill
some of the fuselage cavities and then be ignited by the spark from the
gun.... Why, you could give a whole new meaning to the term "I've been shot
down". 8^) After the explosion and as the plane plumets to the ground in flame,
you should have the pilot bale out with parachute. Then you could turn to the 
judges and tell them that the flak is murder out there today.

On the more serious side, keep in mind that a butane gas leak could be a real
bummer.

Dan Eaton

    The Rhinebeck guns use acetylene (generated by mixing calcium carbide
    and water).
    
    The size of the combustion chamber required to do this varies with
    the desired sound level.  About one beer-can size ought to work
    OK for your purposes.  If you use a beer can, be sure to reinforce
    it with Kevlar tape and epoxy !
    
    However, the sparking to ignite the gas _will_ make electronic hash 
    and may shoot your radio down. 
    
    (those kids "cannons" that fire "bangsite" work on the same principle.)
                                    
    	-Bill

    Perhaps Eric would consider a pulse jet with the vanes tuned for
    a pulse rate of 5 pps?

			< Boy, have I got a deal for you!>

A little cross fertilization  goes a long way. A while back I was reading the 
Pyrotechnics notes-file and came up with the idea for a cannon, which I 
subsequently built. It is powered by acetylene and makes one HELL of a bang!
It consists of a 5' length of 4" diameter PVC plumbing pipe with a cap at one 
end. A hole in the cap allows me to charge it with about 10 seconds worth of 
acetylene from a tank. I fire it with one of those piezo-electric sparkers and 
you can hear it across town. On a smaller scale such as you want, the sound 
would be more of a "crack". One of the problems I ran into is that after a few 
shots, I have to ventilate the barrel to restore the oxygen supply. In a flying
model, you could let the airflow do the venting for you. You would need to 
experiment with the adjustment for the acetylene flow and the rate of the spark.
Also, you would need to find a source for small tanks of gas, or use the calcium
carbide-in-water trick to generate the gas, although that is not very reliable 
for a remote, steady-state source. If you like, you can come over to my house 
for a demo of the cannon and perhaps we could fix up a small scale version to 
see how it might work. Let me know.

Dave

    as they say... ***FLAME ON***
    
    You know, I'm sure I've read someplace in the AMA safety codes
    that I will not fly an airplane with any exlposive devices on
    board.  I have to admit that I don't really see any positive benefits
    to adding such devices to your airplane.  In fact, I find it
    quite un-reassuring to see this discussion has carried as far as
    it has.

    I think the desire for added scale realism is a valid desire, one
    which you should aspire to. However, the disregard for the safety
    issues implicit in the discussion of building and flying a plane
    with explosive, pressurized gas and an ignition source on board,
    leaves me more than a little annoyed. 

    Please remember that what we do with our hobby not only affects
    us, but everyone else involved in this hobby.  The idea of
    carrying acetlyene gas on board a plane is not all that far away
    from the idea of launching bottle rockets, like air to ground
    missles, or dropping bombs that really explode, from a plane. This
    is the type of childish, irresponsible fantasization I would
    expect to hear from my 13 year old cousin, not from mature adults. 

    ***FLAME OFF***

    I know that this note is harsh, but I really don't like the idea
    of being at a field with someone flying a bomb over my head.

    Please take this note in the spirit in which it is intended, a
    critisizm of an idea I don't particularly like, and not as a
    personal attack, which isn't its intent.


    Randy.

    I am still looking for someone to help me build the electronic
    noise maker...  Any takers??
    
    cheers,
    jeff
    

    How about using a mechanical thumper of some type that would use
    the wing cavity as a sounding board? Or a variation of the FS trick
    of checking for spinning fans by sticking a tie wrap into the fan.
    That makes quite a racket. I don't think I'd stick a length of tie-wrap
    into the prop but maybe a small electric motor inside the wing turning
    a blade assembly would do the trick. Mount the tie wrap so the blades
    hit it and use use an extra channel to turn your guns on and off.
    
    I've never heard control surfaces flutter but it does happen. And
    that usually occurs when the plane is going like a bat out of hell.
    That seems to imply that you can produce sounds mechanically that
    can be heard over the scream of the engine... 
                                                 
    
    Dan Eaton
    

In response to the safety concerns of using acetylene, true, a cylinder of
flammable gas might cause concern. However, generating gas with calcium carbide
does not allow enough to accumulate to do any harm. That is why "carbide
cannons" have been permitted and used for so long. Besides, in my opinion, a
five or ten pound guided missile flying overhead carries a much greater
potential for damage or injury. Be that as it may... 

Along the lines of a mechanical thumper, how about an electric motor fitted with
a cam which would periodically lift a spring loaded hammer. When released by the
cam, the hammer would strike the bottom of a "tin" can like a drum. The spring
would store sufficient energy to be heard over the sound of the engine and the
gearing on the motor would allow the firing rate and the torque to be adjusted.
Instead of a motor, a solenoid could be used, along with a large capacitor (too
much weight?) to build up enough charge to "fire" the "gun". 

One last thought, with flame on medium. What ever happened to freedom of speech?
It's perfectly legal for me to publish plans for building a nuclear weapon or
growing marijuana. Doing it may not be legal but talking about it is. What we
are doing here is brainstorming. Each new idea has the potential to spark a
newer, and perhaps better idea. It's up to the judgement of the end user to pick
the best/safest idea from the lot. Douse the flame. 

Dave 

    Well, Dave, maybe I was a bit too high and mighty, but...

    I have this friend who is constantly talking about missles and
    bombs for his plane.  My response ?  According to Murphy, if he
    were to do so, the plane would take off, go out of control, fly
    over his head, and drop the bombs and/or launch the missles
    directly at him.  Further, I were to encourage his ideas, and
    happened to be at the field he was flying at, Murphy would instead
    direct his wrath at me. 

    Seriously, I don't think its an issue of free speech, but rather
    an issue of simple common sense, you proposed something that, in
    my opinion was not too sensible, and I responded on the subject.

    True, a plane is, in itself, a dangerous missle, but I don't think
    that you would seriously consider exacerbating the hazards
    inherent in this flying "missle" by recommending, for instance,
    the attachment of pointed steel rods to the front of the plane.

    I felt that the suggestion of on board explosive gas has as much
    validity as the addition of pointed steel rods, that being NONE !

    I voiced my opinion, I love a good argument, anyway, but no
    offense was intended.

    Enough !


    Randy (8^D)

    Mr H,
    		I personally think that straightening out the frontal
    outline of your wing will buy you more added points that simulated
    gun fire.  If it's realism your going for the I would expect that
    your plane would slow down and loose altitute as it fires the guns.
    It sound to me like you want to do this just to say that "I did
    it". Not for any purpose of attaining a more competitive model.
    	Good Luck, I hope that the task is greater than the benefit
    and that this stops you from completing the task. But then Good
    Luck.
    
    
    		Tom

    Eric,
    
    Don't panic!  (And gracias fer' th' concern...ah' 'preciate it!)
    I'll continue to try to check in first thing in the AM and last
    thing before I leave but probably still won't be as proliflc as
    in the past.  As to night-time noting...I'd love to be able to but
    do not have a terminal at home (no business justification) and
    haven't enough need for one to buy one.  Fact is, to be perfectly
    honest, after spending working hours messing with the damn things,
    I really don't _want_ one at home.  :B^)   

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    Dan, Are you installing retracts? I think a scale bird that is supposed
    to have retracts and doesn't just doesn't look right.
    
    Tom

    
    Dan,	Don't forget that "Light" is the name of the game.
    	I taked to Bob Frey last night about the Jug and he agrees
    	that lightening up is low stress areas is a definate plus
    	when it come to reducing weight. I'm shooting for 10lbs.
    	I'd suggest that you hollow out the blocks.
    
    
    Tom

    Dan,
    
    "Oiling" the backside of the plans to build a mirror image part
    is not that uncommon; I used the identical technique to build the
    right half of the Mig-3's fuselage.  One HUGE advantage to this
    is that two _IDENTICAL_ parts can be built.  BTW, I just used common,
    everyday cooking oil (like Wesson) and it worked like a champ.  Also,
    in time, the oil either migrates so thoroughly into the paper or
    evaporates (or both) that the plans aren't ruined and can be rolled
    up and saved. 

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

Look over the plans carefully; Royal (a Denver company) has a
reputation of putting out heavy ships.  I'm working with a set of
Royal plans myself, and have found lots of places, especially in
the tail, to put my model on a diet.

Yeah, they do love carved shapes.

Also, my plans deviate from the scale (I'm fortunate enough to
have the real one nearby) in significant ways.  If you can get
another set of drawings to cross-check against now would be a
good time to do so.

    Well, I finally did get the electronic machine gun working.  It
    actually sounds OK, but as expected, it is not nearly loud enough..
    I have contacted the person that gave me the help with it and asked
    for suggestions, but I have not gotten anything back..
    
    
    OK, lets talk alternatives again...  Al (Ryder) suggested a pulse
    jet.  Someone care to expand on what this involves??
    
    Mechanical alternatives...  What if a servo pushed a small piece
    of wood into the arc of the propeller so that it would create noise??
    You know, kinda like putting a playing card in the spokes of your
    bicycle.   The trouble here is that the rate would be much to fast..
    
    How about engine noise??  Can someone think of a way of "siphoning"
    off engine noise in bursts that would sound right??
    
    cheers,
    jeff
    

    Here is something really far fetched. How about a mechanical noise
    maked that could be placed in the wings. Something that would rap
    against a metal or something diaphram. The source of the power being
    a CO2 type engine or a modified steam type engine but run with some
    type of compressed gas. There is an old codger (great guy) Bert
    Pond in my club that builds/sells CO2 engines if this idea makes
    any sence.
    
    
    Tom

RE:< Note 271.445 by THOTH::SNOW >

    Dan,

    I figured you will need this in a few months so, being the nice guy
    that I am, I went ahead and typed this in for you:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         -< FOR SALE: Aeronca C-1 >-

    FOR SALE: Half completed Aeronca C-1 with plans.  The plans are 1/4
    scale and were enlarged from 1/6 plans.  Wingspan is 87".  Most of
    the fuselage and wings are done but I can't get the d*amned wires
    soldered correctly so I'm selling the whole darned thing.

    Price:  $ ______

         __
    * __|__|__  *    *    *     *
  *     (**)   V *  *  *   |* *   *
   *   (    )--| *  _______0_______  *  	   	
 _____(______)_|_________U___U______*___
	                
      "The Sno-man"			

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    How's that?  Of course, you'll have to fill in the blank for the
    price.   :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)

                       _____
                      |     \
                      |      \                          Silent POWER!
      _        ___________    _________   |            Happy Landings!
     | \      |           |  |         |  |
     |--------|-  SANYO  + ]-|  ASTRO  |--|              - Dan Miner
     |_/      |___________|  |_________|  |
                      |       /           |     " The Earth needs more OZONE,
                      |      /                       not Caster Oil!! "    
                      |_____/

    Why bother filling in the price?? 
    
    Anker is going to buy it anyways (maybe he already has!!)
    
    Anyways, back to the subject matter....
    
    Is the C-1 or C-2 any relation to the Champ??  There is an Aeronca
    champ on floats up in Wolfeboro that I got a ride in this summer.
    If anyone wants to build one, let me know and I will make sure you
    get plenty of documentation.  He is also an RCer (as will as a 
    pilot for American Airlines) so he would be more than happy to help.
    
    
    Also, I have not heard any definitive comments about the scale
    documentation that was presented last night at the DECRCM meeting.
    
    What were the good and bad parts of what was shown so that the rest
    of us can learn from others??
    
    Thanks,
    jeff
    

re: < Note 271.445 by THOTH::SNOW >
                            -< Aerobatic bath-tub! >-


    Dan,
    You sure do have the knack for picking the UGLIEST planes to
    build. That's bad planning. Since you're going to sell it
    anyway, either shortly before or shortly after it's complete,
    you ought to be building planes that somebody else might
    want to BUY. Now, if that SportAIR was a SportSTER, I guarantee
    you you'd have money in your pocket right now, even if you
    HAD painted it with rustoleum.

    I'm sorry, but it really does seem like you ask for it. Keep
    smiling, and please don't send Eric over with his monster
    truck to pulverize my airplanes.

    8-)  Dave

    p.s. Sign on the back of a Chevy Monster Truck:
               Have you driven over a Ford lately?

    I called the Aerospatial Helicopter Corp in Grand Prairie,Texas
    last week and explained that I was doing a model Twin Star. (I
    was talking to the PR dept.)  The woman there was very interested
    and is in the process of putting a package together with color
    photographs, cabin detail, and a layout with some dimensions.
    I do not want this to do a scale documentated competition 
    project, but just to do a better stand-off scale than the
    plain fuse kit that is supplied from Schluter.  (Can't wait
    to get the package).  I offered to pay Aerospatial for the package,
    but they wouldn't hear of it.

		________
	 /	  __|__  
	=========[_____\>
	/	__|___|__/  BREAK A BLADE,
			    Ken    	

        Re:< Note 271.447 by WRASSE::FRIEDRICHS "Where's the snow??" >


>    Anker is going to buy it anyways (maybe he already has!!)
        
                Forget it.    It's  so ugly I think my other planes would
        mob it. Give it some home where it can be an only child.
                      _ 
                     / |
        |  _====____/==|
        |-/____________|
        |    |        o \
             O           \ 
                          O
         Hang in there! o_|_
                          |
             Anker      \_|_/

    Dan,
    
    	Boy they do jump on the bandwagon don't they?    To try and
    help there is a guy in North Carolina "Scale Plans and Photo Packs"
    that will do plans enlarging for you. I had a 3 view of the FlyBaby
    blown up from an 8.5x11 sheet to the 72" span that I wanted to model.
    It cost me 40.00 but it was well worth it.
    	In most cases to get two ships of differing size to fly the
    same you have to go with a different airfoil. What happens is that
    if you enlarge the wingspan by some percentage and the enlarge the
    cord of the wing by the same percentage and then blow up the airfoil
    to match what you get is a wing that have much more volume  than
    the original wing. I didn't explain this to well but hopefully you
    get the point. 
    	For what your doing that shouldn't pose any problem. Your just
    enlarging a subject not trying to get the same flight charactoristice
    out of the ship. I'd go with  the airfoil that is drawn. At least
    you know that it works.
    
    Tom

    Dan,
    	If your not interested in developing a plan but just want to
    build a subject the is a way to go about building the plane.
    Make tracings of all of the formers,ribs etc. Go into work and
    all at one time copy the tracings using an enlarging copier.
    I say all at one time because no matter how accurate a copier might
    be setting it up and then having to go back latter and set it up
    again there is a possibility of error on the copiers part. Anyways
    from here the spacing of the formers on the fuse can be calculated
    and most time redrawn (sketched) of the original drawings. This
    will get you the basic model.
    
    
    Tom

    
    RE: enlarging plans - I recall Charlie Nelson describing a procedure
    to me a while ago which (I think) involved shining light through
    the plans onto a wall and hand tracing the enlarged plans on the wall
    (might be a good idea to put some paper on the wall first unless
    you want to build your plane vertically :-) :-).

    I think if you sandwiched the original plans between two plates of
    glass, used a very bright light and lined things up nice and straight
    you could get just about any enlargement you wanted.  Wasn't something
    like this described earlier in this topic???
    
    Bill
    

    Dan. I wouldn't think that the 3.5" rib spacing will be OK but I'd
    probably go with 1/8" thick ribs. If your trying to power this ship
    with only the 48 surpass I'd make sure that I put all of the parts
    on a diet. Lighten them as much as possible.
    
    Tom

    Dan, there was a typo in my last responce. I'd say that it would
    be OK to go with the 3.5" spacing if you used 1/8" ribs. I'd however
    take it just a little bit further and ask if the rib spacing at
    3.5 inches is really scale spacing. Only a good three view will
    help to tell you this. If the scale spacing is less than the 3.5
    inches I'd probably go wit the smaller scale rib spacing and then
    use 3/32nd ribs. As far as wood sizes I wouldn't try and create
    any odd sized pieces of wood. You may luck out. If the original
    plan was drawn using metric sized wood then enlarging it may get
    you to a US standard sized wood. Whatever, I'd go wit std. sizes
    of wood where ever possible. That is if an enlarged piece of wood
    measured 5/32nds I'd go and use a 3/16th piece of wood.
    
    
    Tom

    i've spent that last week or so putting panel lines and access
    panels on my p47.  i've been using the method used for lapped
    joints on all panel lines.  that is, putting a piece of masking
    tape down, brushing primer against the edge, sanding/feathering,
    then removing tape.  for real lapped joints, i'm keeping the
    paint ridge thick.  for flush joints, i'm trying to make this
    ridge real subtle.  an alternate method for flush panels is
    1/64th tape...
    
    anyhow its going slow but ok.  first problem i've encountered
    is that the primer is thin and shrinks such that i need several
    thick coats to get the desired thickness.  this is true of
    both ditzler dp40/401 and k&b epoxy primer.  i've found that
    if i mix the paint and leave it uncovered for a while (~1/2 day)
    it thickens up and is easier to use and has less chance of
    bleeding under the tape.  what do other people do?  i've also
    considered adding talcum powder.
    
    i've never sprayed k&b, only ditzler, so i can't make a full
    comparison yet.  i can say that k&b has less obnoxious an oder
    and is much easier to sand.
    
    kevin

>    both ditzler dp40/401 and k&b epoxy primer.  i've found that
>    if i mix the paint and leave it uncovered for a while (~1/2 day)
>    it thickens up and is easier to use and has less chance of
>    bleeding under the tape.  what do other people do?  i've also
>    considered adding talcum powder.
   
    Kevin,

	I've never done panel lines so i'm not sure if this is applicalble
	but i'll throw it in anyway. One thing that i've been using lately
	is auto body spot putty. It is basically very thick paint. In fact
	it may be too thick for what you want. I apply it with a spatula then
	sand most of it off to make nice feathered edges. It's rather heavy
	so I tend to go as sparingly as possible but I don't know if it's
	any heavier than dried primer on a per volume basis.

                     !
                   --+--
G. Schrader     o___<0>___o    CSS::SCHRADER
                  *  *  *

I would like to see some discussion on running lights.
I need info on both implementation details and history.

1.  Can I just install LEDs in the wing tips from Radio Shack?
    Green and Red are easy - what about White?  They don't
    make white LEDs - do they?  I hate to send RAM $20 for two
    sets of running lights but knowing me I'll probably spend
    $30 trying to save a buck.  If I get LEDs, wire, battery, and
    switch - how do I hook them up - do I need a resistor in series?
    I used to know this 15 years ago.

2.  I'm very confused about the various lights on Aircraft.  I think
    that over the years the FAA must have changed the rules on what
    lights are required and where they go.  Doesn't help that my
    memory is so bad.  When I was in the Navy I thought we had to
    have Red on the Port wing tip (not flashing), Green on the Starboard
    wing tip (not flashing), White on the top of the tail fin (not flashing),
    and one anti-collision light on the center bottom of the fuselage
    (Flashing (rotating) Red).  At one time when we returned from a 
    West Pac cruise the FAA got on our squadrons case cause we had changed
    all the flashing red anti-collision lights to green.  We used this
    on our A3D Skywarriors running tanker missions so that the returning
    aircraft from the previous combat mission could find the tanker quickly
    at night - they were frequently nearly out of fuel.

    Question is can someone outline the FAA required lighting scheme and
    address any changes over the years?  Do they grandfather clause the
    older planes or must the owners bring them up to todays lighting standards.

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
================================================================================

    Kay,
    
    Were I you, I'd spend the sawbuck and get the suff from RAM which
    has been refined specifically for R/C application.  I know little
    about light systems but I _DO_ know that they REQUIRE a high intensity
    light or they're virtually invisible in flight.  I've seen RAM systems
    on a number of ships and they are definitely superior to home-brew
    set-ups.
    
    As far as I know, the basic nav/running light system of, left/port=red,
    right/starboard=green, rear=white has been standard forever.  As
    to strobes, anti-collision lights, etc., I can't comment but the
    basic red/white/green scheme is [and has been] constant since Hec'
    was a pup!    

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

>    As far as I know, the basic nav/running light system of, left/port=red,
>    right/starboard=green, rear=white has been standard forever.  As

But I seem to recall seeing flashing read and green lights lately - wrong?

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
================================================================================

>>  $30 trying to save a buck.  If I get LEDs, wire, battery, and
>>  switch - how do I hook them up - do I need a resistor in series?
>>  I used to know this 15 years ago.
    
    In case you still want the answer to this, it depends on the LED.
    some have internal resistors, some need an external one.  You'll
    have to read the spec to determine the max current it can handle.
    The spec will also give you the "on" voltage, so you calculate the
    resistor with battery voltage minus "on" voltage divided by current.

    Bill
    

    Kay,
    
    The left/right wingtip and tail located nav lights are on steady.
    Can't comment on the flashing red and greens you've seen but they
    have to be ancillary to the regulation nav lights.

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

        Re:< Note 271.472 by PNO::CASEYA "THE DESERT RAT (I-RC-AV8)" >

                Some planes  have  the wingtip lights not flashing on and
        off, but between low and high density.  I guess that's equivalent
        to steady.
        
                      _ 
                     / |
        |  _====____/==|
        |-/____________|
        |    |        o \
             O           \ 
                          O
         Hang in there! o_|_
                          |
             Anker      \_|_/

>                Some planes  have  the wingtip lights not flashing on and
>        off, but between low and high density.  I guess that's equivalent
>        to steady.

Was looking thru the Tower catalogue at the running lights stuff.
Very confusing.  My interpretation of the Adds is Military running lights
(wing tip) do not flash but civilian's do (perhaps between high and low
intensity as Anker said.  One brand of aircraft lights cost $130.00.
RAM lights vary in price from $10.00 to $39.00.  For $10.00 you get
Marine Navigation lights (used in some aircraft) 1 red, 1 green, 1 white,
wires and a connector for a 9 Volt battery (no switches).  This is what I 
believe would be correct for the Berliner Joyce.  They have programmable
flash rates on the more expensive ones.  They have rotating beacons
and strobes and imply that some can plug into a servo on your Rx so that
you can turn the lights on and off with one of your extra channels.

So it would appear that somewhere along the line (YEAR?) they designated
civilian planes to have flashing running lights.  Perhaps this question
would be better asked in the Flying notes file - I'm not a regular visitor
of that file - anybody want to volunteer to pose the question there?

I've put the wires in my wings but no bulbs yet.

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
================================================================================

    I remember studying that question in the FAR's recently; it worked
    out something like this:
    
    	Military: A world unto their own... but they tend to track the
    		FAA reasonably closely.  After all, it looks bad at
    		budget time if your jet fighters _consistently_ midair
    		the commercial flights. :-)
    
    	Civilian: There are requirements, but they are "by year", and
    		older arrangements are grandfathered.  The newest 
    		arrangement requires 360 x 360 degree visibility of
    		at least one rotating beacon/strobe, plus overlapping 360 x
    		360 visibility of at least one of the red/green/white 
    		lights.  Older arrangements were not so strict about
    		not having any large blind spots not illuminated
    		by the strobe or beacon.  There are exception cases
    		for small aircraft, fixed-landing gear aircraft, and
    		helicopters. 
    
    	If you really want to know FOR SURE- and have the doc. handy,
    go buy a copy of the 1989 FAR/AIM book.  It costs about $6, and is
    available in most bookstores.  The by-year requirements are listed
    and diagrammed there.

    Kay,
    	I can tell you for sure that led's would be invisible in flight.
    You need either a strobe for flashing or incandescent for steady
    bright lights.  You will need healthy batteries and reflectors if you
    really want the lights to show up.  This is probably why some of
    the systems are so expensive.
    

I'd like to obtain a 3-view of the Cessna 210 (oh boy, here goes
John off on one of his tangents...).  Surprisingly, this is not
an easy one.  I've checked the following sources:

Lupperger (as far as I'm concerned not worth the price of their
          catalog)
Scale Plans and Photo Service

RCM plans

MAN plans

Nothing!  If all else fails, I'll call Cessna.  Anyone have
experience with them?

I haven't forgotten the 172; its coming along nicely and is
almost ready for another entry in the note.

    John,
    
    Contact Cessna directly.  If they're like most other manufacturers/
    dealers, they're glad to accomodate the scale modeler.  You might
    want to stop by a local dealer (good excuse to visit the airport,
    right?) and check out the sales brochures; these frequently contain
    3-views and other pertinent specs.    

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    Besides collecting documentation on the Sea Fury (note 338.5), my
    son-in-law is looking for scale documentation on the Westland Wyvern,
    a Royal Navy strike fighter from the 50's.  

    Re: .479,
    
    Perhaps our UK friends can assist on this one too.    

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

re Note 271.479  about documentation on the Westland Wyvern

    In another letter my son-in-law says he has found some shreds of
    documentation on the Westland Wyvern.
    
    "a few B/W photos ... as well as some old advertisements in Aircraft
    Engineering .... [and] a close-up picture of its arrestor hook in the
    October 1949 Aviation Week. 
    
    ".... Repla-Tech [see note 338.6] also sells a set of external view
    drawings in 1/72 scale"

This just in; Chuck Collier returned from the first Top Gun competition, held
this past weekened in Coral Springs, Florida, and called this AM with a thumb-
nail report of the meet.

To [perhaps] no one's surprize, Bob Fiorenze repeated his 1988 Masters win by
taking first place in the Top Gun with his F-18 Hornet.  Chuck didn't have a 
list of places but said that Bob Frey was the only one of the west/southwest 
contingent to place in the top-ten, coming in a respectable 8th.

Dave Platt [expectedly] captured top static score and, for once, had a trouble
free meet, flying well enough to finish around 12th.

Chuck reports that the meet was very militantly run with the judges acting al-
most as adversaries, intimidating the competitors at every turn.  This is very
unfortunate as this new meet will need to make serious adjustments if it expects
to attract anyone back next year.  Chuck said that _much_ grumbling about the 
heavy-handed judging  was heard from nearly all competitors throughout the meet.

Dan Parsons' deHavilland Hornet, newly resurrected from its near-fatal crash
in Ft. Knox last September, looked good and flew great, just as before.  Dan
ran afoul of the judges when he was told he couldn't fly since his unpainted,
black flight spinners were not the same color (blue) as his static spinners.
A major flap developed over this issue until the judge's errant ruling was 
corrected; per the rules, Dan was allowed to fly but received a downgrade for
the non-conforming flight spinners.  Dan didn't care about a downgrade - he
only goes to contests to fly and have fun anyway, but he was furious at being
told he couldn't fly.  This, apparently, was but one of many instances where
the judges seemed to work overtime to be arbitrary [and frequently incorrect]
in their inflexible [mis] administration of the rules.

Ted White's flying was [as usual] spectacular enough that he was asked to fly
demos at both days' lunch breaks but wasn't good enough in the judges' eyes to 
merit enough score for a decent finish which seems like an gross contradiction.
Ted has already stated he won't be back.

Attrition was apparently heavy as well.  Chuck reports the attendance at 40-42
pilots and he says there were 10-12 crashes: Charlie Chambers stuffed his mag-
nificent metal-covered Mustang, dumb-thumbing it into a snap-crash on take-off;
Shailesh Patel totalled his brand new Hellcat (seen in Phoenix last month) due,
apparently, to radio failure.  An attrition rate in excess of 25% sure makes one
wonder what was going on.  Neither Chuck nor Bob put so much as a scratch on
their birds (the best news of all).

Chuck said he was glad he'd gone; that they'd managed to have a good time, in
spite of the meet itself (what a commentary), but he'd think twice before going
to the enormous trouble/expense required to go again.  All-in-all, it sounds
like this was a very good meet for me to have to miss.  Despite all the hype and
glitter, it sounds to me as if one very important facet to a successful contest
was forgotten or ignored and that is to make it as pleasant, easy and gracious
as possible for the _only_ indispensible people involved, THE PILOTS!  Unless
these problems are addressed/corrected, I'd suggest the name of the meet be 
changed to "Top Shun."

    Al,
    	In my day of shooting archery I found that the competetors most
    times because of the heat of battle are the one's on edge. The
    officials then on the other hand usually assume the role of friend
    and mediator. The officials are there to officiate not partake and
    are in the best position to be calm.
    	It sounds like the officials were as heated in their temperment
    as the competetors. To Bad. It sounds like it would have been easy
    to say "Dan, we're not sure about those spinners but no problem...
    Go ahead and fly and enjoy yourself.We'll check on it and get back
    to you latter."   Or if they know their stuff " Gee Dan, there's
    a small problem. The spinners you have aren't the same color of
    the one's you had at static judging. The rules say that's a deduction
    but lets just fly and we'll see about it after the round. OK?" 
    	To Bad. It sounds like the officials were anticipating a fight,
    a fight that wasn't there. So much for fun competition.
    
    	
    Tom

Please excuse me gents, I've been hibernating for the winter --
What's the Top Gun???? Are they trying to make it the equivalent
of the TOC -- perhaps they were hard nosed because they wanted to
give the event an aura of prestige and serious competition.  I've
never attended the TOC so I don't know what that's like, it just
sounds like what the promoters had in mind.

Al, I know that you like to enjoy a meet, and lord knows, you've
won more than I'll ever attend, but there are some people who
like to hard-nose it too, with no fooling around; that's fun for
them.    Glider guiders are crazy that way -- they even call
their events "tasks", like they were at work! :-)

I, if I may judge by my sailing days, tend more to your type of
competition than theirs, but I've seen it.  Actually, as I
approach old age I find myself getting meaner too. 

Speaking of folks that like to play to the limit of the rules,
How'd the World's Foremost Winning Scale Modeller Ramon Torres
do?  Sounds like it was right up his alley.

    Re: .-1, John,
    
    I dunno' about Torres...whether he was even there for that matter.
    Bob should be back tonight so, hopefully, I'll get a more detailed
    report on the meet including who finished where in the top-10.
    
    The Top Gun was/is the brainchild of Frank Tiano with considerable
    assistance from Dave Platt.  In actuality, it was born as a result
    of the U.S. Scale Masters turning down the new rules Dave had put
    together for that event.  Dave/Frank felt that Dave's rules represented
    T.H.E. way a scale contest should be run, a view not shared by more
    than a few Masters competitors.  Therefore, after the '87 Masters,
    the new Top Gun was announced and only invited individuals could
    compete...no qualifying, you just got invited (or not) according
    to some(?) selection process exercized by the Top Gun committee.
    I did receive an invitation so I guess I'm flattered but I still
    don't know what criteria was used in the invitation process.
    
    At any rate, the meet has been promoted in full page, full color
    ads in the major model mags for most of the past year (I can't imagine
    how you missed seeing them) touting this as the meet which would,
    at last, identify who was _really_ the Top Gun in American R/C scale,
    a not too subtle snub of the Masters program.  Interestingly, the
    same individual (Bob Fiorenze) won both meets so I can't help but
    wonder what was proven.
    
    I agree with you that there are some events where it may be desireable
    for the judges to take the role of adversaries and, perhaps, even
    some participants who prefer that approach, but I think I can speak
    for the majority of scale pilots by saying tha R/C scale is NOT
    one of those events.  I know no one in the game who thrives on
    harrassment by the judges.  I far prefer the type meet where the
    judges try to remain almost non-entities in order to avoid applying
    needless additional pressure.  Even better are the judges who'll
    try to relax the pilot by saying things like, "just pretend we aren't
    here and fly like it was any Sunday at your home field," or, "OK,
    show us some real flying...we know you can do it."
    
    Bare minimum, I want the judge to remain as inobtrusive as he possibly
    can.  Should it come to pass that the _rule_ is for judges to become
    adversaries, I'll be forced to retire from competition before I
    paste some hot-shot, self-concieved expert (who probably can't even
    fly) square in the snot-locker.   

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    Dan,
    
    The Fokker D-VII is the one that placed 10th in the '88 Masters
    in Ft. Knox, one of the finest renderings of this plane I've yet
    to see...AND, it was Tom's _first_ scale endeavor.  I wish I could
    remember precisely Tom's last name and the spelling but it seems
    like it was something like Koziewski, pronounced Ko-zu-ski.  He
    was one of Charlie Nelson's proteges and was a very nice fellow
    to talk to when I met him in Ft. Knox.
    
    A little tidbit to ponder: EVERY solitary part on Tom's model excepting
    for engine and radio was hand built by the builder.   

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    I don't know if this has been discussed but...
    
    The scale rules used to (may still) say that a model was to be
    exhibitedby the builder ie, Builder of the model rule. How are 
    projects that are aquired in some stage of building handled?
    IE, Parts kitted from plans but not assembled or Fuse half
    built or Model built but needing detailing and paint. Where
    do you draw the line? Is there some other special requirement
    within the documentation where you might note the level of
    completeness the project was in when you aquired it?
    
    
    Tom

    Good question, Tom,
    
    The Builder of the Model (BOM) rule is largely a matter of conscience.
    Detractors of the rule (of which I am _not_ one) site this fact
    and the relative unenforceability of the rule as reasons to scrap
    it.  I fervently disagree and feel the BOM is an integral part of
    the scale event, but that's another issue.
    
    In your documentation, you are required to provide a statement listing
    all items NOT personally built by the modeler.  In this statement,
    the modeler could, if he felt honor/conscience bound to do so, include
    a statement regarding the degree to which the model was built at
    the time he acquired it.  Judges would take this into account when
    determining the model's static score.
    
    This is not to say that one could purchase a completely built model
    and enter it as long as they listed virtually the entire model as
    not being built by the modeler (though it's a fact that there are
    modelers who enter purchased models, claiming to be the builder).
    So, what's the cutoff point?  There's no set parameter to answer
    this question; again, it's a matter of personal conscience.  Per-
    sonally, I'd have no problem with a modeler who admits that [say]
    his model was 25% built when he acquired it.  This modeler is being
    far more honest than the guy who bought his model and wants you
    to believe he built it. About all I can offer in answer to this
    question is let yer' conscience be your guide and list the degree
    of pre-fabrication on the disclosure statement and no one should
    be able to fault you.  

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    
    Carl,
    	I moved your request to this topic, where all scale questions
    should go.  Looking forward to Al's response myself!
    
    Bill
    
    P.S.  I think you mean topic, not "notes file".  Most people use
    	  "notes file" and "notes conference" interchangably.
    =======================================================================
    
                  <<< IOALOT::DUA3:[NOTES$LIBRARY]RC.NOTE;4 >>>
          -< Welcome to the Radio Control Conference Home of DECRCM >-
================================================================================
Note 239.1473             RAMBLING WITH THE DESERT RAT              1473 of 1473
VERSA::TULANKO                                       26 lines  29-JUN-1989 15:38
                     -< "Howbout landing gear doors ???" >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    	Al, 
    		I was searching for a notes file on a specific subject
    and came across this one in the process . Sure hope you can help
    with this one since my search came up empty handed (dont know if
    I should create a new notes file on this or not , maybe you can
    help with that decision too . 
    
    	I am currently building my 10th airplane (torn between the love
    of building or flying) and would like to use this bird as a practice
    run for a large scale job later . The plane is the TopFlite Corsair.
    I have completed the wing with the exception of sheeting and control
    surface mounting , installed retracts , and now am at a standstill.
    In all the notes I've read , I cannot find any info on scale landing
    gear door and access hatch hinging , mounting , "how to" opening
    and closing methods , etc....  . About all I have to go on are a
    few pictures in a Byron catalog . Any assitance through your
    experiences in building or any refference material that can be
    purchased on this subject would be appreciated . Of all the planes
    I've seen , this one is one that uses "three" gear doors instead of
    two on each main gear ! 
    
    	Eagerly anticipating yer input !
    
    	
    	Carl

>    						.......(dont know if
>    I should create a new notes file on this or not , maybe you can
>    help with that decision too . 

*  As you already know as you read this, I'll reply in the "So You Wanna' Fly
Scale" topic.
    
>    In all the notes I've read , I cannot find any info on scale landing
>    gear door and access hatch hinging , mounting , "how to" opening
>    and closing methods , etc.........................Of all the planes
>    I've seen , this one is one that uses "three" gear doors instead of
>    two on each main gear ! 

You've hit on an area where there are no set rules and the only boundary is the
builder's creativity.  I try to use available hardware wherever possible for
hinging panels, covers, doors, etc. but sometimes you are fored to create some-
thing unique to the application like a piano-type hinge where segments of brass/
aluminum/nylon tubing are glued alternately to the fixed and the moveable sur-
faces, then a suitably sized length of piano wire is inserted to hold the whole 
enchilada together and provide the pivot.  Again, as you can now see, hinging 
the door or whatever is largely dictated by whether a commercial item can be 
adapted or whether you'll have to invent something, in which case, any means to 
the desired end is acceptable.

On the subject of hatches, Diego Lopez is one hell of an innovator and has in-
troduced a method of securing small panels/doors closed.  Diego's always real 
clever about using scale access hatches, making them functional by mounting
radio and accessory switches, charging jacks, pneumatic retract air fill-valves,
etc. inside/behind the scale hatch.  He then hinges the hatch cover and secures
it closed via a tiny magnet mounted in/on one surface and a small mating plate
made of steel/tin shim stock mounted to the other.  Some have expresses concern
at the idea of using a magnet anywhere on an airplane, fearing radio interfer-
ence but the magnet and associated magnetic field is so tiny it has no effect
whatever.  Diego's used this technique for years with absolute success.  If I'm
not mistaken, some mfgr. even sells a little magnet kit specifically for this
purpose.

Now, on to gear doors.  Strut cover doors, obviously, are mounted directly to
the gear strut in a rigid or flexible manner depending upon the articulation
(or lack of same) required in order for them to close flush with the wing.
For these, I start by studying the full-scale installation and duplicating it
in kind on the model...as ol' Dan'l Parsons frequently says, "If it worked on
the real bird, it'll work on the model."  Of course, associated linkage, etc.
is vastly simplified as adapted to model application.  You're lucky on the 
Corsair in that there is only the one small, simple door on the front of the
gear strut which should be a breeze to make, attach to the wing and connect a
simple drag link to for closure.  

The two main doors are a little different matter, though still not much hassle.
Start by fabricating the doors.  Here's a trick from Dave Platt: once the wing
has been skinned, and before cutting out the wheel wells, tack a piece of Mono-
kote over the well area.  Then, lay up a coupla' layers of 2-oz. glass cloth
and resin and allow to cure.  Now, carefully draw on the well/door outline then
remove the cured glass from the wing (the Monokote has acted both as a barrier
to the resin and a mold release).  Upon cutting out the doors, you'll find they
are perfectly contoured to the wing shape.

OK, hinge the doors to the wing, using commercial control surface hinges where 
possible (the 1/2-A size Goldberg hinge works well for this).  The simplest way
to close the doors is to let the gear pull them shut as they retract.  We usu-
ally install a piece of braided cable (like throttle cable) between the doors,
draped in such a fashion as to naturally provide some tension to hold the door
open but be in the path of some part of the gear strut or wheel such that con-
tact with it will pull the door closed.  Selective solder-tinning of the cable
can be used to fine-tune the operation.

Another way (used by Dave Platt) is to use lead shot or equivalent to weight
the door so it'll hang open, even in the slipstream.  Then, a wire whisker is
attached to the door such that the wheel will contact it and pull the door
closed as it goes into the well.

Still another method is to install appropriate linkage and drive the doors open/
closed with an extra servo.  The door function can be on an aux channel or oper-
ated via a system of gear up/down limit switches.  As with anything esle, the
more sophisticated/complicated you get, the more likely you are to have malfunc-
tions so I, personally, prefer to stay with the simpler methods previously des-
cribed.

Again, there are as many ways of accomplishing this feature as there are air-
craft and modelers.  As a rule, commercially available hardware items can be
readily adapted to the purpose at hand or very simple parts fabricated by hand.
The simpler the mechanism, the more reliable it's apt to be so apply the KISS
principle everywhere possible.  I hope these few hints help you to devise the
method that's right for your model.  As I alluded earlier, it's almost impossi-
ble to say there's one specific or best way to handle this operation...it's
largely a matter of the individual sitting down, studying the desired function,
considering what available hardware might be adapted then conceptualizing and
creating the mechanism required...there's no right or wrong way, just whatever
works.  Chances are good that as you start developing and using a particular
scheme, you'll come upon many ways to improve the operation or even see a better
way and change the setup entirely.....and _this_ is how these ideas _really_
come into existence, by trial and error.  Good luck on your project.

    
    	Thanks for the info Al !!! The tips on how to for the doors
    are extremely helpful . I always wondered how a surface thats three
    dimensionally shaped could be duplicated . Also appreciate the help
    on activation . Would like to know if you have any good reference
    materials on scale building ( besides this great notes file ) .
    Any books out there you would recomend ??? Something about methods
    of building eg: scale hinging of control surfaces , types of covering
    and finishes etc... . What do ya say ?? 
                                           
    
    	Thanks again
    
    		Carl
    

    Carl,
    
    Oh boy, there may well be a book or books on scale building techniques
    but I can't confess to knowing what they might be.  Most of the
    scale modelers I'm acquainted learn(ed) their craft via a continuous
    process of trial and error...that and by seeking advice from other,
    more advanced builders. ( A title does come to mind, "There Are No
    Secrets" which, I think, is on scale finishing techniques but I wouldn't
    swear to it.)
    
    I subscribe to this particular "Learn by Doing" school in addition to 
    reading everything I can on scale building/finishing techniques in the 
    various magazines whether they were developed for R/C, U-control or
    even plastic models.  If anyone else can suggest some titles that
    might be of interest to a burgeoning scaler, please list them here.    

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    
    
>>  more advanced builders. ( A title does come to mind, "There Are No
>>  Secrets" which, I think, is on scale finishing techniques but I wouldn't
>>  swear to it.)
 
    "There Are No Secrets" is indeed a good beginner book on scale
    finishing techniques - I think it's a Harry Higley book.  I bought it
    some time ago and it has good info on sanding, painting, finishing,
    etc.  I think it's well worth the 10 bucks or so.  While the hints in
    this conference are in some cases even better, it sometimes helps to
    have a picture to go along with the text, and this book has many
    pictures.  I have to concur with Al that you just can't replace sitting
    down with an old pro and having some amount of trial/error though.
    
    Bill

    In back of RCM they have a collection of books on various subjects
    relating to the hobby. One of the titles is "With scale in hand".
    This is a collection of articles published in RCM by, hmmm, forgot
    the name but I'm sure somebody will remind me. The write up says
    the author covers topics like cockpit detailing and such. Has anybody 
    bought the book? Is it any good?
    
    Dan Eaton

    
    	Two of the books Dan was talking about are;
    
    
    		Scale Reference Guide, edited by Herman Luevano.
    
    
    	This is a compiled listing by aircraft of articles published
    in model magazines for a fourty year period 1936-1976. I don't 
    know if a new addition is out covering 1977 to present. Additionally
    the last ten pages go into some basic aspects of the design of a
    model aircraft. Good reading.
    
    
    	
    	The second book is:
    
    
    			Scale in Hand, By Dave Platt
    
    	These are reprints of articles from Dave's scale column of a
    few years ago. The contests is as follows;
    
    	1 What is RC Scale
    	2 Selecting a scale subject
    	3 Color selection and mixing
    	4 Surface preperation
    	5 Painting
    	6 Insignias
    	7 Canopies
    	8 Cockpit detail
    	9 Spinners
       10 Retract gear
       11 Wheels and tires
       12 Propellers
       13 Folding wings
       14 Applying markings
    
    
    	Although some of the information is dated the majority of the
    reading is most valuable. The dated information is still good and
    helps you appreciate what products are available to us versus having
    to fabricate them in our own shops. I recommend both of these book.
    
    
    
    Tom

    C O N G R A T U L A T I O N S to Kevin Ladd and Kay Fisher who not
    only survived but made a respectable showing in their very first scale
    contest at Westover AFB last weekend.  I'm really tickled for the
    both of ya's....WAY TA' GO, AMIGOS!!   

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    I'm (we're) still anxiously awaiting Kevin's report on his first
    scale contest...how 'bout it, Kev...??  BTW, one of you guys (Kay
    or Kevin) needs to explain the "ugly Hurricane" bit to me ASAP;
    I'm dyin' to know the why of this disparaging remark directed at
    one of my all-time favorite aircraft.  :B^)    

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    Well, my Bristol M1C Bullet flies with its base coat of colors..
    This is the Balsa-USA kit that they used to advertise in the rags..
    
    Now it is time to start more detailing work...
    
    This plane is specifically built so that I can try different techniques
    and is not planned to be entered in anything (except perhaps Rhinebeck
    Mission) as its outline is too far off from the 3 views...
    
    One detail that I plan to add is flying and landing wires.  I have 
    built in hardwood blocks to anchor the wires to.  I am ordering
    rigging wire, turnbuckles and anchor plates.  
    
    Can people that have done this time of detailing supply us with
    any suggestions on how to make it look neater and more scale looking?
    
    How about the anchor points around the landing gear.  Are the anchors
    attached to the gear??  If so how?
    
    Thanks!
    jeff
    

>    Can people that have done this time of detailing supply us with
>    any suggestions on how to make it look neater and more scale looking?

Well - this isn't what your looking for so I hope some expert pops in
later with what you really want but...

I used chrome elastic cord for my flying wires and I put dress hooks
on the wings and fuse.  From 15 feet (judging distance) they look great.
I personally think they look great from 6 inches.  The really fun part is
rigging them at the field.  I made loops out of all of them cause on my
plane the flying wires and landing wires all come in pairs.  So I made
all 12 pairs (24 wires = two planes with 6 wires each on each side
of the plane between the wings) the same size.  I fastened them together
by cutting a slice of brass tubing and flattening it over the matched ends.

End result looks like large chrome rubber bands.  Then it takes all of
30 seconds to snap them all on.  I haven't lost one yet and in case
of a hard landing - there is no way that they will add any damage.
Also they have the advantage that they are not metal and won't drive
your radio nuts!  Of course they are also non functional - I put
carbon fiber on the top and bottom spars on all the wings on all
the BJs.

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
================================================================================

    Well, being part of a big company with worldwide offices and especially
    the EASYNET can really pay off when it comes to researching a scale
    model!!!
    
    As many of you know, I have started building the Proctor Nieuport-11
    and plan to finish it as an Italian Macchi-Nieuport N.11.  My primary
    source of information was a very good book, but it was written in 
    Italian.  Well, via the E-NET, I was able to located a person in MRO 
    that read and translated the parts of the book that seemed relevant.
    
    At this point, I had a decent handle on my scale documentation, but 
    the biggest hole was in defining the colors.  The book did not clearly
    state what colors were used...
    
    So, recently, it was back to the E-NET....  This time I posted notes in 
    the ITALY and EURO_FLYING notes conferences (as well as RC) looking for
    help.  Someone read my note and told me about an Italian DEC employee
    that is an airplane fanatic.  One mail message to him an viola', I
    have a serious research contact.  (This whole progression to less that
    4 days!)
    
    My new friend has already contacted the National Museum in Milano and
    has some information coming from there.  But today he told me he really
    made a breakthrough...  He got in touch with the Macchi plant.  They 
    said that yes, they had all kinds of information on the Nieuport and to
    please send a letter with my specific needs and they would probably be
    able to get me anything I need!!  (And to think, I had almost given up
    on finding any more information!)
    
    
    Lessons Learned:
    
    1 - No matter what you are looking for, you can find it on the E-NET.
    2 - In documenting your project, there is always one more stone that
    	can be turned.
    3 - As I look back on it, I should have gone after the manufacturer
    	right away, it would have saved me a lot of research time.  
    
    Cheers,
    jeff
    

    Al made it into town ok yesterday but other than a phone call last
    night we haven't hooked up yet. Today was to be Static judging at
    the hotel with test flying at Aerohead airport. I doubt if much
    flyings going on as the weather is lousy. Its suppose to clear off
    this afternoon so we'll see. Al and I are going to try and get together
    for a drink after work and then he's off with a bunch of people
    to take a tour of McDonnell Douglas. 
    
    Tommorrow should be a nice day and the start of the flying part of
    the competition. I took the day off so me and my video camera and
    35 SLR will be meeting up with Al in the morning for some first
    rate spectating. I'll stay as long as the Camcorder's battery lasts
    and I have film for the 35mm. After that I have to admit, while
    watching is nice, it gives me this awful powerful urge to go do
    some flying myself.  I'll dial in from home with an update sometime
    tommorrow.
    
    Dan Eaton

I was suppose to meet up with Al, Thursday night but things fell thru, I did 
manage to hook up with Kent Walters so we spent some time watching the static
judging and then had a beer in the hotel bar. Al couldn't make it because
his friend Bernie from Nashville had dropped in and the two of them had gone
out to Aerohead to watch the test flights.

Friday morning rolled in dark and wet. Same old heavy overcast we've had 
for days along with intermittent heavy mist was the order for the morning.
I decided to go out and fly my Cobra before heading over to Aerohead. I
never seem to get to fly when I take a day off. Well, I should have gone 
straight to the Masters because after about half a tank my flying ended 
suddenly when I lost perspective in the murk and rolled the copter into the
ground. Rats.

Al hasn't complained too much about the weather but he sure is upset that the
Harley Hotel doesn't serve Coors. I took pity on him and picked up a six pack 
on my way. Conditions when I arrived weren't looking much better but there
was some flying going on. I found Al and got signed in with the contest
people as Al's photograper. 

I saw a lot, I got some great still pictures (hopefully), but not much went 
on video. Maybe tommorrow will be better.

Some of the highlights:

My favorite this year is a Short Sky Van. Didn't get the pilot's name. It's
a real sweet little twin. I missed it but Al said the guy had variable pitch 
props on it and could back it up just like the full size.

My favorite from last year was back again. This is a DC-3 that Al and I both
can't understand how it can survive static. It's got a nice paint job but the
nose is shaped wrong, the wing fillets would be about 3 feet wide if full
size, and there must be about 5 inches of control rod hanging in the breeze
running out to the rudder. Yet last year the guy placed fifth and Kent Walters
listed him among the people at the top by the end of today.

Art Johnson is here with his Martin B-26. This is the one he crashed at Top Gun.
He's crashed it again since then but it looked great. At 1/8 scale its a big
mother. I took a close look at the machine guns he made and they look great.
If anybody needs some machine guns then I definitly suggest looking up the
article he wrote in RCM on it. Art was talking to Al and I and he said a couple
of things that have to make you wonder. We were wondering why he was taking off
the cowlings and when asked he said he needed to fuel the bird for his 
upcoming round. Not only can't he fuel it without the cowls being off but he
can't make and needle valve adjustments. 

Tom Kosewski (sp) was back with his Fokker DVII. We were talking to him while 
he had his Fokker parked with the Proctor display. There was a lineup of about
6 or 7 Proctor kits there. The most impressive was there newest kit ( I don't 
think its released yet) of a, ah sh*t, I forgot. What ever it is, Tom said it 
would be his next project. The one they had sitting there was an uncovered 
museum type piece. Something that Al noticed on the Protor bipes was that the
lower wing on a couple was wavy. One had a fairly pronuonced S-curve in it. We
pointed this out to Tom and he said with the Proctor kits the wings were so thin
you had to be extremely careful about getting things lined up while building 
because little mistakes showed up so well. I wonder if the damp weather was
having an affect also?

Gene Barton had a Douglas Skyraider there. The Skyraider is a proto for a new 
kit. Its set up with a functional lighting system. When the wings fold down
and lock they trip a micro switch that activates the strobe lights. Not all
the bugs are out of it yet but its a beautiful plane. They were flying it 
with drop tanks which was fortunate because on the one flight he came in and 
a gear collasped on him. The drop tanks acted like a pair of skis and kept the
wing from getting dinged up.

Larry Harville was there with a Skypirate. I'm sure you'll see lots of pictures 
of this plane in the mags because its a bit different. The announcer said 
something about the prototype being the largest single engine plane or something
along those lines.

Roy Vaillancourt (sp) had a Hurricane which Al seeemed to like. I think this 
was the plane the announcer said was covered with latex house paint. It seemed
to perform ok.

Bob Fiorenze was back with his F-18. Gawd, what a beauty! Al said the jet seemed
to be flying better than it had at Fort Knox. 

Charlie Chambers showed up with an F-18 from the kit Bob's was the master for.
Bob's jet is finished in the prototype paint scheme while Charlie has his 
done up in the Blue Angels scheme. I kept hearing the engines scream from time 
to time but never saw it fly. Al said it was just as well because several people
had expressed concern over Charlie being a low jet time pilot. With him putting
a complex twin jet in the air the feeling was there was a high probablility it
would end up making an expensive hole in the ground.

Bob Violet(sp?) put on a display with one of his sport jets during the break.
Lord was that thing fast. I know now what Al means about them making him 
nervous. There was an A4 by Yellow Aircraft ( I think) up at the same time 
and Al pointed out to me how technically sophisticated Bob's jets are in the
area of airflow. You can litterally hear the difference. The A4 had a growling
sound associated with it that Al said was due to 'dead' air in the inlets. Bob's
jet sounds clean. Unfortunatly for Bob, the jet augered in. Post mortem showed 
the transmitter battery was in the red zone right after the crash.

Speaking of sounding clean, Someone, it might have been Bob, had an F-86 that
was a joy to listen to. It was actually quiet.

Chuck Fuller was competing with his metal finish A-6. This one is my second
     favorite plane.

Charlie Nelson was competing with his Waco bibe. The one nice thing about the 
gloom was Charlie's lighting system on the Waco showed up well against it.

Jack Buckley was there with a CAP-10. Several planes were equiped with smoke
systems but against the grey scud overhead they weren't real effective.

Frank Tiano had a KI-64 Tony. Al said that the rock steady tracking of the tail
on this bird when Frank hit the throttle was due to a gyro hooked up to the
tail servo. Shades of helicopters, now we're talking something I can understand.
We were talking to Frank and he mentioned something interesting. Al had jokingly
asked Frank when he and the Mig were going to be featured in an ad like Dan 
Parson and his plane were. Frank said he knew Al was joking but that he's got
a lot of serious request from people to appear in the ads. He said that what
most people didn't realiase was the tremendous cost of doing one of the ads.
They can easily run $10,000.

Speaking of helicopters. During the break somebody put on a helicopter demo
for Circus Hobbies I think. Now folks, the announcer is going on about what 
great strides helicopter flyers have made and he's speaking to the crowd at the
US Scale Masters. So is the guy doing the demo flying some beautiful scale
copter? Naw, he's flying an ugly old pod and boom in front of a bunch of
scale pilots to show what great strides we've made. Great thinking. 8^(
He did do a very talented display though.

The guy with the Ryan Fireball was there. He had both the prop and the fan unit
running this year. I think last year he was competing with just the prop for
propulsion. Nice plane but I think the fan unit is overkill.

That about does it for my list of things I saw today. One other thing I can 
think of is there was a plane there that I think Al said was a forerunner of
the P-40. It was finished in burnished silver Monocoat and looked great. I
noticed the rivits looked especially good and asked the fellow what he had
used. They were glue drops but instead of using RC-56 he had used slow Zap
mixed with aluminum powered. He said he'd do about five inches of rivits and 
then shoot the line with kicker.


                                                        /     \ /
Dan Eaton - Demented                                   /      / \ 
            Dragonfly                                 /       #  
            Pilot                                    /        #
                                                    /        #
                                                   \       # 
                                                  //@@@ #
                                                 / l @##  .  
                                                /   #@   .
                                               /        .
                           @                  /       \.
                          _/\
                            /\_
                            l 
                                                       

    Hi, guys, it's the ol' Rat typin' on Dan Eaton's  basement terminal
    in good ol' St. Loooooie.
    
    We're gettin ready to have a backyard BBQ so I don't have a lot
    of time to talk.  Kent Walters and Dennis and Linda Crooks are sitting
    nearby watching a demo of the notes_file so my typing is even worse
    than usuell  ;b^}.  Anyhoo, I'll give y'all a quick report of the
    finishers in the U.S. Scale Masters:
    
    
    1. Bob Violett   F-86 Sabre
    2. Hal Parenti   Ryan Furball  (Fireball)
    3. Bill Carper   (Baker) P-47
    4. Diego Lopez   Hellcat
    5. Bill Miller   DC-3
    6. Bill Setzler  Fokker E III Eindecker
    7. Bob Fiorenze  F-18 Hornet
    8. Bob Hanft     (Proctor) Nieuport 28
    9. Corvin Miller FG-1D Corsair
    10. Neil Snodgrass  Midwing Special
    
    There ya' have it, amigos.  Yer' likely the first in the country
    to hear these results.  I'm gonna' sign off now and go chow down
    at Dan's expense now.  See y'all next Tuesday.
    
    Adios,	Al

>Gene Barton had a Douglas Skyraider there. The Skyraider is a proto for a new 
>kit. Its set up with a functional lighting system. When the wings fold down

What company will be kitting it?
What was the wing span?

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
================================================================================

RE:271.508 

>What company will be kitting it?
>What was the wing span?

I assume Barton will be producing the kit. I didn't get the numbers on this 
plane but it's wingspan is at least as big or bigger than the wingspan on
Kevin's Jug. I'm sure Al will have more details.

Dan Eaton

Well, I just got back from the airport where I dropped Al and Kent Walters off
for the trip back. I think I speak for the three of us when I say I'm glad its
over. It was great fun but I'm a tired pup today. 8^)

I went back out Saturday and spent some more time with Al. The weather finally
cooperated and gave us a nice weekend. Highlights of the day were:

The Short Sky Van dead sticked into the grass before I showed up. He said he
was flying along and things got funny. He decided something was wrong with
one of the engines and opted to dead stick in. Good choice because it turned
out that one of the variable pitch props had thrown a blade and was shaking
the ship apart. As it was the damage was minimal but it looked like another
30 seconds of shaking and he would have lost his wing. I was sorry to see this
guy didn't finish.

Dennis Crooks demo'd an F14 during the lunce break. Awsome machine with full
swing wing capability. I've got some great video on that. The announcer was
telling the crowd about how Dr. ??? (forgot the name) had designed a 
microprocessor system to control the wing position based on the flight envelope.
I was curious as to how this was done so I asked Dennis when he was over for 
dinner last night. Dennis said the announcer was full of it and held up his
thumb to show me the 'microprocessor' that controls the wing sweep.

Bob Violett put on a demo with his F-86. I got that on video too. As Al said,
Bob took 1st place with his F-86. When I picked the gang up at the hotel last
night they let me in on something funny about Bob Violett winning. Seems the
prize for taking 1st was a Futaba 1024 radio and a Yellow Aircraft F-18 kit!
Kinda of like Ken Olson winning an IBM 3090. 8^)  

Sunday I stayed home and got the house ready for company. The only event
that Al mentioned me missing concerned Art Johnson. Recall in the last update
that Al and I were wondering about Art when we found that he had to pull
the props and cowlings off his big B-26 to get it fueled. He'd also neglected
to provide away of adjusting the needle valves. Well guess what? Sunday Art
lost an engine on the B-26. Al said it was clear which engine was gone but
Art turned into the dead engine. Somehow he managed to pull the plane thru a 
270 degree turn and got it down into the grass. Dennis Crooks said that when 
the plane was about eight feet up it had nosed over and started to snap but
Art pulled it out right as he went into the grass.

We did a tally this morning on the way to the airport and decided there had
only been two bust-them-up crashes. Dennis Crooks went in Thursday with the 
F-14 he was planning on competing with. The F-14 lost and engine and Dennis
didn't keep the airspeed up. Its a shame because the demo F-14 looked great
but Al said it couldn't hold a candle to the competition F-14. The other
crash occured Friday when Don Barton (Gene's father) lost his Jug. He thought
it was a radio problem. From what I saw it looked like the Jug would pull up,
stall, pull up, stall, ect, but it looked like he might make it back. All of a
sudden the Jug dived and went in nose first.

Dennis Crooks made some interesting comments on his demo F-14. I guess he's had
it out two years now. The Dr. who runs Yellow aircraft is quite wealthy and has
a different view of the hobby than most of us. Those folks were quite surprized
that the F-14 had lasted this long. Based on their experience they figured it
was only good for about 6 months. Dennis said they were amazed that he had 
over forty flights on the F-14. Gawd, I'd love to raid the trash barrel at 
their field!

That about wraps it up. Once again Al showed me numerous pilot errors that were
caused by not knowing what the left thumb is for. There were about 76 planes
entered this year. Next year it looks like the Master's will be back to Las 
Vegas. Drats, I can't figure a way to justify a trip there. 8^(

                                                        /     \ /
Dan Eaton - Demented                                   /      / \ 
            Dragonfly                                 /       #  
            Pilot                                    /        #
                                                    /        #
                                                   \       # 
                                                  //@@@ #
                                                 / l @##  .  
                                                /   #@   .
                                               /        .          
                           @                  /       \.
                          _/\
                            /\_
                            l 
                                                       

    
    How did some of our local entrants do (Charlie Nelson, Jack Buckley
    and Tom Kosewski)?  Obviously none in the top ten, but I'm curious
    if you happen to know.
    
    Bill

    RE: .511
    
    Al was suppose to get a list showing the placing of all 76 but I
    don't know if that came thru or not. I don't know where the
    Nor'easterners placed but I'm surprised that Tom Kosewski didn't place
    in the top 10 because Al had made several comments on how nice he was
    flying. I thought Charlie Nelson's Waco was one of the better planes
    there so that's another one I'm surprised not to see in the top ten. 
    Something else we were talking about was the number 5 spot on the
    list. That dawg gone DC-3 placed #5 again this year.
    
    Dan Eaton

    Mornin', y'all,
    
    Yep!  I'm back at the grindstone and have a coupla' hundred thousand
    issues left on my desk over the past 6-days to have to catch up on.
    Dan Eaton's done an admirable job of reporting so there's not too much
    to add (and I don't have the time to do so anyhow at the moment).  But,
    I'll correct/add/answer/comment on some of the things mentioned before
    I bug out to get caught up with the job.
    
    1.  The guy I was running around with Thursday when I missed connecting
    with Dan for a drink at the hotel lounge was Benny (not Bernie)
    Birchfield, Roy Orbison's best buddy and R/C menetor.  We had a ball
    observing all the goin's on and talking about Roy.  Bennie brought me a
    "Care Package" of Orbison memorabilia which REALLY made my day.
    
    2.  The P-40 ancestor Dan mentioned was the Curtiss Hawk-75
    scratchbuilt by Tommy Weemes of Hereford, Texas.  As Dan menetioned, it
    sported a very convincing 'metal' finish done with ($72 worth of)
    burnished, chrome, trim-Monokote.
    
    3. The Skyraider kit will be put out by Rick Lewis' enterprize which he
    calls Accu-Scale.  Gene Barton's prototype spans 92" and is powered by
    a Webra Bully with an O.S. 7-F carb (from the O.S. .77 ducted fan
    mill).  If interested, watch for kit introduction in early 1990. 
    
    4.  The locals (to y'all) all had a pretty good contest, I thought.
    Charlie Nelson, Jack Buckley and Tom Kosewski all appeared to be flying
    very well (at least every time I happened to spot one of them flying)
    and I was a bit surprized that none of them made the top-10.  As Dan
    indicated, I was 'supposed' to receive a computer listing of all 76
    final positions but that didn't come to pass...maybe in the near
    future.  I _can_ tell you that Barton's Skyraider won Best Military,
    Jack Buckley's CAP-10 won Best Civilian and Jim Terrell's Short Skyvan
    wont the Technical Achievement awards, as voted by the pilots and
    awarded at the Saturday night banquet.  Also, Gene Barton's dad, Don
    Barton, won the Being Last Sucks award (which netted him the dreaded
    T-shirt and a new 1024 5-channel radio), this honor(?) being made
    possible by his crash shortly after takeoff on the first round.
    
    Well, I gotta' adios outa' here for now...be back when I can.

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    I meant to add one more thing to .-1 and I'd be remiss if I didn't
    correct the faux-pas post haste.
    
    Dan Eaton and his lovely first lady, Ruth, simply bent over frontwards,
    sideways and backwards to accomodate Kent Walters and myself all
    through the Masters Championship just past, even to the point of
    allowing me to impose on their hospitality by inviting Dennis and Linda
    Crooks over to the BBQ at Dan's on Sunday night (which was delicious,
    BTW).    
    
    I can't thank Dan and Ruth enough for the gracious manner in which they
    went out of their way for us.  My sincerest muchicmas gracias to them
    publicly and I hope I have the opportunity to reciprocate someday.
    
    Yer' aw'right, Eaton...I don't care what they say about'cha!  :B^)

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

OK, here goes with the report on my recent trip back to St. Louis, Missouri for
the 10th U.S. Scale Masters Championship.  I may break the report into segments 
as time and or length dictates.  Later, I'll probably enter essentially the en-
tire text of the article I'll be writing for RCM so I won't go to any extremes
with detailing the events which occurred during the 4-day event.  Besides, Dan
Eaton's reports have done a commendable job of hitting the highlights.  Anyhow,
here goes:

I arrived early Wednesday morning at Phoenix Sky Harbor Intl. Airport, checked 
in with TWA and waited for a short time before Kent Walters arrived.  We had 
coffee and chatted until boarding time, then proceeded to our gate, boarded and 
were airborne right on schedule.  In less than 30-minutes, the Captain announced
we were passing over Albuquerque and I remarked to Kent that this SURELY beat 
the gruelling Ft. Knox trip of just a year ago when we drove through Albuquerque
some 8-hours after departing Phoenix and had more than 28-hours to go before the
ordeal would end, only to have to be repeated after the contest's conclusion. No
doubt about it, this was the ONLY way to travel to a meet this distance from 
home.

The further east we flew, as we ate breakfast at 33,000' over New Mexico, Texas,
Oklahoma, etc., the gloomier the weather below became until the earth was total-
ly obscured by a billowy white layer of clouds.  Barely 2-hours after having de-
parting Phoenix, the DC-9 pulled the throttles and began letting down for land-
ing in St. Louis about 20-minutes later.  Halfway through the letdown, we plung-
ed into the cloud layer, which now became a murky, depressing gray scud through
which the wingtips were barely visible, and we spent the final 10-minutes of the
flight clawing blindly through the overcast.  I commented to Kent that this part
of commercial flying gives me the lurkies as I _know_ there are other planes out
there also clawing through the muck and no one sees each other, save for a blip
on a luminous screen.

In any event, we arrived 15-minutes ahead of scheduled (ain't it amazin' what 
the airlines can do now that the Fed's are monitoring/publicizing their schedule
performance?), retrieved our baggage and took a cab to the nearby Harley hotel,
arriving there about 2:30 PM, local time.  Water was standing everywhere eviden-
cing earlier rainfall and, while no precipitation was evident at the moment, the
ominous sky threatened more rain before it got better.

Checking into the hotel (owned by her majesty, the "queen" herself, Leona Helms-
ley), we immediately began running into early arrivals as the welcome/registra-
tion table was set up on our way from the hotel desk to the elevators.  We tore
ourselves away from the fray long enough to go up to the room and unload our 
baggage, then returned downstairs to join the party with old and new acquaint-
ances, a gala that was to last 'til the wee hours when they closed the lounge 
and ran us all out.  As Dan already made you aware, I was P.O.'d to learn that
the lounge didn't carry Coors, forcing me to tolerate one "beer-substitute" 
after another all weekend..., at the hotel, that is.  Dan took good care of us
by providing plenty of Colorado Cool-Aid at the field.

At the stroke of 8:00 AM, Thursday, I was awakened by the telephone.  My initial
annoyance with the event quickly changed to joy when the caller identified him-
self as, "Benjamin Howard Birchfield III, but _you_ can call me Benjamin Howard
Birchfield."  "Benny, I exclaimed, "you old car-stripper you...where are you?"
"In the hotel right across the interstate from you...look out yer' window and
you can see it," came the reply.  I was pleased beyond description as I'd hoped
Benny'd make it up from Nashville but really didn't expect him to.  Anyway, we
hurriedly dressed and met Benny in the hotel restaurant for breakfast.  On the 
way down, we couldn't help but notice that the weather was still yuuuuuk; low,
threatening clouds with occasional light drizzle...oh well, "today's just static
judging," we told ourselves.

After breakfast, we wandered around 'til we found static being done in one of
the banquet rooms, things being too wet and the rain threat too great to risk
doing it outside.  Talk about zoo-ey, try to imagine dozens of [mostly] very
large scale models being hauled around the narrow hallways, parked in _every_
available space and scores of modelers standing around kicking tires.

About noon, Benny drove Kent and I out to the field to see if any intrepid
pilots might be test flying.  We found a large crew from the hosting clubs (The
St. Louis R/C Flying Assoc. and the R/C Spirits of St. Louis) hard at work put-
ting up tents, spectator fences, etc. but not a scale bird was in sight.  Kent
had a pre-contest judges meeting at 2:00 PM so we returned to the hotel to find
static had been moved outside to an area adjacent to the rear parking lot.  Both
Benny and I commented how glad we were that we weren't static-judging as the
quality of the models in evidence was simply superb.  The weather was little, if
any, improved but the threat of immediate rain appeared to have lessened.

We went to [recently arrived] Dennis Crooks' room to learn he'd be going out to
the field shortly to fly both his beater, demo F-14 and his absolutely fantastic
competition Tomcat which had only 2-flights on it up to this point.  So, about 
3:00 PM, we were back at the field and, by now, several of the more daring souls
were, indeed, getting in some practice flights.  Brian O'Meara was there with 
his Platt P-51B, Bob Violett arrived and began boring holes with two of his F-86
Sabres, and Dennis got in a routine flight on the demo Tomcat.  But, by now,
Dennis had worked himself into such a lather worrying about flying his gorgeous
competition F-14 that, probably, he shouldn't have flown. Problem was, he really
didn't have a choice; he _had_ to work out some wrinkles and get trims correct
now or be forced to do it during official contest flights which is a poor idea
in any circumstance.

About an hour after flying the beater F-14, we heard the engines start, looked
down to the area where Dennis was set up and saw that he was firing up the new
Tomcat.  Keeping a distance so as not to make him any more nervous than he al-
ready was, we watched as the gorgeous model made a textbook takeoff.  Every-
thing was going as planned and I'd begun to relax as Dennis put the -14 through
its paces.  Then, one fan hiccoughed and quit, leaving the big jet going down-
wind at high [ground] speed on one engine.  "He's got it made," I thought to
myself and shifted my attention elsewhere for a moment.  But, something re-
directed my attention to the Tomcat and, when I scanned it back into view, it
was way out doing a series of Dutch-rolls, as if it was trying to snap every
time Dennis tried to turn it back to the field.  At last, the museum-quality
Tomcat snapped over and plunged straight in from about 100'.  All who had
witnessed it wanted to get violently ill and you couldn't have cut the silence
with a machete!

Benny and I offered our condolences to a shaken Dennis who, once again, had
seen his chances to become Masters Champ crushed.  Everyone who saw the ex-
quisite Tomcat figured Dennis was the front-runner this year...until this.

We returned back to the hotel to learn we'd just missed Dan Eaton who'd left
only 20-minutes or so earlier.  Benny opened his trunk and unloaded all manner
of Roy Orbison memorabilia on me; hats, T-shirts, albums, videos, cassettes,
CD's, etc.  Benny said he had to work the Grand Ol' Opry with his wife, Jean
Shepherd, during the weekend so he'd have to drive back to Nashville that night.
We'd had a great day together talking airplanes and reminiscing about Roy.  I
hated to see him leave but understood his obligation, thanked him for all the 
Orbison paraphernalia and bid him Godspeed back to Nashville.  Carrying all my
treasures back to the room I felt much blessed to have known Roy and to still
be so close to his best friend and modeling buddy, Benny Birchfield..., just a
really terrific person in his own right!

NEXT:  Day-1 of Flying Competition begins.

After bidding Benny adios and stashing my loot in the room, I went (where else?)
down to the lounge and joined the revelry.  The word of Crooks' misfortune had
already spread like wildfire and this, unfortunately, was the primary topic of
conversation.  As 7:00 PM approached, various groups started forming up prepar-
atory to driving to McDonnell-Douglas for the tour of the F-18 final assembly 
building.  Linda Crooks had asked Kent and I if we'd mind sticking around to
help Dennis cope with his misfortune.  Of course, we agreed and, fortunately,
while certainly not thrilled with the event, Dennis snapped back well and we
had a great time over dinner and drinks with the Crooks, Don and Carla Kanack
(also Yellow Aircraft team members) and Tom Walker of Robart.  (Tom's dad, Bob,
is founder of the business.)

Having had a late one Wednesday night, we decided not to hang it out so late and
retired fairly early to rest for Friday AM and the beginning of the flying.  The
morning dawned (if that applies) rainy and overcast just like the previous two
mornings had and I commented to Kent that this was the third consecutive year 
where the Masters had begun under the imminent threat of rain.  We had breakfast
and hitched a ride to the field to find low clouds, patches of ground fog and
intermittent fine misting that kept my glasses frosted constantly.  "Welcome to
St. Louis," I thought to myself sarcastically.

Kent, for whatever reason, had opted _not_ to bring a jacket and the temperature
was slightly on the crisp side so it was a good thing I'd thrown in two jackets,
more to simply keep things from rattling around im my suitcase than anything 
else.  As the day progressed, though the temperature stayed about the same. the
dampness began to penetrate and, while I never got really uncomfortable, I was 
glad to get off the field and into a hot shower that night.

But, this was the Masters and flying commenced in the soup (weather or not).
Many pilots with gray, silver or light colored aircraft elected to scratch the
first round, gambling that it'd improve later in the day.  The gamble failed,
however, and defending Champ, Bob Fiorenze (F-18 Hornet), was among those who
lost a round for no good purpose and had to play catch-up in the second round,
during which, the weather was no different than it had been earlier.

Many new (to me, and/or to the Masters) were in evidence.  Among these were 
three new, 80" P-40's scratched from plans by Jerry Blake.  Very nice models,
indeed, two of them showed well all weekend while one was grounded most of the 
time with engine (S.T. 2000) problems.  I've always liked the "Peter 4-oh" and
could easily consider this project except that a groundswell of 40's seems to
be forming lately and I wouldn't want to lose the exclusivity I've always enjoy-
ed with the MiG-3.

One of the neatest things I've seen in awhile was the pitch-reversing feature on
the Short Skyvan Dan mentioned.  The aircraft itself had all the aerodynamic and
aesthetic appeal of a shoe box with long, skinny (high-aspect ratio) wings but,
when he'd demo the pitch-reversing feature by "BACKING" the airplane out of the 
starting area and onto the runway, all else lost any import.  IT WAS PURELY
FASCINATING to see this done with a model.  After the landing, the performance
would be capped off by coming to a stop, then backing off the runway.  Jim
Terrell really deserved the technical achievement award he received for his 
model.

Brian O'Meara fiddled with his Platt P-51B all morning trying to get his act to-
gether.  Finally, he seemed to have everything together but, after starting the
engine inverted and flipping the plane rightside-up, he and a helper were carry-
ing the plane to the runway by the wingtips when the wing simply snapped in the
center-section, dropping the fuselage to the ground in slow-motion.  Poor Brian;
if it weren't for his incessant _bad_ luck, he'd have no luck at all.

Starting the second round, Gene Barton (who'd had to scratch round-1 because he
simply wasn't quite ready) went to the line with his brand new 92", Webra Bully
powered Douglas AD Skyraider...beautiful model.  Gene hammered the throttle and
nailed a perfect takeoff...the first time the big 'Raider had flown in paint.
The plane's wing-folding mechanism is arranged such that both air-cylinder act-
uated wing-anchor pins must actuate a microswitch completeing an "AND" circuit
which turns on the nav-lights, strobes and rudder-mounted rotating beacon.  As
the 'Raider bored by in the murk, the lights really stood out and lent an air
of realism to the flight.  On landing, one of the 90-degree rotating main gear
failed to lock and folded on touchdown but you hardly noticed as the plane sim-
ply slid to a halt, using the huge ferry tank as a skid.

Charlie Nelson's new WACO also had a great light-system that showed well in the
gloom of Friday's flying.  Taxying into takeoff position, the nav and clearance
lights were all lit PLUS the retractable landing lights were extended from the
bottom of the upper wing and lit.  As the pretty WACO rotated and climbed out,
the landing lights could clearly be seen to turn out, then retract back into the
wing...NEAT!

The only incident of the day was the crash, shortly after takeoff, of Don Bar-
ton's (Gene's dad) Baker P-47.  Looked to me like a classic case of taking off
underpowered and stick-lifting it into a series of stall-snaps until he finally
got into one he couldn't recover.  Too bad; the plane was heavily damaged, per-
haps totalled.

Bob Violett's F-86, while considerably larger than the Jet Hangar Sabre, is 
still smallish next to Fiorenze's F-18, Patel's (Cook) Phantom and Crooks'
(Yellow Aircraft) F-14.  But, it's undoubtedly the best engineered jet I've seen
to date, the inlet/fan/tailpipe ducting being engineered to eliminate dead/stal-
led air.  You can literally _hear_ the cleanliness of Viollett's plane as it
sails along noiselessly except for the sound of the quiet-piped KBV .80 engine.
Bob put in nearly flawless performances every round.

Cold and damp, we gratefully ended the first day's flying and returned to the 
hotel for a welcome hot shower and the cocktail party to be held that night.
The cloudy, misty weather never became a _real_ factor, even though they, at
one point, suspended flying for about an hour's "weather break" due to the mist
on pilots' glasses causing problems.  Those of us who remembered the '87 Mas-
ters were heard commenting up and down the line, "Obviously, none of these guys
were at Las Vegas" (where we very literally flew in pouring rain).

Next: Saturday's flight rounds and banquet.

Please comment on the notable missing persons.  You probably can think
of several but Ramon Torez(sp) comes to mind - why wasn't he there?
Why did Kent Walters judge and not fly - didn't he qualify?  I thought
he had a new bird?  What about Bob Frey (remember him :-)) and dangerous
Dan Parsons?  We only know that the infamous Al Casey can't figure out how
to rebuild a cowl on his MiG 3 but what of all there other famous
scale modelers?

P.S.  Al - for what it is worth I think you should submit what your
putting in the notes file - the things you may be tempted to edit out
for RCM are exactly the things that make your writing special and in
the long run will insure you a permanent position in world of writing.

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
================================================================================

Before getting into Saturday's flying, let's talk a bit about how _NOT_ to
come to _any_ contest, let alone the U.S. Scale Masters.  Three vivid ex-
amples instantly leap to mind:

1.  Charlie Chamber had a gorgeous Fiorenze/Yellow Aircraft F-18 done up in a
flawless Blue Angels paint scheme.  The hitch was, the plane hadn't been flown
yet and much concern existed that, being a low/no jet time pilot, Charlie may've
bitten off more than he could chew.  To his credit, Charlie worked like a Trojan
trying to iron out all the bugs and get in a test flight before or after each 
day's official competition but it wasn't to be.  The consensus among us was that
is was probably a good thing as we all expected to arrive at the field and find
a large, blue, smoking-hole had Charlie attemted a first flight under these cir-
cumstances.

2. Brian O'Meara just has to be the personification of Joe Bltzpflck, the little
guy with the perpetual black thundercloud over his head from Al Capp's "L'il Ab-
ner" comic strip.  After his Platt Mustang's wing broke in the center-section on
Friday, Brian went back to his room, beefed up and reglassesd the center-section
and was ready to try it again Saturday.  Due to excess resin all over the place,
Brian was forced to fly with the gear down first flight Saturday.  Naturally,
the engine (S.T. 3000) overheated and, upon dead-sticking into the thick grass,
the right gear stubbed, pulled out of the wing and stumled the plane onto it 
nose whereupon the fuse broke away from the wing and broke in half right at the
cockpit.  Now, had it been _me_, I'd have figgered' someone was trying to tell
me something and would've quit at this point.  But, there ain't an ounce of 
"quit" in Brian and, next thing I knew, he was set up under Frank Tiano's tent
with himself, his wife and Frank bent over the wreckage Zapping/ epoxying it
back together.  Unbelievably, they got it together and appeared for the next
round.  The -51 took off normally, the gear retracted, the engine kept running
and Brian actually got in a complete flight.  BUT, on landing, Brian got a bit
out of shape and slammed onto the right gear a little harder than usual but, all
in all, not a bad landing...the right gear tore away again and, as the battered
but once pretty Mustang ground to a halt, the wing buckled in the center-section
again.  As we left the field Saturday evening, Brian's wife, Jody, was doing her
impression of Jose Greco doing the Flamenco on the offending wing...all that was
missing was the castanets.  WHATTA RIOT?!

3.  Lastly, we have my young friend, Tony Arand.  Tony postponed his flight by a
day, arriving Thursday afternoon, simply because his Jet Hangar KFIR had crashed
on its second flight and the repairs weren't complete in time to come Wednesday,
as originally planned. Then upon arriving, already late for static, it turns out
that Tony's airplane is lost; the airlines sent it to Houston!  The pilots unan-
imously voted Friday AM that Tony be allowed to static _whenever_ his plane fin-
ally arrived.  But, Friday's weather was bad enough that Lambert Airport was 
closed part of the day and it was Friday evening before the prodigal KFIR at 
last arrived...and guess what?  The airplane was never finished , even _before_
its second-flight crash.  Tony was up all night airbrushing markings/insigniae
and it was noon Saturday before he showed up for static (after being told he'd
be judged at 9:00 AM).  Static _finally_ out of the way, Tony spent the entire
remainder of the weekend on his knees in front of the KFIR trying to make it
run (or praying to it which was equally unsuccessful).  Tony managed to limp 
into the air once but had to cut the flight short when the engine went rich.
After Saturday's official flights, he leaned the engine and tried again only to
have it throw a rod shortly after takeoff, forcing a harmless dead-stick in the
grass.  Undaunted, Tony installed another engine at the field Sunday and tried
a final time; the result was a saggy, underpowered, nose high takeoff followed
by what appeared to be pogo-stick simulation as the KFIR struggled through a
180-degree, fighting for, but gaining no altitude until it mushed into the grass
unhurt.  At this point, Tony finally quit with a badly bruised ego (which was
well earned, to my estimation).  

I sincerely trust all three of these gentlemen have learned something about pre-
paredness before their next outing into Masters competition.

In response to Kay's question, Ramon Torres was scheduled to compete and was ex-
pected but never showed...I never heard why.  Likewise, Greg Namey was expected
but failed to show due to some unforseen conflict involving personal business.
Greg and Claude Baskin _did_ show up to spectate and attend the Saturday night
banquet but left again early Sunday.  (BTW Greg said my Hurricane kit was "on
the way" so we'll see.  It was _supposed_ to be on its way back in lateJuly.
Also, Claude said my MiG-3 plans are't as far along as I'd thought/hoped so I 
have no idea when I might eventually be able to start that project)

Kent Walters was judging as he has nothing to fly at this time.  He's, perhaps,
2/3 complete on his new, larger Dauntless but figures it'll be tight trying to 
have it for Top Gun next April.  Bob Frey found himself with no one to drive
with and, though our California buddies offered to trailer his model over with
theirs so he could fly, Bob declined as he has a house purchase currently in es-
crow which is expected to clear anytime so he felt he could not afford to be 
away.  Chuck Collier was prevented from competing by bad timing; his retirement
date from Honeywell was Friday, the 15th, which was, of course, the Friday of
the Masters.  Obviously, Chuck fely he couldn't be gone last week.  Dan Parsons 
was off somewhere doing his thing at a fun-fly (which he FAR prefers over _any_
contest, including the Masters).

And Al Casey was tickled to be there sans airplane as it was the _only_ way I
might've made it.  I was deadly serious last year when, after the Ft. Knox
ordeal, I said, "NEVER AGAIN!"  I was that committed to the statement that I
didn't fly in a single qualifier, having no intention of competing in St. Louis.
The opportunity to go as a reporter for RCM was a Godsend and it further convin-
ced me of the correctness (for me) of my position; even after arriving fresh, 
the pall of the weather was very depressing and I thought at least a dozen times
how glad I was that I didn't have to fly in that stuff...I could easily imagine
how I'd have felt about it, had I driven 32-hours to get there - a lot like I 
felt in Ft. Knox.  Nope, NEVER AGAIN; from last year on, 1000-miles is my 
_absolute_ maximum contest radius...and I'll think twice about _that_ distance!

A note to Kevin Ladd:  I thought for a moment, Thursday, that you'd pulled a 
fast one, gotten an invitation and showed up without telling me.  Why?  Because
as Benny and I were checking out the planes lined up in the hotel hallways 
awaiting static, I noticed a Baker Jug painted as, you guessed it, "Little De-
mon."  "Nah!" I said to myself.  "You don't suppose...., nah, he'd a'told me."
On checking the documentation package, I determined the ship belonged to Bill
Carper who'd flown a shiney bubble-top -47 in Ft. Knox.  But, for just a moment
there.................

Still Coming: Saturday's Flying.

A coupla' days back, out of the blue, I received a copy of the NASA (National
Association of Scale Aeromodelers) newsletter and a side-letter from NASA Pres-
ident, John Guenther, from Kay Fisher.  I wasn't sure _why_ Kay'd sent it to me,
so I fired him the message below via E-mail.  Kay felt there was some potential
value to publishing the conversation in R/C_notes, so here goes:
********************************************************************************
Kay,

I received the NASA newsletter and a side-letter from John Guenther in the mail
a day or so back and was wondering if a response was expected as I didn't recall
being aware that it was coming my way.

Fairly interesting stuff but, as I consider Guenther one of the more UNqualified
persons around to actually enjoy something of a reputation as a scale authority,
I find I can't help being somewhat suspect of the organization's purpose.

I remember a power-play from NASA early in the U.S. Scale Masters program where-
in NASA wanted to become the governing body for the Masters and use it as a 
qualifier for the FAI Internats.  And, considering that this newsletter boasts a
total NASA membership of 230 (or so), I have to wonder how the organization 
feels it's franchised to speak for the R/C scale community in any capacity what-
ever.  However, it (NASA) presumes to do just that through recommending changes
to AMA scale rules, etc. under the guise of being "the voice" of R/C scale.  Any
proof as may exist in this area is, quite frankly, self-generated by NASA.  The 
scale community at large has NEVER empowered NASA (or any other organization) to
speak for it and frequently considers NASA's intrusions as a meddlesome nuisance
at best and a dangerous entity at worst since it appears to desire controlling 
the future of scale.

Of course, I could be laboring under some no-longer-valid preconceptions but,
with Guenther at the helm, I just can't help being suspicious as to the purpose/
motive of NASA.  Understand that I don't know John well enough to like _or_ dis-
like him personally.  All I know is, by observation (including his performance
at this year's Masters), John is one of the lesser gifted scale pilots I've ever
seen..., but _not_ to hear _him_ tell it.  He will speak with great authority in
the magazines regarding his prowess and knowledge of scale.  He just impresses 
me as a 24-carat phony.

********************************************************************************
Kay then replied.....:
********************************************************************************

Actually I was wondering if it was worth the dues - at the present time it seems
that every RC related salesman in the world it trying to invent ways of separat-
ing me from my money.  I ment to send you mail and it slipped my mind.  I was 
hoping that you could make a comment about this organization and it's relative 
worth to the noters in general.  If you put what you just said plus some up 
front description of the organization then I think it would have value to every-
one who reads the scale note (doesn't everyone).

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
================================================================================

********************************************************************************

So, there you have it.  Unfortunately, I can't add anything in terms of an "up 
front description of the organization" since, as I stated above, I'm frankly
not sure just what NASA is or wants to be, beyond it's purporting to be the
voice of the scale community.  Trust me, _I_ (nor any scale modeler I know)
ever appointed the 230 members of NASA to be _MY_ voice.  Should any of you 
possess knowledge that either supports or contradicts my opinion of NASA, I'd
really appreciate hearing it here in the scale topic.

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

Kay,

Back at'cha with some answers/comments/etc.:

>P.S.  I'm about to leave work early to meet Dan Snow in the parking lot and 
>purchase his (bearly started) 40-60 size Zero kit.  Sure do like those Zeros!

*  Yup!  The Zero is just about as good an entry-level WW-II fighter as a guy
could get his mitts on.  It's about as friendly and free of vices (if properly 
built/balanced) as any other fighter of the period...[much] more so than most!
With a bit of intermediate time in one's log book (a'la Aeromaster, etc.), fly-
ing a Zero is like bobbing for water; almost anyone can do it!  ;b^}

>If I stop crashing it I think I could actually beat Kevins static next year.
>Course that assumes that Kevin stops making improvements (not likely)

*  That's certainly within the realm of possibility, particularly with a rarely
seen ship like the B-J.

>But that is not a goal.  Frankly the work to fun ratio on the BJ was too high.
>Next time I want a giant scale plane and ONLY one!  

*  It's _not_ a myth that larger models fly better!  Go fer it.

>So far my wish list looks like this:
>	Mamouth Scale BJ "105" span
>	Der Jagger (know of any documentation or in museums or available for 
>	photos)

*  Not off hand but I know it exists as I've seen several nice Der Yeagers in 
competition and they're getting their doc _somewhere_.  I'd try Bob Banka's
Scale Model Research for starters.

>	PA18 Super Cub
>	Husky (heard from Harvey Tomaisian(sp) that the Byrons kit is NG

*  Whether the kit's good or not, Byron kits are to be avoided for competition 
work.  Rightly-or-wrongly, Byron kits have an ARF stigma attached to them that
handicaps them in static.  Flyability-wise, however, they're hard to beat; I've
never seen a [properly powered] Byron airplane that didn't fly well.

>	Zero (Which kit?  Like removable wings - but...)

*  Tough one in that only two large (1/6, 1/5 scale) Zeroes exist (that I know
of): the Byron (see above) and the Platt.  Platt's is, without doubt the most 
accurate and is a fine flyer.  However, due to Platt's paranoia with weight, his
models tend to be extremely flimsy.  (See the preceeding dialogue regarding 
Brian O'Meara's Platt Mustang...this lack of durability syndrome is common to 
all Platt kits.  They require _considerable_ beefing/re-engineering to attain
_some_ degree of durability and _still_ tend to be on the fragile side. The best
approach might be to have [Bob] Holman blow up the Brian Taylor Zero to desired
size.  Of course, if large scale isn't a prerequisite, Royal makes a fine .60-
.90 size Zero about a third larger than the one you're getting from the Sno-man.

>	Skyraider (like the idea of lots and lots of hardpoints!)

*  Well, you'll certainly accomplish _that_ objective. However, even if you opt-
ed to omit the folding wings (as I would), you're still looking at a horribly
complex model, mainly in the area of the landing gear.  And, naturally, this
complexity translates not only to expense (kits and hardware are NOT likely to
be cheap) but to reduced reliability as well.  Somehow, my imagination isn't
quite creative enough yet to go home and tell Kathi "I just made a $2,000.00
smokin' hole in the runway." :B^)
    
TOMMOROW:  We'll finally get to Saturday's flying at the Masters.
    
      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

So, gettin' back to it, Friday night we attended the complimentary cocktail par-
ty at the hotel, kicked lots more tires and didn't hang it up [again] 'til the
last dog'd been hung.  Then, Harris Lee, Gene Barton and I got into a discussion
of [it seemed at the moment] utmost gravity, further delaying arrival back at 
the room where I could, at long last, stand on my back and get some [too little]
much needed rest.  (These darn Masters are becoming an endurance marathon; last
one still on his feet wins!)

Saturday morning came far too early but I stumbled out of the rack and, the in-
stant my feet hit the floor, bee-lined to the window for a peak at the sky.
Eureka!  There was still some low lying ground fog and a few clouds but, above
that, "Yes, Virginia, there really _is_ blue sky in St. Looie!"  Rousing Kent,
we went to breakfast and were shortly back at the field with readjusted atti-
tudes, thanks to the promising weather.

No doubt about it; _this_ was more like it!  A gentle breeze from the north kept
things from becoming _too_ steamy, though the heavy humidity kept me oozing from
every pore all day long.  No matter, this was a quantum improvement over the 3
depressingly gray, rainy days we'd already endured.

Ain't it great how much better the colorful scale ships stand out against a nice
blue sky, interspersed with fluffy white clouds?!  Tommy Weemes' polished alumi-
num Curtiss Hawk 75 with its blue and white roundel markings (from Argentina)
looked magnificent against the sky.  So did Art Johnson's Martin B-29 Marauder,
Vaillancourt's Hurricane, Nelson's Waco, Buckley's CAP-10, etc., etc., ad infin-
itum.

There were no fewer than 4-Proctor Nieuport-28's, one Nieuport-11 and Tom Kosew-
ski'smagnificent Fokker D-VII in evidence so WW-I was well represented.  Also,
there was a Travelaire Mystery Ship and a Wedell-Williams Red Lion Special
(Roscoe Turner's mount) representing the Golden Age.  (The latter two aircraft
were absolute nightmares on the ground but they were sure pretty in the air.
Frequently, all the aircraft in the sky would be from the same era; all WW-I, 
WW-II, Golden Age or all jets.  It was particularly pretty when the sky was fil-
led with colorful WW-I bipes.

Diego Lopez, wanting to improve his 6th place finish at Ft. Knox, was an early 
leader with a respectable flight score and a 90 for his first round flight. But,
adversity was about to loom its ugly head in Diego's, thus far, smooth path.  As
Diego began his second round takeoff, the big Hellcat hooked left a bit but he
caught it with rudder and rotated, JUST as he collided with a big J3 Cub which
the pilot had carelessly parked right out on the runway.  (A 40' wide runway 
gets pretty narrow and _most_ pilots were cautious enough to keep their aircraft
back away from the runway proper until time to fly.  Unfortunately, this guy 
wasn't thinking and he and Diego paid for the oversight.)  The Hellcat's main
gear took the brunt of the collision and the big Grumman simply slumped back to
earth, staying on its feet.  The Cub, however, seemed to literally explode on 
impact; wings, struts and undefined yellow shapes flew everywhere.  In model
form, we'd witnessed why Grumman was referred to as "The Bethpage Ironworks"
throughout WW-II...those darn Hellcats were/are tough!

Diego said he flat didn't see the Cub 'til it was too late but he apologized
profusely to the Cub owner, then both pilots retired back to the pits to begin
effecting repairs.  Diego's damage was all superficial except for the landing
gear.  Rotator slides, roll pins etc. had been broken, damaged or misaligned
and it took Diego several hours to get the gear patched up and working again.

Meanwhile, the much more heavily damaged Cub was also undegoing repair but it
didn't look too hopeful.  On a humorous note, at one point, as Diego was fever-
ishly working on his retracts, the Cub owner walked up and handed him two small
squares of Hellcat colored fiberglass, asking, "Do these belong to you?  I found
them inside my plane."  Diego turned them over in his hand, studying them, then
said, "Hell yes!  Those are two of my cowl flaps...I hadn't even missed them."

A coupla' hours after the mid-ground incident, I happened to look up and, "I'll
be damned!  The Cub's back in the air!!"  There it was, looking for all the
world as if it'd never been hurt except for an occasional glimpse of silver duct
tape glinting against the yellow finish.  Shortly thereafter, Diego went up also
but the one, more heavily damaged gear, refused to retract and he was forced to
leave the gear down for the flight.  Extra drag translates into lower airspeed,
therefore longer flight time; combine this with traffic that forced Diego to
abort his landing and go around three times and you'll not be surprised that the
Hellcat went deadstick in a place where Diego couldn't make it back to the run-
way.  Of course, Diego was unable to retract his gear so he went into the thick
grass gear-down...the wheels snagged and the F4F flipped, tail-first, right onto
the vertical fin/rudder.  Damage was slight but Diego had more repairs to do
(which he completed before leaving the field).

Frank Tiano was looking especially solid with his Kawasaki KI-81 Hein (Tony).
I noticed later that one of the reasons his takeoffs looked so good was that he
had a gyro installed, attached to the rudder.  "Dirty pool!" I thought at first.
But, thinking about it a bit more and watching a host of taildraggers get out
of shape, scattering judges, pilots and callers fying from upwind flight sta-
tions, I thought, "Why not?"  If only for the enhancement of safety. Bob Violett
also had gyros on the rudders of his jets.

Lunchtime programs were flown all three days with the teams from Viojett, and 
Yellow Aircraft having a friendly shootout with their products.  (In this writ-
er's opinion, while the Yellow aircraft are larger and more exotic, Violett won
the shootout handily owing, I believe, to superior engineering of the fans and
associated ductwork.)  Ducted fans are still a long way out for this cowboy's
tastes but, I got froggy and thought I just _had_ to have one today, there's no
doubt the one I'd pick would be Violett's F-86 and all Viojett power.

On its second, perhaps third flight, the neat little Short Skyvan was suddenly
in a whole lotta' trouble.  I happened to pick it up just before _something_
went wrong; all of a sudden, it began trying its darndest to snap but it was
so far out you couldn't tell if an engine had quit or what.  Wisely, the pilot,
even though the plane was WAY out at this point, elected to pull the throttles
and go for a forced landing the best he could.  Amazingly, the stubby little
Skyvan went into a clear, grassy area with barely a wiggle.  It was at least an 
hour later when pilot and helpers finally returned with the ship.  (I told you
it was a _long_ way out when it went down.)  What had happened was one engine
had thrown a prop blade from the pitch-reversing hub and the engine had nearly
shaken the entire nacelle from the wing.  Other than that, however, the bird
was undamaged.  (BTW, this aircraft was brought clear down from Alaska for the
Masters.)

By the end of the day, 3-complete rounds had been flown and, while some leaders
stuck out, it was clear that tomorrow's fourth and final round would prove in-
teresting...this was still a horse race and the winners could still emerge from
back in the pack.

NEXT:  Saturday night's banquet and the final day of competition.

Back at the hotel, we gussied up (as much as is possible fer' a coupla' ol'
cowpokes) and went downstairs for the banquet.  What can I say?  It was a
pretty typical banquet with pretty typical banquet fare.  But, you don't really
go to a banquet for the food; you go for the camaraderie and, hopefully, some
entertainment.

After the usual introductions, thank you's, etc., the host club did something a
bit unusual and new; they presented each competitor with a nice plaque, person-
alized with a picture of the pilot's airplane.  Pilots' Choice awards were pre-
sented; according to the competitors themselves, the winners were:  

	1. Best Military...Gene Barton - Douglas Skyraider
	2. Best Civilian...Jack Buckley - CAP-10
	3. Technical Achievement...Jim Terrell - Short Skyvan

Don and Gene Barton were recognized as the first father and son to qualify and
compete in the Masters.  Don was also jointly awarded the Gray Eagle Award along
with Art Johnson as being the oldest pilots in competition.

Harris Lee announced that, at future Masters, craftsmanship will be judged from
8' rather than 15'.  And, remember that late night confab I told you I'd had 
with Harris and Gene?  Well, I was making supportive argument for something I'd
suggested upon arriving Wednesday.  Harris really surprised me when he also an-
nounced that flight scores in the future may be the average of ALL rounds, with
the pilot having the option to throw out _one_ round.  My point was that this
would remove a lot of luck and identifiy the pilot who demonstrated he had his
stuff together with truly consistent scores.  Harris also revealed that Norway
and Japan, among other countries, had expressed a desire to hold a Masters
qualifier so the Masters could be taking an even more international turn in the
future.

A long-time test pilot for McDonnell-Douglas then narrated a film presentation 
on the F-18 Hornet and the AV-8 Harrier.  This was interesting but it was get-
ting late and I felt it went a little long.  Finally, after being recognized as
the only pilot to have competed in all 10 U.S. Scale Masters Championships, 
Frank Tiano took the podium and proceded to deliver a hilarious historical re-
trospect of the previous 9 Masters, hitting [unmercifully] the more humorous
events that took place at each event.  The place really broke up when Frank
graphically described the picture of Brian O'Meara, feet planted against the 
'trunk,'  trying to extricate his Baker P-47 from the Saguaro cactus he'd
center-punched at the '85 Masters in Mesa, Arizona.

After the banquet, Kent and I found ourselves in the lounge having a very in-
teresting conversation with a fellow named Thor <mumble> from Norway.  Thor
was flying (though I'll have to check my notes at home to remember _what_ he
flew) in the Masters and this wasn't his first Masters, he'd competed before.
Very nice young fellow.

Sunday morning was a carbon copy of the previous day.  At the field, a murmor
was going through the pits that the results of this meet should prove to be
"interesting."  Several dark horses were within striking range to steal the
coveted championship and all would depend on the last flight being a good one.
Everyone was chafing at the bit to get underway and take their shot at ending
the suspense.

Gene Barton started things off with a textbook flight on the Skyraider. Finally,
both gears locked on landing and Gene scored a 92 flight but, due to scratching
the first round and having gear problems on rounds 2 and 3, Gene didn't have
another high flight to back this one up with.  Otherwise, he'd have placed quite
highly, without any doubt at all.  Recognizing this, Bob Fiorenze came up to 
Gene, complimented him on his achievement and volunteered that "the Skyraider'll
definitely be the plane to beat in the immediate future."  I gotta comment that,
though gear folding is a real pain for the pilot in competition, it really look-
ed trick with the 'Raider; on its second flight (3rd-round) when both gear fail-
ed to lock and folded back on touchdown, the big bird slid smoothly, straight
ahead to a stop on those huge, underwing ferry-tanks, almost like a floatplane
landing on water (the possibility of which I just had to point out to Gene).

Hal Parenti showed his Ryan Fireball well all weekend and his unusual steed de-
serves mention.  The Fireball was designed as a jet engine test-bed in the early
days when jet unreliability was the rule, hence the conventional recip power in
the nose backing up the jet in the tail.  Hal has a .40-size ducted fan mounted
in the aft-fuselage and, a'la the prototype, a conventional engine in the nose.
With both mills running, Hal taxied the Fireball into takeoff position and lock-
ed the brakes.  Then, as the prop engine idled, you could hear the internal DF
engine spooling up 'til it reached full [screaming] RPM.  A moment later, the
prop engine was throttled up 'til both engines were at full RPM and the ship
strained at the brakes.  Releasing the brakes, the Fireball accelerated and ro-
tated into a smooth takeoff, the gear slowly retracting as it climbed out.
Very nice presentation!

By now, Art Johnson had made a miraculous, engine-out save of his huge B-26;
miraculous in the respect that he broke every twin-engine rule I ever knew and
still; came out alive with minor damage to one nacelle.  Art was a highly ex-
perienced military pilot, having flown everything up to F-100's, including the
very prototype his model was patterned after.  I never cease to be fascinated at
how some quite excellent full-scale pilots can't seem to apply the same rules
to flying R/C models.  Seems totally illogical to me but I see it all the time.

All through the meet, Bob Hanft's Nieuport-28 and Bill Setzler's Fokker EIII 
could be seen droning smoothly overhead as they were operated from a mowed strip
adjacent to the asphalt runway.  And, though I really need to sneak a peak at
Bill Miller's documentation before I can understand how he statics so well with
several [apparently] glaring outline errors, he flies his DC-3 with a smoothness
and grace seldom seen in model twins.

Eddy Newman and Lawrence Harville put in nice final-round flights, capping a 
completely successful

Bill Carper put in another very nice flight with his [twin to Kevin's] Baker 
Jug, "Little Demon."  I had to question his doing aerobatics with the belly tank
still aboard but it didn't seem to be hurting him so he must've known something
I didn't.  

High score after high score was posted as the final round continued.  But, Bob
Violett removed all the mystery and put his own brand on the championship with
a sizzling 96 flight that removed all doubt as to who would be first.  All re-
maining discussion centered upon who would take 2nd-thru-10th.

with the last official flight completed, demo's, including the traditional beat
up of the field with WW-II fighters took place while scores were being tabulated
and finish positions determined by computer.  During the WW-II beat up, Brian
O'Meara demonstrated that buzzard-luck is, indeed, transferrable from airplane 
to airplane.  Frank Tiano volunteered his ha-ha scale Me-109 to Brian; all Brian
had to do was install his own receiver and fly with his own radio.  Come time to
start engines, the first thing to happen is that the glo-plug fails.  Brian has-
tily borrows a new one, connects the battery and flips the engine, only to have
it backfire and spit the prop/spinner from becoming loaded while propping it 
with a dead plug.  Brian scrambles around and borrows tools to reinstall the
prop but, as he's replacing the spinner, he discovers the prop is cracked.  So,
he runs back to the pits and returns with a new prop, installs same, replaces 
spinner and, finally gets the engine running.

Blasting off, Brian joins the gaggle of fighters (with about half the flight 
gone by now) and makes a number of passes en-masse with the group.  One-by-one,
the fighters run low on fuel and land (of 6-aircraft, 2-actually ran out of fuel
and deadsticked safely), leaving Brian the last in the air.  Brian makes a pass,
pitches out, hits the gear switch and, "Hey Frank?!  I got no gear!"  Frank runs
over and says, "It's just a beater, Bri...put it in the grass right next to the 
runway."  This Brian does with no problem.  Pulling the wing, the smell of burn-
ing electrical components assaults the nose immediately.  Would you believe the
retract servo, which has solely to operate the air-switch back and forth, has
stalled and burned its little electronic guts out??  We all concluded that Brian
was to be avoided like the plague from this time forward, just in the off chance
that his condidion is communicable.

Dennis Crooks put on a dazzling demo flight with the beater F-14, as he had done
on Saturday, and all were convinced that, had the fates been kinder, this would
have certainly been Dennis' year to take the championship.

Demo's over, the awards were made.  I'll repeat the top-10 below:

	1. Bob Violett: F-86 Sabre
	2. Hal Parenti: Ryan Fireball
	3. Bill Carper: (Baker) P-47
	4. Diego Lopez: (Lien) Hellcat
	5. Bill Miller: DC-3
	6. Bill Setzler: Fokker EIII Eindecker
	7. Bob Fiorenze: F-18 Hornet
	8. Bob Hanft: (Proctor) Nieuport-28
	9. Corvin Miller: FG1D Corsair
       10. Neil Snodgrass: Midwing Special

NEXT: A wrap-up, a BBQ and the trip home.

    great stuff al, i'm sorrier than ever i missed it.
    maybe next year.
    kevin

I was  watching  the  1988  Scale  Masters  tape,  that is making its rounds
courtesy  Kay  Fisher.  What I saw prompts the following questions. I am, of
course,  assuming that people are in the "business" of building scale planes
(especially the masters) to replicate the real thing as closely as possible.

1. Bomb mounts.

I found  at least one plane that had a bomb that "dangled" and bobbed around
in its  release,  from  the prop wash. If I were a full scale pilot, I would
refuse  to  fly  such  a plane, for fear of premature release due to fatigue
induce  fracture, etc... Imagine bombing your runway on takeoff?

If I  were  a  judge  at  the  Scale  Masters,  I  would give credit for the
existance  of  the  bomb, but not for execution. Dunno if the actual judeges
sweat such details out, and only look at the a/c instead.

2. Bombs.

Another gripe.  Some  bombs  were  sooo  light that upon release, they would
instantly go cartwheeling backwards, and land somewhere behind the plane. No
doubt,  the bomb was made from foam or balsa, and intended to save weight. I
sez  a  bomb  is a bomb if it goes down nose first, with the tail following.
Can  you imagine this plane flying in formation, releasing its load, only to
have the bomb land smack in the face of a pilot following? Arrgh!

3. Take-offs (War birds)

I am talking fighter planes. Picture this. You are deep in slumber, when the
loudspeaker blares "scramble, Scramble, S C R A M B L E". As you fall out of
your bunk, the voice continues.

"Enemy at 18,000'. Bearing 267. Estimated time of arrival 1600 zulu."

Now, are you going to climb out at a sedate 3 to 5 degrees, or head directly
for heavens?  (OK,  OK,  we  have  such  a  thing as the best rate of climb,
etc...).  Will  the  judges  nail me for yanking on the stick, or want me to
take-off airliner style (a la what will the passengers think!!)

Well Al,  as  Commander  of  the  1/8th Air Force, watchoo think? Am I being
cavalier  in  grounding  the  pilots  and  airing  the  ground  crew  (read:
court-martial),  and will  I have a mutiny on my hands? Awaiting your expert
comments breathlessly...

ajai

ps. 1. Hey, that was the first time I saw the ole' rat fly'n' his
       infamous Mig. Seemed like he (and the pilot of a red Mustang) were
       the only ones who decided to take look-see flying inverted over the
       airstrip before landing. Most of the rest did some staid flying.
       (I mean I saw the MIG, not the rat).

    2. Double Hey! Did I see a live injun or what! Shailesh Patel, who else!
       First time I have seen another injun in this sport after coming to the
       New world. Aw' right! Where are the rest?

       When I head back to mah' injun reservation for 'nother vacation, ah'm
       gonna tell me boys it's safe to come out now. It's purty safe in the Wild
       West boys - yeah, I'll tell 'em that, ah' shooor will...

       :-) :-)

Hi, Ajai.  Thanx for the interest and the observations.  Here're some responses
to yer' questions/comments.

>1. Bomb mounts.
>
>I found  at least one plane that had a bomb that "dangled" and bobbed around
>in its  release,  from  the prop wash. If I were a full scale pilot, I would
>refuse  to  fly  such  a plane, for fear of premature release due to fatigue
>induce  fracture, etc... Imagine bombing your runway on takeoff?

*  I agree that the bomb or aux tank should _appear_ to be rigidly attached to
its hardpoint.  The reason, I expect, that this is sometimes not the case is
to ensure the bomb/tank will release reliably.  Judges _should_ deduct points, 
however, from the flight realism score when the condition you describe exists.

>If I  were  a  judge  at  the  Scale  Masters,  I  would give credit for the
>existance  of  the  bomb, but not for execution. Dunno if the actual judeges
>sweat such details out, and only look at the a/c instead.

*  This creates a minor can-of-worms.  It is known that static displaying the
ship with ordnance hanging from the wings can improve your static score.  How-
ever, the rules [rightly, IMHO] require that the model MUST fly in whatever
condidion it is staticked in.  Therefore, the pilot has the option to fly his
entire competition round with all that draggy ordnance hanging from the ship
or use them as a mechanical option and drop them.  Another point here is that, 
failing to find a target, a full scale warbird would NEVER, return to base car-
rying a loaed of HE ordnance; he'd salvo them in some designated dump area be-
fore landing (for obvious safety reasons).  The only exception to this is with 
the case of aux tanks which _might_ be retained or in the event of a malfunction
which prevented getting rid of the bomb load.  For this reason, if a pilot elec-
ted to fly an entire flight with bombs hanging on his aircraft, up through and
including landing, I'd expect the judges to severely downgrade his flight real-
ism score.  So, if you must drop your ordnance, why not do it for score?

>2. Bombs.
>
>Another gripe.  Some  bombs  were  sooo  light that upon release, they would
>instantly go cartwheeling backwards, and land somewhere behind the plane. No
>doubt,  the bomb was made from foam or balsa, and intended to save weight. I
>sez  a  bomb  is a bomb if it goes down nose first, with the tail following.
>Can  you imagine this plane flying in formation, releasing its load, only to
>have the bomb land smack in the face of a pilot following? Arrgh!

*  I agree that bombs should display a realistic trajectory when dropped.  In
fact, many pilots go to great lengths to weight/ballast their bombs to achieve
just that at the smallest weight penalty.  However, drop tanks are presumed to
be _empty_ (or nearly so) when jettisoned so they _should_ flutter to the ground
when released for maximum points as a scored optional maneuver _and_ as part of
the flight realism score.  So, when viewing a model dropping something as part
of its flight, the viewer should predetermine whether the object(s) dropped are
ordnance or drop tanks, then base the perceived realism on that determination.

>3. Take-offs (War birds)
>
>Now, are you going to climb out at a sedate 3 to 5 degrees, or head directly
>for heavens?  (OK,  OK,  we  have  such  a  thing as the best rate of climb,
>etc...).  Will  the  judges  nail me for yanking on the stick, or want me to
>take-off airliner style (a la what will the passengers think!!)

*  I think the scenario you paint is a common one, but one that is jaded by the
rocket-like performance of latter-day jet fighters.  Heavily loaded WW-II fight-
ers simply didn't have the beans to haul a bird, routinely loaded heavier than
recommended gross weight, into the sky at anything even approaching the climb
angles of today's jet-liners. Max (frequently _over_ max) loaded Mustangs, Jugs,
et al, used every available foot of runway before _gently_ rotating and estab-
lishing a gentle rate of climb while they _very_ cautiously brought up the gear
and _milked_ off the flaps.  It wasn't uncommon for a thusly loaded fighter to 
be 20-miles or more out before he got everything cleaned up and _finally_ punch-
ed through 1000'.  Yes, the judges will probably nail you _unless_ you announce
you are trying to simulate a maximum performance takeoff/climb-out at minimum
gross.  Even then, you'd have likely exposed yourself to greater possibility of
downgrade(s) as most full scale aircraft simply weren't capable of the perfor-
mance we can attain from our models.  Also, you'd probably be asked to document
(prove) just what a max-performance takeoff should look like for your partic-
ular aircraft.

>ps. 1. Hey, that was the first time I saw the ole' rat fly'n' his
>       infamous Mig. Seemed like he (and the pilot of a red Mustang) were
>       the only ones who decided to take look-see flying inverted over the
>       airstrip before landing. Most of the rest did some staid flying.
>       (I mean I saw the MIG, not the rat).

*  The pilot of the red Mustang was my good buddy, Gene Barton who had the gor-
geous Skyraider this year.  The MiG is so honest it's really no sewat doing
low work, rightside-up _or_ inverted...how'd you like the way it presents in
the air?  Oh, it just occurred to me that I should explain that the Mustang's
and the MiG's inverted passes, the MiG's 8-point roll, etc. were done during the
_post_ contest fighter "beat-up" of the field.  These maneuvers would seldom be
used as an official flight maneuver owing to the lack of inverted oil systems in
the vast majority of WW-II birds (preventing sustained inverted flight).  The 8-
point would be avoided simply because, while the full-scale _might_ have been
capable of it, few pilots would have been since the maneuver has little (if any)
practical value in combat and , therefore, wasn't taught.  I probably stretch
realism a bit by even doing a 4-point in competition but I like it and it's sel-
dom disputed that yer' real hot-dawg WW-II (and beyond) pilots were certainly
more than capable of such aerobatics.

>    2. Double Hey! Did I see a live injun or what! Shailesh Patel, who else!
>       First time I have seen another injun in this sport after coming to the
>       New world. Aw' right! Where are the rest?

*  Yup!  That was Shailesh alright.  Quite a character and a _very_ accomp-
lished scale builder and pilot to boot.

Adios, amigo,	Al

    Good answers, Al. I was just checking if you knew your stuff. :-) :-)
    
    I figured the sedate climb would be true of bombers, but not of the
    fighters, which are meant to serve as escorts to the bombers, and must
    be agile. The only thing I can see making a difference is if
    interception was expected to be at 2/3rd full tank, allowing 1/3 for
    combat, and 1/3 to get back home (assuming no wind). Of course, this
    also means that 1/3rd tank of gas makes all the difference between
    something that flies like a brick and something that can cavort around
    the sky. Sounds unreasonable to me.
    
    Would the ammo for cannon/machine guns, and rockets (if any)
    have made such a big difference in performance? I know you spray some
    lead to check out the armament, but that wouldn't make much difference
    to the weight. I seem to be getting lost here... What am I missing, Al?
    
    I did see the 8-point roll of yours. Good point you raise about
    sustained inverted flight. Wait a minute! Do I remember reading
    something about squadrons flying with one plane on top of another,
    inverted, so as to "cut" the number of planes perceived by the enemy in
    half? Don't know if this is fiction, or why they couldn't stack planes 
    right side up, but...
    
    Eric, I am not so sure I'll make the grade. Al, here, just sent me home
    with me biting my fingers, and a key question on my mind - Was that
    a bomb, or was that a aux tank that fluttered down? I am not looking
    hard enough, it seems.
    
    Meanwhile, I will divert my energies towards reducing the disparity
    between my flying, and that of my gurus. That should keep me busy for a
    while.
    
    ajai

    AJAI,
    
    Methinks yer' musing yer' way into Excedrin skull-cramp #35. :B^)
    
    Fact is that fighters _were_ quite agile/nimble but _not_ as much as
    most of us have been led to believe (by Hollywood, mainly).  With
    external tanks jettisoned and on _internal_ armament stores, fighters
    could slug it out with aplomb.  But...there were still limitations:
    most fighters, for instance were restricted from spins below  15-to-
    20,000'.  Loops and prolonged dives also had certain restrictions and
    every type had its own eccentricities which caused performance
    limitations causing restrictions or special piloting techniques.  The
    fighter's MAIN attribute was speed and, as speed increased, maneuvera-
    bility tended to decrease.
    
    I was just reading about the Hurricane and present these spec's/restric-
    tions for yer' edification:
    
    1. All Mk-II's were restricted from exceeding 390 mph in a dive.
    2. Max airspeed with gear and flaps down was 120 mph.
    3. Stall speed clean was 85 mph.
    4. Stall speed, gear and flaps down, was 72 mph.
    5. Economy cruise (max range) was 160 mph.
    6. All Mk's were restricted from _any_ aerobatics except a shallow dive
       with aux tanks and/or external ordnance stores in place.  The RULE
       was, "Drop 'em, then fight."
    7. With long range ferry tanks aboard, even the dive, any dive, was
       prohibited.
    
    Doesn't sound much like the fire-breathing, do-anything fighters
    Hollywood's taught us to expect, does it?!  The Hurricane was no
    exception, incidentally; in fact, it probably had fewer restrictions
    than most of its contemporaries.  The undeniable truth of it is simply
    that the enormous weight and drag penalties imposed by carrying nearly
    _anything_ externally exacted severe performance deterioration and the 
    restrictions were necessary to prevent airframe failure.
    
    Even without externals, with full combat load of fuel and ammo, WW-II
    fighters rarely took off in any but the gentlest manner.  Watch the
    documentary/combat footage which shows up all the time on various of
    the cable series on WW-II and you'll see what I'm saying.  The fighters
    would takeoff gently, climbing out gradually as they cleaned up.  But,
    coming home with ammo and fuel all but gone it was a different story;
    they'd do aerobatics in the pattern, slam the birds into tight, steeply  
    climbing pitchouts to landing, etc.  It was and is all a question of
    weight.
    
      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    WE saw a WWII film this spring about Jugs in Italy. They were based
    off of Italy on some island held by the british. They would take
    off and fly missions behind the lines cutting off supply and 
    evacuation routes. Then they would head home. In the film they showed
    a number of takeoffs. They had one drop tank under the belly of
    the fuse ant three bombs each side. The airstrip was a metal
    material 3000 ft long. It showed them taxiing onto the end and 
    gunning to two abreast. They commented that they used every foot
    of the strip to assure they had airspeed. Looked like they would
    lift the wheels off of the strip within yards of the end. At the
    end of the strip was a straight drop off into the sea. They also
    showed trees that had been cut off at the other end to help with
    the landing approach.
    The strip was interesting because it was kind of woven chain material
    and could be pieced together after an attack and made ready within
    a few minutes after an attack. 
    
    
    
    Tom

So, let's wrap up while things are still reasonably fresh in this tired ol'
memory.


Noteworthy facts:  
-----------------
St. Louis was the 10th Anniversary edition of the Masters Championships and it
was the largest to date with 76 pilots registered to compete.  While many vet-
eran aircraft and pilots were on the scene, there were many new planes and/or 
pilots competing in their first Masters, a healthy trend, indeed.

Opinions/impressions/observations:
----------------------------------
WW-II warbirds still dominate the field but by a smaller margin.  P-40's seem to
be taking the lead as the WW-II fighter of preference; there were no fewer than 
4 of them at this Masters: 3 from the new J.L.Blake plans and one Byron which, 
unfortunately, crashed on its test flight Friday evening after competition's 
end.  (Another example of why NOT to come to a contest with an unproven bird).

Jets continue to grow in number and this makes the 3rd consecutive year a jet 
has won.  However, contrary to the opinions of some, I do not believe they are
invincible.  A good pilot with a good recip-powered ship can still take all the
marbles and I have no doubt the recent string of jet wins _will_ be broken in 
the future.

WW-I is making a resurgence and I have the utmost respect for the exponents of
this era's machines.  They well may be the most challenging type there is to
fly successfully in competition owing to their notoriously bad ground-handling
and their extreme vulnerability to the fickleties of weather, mainly the wind.
These extremely lightly loaded birds are blown about unmercifully by the slight-
est breeze and are particularly hampered by crosswind situations.  Still, no
fewer than 6 WW-I era ships were entered in the Masters and presented very nice-
ly by their dedicated and skilled builder/pilots.  One, Bob Hanft's Proctor 
Nieuport-28 managed a respectable 8th place finish.

Also, the Golden age, civilian, sport types are alive and well, many of them
flown quite nicely.  I feel it's just a matter of time before these types make
their presence known.

The type that seems to be least well suited to Masters competition (and maybe
scale cometition in general) is the Laser/Spinks/CAP-20 type of contemporary
aerobatic ship.  I can't say precisely why that is except that the sameness of
their general appearance makes them a bit uninteresting to the static judges
(they're famous for scoring low in static) and, unless the pilot pulls all the 
stops and performs prototypical high-complexity, but low-percentage (scorewise)
maneuvers, his flight takes on a rather uninteresting complexion as well.

The contest (as a Masters-level competition _should_ be) was amazingly crash-
free.  Only one total (Don Barton's P-47) occurred during competition.  Counting
Crooks' F-14 and the Byron P-40 which crashed outside of official competition, 
only 3-totals occurred during the entire 4-days of the event.  This would seem 
to indicate that the level of flying is improving which is another noteworthy
trend; the Masters is truly becoming "the Masters!"

While a 5th name has now been added to the list of Masters Champions, it's still
interesting to note that Kent Walters remains the ONLY winner who did NOT have
any commercial interest in winning; all 4 of the others have been involved in 
kitting the aircraft they campaigned and won with.  Does this meen the Masters
Championship can be bought?  No, I don't think so, at least not yet.  Fiorenze's
plummet from glory indicates to me that _anyone_ can be beaten, on any given 
day, by any given modeler.  There're simply too many of us non-business connec-
ted modelers around for this _not_ to be so.  Still, I think that the day is at
hand when a "Professional-class" will have to be instated so the manufacturers
will have a place to duke it out by throwing money at each other while the rest
of us compete among ourselves with more-or-less economic parity.


Conclusion:
-----------

Sunday evening, Dan Eaton came by the hotel to pick up Kent and myself along 
with Dennis and Linda Crooks, then drove us to his home for a nice, relaxing 
cookout.  On the bill-of-fare was BBQ'd pork steaks, corn-on-the-cob, potato 
salad and all the trimmings, capped off with apple pie...a feast fit for royalty
in this humble cowboy's estimation.  In Dan's basement workshop, I had the op-
portunity to demonstrate the notes_file to the non-Deccies who were suitably 
impressed.

Standing in the backyard, nursing a Colorado Cool-Aid and soaking up the cool,
evening air in an atmosphere of friendship and camaraderie was a _very_ pleasant
experience and a welcome respite from the hectic activities of the previous 4-
days.  I think we all just relaxed and soaked the hospitality up with the gusto
of a hound dog.  Thanx again to Dan and Ruth Eaton for taking such good care of
us...we 'preciate it!!

Having an early call in the morning, we reluctantly returned to the hotel fairly
early (thanx again to Eaton's Taxi-Service) to rest up for the return trip. Odd-
ly enough, neither Kent nor I slept very well at all...a classic example, I 
think, of being so tired you _can't_ sleep.  Up at the crack of dawn, we cleaned
up, packed up, checked out and were met, once again, by Eaton's Taxi-Service.
Dan took us to Lambert Intl. Airport and dropped us near the TWA entrance where
we bid our adieus and parted company after 5 most pleasant days.  

Kent flew on to Denver on business and I flew directly back to Phoenix, where I
was pleased to note that there were _NOT_ 6-trillion varieties of "wing-ed 
thing-ees" trying to fly up my nasal passages or behind my glasses as had been
the case ever since deplaning in St' Looie 6-days earlier.  Funny, I'd sorta'
become used to it.  ;b^}
    
      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    RE: .531...
    
>WW-I is making a resurgence and I have the utmost respect for the exponents of
>this era's machines.  They well may be the most challenging type there is to
>fly successfully in competition owing to their notoriously bad ground-handling
>and their extreme vulnerability to the fickleties of weather, mainly the wind.
>These extremely lightly loaded birds are blown about unmercifully by the slight-
>est breeze and are particularly hampered by crosswind situations.  Still, no
>fewer than 6 WW-I era ships were entered in the Masters and presented very nice-
>ly by their dedicated and skilled builder/pilots.  One, Bob Hanft's Proctor 
>Nieuport-28 managed a respectable 8th place finish.
    
    Actually, 2 WWI planes placed in the top 10...  Bill Setzler with his 
    1/3 scale Fokker E-III Eindecker build from factory drawings placed an
    even more respectable 6th place.
    
    I should mention that notes made this event particularly fun...  I met
    Bill a number of years ago and we have been good friends since (he 
    "called" for me for my only perfect score in the Rhinebeck mission
    event!).  Well, with the results posted so quickly here, I was able to
    call Bill as he was just getting home to congratulate him.  He was
    amazed how I knew already.  Then he started telling me a few of the 
    stories and I was able to deliver the punch line on each one!!!  Poor
    Bill, he must have thought I was there!!
    
    Thanks Dan and Al for such timely reporting!
    
    jeff
    

    RE: .-1, Jeff,
    
    Sorry 'bout the omission.  I intended no slight, just flat forgot about
    Bill's fine 6th place finish during my wrap-up.  Thanx fer' the kind
    words...I hope that all who took the time to read the rather lengthy
    report on the Masters got some of the same feeling of "being there" as
    you did.  Just hope I can convey some of the same feeling in the article
    I submit to RCM.  

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

>    The strip was interesting because it was kind of woven chain material
>    and could be pieced together after an attack and made ready within
>    a few minutes after an attack. 

    This was a real common material for temporary, or vunerable airstrips in
    WWII (it may still be used, although they probably need a LOT more of it
    for jets).  It provided better traction than plain dirt, didn't get
    rutted with prolonged use, didn't get all sloppy if it rained, and, as
    you said, could be rapidly repaired if damaged from enemy fire, or a bad
    landing.

    The stuff is more like the material they make steel-grating-roadway
    bridges out of, than a cyclone fence type of woven mat, but it is
    flexible. 

    RE: .-1,
    
    The stuff we're talking about here was, _indeed_, extremely common and
    had/has a descriptive name which I can't pull to mind but it was some-
    thing like "struct-a-strip."  It consisted of individual, interlocking 
    panels which were die-stamped with holes for lightness.
    
    While in Korea in the early 60's, I landed on strips made of this stuff 
    a number of times and my lasting impression of it was that IT WAS
    REALLY NOISY!!!  Even at taxi-speed, the metallic rattling noise and
    vibration was almost overwhelming...but it DID do the job.  

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    OK, now that this note is calming down a bit...
    
    While talking to my friend Bill about the Scale Masters, we got talking
    about documenting the colors of a scale project....
    
    As Al has said in the past, if you have documentation for FS numbers, 
    and get the paint and chips to match, then you are all set.
    
    But what we got talking about was what if you don't have FS numbers and
    the validity of making your own color chips.  Bill seemed to feel that 
    many scale judges are getting fed up with everyone making their own
    color chips because of course they match the paint on the plane;  but
    they don't match the colors in the documentation.  He believes that 
    the plane should match the color pictures first and foremost.  If the
    colors in the picture match an FS color chip, great!
    
    So, what do you scale buffs think? Are people getting marked down
    because the colors do not match the pictures??
    
    Is the best way around this to use the color pictures "For Markings
    Only" and then use color chips "For Colors Only"??
    
    comments?
    jeff
    

    Hi Jeff,
    As it happend I just got a new (to me) book in the mail last night
    from RCM. The authors ot Basics of RC Scale spend some time discussing
    documentation and coloring. They make a big point on how much error
    there can be in color processing for prints and pictures in book. They've
    gone so far as making B&W copies of color photos showing markings
    or details to keep the  judges from getting confused on the proper
    color. I was going to ask Al about this offline but maybe he can
    comment here on this.
    
    Dan Eaton

    The Landing strip material you are speaking of a few replies ago is
    called PSP which stands for Perforated Steel Planking.  Gosh and I was
    only born in the 60's.

    Re: .-2, Dan,
    
    The comments you referred from the book are very true.  *_MUCH_* error
    exists in color processing of photos and more in lithographic methods
    of color reproduction.  Quite simply, this means virtually NO color
    representation of an aircraft can be trusted and _really_ sharp color
    and markings judges are acutely aware of this.  The ploy of using black
    and white photos for location/position of markings, color-separation
    lines, etc., then backing them up with verified chips showing "actual"
    color is not uncommon.  Perhaps more due to the complete lack of
    existing color photos of his airplanethan anything else, Kent Walters, 
    for instance, has always done just that.   
    
    It has, also, not been uncommon for builders to make their own color-
    chips...I've done it myself with a clear conscience as I was using the
    FS color specified in my documentation and simply couldn't put my hands on
    the real thing.  This practice, however, is rapidly disappearing as the
    rules will not accept anything but authentic chips and many contests
    are becoming very fussy about enforcing this.
    
    Last month's "Sporty Scale Techniques," in Model Airplane News (by
    Frank  Tiano) mentions that, for the price of a stamp, you can get a
    set of color chips and formulas for mixing most military colors by
    simply writing and requesting same from Hobby Poxy.  I highly advise
    anyone building scale, or even considering it sometime in the future,
    to obtain these materials as an aid to solving the sometimes knotty
    problem of color selection/documentation. 

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    When I was a brat, I used to climb over PSP sheets all the time. They
    were used as fencing for the government "quarters" my folks lived in,
    near Madras airport. After WWII, there was a lot of surplus material
    lying around, and one was only limited only by one's imagination in
    what they could be used for!
    
    Interestingly enough, along the same lines, I am reminded of another
    story my dad told me. Just after THE war, when the  Civil Aviation
    department in India was very much a fledgling, my dad and a few of
    his colleagues hacked out the radar equipment from abandoned American
    planes (dunno which ones), and set up two of them for use at airports.
    Lacking manuals, they were handicapped, but notwithstanding, the only
    casualty was a burnt out multimeter, my dad proudly proclaims!
    
    Gee, gotta think fast and make this a _legal_ So-ya-wanna-fly-scale
    reply... else the moderator is going to get mad...
    
    OK. Another gripe that escaped my mind, which I noticed while watching
    the 1988 Scale Masters tape, is presented for your consideration Al.
    
    Retractable landing gear. I saw some that retracted in a beeeg hurry.
    Me thinks they should be slowed down to simulate the smoothness of the
    hydraulics in 1:1 planes, else I'll shave points I award. No contest on
    this one, what says you?
    
    Phew! Got out of that one quick
    
    ajai

    If I were a judge, I don't know as I'd be as critical as you Ajai.
    That's not to say that I don't agree with you, espically when it
    comes to "flying" scale aircraft. But when it comes to static judging,
    I think I would have to take the limitation of the hobby into account.
    
    For example, when you talk about retracts and the fact that they
    don't come up in a scale fashion, how can you fault someone for
    buying the only thing that's available. That's the way they work.
    I would not DEDUCT points for that. HOWEVER, if someone took the
    time to do the modifications necessary to MAKE the gear retract
    in a scale fashion, I would think they should get EXTRA points for
    going that extra distance. You see, basically we agree, but where
    your looking to take points away, I would be looking to give extra
    credit points.
    
    Let's say for example that you have two scale aircraft of the same
    type, and after all is said and done, they both stand at 90 points.
    If, when the 1st aircraft flys, the gear goes up in a non-scale
    fashion, that plane would still rate 90 points. I would not deduct
    any points because the guy has the best set of retracts on the market
    and they don't look scale. But when aircraft B takes off, and the
    gear does go up in a scale fashion, I would maybe bump the points
    on that plane to 95 because that person went the extra distance
    to make that plane "more scale".
    
    Make sense???????
    
    
    Steve

    AJAI, STEVE,
    
    You both make good points and I agree with most of them.  Here's how it
    really works at a contest (which I happen to agree with).
    
    If the modeler calls retracts as a mechanical option (scored flight
    maneuver), the speed of retraction/extension affects the points awarded
    and the slower, more realistic gear will get the better scores on a
    1-to-10 points possible basis.
    
    However, if he doesn't use retracts as a scored option (I never do even
    though I use a Hydr-Lok air-over-oil system to achieve nice, realistic
    retraction speed), the speed of his retracts only affect the overall
    flight realism score which takes in the realism of the entire flight
    presentation;  where too fast a speed might've accounted for a
    deduction of 2-3 points as a scored option, it'll only account for
    [maybe] 2-3 TENTHS of a point in flight realism. 
    
    This allows the modeler who, as Steve mentions, buys the best gear he
    can and settles for that, the option of NOT using them as a scored
    option, knowing the deduction for realism will be minimal.   

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    Ah, now that makes complete sense. I had forgotten about the choice
    of having different options looked at specifically for points.
    
    If your going to say "ok judge, take a good look at my retracts",
    you'd better have them working realistically.
    
    Steve

>    This allows the modeler who, as Steve mentions, buys the best gear he
>    can and settles for that, the option of NOT using them as a scored

But both mechanical and gas powered can and are slowed up.  It's easy
and cheap and if you don't slow them up they actually whack so hard
that you'll eventually get some damage from cycling them.  Before 
Tom says otherwise - I'll stipulate that Pattern planes wheels and retract
mechanisms are much smaller and lighter than scale (more specifically
giant scale) that they probably won't do any real damage by cycling at
full speed.

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
================================================================================

    Kay,
    
    As a rule, mechanical retracts, at least on scale ships, don't really
    need to be slowed.  The load of a long, heavy strut and wheel will slow
    the servo in most cases or necessitate a large, a**-kickin' servo to
    operate which translates to high torque and slower transit time.
    
    Air (pneumatic) units can be slowed via use of restrictors or
    air-draulics where air-over-oil is used to operate the gear.  I,
    personally, prefer the latter as it adds some muscle to the system
    where, restrictors do just the opposite and tend to become potential
    clog-areas where minute bits of jetsom can be trapped and plug the
    system.    

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    at first i didnt use any restrictors in the retracts in my p47.  the
    gear would go up so fast they made a good whapping noise, and left
    perfect bolt-pattern imprints in the tops of the wheel wells.
    
    then i got some metal restrictors which had no effect.
    
    then i used wheel collars but the setting was incredibly sensitive
    and it was unreliable.
    
    then i got bob dively restrictors and these worked ok.  problem is
    pressure build up for a while, THEN the locking mechanism pops and
    the wheels pop half open, and then open the rest of the way nice
    and slow.  closing with restrictors works well cause gravity helps.
    
    just a week or so ago i developed my first air leak, still havent
    found it.
    
    kevin

    Kevin,
    
    I'm sure I'm stating the obvious but have you tried going through the
    system using dish-soap to find the leak(s)?  I mix a little diswashing
    detergent in water then use a small brush to apply it around ALL the
    fittings, connections, valves, etc.  This usually identifies the leak
    in a hurry but I'll admit that some leaks are a bear to locate.  Pump
    the system _way_ past normal pressure when using this technique and
    wiggle all the connections, listening for the leak and watching for
    bubbles.  Be sure to let us know how you make out.  

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    In looking for a future scale project, I have been thinking of scratch 
    building a 1/6 scale Fokker DVIII.  Before I cut any balsa, I have to 
    gather more  documentation and gain a better understanding of what to 
    expect from an accurately scaled model.  If anyone knows of a 
    particularly good reference source for this plane, I'd be very 
    interested in hearing about it.  
    
    At first glance the DVIII seems a reasonable subject, since it is a 
    parasol type configuration.  Although there is no dihedral in the full 
    scale version, the wing section thins towards the tips which may (?) 
    provide the same effect.
    
    Looking a little deeper, the center of the wing has a very thick 
    (20%) flat bottom airfoil, and the tips have a fairly thin (10-12%) 
    undercambered airfoil.  In addition, the drawings I have show some 
    wash-in at the tips.  Wouldn't this wing be very prone to tip stalls?
    
    The second concern comes from the positive 1.5 deg. incidence for the 
    horizontal stabilizer.  I assume that was to counter a lack of any 
    down thrust, but what about its effect on stall characteristics, the 
    transition to unpowered flight, and reaction to wind gusts? 
    
    All hints, suggestions, and information are eagerly sought by this
    novice.

    The Fokker D-VIII makes a very nice R/C model.  1988 FAI scale team
    member, Bob Hanft, campaigned one foe several years and, finally, gave
    it to Norm Goyer, editor of Scale R/C Modeler magazine who claims to
    continue flying it regularly.
    
    I might suggest you invest a stamp or a phone call to contact Norm for
    info as his magazine ran a feature on this ship some time back which, I
    think, included plans.
    
    Due to the unusual airfoil variation from center-section to tip, it's
    hard to say whether what you're seeing is actually wash-in (T.E.
    twisted _down_ at the tip).  However, if wash-in truly exists, you're
    right; this should be avoided like the plague as it will cause the tips
    to stall _before_ the center-section making the model extremely
    susceptible to unwanted, low-speed snaps.
    
    Incidence settings, as a rule, should be held close to what the
    full-scale force-arrangement was.  No doubt, the wing is also set at
    some incidence angle other than zero.  What's important is the decalage
    (angular difference between wing and stab), not just the incidence
    angle relative to the fuselage center-line.
    
    Your best bet is to scratch build from a set of proven model plans like
    the ones for Hanft's model was built from, if they're available.   

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    
    I'm pretty sure that a set of plans for the D VIII are available
    from AMA. I used to have a set. It's for a 70"wing I think. I
    remember that the cabane struts arangements and landing gear locations
    were not correct but they can be changed using a three view.
    
    OK, I checked a file I have here and I have the construction
    article. It's from the Oct 1977 "Model Aviation". I scaled the
    locations of the cabane struts and landing gear and drew them into
    the 8.5 x 11 plan in the article. If you send me your DEC mailstop
    I'll Make a copy. The original was designed for a 50 2 stroker but
    I'm sure the firewall can be sunk into the fuse to accept a 4 stroker
    if you like.
    
    
    Tom

>>> The Fokker D-VIII makes a very nice R/C model.  1988 FAI scale team
>>> member, Bob Hanft, campaigned one foe several years and, finally, gave
>>> it to Norm Goyer, editor of Scale R/C Modeler magazine who claims to
>>> continue flying it regularly.
    
    Thanks, I'll follow up and see what I can find out.
    
>>> Due to the unusual airfoil variation from center-section to tip, it's
>>> hard to say whether what you're seeing is actually wash-in (T.E.
>>> twisted _down_ at the tip).  
    
    I believe the drawings were done by a Joseph Neito or Nieto, but
    they clearly indicate wash-in in the front view and airfoil plots.

>>> No doubt, the wing is also set at some incidence angle other than
    zero.  
    
    I don't know how accurate these drawings are, but they seem to be
    quite complete and well done.  They show zero incidence on the wing, 
    and about +1.5 deg. on the stab.  I need to check some other sources
    to see what is correct, or at least suitable for documentation to
    support the model.
    
>>> Your best bet is to scratch build from a set of proven model plans like
>>> the ones for Hanft's model was built from, if they're available.   
    
    I agree, and I may sacrifice fidelity for flying qualities, if I
    absolutely must, but I don't want to wind up with a sorta-scale.  The 
    problem is finding plans suitable for electric power.  At 1/6 scale, 
    the size and weight should be just about equal to my Electricub, so 
    it looks feasible.  
    

  Eric,

  What scale are you planning on? 1/5, 1/4, 1/3?
  Would it be possible or practical to fashion some sort of tach. that
would sense when an engine quits?  It could then sound a different alarm
depending on which engine stopped.


		Jim

    Eric,
    
    60-inches seems woefully small to me, considering the size engines you
    intend to use.  Even Royal's B-25 and P-38 kits have spans of ~72" and
    are adequately powered by twin-.40's (though I personally prefer
    .60's).
    
    Assymmetric thrust is what gets you in trouble in an engine-out
    situation and, the larger the power loading, the more severe this
    becomes.  Best 'a luck but it sounds to me like yer' gonna' have a real
    rocket with few forgiving qualities on yer' hands.    

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    Eric
    
    If you can carry the weight, why don't you try one of the Jomar engine
    synchroniser gadgets. Supposed to be foolproof ( well for most fools
    anyway!). 
    
    Does anyone have any first hand knowledge of these?
    
    Tony
    

    I've seen synchronizers used and they seem to work but are not
    idiot-proof; you can still tweak an engine too far and experience a
    failure.  They take up quite a bit of room, are rather complicated and
    twiddly to adjust properly.
    
    My advice for a twin remains _DO_NOT_ attempt to tune the engines for
    synchronization; THIS is where 99% of your engine failures originate.
    Simply tune each engine independently for its individual best setting,
    keeping it a tad on the rich side of peak, *just like you would tune
    it if it were a single engine plane*, then fire them both up and go
    fly.  I repeat DO NOT try to synchronize them!!    
    
    With each engine tuned for its individual best run, the likelihood of
    an engine failure is minimal and, believe it or not, most of the time,
    the engines will come into synch of their own accord in a short time
    after becoming airborne.  I can't explain this last statement (it
    probably has something to do with air-load on the engines) but I can
    speak from experience that it's so...you have to have the engines _WAY_
    apart in tuning for it not to happen.
    
    Whatever you do **_NEVER_** (except in extreme cases) try to bring the 
    richer engine up to the leaner one...yer' just asking for it.  If you
    feel the need to fine tune beyond the procedure I described above,
    ALWAYS bring the leaner engine DOWN to the richer one.
    
    I've used the above method/rules with complete success on several
    twins.  Bob Frey and I developed it/them while flying a P-38 we
    co-owned several years back and that ship survived over 150 flights
    without an engine failure before we sold the airplane.  Dan Parsons, an
    old time twin pioneer was skeptical of the method at first but, after
    using it on his deHavilland Hornet with complete success, he swears by
    it and has published several magazine articles describing it and
    singing its praises.
    
    Trust me on this one....., IT WORKS!

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    Re: .-1, Eric,
    
    Nope, my pop never made it to the great war...tried to enlist in the
    Navy but being 35 and [they said] too skinny at the time, they wouldn't
    take 'im.  So, he never had the opportunity to go abroad (unless you
    count Canada and Mexico) but, somewhere not too many brances back on
    the ol' family tree, dad's forbears came over from Ireland.  Mom's a
    first generation Dane so I guess I've got the blood-line(s) to back up
    the "opinionated" and "ornery" crack.  :B^)
    
    Yeah, you may be right about the power for the F7F...I was forgetting
    we were talking about those limp-wristed 4-c's agin'... ;b^}  Whatever
    you program in, just don't EVER tune UP to the lean engine; ALWAYS tune
    DOWN to the richer engine.    

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    on twins, basically i'm hearing "do everything to avoid losing an
    engine in flight".  assuming the 2 engines are setup right, the next
    weak link is the glo-plug.  how often does a plug go in flight?  its
    happened to me a few times, but more often, the plug seems to magically
    fail between flights, so i detect the bad plug before the next flight.
    what i'm getting at is this.  are ignition engines a better choice for
    large twin models?  my lawnmower NEVER conks out while mowing unless i
    run out of gas.  so why should my airplane engine be different?
    
    i'm gonna try an ignition engine on my next big model and find out.
    
    kevin

    Al,
    
    I am interested in attempting my first scale project from a 3 view
    drawing published in the Kookaberra book "Vintage Gliders".  The
    drawings are approximately 3"x5", giving the wing planform, root
    rib, and fuselage.  Do you have any suggestions on how to scale
    this drawing up to working plan size?  I was thinking of just
    progressively blowing the picture up with a copier and glueing
    the many resulting pages together.
    
    
    Thanks,
    
    Jim Blum

    Jim,
    
    Yeah, that should work.  Just watch that no distortion creeps in as the
    image gets larger and larger.  The built-in magnification factor of
    most copiers could accumulate causing noticeable distortion.  Just
    watch for it.
    
    Another way is to do it mathmatically after determining desired size,
    calculating a scale multiplier and blowing up the dimensions one at a
    time...more work, I admit but it might be the more accurate method.    

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    Guys
    
    For what it's worth, I've noticed that the copier in our office
    enlarges slightly differently vertically compared to horizontally. This
    is not much, but it adds up when doing multiple enlargements. My cure
    for this is to make an enlargement and when enlarging that copy, I turn
    it through 90 degrees to compensate. Of course, this very quickly runs
    out of space, even on A3 copies.
    
    Did I explain that OK?
    
    tony
    

    Tony,
    
    What you describe is true...at least with drum-type copiers.  The image
    is [usually] enlarged more in the direction of the drums rotation
    (length) than it is in width.  As you say, the amount is only a coupla'
    percent but it adds up in multi-generation enlargements.    

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

	hmmmmmm, seems I saw a VAXstation with an image scanner around
	here somewhere.....  ;^)

I am always amazed at how much stuff you can find that applies
to our R/C hobby.  When walking thru the grocery store you find
some really neat containers (fuel tanks?), in the dress store you
find handy hooks for landing wires, etc.

So - anybody spot some white translucent plastic lately?
I need a little piece about 1/4 x 1/4 x 3/8 to cover the lens
of my tail light on the Zero.

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

    I don't think it is thick enough, but perhaps a few layers would
    do the job....  Milk/water jugs are white and translucent...  Easy
    to cut and cheap too!
    
    jeff
    

>            <<< Note 271.567 by WRASSE::FRIEDRICHS "Go Bruins!!" >>>
>
>    I don't think it is thick enough, but perhaps a few layers would
>    do the job....  Milk/water jugs are white and translucent...  Easy
>    to cut and cheap too!
>    
>    jeff

I'll try the milk jug.  I'll have to laminate a few together but it looks
like that will do the job.

Two un-related scale questions.

1.  I'm building a A6M3 model 22 Zero and I have sufficient documentation
	between what came with the Royal kit and one "In Action (or some such)"
	book.  Problem is I don't like the only color choice I have with the
    model 22.  I would like to find a color picture (or B&W with color
    description in text) of an older Zero (M3 model 22) but using the
	most common color scheme you usually see - dark green top, white
    bottom and yellow/orange stripe on the inboard leading edges.  Anybody
	know where I can find this?  In case you aren't sure of the models
    (I'm not) you can spot the new Zeros (A6M5's) a mile away because exiting
	the cowl they have some real ruff snarley looking exhaust stacks.  The
	older models (the one I'm modeling) has a nice clean cowl and you won't
    see any exhaust stacks because they exit on only the bottom.

	So in summary what I'm looking for is any color picture of a Zero without
	exhaust stacks coming out the side of the cowl.

2.  Anybody have any experience on the difficulty of flying a scale Curtis 
    Jenny.  I know they are a bigger handful in the wind than most bi-planes
	but I assume that is just a function of light wing loading.  Could
    someone please comment how hard (or easy) they are to fly.

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################
    

    RE the Zero pictures (and for that matter, a lot of scale research).
    
    I have found the folks in the MEIS::FLYING (just hit your KP7 key to 
    add it to your notebook) to be extremely helpful.  There are many
    people from all over the world that read that conference and are
    involved in restoring full scale planes.  I am sure that someone there
    has seen what you are looking for in some museum and could point you 
    in the right direction....
    
    
    RE the Jenny..  You really are glutton for punishment, aren't you Kay!
    
    Sorry, I have never flown one, so I can't help there.  But the ones
    that I have seen seem to fly well.  The punishment though are all of
    those flying and landing wires!!  The Jenny looks more like a spool of
    wire than an airplane!  Great looking plane it you do it right, but
    a REAL challenge!
    
    cheers,
    jeff
    

    Kay, as luck would have it, I have a large poster of WW-II fighters (a
    come-on premium for Time-Life's aviation series many years back) that
    has an color 2-view (side/top) of an A6M3, model 22A Zero in the exact
    scheme you describe.  I'm unwilling to cut up my poster  (the drawing
    isn't really good enough for documentation purposes anyway) but this 
    inclines me to believe the scheme is not that rare and should be find-
    able if you dig deep enough. Frankly, almost every Zero I see is done
    in that scheme...why don't you choose another one to be different?  
    
    The Jenny is not a bad flying plane but it DEMANDS to be flown
    _correctly_ at all times, particularly in conditions involving wind.
    The featherweight wing-loading makes it susceptible to the slightest
    breezes and handling becomes a real challenge...especially in the
    landing.  The very narrow landing gear and the verrrry long wings make
    it extremely easy to drag or snag a tip on landing and snagging a tip
    can spoil yer' whole day (actuallu a week or more) as it
    stresses/stretches/breaks interplane flying wires blowing critical
    alignments etc., not to mention the inherent damage such an incident 
    causes.  Not for me, thank you..., it's far too demanding/fragile/ac-
    cident prone for this cowboy's tastes; I prefer spending my time
    flying, not fixing, realigning, fiddling in general and I guarantee the
    JEnny will provide LOTS of the latter.  

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

>    Kay, as luck would have it, I have a large poster of WW-II fighters (a
>    come-on premium for Time-Life's aviation series many years back) that
>    has an color 2-view (side/top) of an A6M3, model 22A Zero in the exact

As you know I also am receiving the Time-Life series but I don't think I
have any book that contains much about Zeros - I haven't received them
all yet but I must have 90 percent.  Can you point to an issue with
Zero coverage.  Even at that I would be reluctant to cut up my time
life book also.  What we need is a really good color copier.

>    scheme you describe.  I'm unwilling to cut up my poster  (the drawing
>    isn't really good enough for documentation purposes anyway) but this 
>    inclines me to believe the scheme is not that rare and should be find-
>    able if you dig deep enough. Frankly, almost every Zero I see is done
>    in that scheme...why don't you choose another one to be different?  

Two reasons - but I hear you and perhaps I'll change my mind before I
actually call Larry Wolf and buy another $50 worth of paint by FS numbers.

1.  I think the dark green top/white bottom and yellow leading edge is
    a good color for R/C Orientation.

2.  It looks lots easier than the camouflage (sort of zebra like) scheme
    that I have for documentation.
    
>    The Jenny is not a bad flying plane but it DEMANDS to be flown

Exactly the kind of feedback I was looking for.  I'll just cross the Jenny
off my wish list.  Couldn't get it out of my head since I saw one at
the Hadley Scale fun fly a few months ago.  It was windy tho and the BJ
was a handful.  The Jenny owner elected not to fly and left early.

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

    Kay,
    
    I'm not sure that all the views on this poster are repeated in the
    books.  I can have a look at the WW-II, i.e. "Carrier war," etc. and
    see if I can spot it but this may not turn it up since, as I say, I'm
    not sure it was used in any of the books.
    
    Yer' reasoning for using the scheme seems sound enough, especially the
    one regarding visibility...don't change on my account.  I'll tell you,
    those bright yellow leading edges make final approaches a breeze as
    it's sooooo easy to see bank atitude and keep the wings level.  I
    wouldn't be a bit surprised if that wasn't the real intent, as an aid
    to the Landing Signal Officer on the deck as the plane was on final. BTW, 
    I think, if you'll look/check closer, you'll find the bottom surfaces
    were a light gray or pale blue (I can't remember which though I'm
    leaning towards the gray), not white.    

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    Re: .-1, Eric,
    
    I'll start with all the usual stuff, i.e. place a call to Bob Banka/
    Scale Model Research (714) 979-8058 and see what he may have.  I sus-
    pect he may be able to help as a local modeler (to Bob) campaigned a
    very nice Culver Dart just a year or two back...quite successfully, I
    might add.  Failing that, I can only suggest yer' friend haunt the
    bookstores/aviation book houses (like Zenith) looking for anything
    specific to the Dart or (more likely) covering Golden-Age (30's era)
    civil aircraft in general.  The prey may be a bit elusive but I'm sure
    information on it exists if the hunter follows up the clues he turns up
    on the way.   

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    Well, I changed my mind; the reason I meant to apply the clear coat
    last night was to protect the acrylic-lacquer finish as I airbrushed
    gun burns, exhaust stains and generally dirtied up (weathered) the
    repaired areas of the MiG's fuse.  When doing this, yopu need the
    ability to wipe off an effect that isn't right or went awry, which
    means you must be able to apply thinner without harming the base
    finish.
    
    I normally use acrylic/oil, water based paints for this purpose as
    mistakes can be wiped off with water but I was out of these paints and
    didn't want to fiddle with buying more right now (rather short shelf
    life).  Then I had a thought and used Testors flat enamels which could
    be wiped off with enamel thinner without disturbing the finish.
    
    So, I had a ball for 4-hours last night, applying exhaust smudges,
    dirtying areas around intakes and scoops, powder-burning the gun
    troughs, simulating oil leaks/smears etc.  And, does that exercise ever
    bring a scale model to life!.  The ol' Mig is really lookin' bitchin'
    right now, better than ever and I'm really tickled that the repair(s)
    are absolutely invisible...it looks as good as new.
    
    So, tonight, onto the wing repairs.  I should have the wing pretty well
    on the run by weekend's end leaving next week for clear coating,
    equipment [re] installation, final checks, etc. and the faithful MiG
    should be airborne next weekend.  That only gives me 1-or-2
    flying/practice days but that should suffice.  

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    Re: 239.1833, Tom, 
    
    I'll reply here as we're getting into stuff that should rightly be put
    in the scale column.  Come to think of it, I probably shoulda' been
    putting all the MiG-3 repair stuff here instead of in "Ramblin'."  (Mr.
    Moderator[s]:  Feel free to so move the recent running diatribe on the
    MiG-3 repairs in "Ramblin'" here if you wish.)
    
    Rivets is the question; specifically, why would we use glue-drop rivets
    on a plane that was known to have been flush-riveted?  The answer is
    simply "visibility at 15'.  Flush rivets are generally applied using a
    piece of appropriately sized brass tubing, sharpened on one end, to
    "spin" in the simulated rivets.  Problem is, these are virtually
    invisible at the 15' judging distance and a judge may well downgrade
    your static score, especially craftsmanship, if he _thinks_ you failed
    to go to the trouble of applying rivet detail.
    
    A word of explanation:  We don't leave the rivets real protrusive like
    round-head rivets would be...we gently sand them down 'til they're nice
    and flat, kinda' like little dots of card-paper or straight-pin heads
    applied to the furface, just protruding slightly from the surface. 
    This not only makes them more visible but they're easier to highlight
    during the weathering process by lightly sanding through the finish
    color to expose bits of the silver undercoating.
    
    Yer' right; it ain't exactly cricket but, until judges/judging
    become(s) more enlightened, it's a necessary evil.  Personally, though
    I know it may be technically not quite correct, I much prefer the "look"
    this produces; it seems to make the model look more functional...more
    machine-like, less "modely" looking.    
    
      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    MiG-3 Repair Update:  
    
    It was a very productive weekend!  Saturday AM, I applied the last of
    the weathering/dirtying and blew on a fresh coat of flat K&B clear,
    then started on the wing.
    
    Using some polyester resin that Gene Barton sent me, the glass over the
    skin-cracks cured rock hard in just an hour or so, allowing me to get
    everything sanded and the first [heavy] coat of primer brushed on
    before hanging it up for the night.
    
    Sunday AM, I ground off the brushed-on primer and sprayed on a second
    coat.  Bob Frey stopped by on his way home from flying and allowed as
    how the repaired MiG fuse looked better than it had when new.  We
    chatted a coupla' hours, then Bob left and I got back at it.  I wet
    (feather) sanded all the sprayed primer then sprayed the first masking
    of replacement panel-lines with primer and went in for a bite of
    supper.  Returning to the fray, I feather sanded the fresh primer,
    removed the tape and taped/sprayed the opposing panel-lines.
    
    I busied myself spraying silve undercoat on all the repair areas not
    involved with panel-lines for about an hour, then feather sanded the
    remaining lines and pulled the tape.  Last thing I did was finish
    undercoating all repair areas with silver.  By then, it was past my
    bedtime so I went in to "stand on my back" for a few hours before
    returning to the drudgery of work this AM.
    
    Again, I'm most pleased to report that the repairs will be virtually
    impossible to spot and have, somehow, come out better than my wildest
    expectations.  The modern non-shrinking finishing products we have to
    work with today make this possible with much less effort than was
    required to do a seldom completely satisfactory job with cellulose and
    lacquer based glues, fillers and paints.  The _best_ repair, though
    invisible at the start, would eventually resurface (due to material
    shrinkage) to spoil the models appearance back in the silk 'n dope
    days.  While I remain a traditionalist as concerns much of building a
    model, i.e. love balsa/absolutely HATE glass & foam, One area where I 
    have no qualms whatever about leaving the old and moving on to the new
    is that of adhesives and finishing products....THEY'RE GREAT!!
    
    I should mention that the length of the repair job should not be used
    as a measurement of how badly damaged the MiG was.  Almosts anyone else
    could most likely have had the plane flying again in barely more than a
    week, maybe two.  But, I went ahead and addressed other areas that had
    required attention since long before the crash which extended the time
    required.  And, I'm absolutely, one of the slowest builders on the face
    of the earth...FAR too meticulous, I readily admit, but that's just
    me, I guess.  Every attempt I've made to be less fussy and build faster
    has failed utterly so I reckon I'm stuck with it and must just try to
    schedule accordingly...but _that's_ the rub: I normally figure time
    required by "normal" standards, then plod along at _my_ pace which,
    invariably, puts me head-on into a last minute deadline situation.
    
    This time looks different, though.  I should finish with ease this week
    and get the maiden [re-] flights on the ship this weekend, allowing
    plenty of time to get final items in order before the contest.  But,
    just to hedge my bets, I've taken [a week from] Friday off in case I
    need it to get all my ducks in line.
    
    Tonight, I'll apply the rivets as soon as I get home, then take a nap
    while waiting for them to dry...HEY! I was awake 'til past 3:00 this AM
    with one of my infrequent bouts with insomnia and I'm _really_ beat
    this morning!  A light sanding of the rivets and I should get all, or
    nearly all, the color touch-up done tonight.  Tomorrow, I'll finish any
    touch-up as still remains, if any, then apply the flat-clear coat and
    that-will-be-that!  I still have a few minutes worth of internal
    glasswork I want to do but, after that, I'll be stuffing equipment,
    checking/re-checking systems and preparing for flight this weekend.

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

Al, just a matter of curiousity: I gather from your notes over
the last year or so that you're not doing much building.  Now,
you are involved in a very complex repair/finishing job -- does
the "time off" cause you problems.  I would think that you'd at
least have to re-educate the fingers for the delicate repair work
and make a few mistakes while remembering how to do careful work
with the airbrush.

    Al,
    I understand that the judging distance is changing for 90 to (I
    think)8ft? What effect do ya think this will have on flust rivet
    detail that isn't flush? Do ya think the tubing method would be
    better given the closer judging distance?
    
    
    Tom

    Re: .578, John,
    
    No, I don't really think you lose much during a building layoff as most
    of what you do depends largely on techniques/methods more than upon
    manual dexterity.  I will confess, however, to cussing and redoing my
    gun burns on the upper hatch several times before getting what I wanted
    ...but, that's par for the course as you almost always have to take
    more than one shot at it before you get the effect you desire (or
    finally concede that it's good enough).  Oddly (or, maybe not so), I
    somehow achieved an effect on the exhaust stain on the left side of the
    fuse that I really liked but, try as I might, was unable to duplicate
    it after several tries on the right side...one of those happy accidents
    that I'm not artist enough to realize how it was achieved.  

    Re: .578, Tom,
    
    Come again on the judging distance..."90 to (I think) 8ft?."  I think
    you're referring to comments I made in the Masters article about
    Craftsmanship [perhaps] being changed from 15-to-8' for next year's
    Masters.  Bear in mind that any such change would affect ONLY the U.S.
    Scale Masters program, entirely exclusive of and NOT effecting current
    AMA rules.  At any event, if they're readily visible and correctly
    done, I suppose flush rivets would be better at a closer judging
    distance.  But, in my opinion, we still build MUCH more perfect models
    than the prototypes ever were or could've been.  We cannot readily
    duplicate the waves/ripples/flaws/imperfections/etc. as it is...our 
    balsa and, ESPECIALLY, fiberglass structures create FAR to perfect a
    surface and, in my personal opinion, the brass-tubing applied flush-
    rivets are, again, much too perfect (as they're supposed to be) and
    they tend to compound the already too perfect (modely) impression made
    by the plane.  I feel that the slightly imperfect appearance of
    glue-drop rivets helps to counter this "too-good" appearance.  
      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    i don't think there is any established right way to make rivets.
    if you make them exactly correct, the judges probably won't be
    able to see them.  if you exagerate them (which most people seem
    to do) you might get downgraded for it.  i know at the philly
    qualifier one of the static judges told me he couldnt see the
    rivets from 15 feet (it was indoors and kinda dark).
    
    make em to please yourself.  glue sanded down almost flat is a close
    approximation.  for my p47 i didnt sand them at all.
    
    if your going to make rivets the exact size and shape, then you may
    as well duplicate the exact number in the exact position.  for, oh say,
    a p47, thats on the order of 200,000 rivets.  i decided after a couple
    hundred to just sortof approximate the rivets.  i obtained the #1
    objective, i pleased myself.
    
    kevin
    
    kevin

I have a general building question that goes as well here as anywhere. Lets say
you have a set of plans, say for a P51, or maybe a full scale PANIC, that
you want to build. What are some of the methods used to transfer the pattern
of the various components from the plan sheet to the wood to be cut out? Any
and all suggestions will be valued.

I just got PANIC plans, but I also want to draw up a set of custom Mustang plans
for myself, hence the placement of the note.

Thanks,
Randy
(Soon to be PANIC pilot)

>                       <<< Note 271.581 by ROCK::KLADD >>>
>                                -< more rivets >-
...
>    approximation.  for my p47 i didnt sand them at all.
...    
>    hundred to just sortof approximate the rivets.  i obtained the #1
>    objective, i pleased myself.

More than that.  I've never been anyplace with Kevin's plane without
hearing (over and over again) modelers and novices alike ask him
"How did you make the rivets".


Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

Randy, it depends on how complex the part is.  If its complex,
that is, without a lot of straight lines, just position the plan,
or a tracing of the part, over the wood and use a pin to prick a
line onto the wood.  Then take a french curve and join the
pricks, if you'll pardon the expression.  I can loan you some
french curves when you're ready.

But very few parts are that complex.  Most of the time you can
either lay it out directly on the wood using measurements from
the plan, or use the pin prick method and poke at the corners.
Use a straight edge and a felt tip pen (or soft art-type drawing
pencil works better than you'd expect) to join the pricks as
before.  Once you've done it a couple of times it goes like
clockwork.

    As noted in the previous statements there are as many ways as there
    are modelers. I typically use three methods depending on the part
    at hand.
    The first is employed with straight edged parts that have known
    angles and lengths you can measure. Ie, Bulkheads...
    
    These I simple measure and draw on a piece of desired wood. 
    
    The second method is to place carbon paper under the plan and then
    the wood and trace the shape.
    
    The third is used for complex shapes. If possible I make a copy
    and the Iron the picture onto the wood with a steam iron.
    
    
    Tom

    RE: last several, Randy,
    
    AS the previous replies have established, there're a multitude of ways
    to transfer pattern from plan to wood (or whatever).  Which one you
    choose depends upon such things as: 1.) Do you want to preserve the
    plans? 2.) How much accuracy is required? 3.) Time required, etc.
    
    You must make the decision based on these parameters and proceed
    accordingly.  Dan's method of temporarily gluing the plan to wood,
    cutting to shape, then removing is arguably the most accurate but,
    obviously, this destroys the plan and is rather messy when you reuse
    the patterns.  John's method of placing plan on wood and "tracing" the
    part's outline by punching a straight-pin through the plan is one of
    the most basic methods - probably the first one I ever used -, is
    reasonably accurate (depending on the effort of the modeler) and
    preserves the original plans with only a few pin-holes to show for the
    ordeal.
    
    I've not personally tried it but the method Tom mentions where you
    Xerox copy all the parts, then transfer the image to wood by virtually
    "ironing" them on with a household iron has been widely advanced and
    praised.  My only caution here would be to make ALL parts by this
    method so all will be subject to the same magnification error inherent
    in many/most office type copiers.
    
    When I built the MiG-3, I accurately traced each part onto a fairly
    heavy artists' vellum (available at any art supply store) which gives
    you the advantage of accurately positioning the tracing over the wood
    _and_ preserves the original plans.  I then went to the local sewing
    emporium and bought some dress-makers' carbon paper...this is intended
    for use on porous materials (transfers easily) so it's ideal for use on
    balsa.  While at the sewing store, I also picked up a Dritz-wheel
    (looks like a clock-gear mounted on a handle) and used a combination of
    this, a tracing stylus (worn out ball-point pen works just as well) and
    a straight edge to transfer the image.
    
    To use this method, first make the tracing on vellum, then, without
    carbon-paper, locate the vellum/pattern in the desired place on
    appropriate wood and pin in place on only one side so the pattern can
    be lifted to insert the dress-makers' carbon between vellum and wood,
    then pin down other side.  Using straight-edge & stylus for all
    straight lines and the Dritz-wheel to "roll" around the curves, trace
    image onto wood.  The rest is simple...cut-it-out.  Cut slightly
    oversize and use sanding-block (I prefer the T-bar aluminum type) sand
    to final shape.  
    
    With minimal care, this method produces accurate parts, preserves the
    plans and provides you with a set of ready-to-use templates which can
    be reused many times.       

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    I didn't post a report on the MiG repairs yesterday as I was home with
    a case of the "punies."  In any event, much progress has been made.
    
    I'm happy to report that _ALL_ painting is now complete, which
    essentially completes the repairs in general.  All that's lacking (and
    I'll do it tonight) is to glas the engine compartment and scab some
    1/16" reinforcement plates to the bottom of the gear mount blocks.
    Tomorrow I'll start reinstalling the equipment.  The radio should,
    quite literally, fall back into the fuselage but there'll likely be
    some fiddling getting the retracts working properly and getting it
    correctly aligned.  Sheesh! Freshly restored airframe, rebuilt engine,
    new PCM radio, new retracts....heck, this is almost a new airplane (a
    silly sounding statement to apply to a 6-year old aircraft but it really
    _is_ in that good of shape after repairs, the majority of which were
    cosmetic).
    
    However, it appears I'm in good shape to make test/practice hops this
    Saturday and/or Sunday...preferably both days if I can manage it as
    it's been 14-months since I flew it and, while it should feel quite
    familiar, I need to get reacquainted and comfortable with it before the
    contest the following weekend.
    
    The ol' bird really looks bitchin'!  I tried a few new shading/highlighting 
    tricks with the airbrush that I kind'a like and, while the ship still
    looks too clean to be real, I think it has a bit more "grab" than it
    did before...at least _I_ like it better.  We'll see what the judges
    think.....................
    
      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    Thanks for all the good info. I knew you guys could do it if'n you
    tried. I've used the iron-on method for ribs and it works great. 
    Its a little difficult, though, to get a 3 x 4 foot plans sheet into
    a copier. Its really nice to have a list of several methods as some
    always seem to be more applicable to a give situation than others.
    
    As for the self drawn Mustang - I purchased a drafting/light table to
    do the drawing on and my little brother (the architect) says vellum
    or mylar are the only way to go for that.
    
    Randy

    Got the inside of the MiG-3's engine compartment and hatches glassed
    last night.  I can't give a reason why I waited 'til _after_ everything
    else was done and painted to do this as it made it a lot harder than it
    needed to be in that I had to be so careful not to slop resin outside
    the area bing glassed.  I guess it because I don't particularly like
    glassing and procrastinated...I _do_not_ recommend this method to
    anyone; please glass first, finish/paint last.
    
    In any event, all went well and I was able to get the engine mount,
    functional scale exhaust stacks, engine and spinner [re-] installed
    before hanging it up last night.  Tonight I'll finish stuffing the
    equipment back in the fuse and move on to the retract [re-]
    installation.
    
    Boy, the weight begins to add up quickly at this stage; I'd become used
    to handling the empty fuselage and noticed with satisfaction how
    incredibly light it is (was).  No more...just the addition of the items
    mentioned above has increased the weight considerably, probably by
    about 2-lb.'s, and I have at least a pound of radio gear/battery to go.    

    The MiG's original weight was ~10 1/2 to 11-lb.'s which is incredibly
    light for a ship of it's size (almost 1000 sq. in.'s of wing area and
    72+" of span).  I have little doubt that this light weight contributed
    mightily to it's surviving what _should_ have been a fatal crash with
    relatively minor damage.  I've been wondering how much weight the
    repairs've added (an unavoidable side effect) and, to the best I can
    estimate, it can't be more than just a few ounces worth of CYA, glass
    cloth/resin, primer and paint.  Luckily, any weight gain will have been
    concentrated in the nose area and I could use a little more noseweight
    anyhow.
    
    I also opened up a heretofore sealed off compartment between the scale
    exhaust stacks in which to stow the airborne battery pack.  This
    accomplishes two things: 1.) It reduces the clutter and will simplify
    the radio installation, and 2.) It moves some weight father forward.
    I've always felt like the MiG might be a little friendlier on the ground
    if the CG was moved forward and now, by jingo, we're gonna find out.
    
      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

Here're a coupla' documentation questions I received off-line and the answers I
offered.  I thought the questions/answers might be of general interest to those
anticipating documenting a scale project so, for what they're worth, here they 
are.  (A word of explanation: this modeler has access to a full-scale prorotype
but it isn't equipped as he'd like to do his model.)

>......My Prototype, as it sits, doesn't have bombs attached. Should I, can
>I, use bombs as an option? 

** If you plan to use the prototype you have access to as direct (rather than 
reference) documentation, i.e. you intend to model _that_exact_ aircraft, then
the answer's NO since a restored/replica fighter would _not_ be seen dropping
bombs.  Some exceptions to this exist, e.g. the restored fighters used by the
C.A.F. and other groups which drop ordnance as part of an airshow routine but,
if the prototype modeled is a museum based aircraft, 99.9% of the time, dropping
bombs, etc. would not be part of its function and, therefore, cannot be used as
an optional flight maneuver.  Now, then..., if you're modeling the _actual_ air-
craft, NOT the replica, and are using the restoration only as reference (and 
BEWARE, replicas are _frequently_ not faithful to the original), _then_ you 
could drop bombs.

>..........................If the three view shows guns but the proto doesn't 
>have them, what should I do? The proto does have the places for the guns,
>just none installed. Maybe a letter from the museum stating that normal
>configuration of the ship used X type of gun and Y type bombs would
>cover their use even if they've been omitted as the plane sits on the floor.

** Again, this dependes _entirely_ upon whether you're modeling the restored/
replica aircraft or the original prototype.  If you're documenting the museum-
based replica, then the model MUST be _identical_ to that replica.  You cannot
add things just because "the combat models had them."  If you want guns, bombs,
etc., then you must either model a replica that has them or do an original com-
bat version.

The bottom line here is that you MUST model a "specific" full-scale prototype
aircraft...in this case, either the museum replica or (assuming there is one) 
the original combat aircraft.  Whichever you choose, you cannot add nor omit
things based on the other aircraft; it must be one or the other..._not_ a
combination of the two.

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

Didn't get as far as I'd hoped with the MiG-3's equipment reinstallation last
night.  It took more time than I'd figger'ed to check, tighten, seal and secure
all the engine/mount/exhaust system connections.  But, the motivation department
is now all finalized, tank/filling device/etc. all in and ready to run.  That
should make completing the fuse installation a snap; all servos are mounted on
a tray that should be a simple matter to drop in and hook up after battery and
receiver are stuffed in place.

The servos and retract lash-up in the wing were never removed so all that's 
necessary there is to install the Rhom retracts and the scale landing gear
struts/wheels.  At this point, flying tomorrow looks doubtful but a sure thing 
for Sunday.  Wish me luck...I'll report on the flight results Monday.
    
      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    Al,
    
    I've had a great deal of pleasure over recent weeks reading about
    your repair to the MiG-3 -- thankx.
    
    Best of luck for the pilot refresher course coming up in the next
    few days.
    
    Regards
    
    Brian
    
    P.S. keep the updates coming
    

    Re: .594, Brian,
    
    Thanx, amigo.  I'm glad you got some enjoyment out of the resotation
    chronicles.  Regarding cobwebs, I'm sure there'll be some butterflies
    to contend with but there should be no cobwebs or rust.  Staying
    current on the ol' Yeller' Peril keeps me ready for just about
    anything...it's rasty enough to make most other ships seem easy.  I
    vividly recall that the MiG felt like driving a velvet upholstered
    Rolls-Royce in comparison but there's still the factor that I "care"
    about the MiG and could almost care less about the ol' Peril, though
    it's stood me well through _many_ hundreds of flights.  That factor,
    unfortunately, adds some trepidation to flying the MiG but it's always
    so honest and solid as to put any qualms to rest in short order after
    takeoff.  I'm looking forward to enjoying it in the air again.

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    Eric,
    
    Thanks to you and the entire(?) Panic Patrol for the encouragement. 
    I'll do the best I can but this'll be no cake-walk;  Gene Barton's
    coming over with the Skyraider and, if he has a good meet, he may just
    be unbeatable.  I'll be _very_ happy with a top-5 finish after over a
    year's layoff from competition.  Sorry yer' under the weather...ged
    well sood.  :B^)  

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    Eureka! It flew.  But, before getting to the flight details, let's
    finish the repair/re-install.
    
    Friday night, I completed the radio install and was more pleased with
    the installation than I'd been with the original installation.  The
    reason for this was that I opened access into a sealed compartment
    betwixt the functional scale exhaust stacks and stuffed the 1000mah
    battery in there, leaving only the received to stash in the now
    generous area that formerly hosed both the Rx and the batt.
    
    Saturday AM, I epoxied the hinges on the right elevator and that
    completed all fuse work.  I got started on the retract install about
    10:00 AM, totally ignorant of the troubles to follow.  After scabbing
    some 1/16" ply plates under the right gear mount blos=cks for
    reinforcement, I trial fitted the brand new Rhom retract units and,
    "What's this?!" the mounting holes don't line up.  After straightening   
    one of the crashed gear units enough to compare, I found the mounting
    holes not to be that different but accumulative differences caused the
    holes not to line up when installed inthe wing.  Finally, admitting I
    had no choice whatever, I did something I just HATE to do, I wallered-out 
    the holes in the gear units 'til they fit...gritting my teeth all the
    way.  But, they were in which was, after all, the first/only priority.
    At this point I began operating the gear with the struts/wheels in
    place and adjusting the oil-level in the hydraulic side of the system. 
    During this operation, I experienced a coupla' oil-spills Exxon woulda'
    been proud of!  Arrrrrrrgh! even had to pull the servos once to muck
    the oil outa' the servo well.  Finally, I was satisfied the system was
    as good as I was gonna' be able to make it,,,and, besides, I was clear
    out of AC compressor ooil.  So, I safety-wired all the hose fittings
    and determined to fine adjust the gear angles in order to get the
    struts/wheels to correctly position themselves in the wells.  But,
    after thinking all day how lucky I was that the system was still air/oil 
    tight, all of a sudden, outa' the blue I have a mammoth air leak that 
    eludes me completely.  By now it's getting late but, in desperation, I
    called Bob Frey to come bail me out.  Together, we finally located the
    leak and spliced in some replacement line.  But now the right gear
    doesn't want to lock down so I bleed the oil-side of the system and
    remove a tremendous amount of air which corrects the problem though the
    gear operates a bit jerky now due to additional air in the lines and
    not enough oil.  Bob suggests that we leave it as it is 'til things
    settle out a bit and I agree as it's gotten much later than I'd
    intended for the night before test flying.
    
    Sunday AM, we trekked out to the field about 10:30 AM and got set up to
    fly.  Ironically, we were to fly from the same somewhat restricted
    runway where the MiG crashed when the engine blew 14-months ago.  I got
    tired of walking and quit at 100-paces during the range check...Gawd
    but that Futaba 1024 has tremendous range!!  Then I fired up ant tuned
    the engine...so far, so good; everythings operating/checking out fine. 
    Finally, I decide not to prolong the anxiety and fire up to make the
    first flight.  Naturally we have a quartering cross-wind and it causes
    a hook in the takeoff run but, otherwise, not that bad.  Nerves are
    very apparent as I dial in the required trims and a few rolls are done
    before the engine begins to sound a bit saggy so I opt to cut the
    flight short and land while I still have power.  The landing was great
    though I rolled clear to the end of the strip before I could get it
    stopped.  The test flight was over and the faithful ol' MiG-3 was once 
    again in its element after far too long.
    
    I waited an hour or more watching/helping Bob, Chuck and Jim as they
    flew then, at last, decided to try it again.  This time the engine was
    dead-nuts perfect and the ship was really performing.  I could feel the
    rust draining from my fingers with each maneuver I practiced and I put
    in a full 12+ minutes before pitching out for another almost perfect
    wheel landing.
    
    On the third flight, I found the handle and had an arrow straight
    takeoff, even in the crosswind.  I ran through my scale pattern and had
    to believe I'd flown a 90-flight (Bob and Chuck agreed) up to that
    point so I ran through it again and it looked even better as the plane
    and I got reacquainted.  Finally, feeling I was pushing the fuel
    supply, I pitched out and set up for landing.  On final, the camouflage
    makes the plane hard to see as it passes through mountains/puckerbrush
    in the background and I was landing quite a bit downwind from myself to
    prevent rolling off the end of the runway and into the puckerbrush, so
    I'm not sure just how I did it but the flare must've been just perfect
    as I (nor any of the onlookers) could be certain at what point the
    wheels began rolling.  It was as near perfect as I could ever hope and,
    with that, I packed it up with nary a scratch to take home a prepare
    for this weekend's qualifier.
    
    What remains is to fine-tune the retract system and re-install the
    gear-doors.  I suspect I now have a pinhole in an oil line as I'm
    seeing little puddles of oil in the same place near the left wheel-well
    but I have all week and all day Friday if needed to get all final
    details attended to.  The BIG part is over, the test flights are
    complete and the MiG-3 is a functional aircraft again.
    
    BTW, several folks thought I'd built a new airplane, identical but
    better that the "first" one if that says anything for how well the
    repairs came out.  To say the least, I'M TICKLED!!
    
      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    I've been thinking about adding landing lights to my Jet Ranger
    but just can't bring myself to plunk down the bucks for a set of
    RAM landing lights. I've been thinking about about adapting one
    of those Maxxon pen lights that the FE's carry. They're brite,
    readily available, and cheap. I was giving them a once over at the
    local Walmart when I noticed something really interesting. They sell
    replacement bulbs for the beasties. For $2.75 you get two bulbs
    and they' re small enoung for lots of applications. The bulbs connect
    up via a pair of pins so you can socket mount them for easy replacement. 
                                                  
    Dan Eaton

re Note 271.598 

>>    On the third flight, I found the handle 
    
    I probably speak for the other few hundred RC Noters when I wish you
    well next week.  It is interesting how a chronicle like yours can give
    a warm feeling of camaraderie to people who have never met you. 

    Alton,
    
    Thanks for the thoughts.  I too feel a closeness to all participants in
    the notesfile and, in all honesty, can say that the warm and well
    wishes from fellow noters really DOES have a positive effect.  It's
    almost like I want to do the best I can so as not to embarrass my
    many notesfile friends.  Again, muchas gracias to all.  

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

Al, thanks for your complete description of the last throes in
preparing the MIG.  It makes me glad that I don't have, and don't
intend to have, retracts.  I see more tinkering with those
animals than with all other bits combined.  Also, if the MIG
pleased you and Bob in flight, it must have improved for the
repairs -- I still remember the sight of that plane grooving down
the center of the runway like it was on rails.  Fantastic!

However, you did use some technical terms that I don't understand
(really).  Could you please translate:

Scabbed

Wallered-out

Muck-out 

    John,
    
    Yer' certainly correct, at least to an extent, about retracts.  One of
    our flying buddies claims retracts are _intended_ to cause trouble as
    part of their design which is why he doesn't build anything requiring
    them...and, sometimes, I think he's right.
    
    Nothing's more pleasureable that to hit that [normally sterile] retract
    switch and watch the gear go soothly up into the wells with the doors
    closing behind...welllllll, there is _one_ thing more pleasureable: to
    hit the same switch at the end of the flight and see the geard come
    _down_ and lock.  But, those pleasures, like most others worth having,
    must be paid for by spending whatever time's required on the bench to
    get them working/adjusted properly.  Once correctly set up, they'll
    stay that way, virtually, forever but, the crash and the resulting
    14-month dormancy allowed/caused some gremlins to get into the fray.
    I'm still chasing them out as I debug the system and, hopefully, I'm
    near to getting them back to near perfection like they were before the
    crash.
    
    Explanation of technical ( ;b^} ) terms:
    
    1. Scabbed:  epoxied a piece of reinforcement over a damaged/cracked area   
       for additional strength.
    
    2. Wallered (wallowed) out:  made holes oversize or non-circular in
       order to fit over existing mounting holes.
    
    3. Muck-out:  clean up a disagreeable mess.
    
    But, I'm sure you knew that and were just pullin' this ol' cowboy's
    leg.  :B^)
    
      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

Well, the MiG-3 repair/refurbish saga is not yet finished.  Last night, I
worked some more on the retract setup;  I had to remove both retract units 
and disassemble them so I could screw the piston shaft fully into the nylon 
slider blocks, thereby getting the gear fully into the wells and removing 
the slop from them in the retracted position.  

Also, I had to replace a 6" piece of the oil-line which had developed a 
pinhole where it passed through the spar enroute from the wheel-well to the 
servo bay.  As minute as the leak had seemed, it, nevertheless, drained 
nearly all the oil from the oil side of the system so I had another mess to 
muck-out.  (There's that term again, John.) 

In any event, all looks well at this point save for needing to bend the 
gear forward just a mite so the gear doors will align properly with the 
wheel-wells.  Tonight, I'll take it over to Hydra-lok guru, Bobby Freydell,
to purge the system, refill it with AC compressor oil, bleed and reseal.

Then, at last, I can final fit and attach the doors, completing preparation 
for the contest this weekend.  As John noted (and I agreed), retracts can 
be a bear to get the bugs ironed out of but they're sure worth it when you 
flip that switch on the Tx, then watch yer' bird sail past all cleaned up 
and ready for combat.  Not to mention that they're absolutely mandatory on 
a scale ship, the prototype of which had retracts...the realism penalty for 
not retracting the gear on such a ship is SUBSTANTIAL.

P.S. to Dan Miner:  Did you notice? No "hy-phens!"  I hope yer' happy now    
     ......... ;b^).  My EDTINI file now sets wrap at 75 characters.

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

Well, the Battle of the Rhom continues.  I took the MiG's wing over to Bob 
Frey's Tuesday night and we purged, refilled and bled the oil side of the 
hydra-lok system.  Everything seemed OK but Bob was suspicious that the 
left gear might be forcing air past the piston's O-ring into the oil side.
This, he explained, is not a good thing as it develops unwanted pressure on 
the oil side which can prevent the gear from locking down and can even blow 
the diaphram in the hydra-lok.  

I watched the gear carefully and, while it appeared to be functioning 
perfectly, I noted last night that the right gear wasn't locking.  "Oh no!" 
I thought...I don't have time for this at this stage - I still have some 
minor touch-up to do to the gear-doors and this is keeping me from it.  
Anyhoo, after inordinate cycling of, and fiddling with the gear, I 
determined it wasn't gonna' cure itself or improve any.  Remembering that 
this behavior sometimes results from having a bit too much oil in the 
system, I endeavored to bleed a little oil out'a the system.  Using 
hemostats, I clamped off the air line and the right gear's oil line at the 
hydra-lok, then pulled the oil line.  Now, there _shouldn't_ have been any 
oil leakage until I carefully released the clamp on the air line.  But, the 
instant I pulled the oil line, "SPLUTTTT," the hydra-lok spit a cc or so of 
oil out...there was obviously air/pressure in the oil side where it 
shouldn't have been.

Now the gear locked OK but, loss of oil in the system had the gear working 
a bit jerky.  But, it _was_ working and I decided that, if the system held 
pressure overnight, I'd go with it as is 'til after the contest, time being 
a prime consideration and becoming more so with each tick of the clock.  So,
this AM, I went out to the shop to check and, sure enough, there was plenty 
of air pressure in the system but, again, the right gear won't lock 
reliably, evidently verifying Bob's suspicion about the left gear bleeding 
air into the oil.  Why the left?  Because you can see air-bubbles creeping 
up the oil line into the hydra-lok while the right side stays clear as 
crystal.

Like it or not, tonight, I've gotta' swap out the left  gear unit and start 
over.  I think I'm gonna' use the units that were in it originally...they 
appear undamaged except for the side-frames being badly bent.  So, I 
_should_ be able to simply swap out the bent frames and use the cylinder 
assemblies from the old gear.  The old gear always worked reliably and, 
unless sitting ever since the crash has caused some problem, this should 
cure the problem....we shall see!  Thank Gawd I took tommorrow off as I'm 
really gonna' need it to get this gear thing put to bed.

And to think I went with brand new gear just to avoid this very kind'a 
trauma!  Well, so much for the best laid plans of "Rats" and men.......

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

        Re:         <<< Note 271.605 by PNO::CASEYA "THE DESERT RAT (I-RC-AV8)" >>>

        Al,
        
                WHose retracts  are  you using?  Sounds like they are the
        kind I would  like  for  my spit!  Do they make ones for 12/15 lb
        airplanes?
        
        Anker

    I almost pitched it. I got this catalog the other day and figured
    it was just a plastic modeling flyer like I sometimes get. Then
    I took a close look and found that what I had was the 1990 Zenith
    Books catalog. Wow! Why didn't somebody tell me about this before?
    They got everything on aviation (with the exception of a book on
    the Sea Fury for Dan Snow). 
    
    There's a page on books about WWI, 1/3 of a page on between the
    wars, 7 2/3 pages on WWII, 1/3 page on Korea, a page and 2/3's on
    Vietnam, 5 2/3 pages on Modern Military, a page on helicopters,
    a page on Military History, 8 pages on General
    Aviation/Aerobatics/Private Pilot, ect. Then comes the videos.
    The titles just get me drooling. Don't get this catalog if you have
    weak will power and a credit card. The stuff is too tempting and
    the prices are a little high (but probably normal for this type
    of book).
    
    Dan Eaton

    Hey, Al!! All of us have been waiting with baited beath all morning to
    hear how you made out at the Scale Qualifier this past weekend.
    
    Better get busy on the keyboard!
    
    Chuck
    

    I have a feeling Al took a 24 hour ciesta!! Betcha he'll be 
    in on tuesday.
    
    
    Tom

As George Peppard's character (Hannibal Smith?) in the "A-Team" used to delight
in saying, "I love it when a plan comes together!" 

It was simply a terrific (re-) introduction to scale competition for the 
restored MiG-3 and, of course, me too.  After being threatening, rainy and 
cold all week, including Friday, it cleared up for two sunny, clear days 
Saturday and Sunday with temps. in the low-to-mid 60's...almost perfect.  
Also, the wind stayed relatively calm and, while usually crossed or 
quartering, mostly westerly allowing a right-to-left pattern, which is the 
most comfortable to me.

We had some pretty stiff competition show up, among them Shailesh Patel 
with his Baker Jug, Gene Barton with the awe-inspiring Skyraider, Austin 
Cleis with his immaculate Master-Scale P-51-D, Tony Arand with a very nice 
P-40 and, of course, Bob, Chuck and myself so the battle for a top-5, 
Masters qualifying finish was to be no cake-walk.  Many other fine models 
filled out the field to 18, not bad for a first-time qualifier; two very 
nice Baker Zeroes, two Lien Focke-Wulfs and a very nice Monocoupe with a 
5-cylinder radial among them.

Static was accomplished first thing Saturday A.M. and flying commenced 
about 10:30, maybe 11:00.  Strangely, I was still wondering where were the 
little adrenalin rushes and nerves I so loathe at contests?  Were they 
gonna' gang-up and descend on me all at once reducing my (thus far) confident 
mien to a jiggling mass of jello??  To my amazement and [extreme] 
satisfaction, I had no nerves, apprehension whatever...all weekend long.
And, whatta' pleasure _that_ was!!

I didn't have a single flight (out of 6-rounds) that I was embarrassed or 
ashamed of.  Starting with a flight score of 78, I improved every flight by 
a few points, culminating in an 89.75 for my last flight (there were _no_ 
"90" flights throughout the meet and my 89.75 tied Shailesh's identical 
score for top flight of the meet).

After round-1 was completed, static scores were posted and the MiG-3 was 
exactly tied with Bob Frey's P-47D with 92.50.  Three ships were ahead of 
Bob and me; Gene Barton's 'Raider got top static with a 96.50, Shailesh's 
Jug was close behind with a 96.0 and _someone_ (I don't recall _who_ at the 
moment) had a 95.0)  So, while I might'a hoped for a bit more in static, I 
was actually placed right about where I usually am, within striking 
distance of the top.

Shailesh and Gene started right out burning the barn with mid-80's flights 
and it appeared clear that these two were duking it out for first and 
second places with one helluva pack fighting it out for the remaining 
places.  I finished round-3 with an 84.50 flight and felt I'd need two more 
good solid 80+ flights to be in the running.  Bob started right out with 
three 80+ flights and was well in the hunt so I set my sights on him, 
figgerin' that staying close or shading him would get me into the top-5.

Saturday night, we all drove out to a western steak-house called Reata 
Pass, had steak dinners, a few Colorado Cool-Aids and shared some great
camaraderie...a very pleasant and enjoyable time.  I got home, got things 
on charge and was in the rack by 11:00 P.M. so, for the first time tin 
weeks, I stood to get a good night's rest.

Sunday A.M., I continued to improve my scores, turning in an 87.25 for
round-4.  I should note here that, pursuant to new Masters rules,
finish-order would be determined by the average of the best _3_ flights,
not 2 as has been the case in the past, and Craftsmanship was judged from 8
rather than the traditional 15-feet. 

Then, ill fortune befell my buddie, Bob Frey, when his trusted (but 
ancient) Kraft radio failed and his P-47 went in.  He got it flattened out 
just at impact and damage to the fuse is very slight but the wing is 
questionable as to repairability...it's _possible_ but Bob may just build a 
new wing.  In any event, Bob was out of action, though his previous 3 80+ 
flights might hold up for a finish position.

Gene Barton was also having problems.  Gremlins and Bugs were surfacing in 
the highly complicated systems of the Skyraider and he'd lost three rounds 
to mechanical/technical difficulties...he had two very high-80's flights 
but _HAD_ to have one more (under the new rules) and he had only one round 
left to get it.  I had meanwhile posted an 88.25 and was sitting 
comfortably in the top-5 by now.

Gene took off for round-6 right after I did but, as I was setting up for my 
first optional maneuver, a slow-roll, Bob (who was calling for me) waved me 
off as Gene was coming in with a problem, aborting his last chance to win 
or place in the meet.  My flight was flown almost with abandon and I was 
filled with the euphoria one feels when he recognizes he is _really_on_!
My 2-and-4 point rolls came out as perfect as I've ever flown them, as did 
the remainder of the mandatory and optional maneuvers.  As I landed, Bob 
said, "You've had one helluva contest, my friend...congratulations."  That 
made me feel about as good as placing might as Bob's frank approval means I 
did at least as good as I thought I did.

Chuck flew his Staggerwing and had a bad case of contest-itis all weekend; 
things that he routinely does with ease went to hell in a hand basket for 
him and he was frustrated by it but persevered and finished the meet with 
only a scraped wingtip or two to show for the battle.

Glancing at the scoreboard as the final round scores came in, it appeared
I'd finished better than I might'a hoped..._anything_ in the top-5 would'a
thrilled me to death.  I also noted that we could'a flown 6 _more_ rounds
and I could never've caught Shailesh due to his static-score advantage and
his rock-steady flying (doing all high-percentage optionals like
straight-flight, procedure-turn, etc.).  As it happened, I equalled his
flight score doing all flight maneuvers, i.e. slow-roll, 2-and-4 point 
rolls, etc.) but could never have over come the static. 

When awards were presented, they fell like this:

	1st.  Shailesh Patel - Baker P-47D
	2nd.  Al Casey (Hey! That's me!) - MiG-3
	3rd.  Bob Frey - Holman P-47D
	4th.  Chuck Collier - Byron Staggerwing
	5th.  Austin Cleis - Master-Scale P-51D
      * 6th.  Tony Arand - Brian Taylor P-40

* Tony's included here because he qualifies for the Masters owing to the fact 
that Bob Frey's already qualified.

So, a VERY pleased cowboy cleaned up his ol' faithful MiG-3 which hadn't 
accumulated a single scratch in 6-contest rounds and rode contentedly into 
the sunset.  All the preparation had payed off and I'd had a totally 
trouble-free meet, a bad glo-plug being the worst trial I faced all 
weekend.  Yeah!  I just love it when a plan comes together.......!!!!!

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

Congrats Al!  What loot did you carry off for second place?

    We all knew you'd come back with a bang!!!!!!!
    
    Steve

    My heartiest congratulations, Al. I know you really wanted to nail this
    one and it looks like you did!!  You can fill me in more when I'm in
    PNO for Dectech.
    
    Again, Congrats!!  
    
    Chuck
    

  Alright Al!  Way to go!  That's definitely the proper way to 're-'christen
the faithful Mig-3.

  Congrats.


		Jim

    Fantastic results Al! Ya had us on the edge of our seats there for
    awhile, waitin' ta here what happened.
    
    Terry
    

    
    	****** C O N G R A D U L A T I O N S   A L  !!!!!******
    
    		
    		Hats off to a job well done !!!!!
    
    		
    
    			Carl

    Thanks to all for the congrats.  I also wanted to mention that
    everyone's well-wishes were MUCH appreciated and helped a lot towards
    what turned out to be a totally successful contest.
    
    Re. Anker's question on retracts:  I'm using the Rhom FW-109 gear with
    a scale shock-strut attached via 3/16" music-wire stub.  The gear is
    certainly suitable for a 12-lb. airplane but I'd be a bit skeptical
    about it's ability to support the loads imposed by a 15-lb. model.
    
    You might consider looking into the Robart line of retracts for the
    large Pica Spitfire. 

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    Congratulations
    
    Brian
    

    awesome al!
    
    its one thing to qualify.  its another to place second amongst such a
    tough crowd of competitors.  i'm impressed.
    
    i couldnt help but notice that 5 of the top 6 finishers were wwII
    warbirds.  what a difference from new england where warbirds are a
    minority.
    
    i like the 8ft craftsmanship judging distance alot.
    
    ain't it a bummer when your all but mathematically eliminated by static.
    
    no problems with the retracts?
    
    poor gene.  it seems complicated machines backfire in comp.  with maybe
    the exception of bob fiorenze, nobody seems to win with the exotic.
    
    congrats,
    kevin

    Kevin,
    
    Thanx fer' the words (and to you too, Brian), I appreciate them more
    than all y'all can imagine...makes me feel _REAL_ good!
    
    Yes, warbirds are definitely in the majority here and, I speculate,
    most other areas too.  Even though non-military may be be more
    prevalent in yer' area, they're definitely in the minority at the
    Masters and, historically, don't do that well against the warbirds.
    
    Nope, no retract problems.  I wasn't able tp post the final chapter of
    the MiG-3's repair saga, that of the retract solution, as I
    accomplished it last Thursday night/Friday before the meet.  As I said
    I would, I swapped all the innards of one of the original gear into the
    new side-frames for the left main and was prepared to do the same with
    the right (still might) but that solved the problem of bleeding
    air/pressure into the oil-side of the Hydra-Lok plumbing which could'a
    produced disastrous results.  There were still air bubbles in the oil
    but not enough to compromise the gear's operation so, owing to the
    short time remaining, I elected to leave well enough alone 'til after
    the meet.  Since I never use gear as a scored option, this was an easy
    decision to justify.
    
    I agree with yer' observation regarding Gene's Skyraider/complicated
    ships in general.  The more garbage you have, the more opportunity ol'
    "Murphy" has to throw-up all over you at contest time.  The ol' MiG is
    little more sophisticated, systems-wise, than yer' average sport
    ship...heck, I even use a stock, plain-vanilla servo tray in the fuse.
    The flaps add virtually no complication and the retracts wind up being
    the only thing you wouldn't find on 9-of-10 Sunday-airplanes at almost
    any field.  My theory has always been to subscribe strictly to the KISS
    principle as I want the time between rounds to unwind, relax, kick
    tires, etc., _NOT_ to be doing repairs to plane or system(s) caused by
    something that didn't work.
    
    Gene's -Raider is simply magnificent and (I should'a mentioned in my
    report) was the unanimous winner of the pilots' choice award.  But,
    when he has it up on his custom-built stand where he can drop the wing
    about 10" with everything still connected and you can see all the
    paraphernalia in there for retracts, wing-folding, etc., etc., ad
    nauseum, you can't help but suspect that there's a lotta' potential
    built in there for problems.  I'm glad _other_ people take on such
    wondrous projects for us to marvel at but, NOT FOR ME!  I'll stick to
    as simple a plane as possible and be a much happier camper for it!!
    
    A couple more observations:  4 of the top-5 finishers were 1/8 AF
    members and 3 of the top-5 were _local_ 1/8 AF members, Austin Cleis
    being the sole non-1/8 person in the top-5.  Additionally (and I take a
    great deal of satisfation from this one), three of the top-5, )Bob,
    Chuck and myself) _earned_ our finish-positions the old fashioned way:
    we flew aerobatic (lower percentage/higher difficulty factor)
    maneuvers, shunning the high percentage, gimme' stuff favored by so
    many scale competitors.
    
    Re. a few back, John,
    
    You brought up a subject that kinda' wrankles me a bit with yer'
    question regarding what loot I won.  I traveled to contests for years,
    pitting for and watching Bob and Kent bring home extravagant trophies
    and (more important, to _me_) great merchandise awards for top-5
    finishes; engines, kits, support items (e.g. glo-drivers etc.), flight
    boxes, ad infinitum.  But, wouldn't 'cha know it, as soon as the ol'
    Rat decides to get into competition and stars winning, all these
    contests go on an austerity program and all I've ever won (other than a
    trophy/plaque) for 2-firsts, 2-seconds, several thirds and numerous
    fouth and fifth place finishes is two Airtronics servos for my
    10th-place at the '86 Masters.  Now, I ask ya', does that seem fair? 
    :B^)  
    
    Anyhoo, all five of the top-5 at this qualifier received plaques, cut
    in the shape of the state of Arizona, with a nice engraved plate on it
    identifying the finish position...all were of the same size and were
    very handsome in appearance; a very nice reminder of one of the two most 
    enjoyable contests I've competed in.     

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    Al: Congratulations! Will we get to see pictures in the model press?
    
    Ron Watts

    Al, In pattern they are contemplating utilizing "K" factors at
    all classes. Perhaps this is a solution to the issue of "PROTO'
    flying and "WIMPY" flying.
    
    IDEA ?????
    
    
    
    What if the static judging segment were broken down into four part.
    
    Accuracy of outline, Color and Markings, Workmanship, Prototypical
    mechanics.
    
    Then, Prototypical flight manuavers, Flight realism.
    
    Prototypical flight manuavers would be worth 50% of the overall
    score.
    
    The remaining five catagories would each be worth 10% of the
    overall score.
    
    
    Just a thought
    
    
    Tom

    Al,
    
    	I had always assumed (and we all know what happens when you
    do that) that the more difficult the flight routine, the higher
    the point factor. I was surprised to hear that it apparently is
    the other way around.
    
    	Can you elaborate?
    
    Steve

    Re: .-2, Ron,
    
    There was no one there actually preparing an article.  But, Ol' Dan
    Parsons was here taking pictures and had himself a ball!  Been a long
    time since I saw Dan so totally satisfied with the way a contest was
    run...he kept saying he wished he'd brought an airplane he was so high
    on the meet.  Anyway, we suggested that, since he already has a pot
    full'a pix, he ought'a write an article for submission to one or
    another a magazine and he seemed somewhat receptive to the idea so, who
    knows, maybe............
    
    Re: .-1, Tom,    
    
    "K" or difficulty factors have been bandied about for quite awhile and,
    as I understand it, the difficulty lies in fairly applying it when many
    models are not capable of the higher difficulty, therefore higher bonus
    potential maneuvers.  It's a sticky wicket and I wouldn't care to
    speculate whether they'll _ever_ get it ironed out.

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    Re: .-2, Steve,
    
    Sorry, yer' reply came in while I was composing .624 so I missed
    responding to it directly, though ,y reply to Tom's question talks to
    it a bit.
    
    The answer is emphatically no!  No bonus is applied to higher
    difficulty maneuvers.  The reason is that many models are incapable of
    the more difficult maneuvers or would not be prototypical doing them or
    both.  For example:  a J-3 Cub would not typically be seen doing [say]
    multi-point hesitation rolls like I like to do with the MiG-3 and
    would, therefore, be barred from taking advantage of any
    difficulty-bonus, even if the model _could_ do the maneuver.  By the
    same token,  An Extra-230 or CAP-10 could take advantage of high
    difficulty (or "K") factors with something like a Lomcevak but, even
    though the MiG-3 model will do it, I couldn't take advantage of this
    high "K" maneuver since the prototype aircraft would never be seen
    doing it.  Hope that helps explain things for ya'.  Thanx fer' askin'.
        

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    YAAHHHOOOOO!!!!  The Desert Rat is back and his guns are a-smokin'!!

    Congratulations on the FANTASTIC second place finish!  (Not to
    mention "Thanks" for a VERY suspensful story to describe the whole
    event.)

    Tell Bob I'm sorry ta' hear about the P-47.  I still marvel at the
    beautiful job he did detailing the INSIDE of the wheel wells....  
    Of course the rest of the plane is (was?) great too.  Maybe now you
    can convince him he could use a new PCM system.

    (I'm wondering if the MAUD is goin' to move all the "CONGRAT..."
    notes to Ramblin'...??)

                       _____
                      |     \
                      |      \                          Silent POWER!
      _        ___________    _________   |            Happy Landings!
     | \      |           |  |         |  |
     |--------|-  SANYO  + ]-|  ASTRO  |--|              - Dan Miner
     |_/      |___________|  |_________|  |
                      |       /           |     " The Earth needs more OZONE,
                      |      /                       not Caster Oil!! "    
                      |_____/

    
    
    
    
    
    			Hot damn.     That's wonderful.
    
    
    
    
    
    

    
    		Al, Isn't that situation present today even without
    "K" factors? To me that's not a function of the rules becasue the
    rules are the same for everyone. Rather it's a function of the
    aurcraft choosen but the modeler.What I see is that a modeler who
    decides to model a simpler aircraft takes less risk during the
    "Mechanical" judging portion and should score higher because the
    prototypical mechanical options of the simpler ship should be easier
    to accomplish. The more complex plane will be more difficult to
    score high on the "mechanical" portion as a function of it's
    complexity. AH, but as you said they will be able to take advantage
    of the higher "K" factors to even off the scoring. 
    
    
    Tom
    
    

    Re: .628, Tom,
    
   > 		Al, Isn't that situation present today even without
   > "K" factors? To me that's not a function of the rules becasue the
   > rules are the same for everyone. 
    
    ** Well, perhaps but in a lopsided sorta' way.  It's true that the same
    rules apply to everyone/every plane and there is no points-bonus for
    doing higher complexity maneuvers.  However, the simpler aircraft
    remains at a disadvantage since the high-performance type (i.e.
    fighter and aerobatic types) may opt to do the simpler, higher
    percentage maneuvers where the reverse is NOT true...the J-3 Cub
    cannot, for instance, opt for a non-prototypical [say] 8-point roll.
    
    >				.......Rather it's a function of the
    >aurcraft choosen but the modeler.What I see is that a modeler who
    >decides to model a simpler aircraft takes less risk during the
    >"Mechanical" judging portion and should score higher because the
    >prototypical mechanical options of the simpler ship should be easier
    >to accomplish. 
    
    ** First, let me clarify that there _is_NO_ "mechanical judging
    portion" save for a portion of the 10-point "Flight Realism" catagory,
    usually the 10th/final 'maneuver' on the judging form.  The exception
    is if the modeler opts to use mechanical functions, e.g. retracts,
    flaps, bomb drop, etc. as scored optional maneuvers.  Here, there is,
    indeed, some risk in that failure of the function to work can result in
    a ZERO rather than a downgrade.  However, more often, the function
    works satisfactorily and is frequently an automatic 10-points for
    merely flipping a switch.  Here again, the simple aircraft is at a
    disadvantage as it doesn't have the option to use mechanical options,
    even if it wanted to.
    
    >The more complex plane will be more difficult to
    >score high on the "mechanical" portion as a function of it's
    >complexity. AH, but as you said they will be able to take advantage
    >of the higher "K" factors to even off the scoring. 
    
    ** The risks, as stated above, _do_ exist and occasionally bite the
    modeler of a complex subject (as happened to Gene Barton's Skyraider
    this past contest) but, by and large, the option to use mechanical
    functions as scored maneuvers represents an advantage over the simpler
    subjects.
    
    Tom
    
    
    

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    Re: .626, Dan,
    
    Don't grieve too long or hard over Bobby Freydell's P-47.  Considering
    what _could_ have been, it came out of the crash rather lightly.  The
    fuselage is virtually unhurt except for some peeled sheeting on the
    belly just behind the fiberglass cowl (which came through unscathed).
    
    The wing took the brunt of the crash owing to the fact that they (perhaps
    due to the same radio gremlins) refused to retract (though they worked
    fine _after_ the crash) and, thus, were down to transmit terrible
    impact into the wing as they were torn out.  Still, the wing more
    "disassembled" than exploded and could be repaired fairly readily. 
    But, Bob is still debating whether to rebuild the wing or build a new
    one...either way, the Jug _will_ see the air again.
    
    As to radios, I've given up with Bob.  I'd like ta' hope this
    experience would convince him to move up to modern technology but I
    wouldn't bet one red dime on it.  I, personally, NEVER liked Kraft
    radios, even in their heyday, but Bob loved them and is convinced (with
    some abetting from his local radio serviceman) that the Kraft can
    function in today's complicated/dangerous electromagnetic environment.
    I, frankly, don't buy it but have had no luck convincing Bob (who owns
    no fewer than 9 [NINE] Krafts and hundreds of servos, accessories,
    etc.).  The _really_ unfortunate part of this is that, before he's
    convinced of the folly of his ways, Bob will, doubtless, have to lose
    or damage a coupla' more beautiful models.  

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    Al,
    
    	I  hate to sound like I have a cracked crystal here, but I'm
    still not clear on scoring at these contests. I think part of the
    problem stems from a phrase you've used in your last couple of reply's.
    That phrase being "higher percentage" maneuvers. Initially, I interpret
    that to mean "higher point value" when that may not be the case.
    You also seem to indicate that the "easier" maneuvers have the higher
    "percentage value" when, if were talking point value, one would
    assume (there's that word again) that the more "difficult" maneuver
    would carry the higher point value.
    
    	I don't have a problem understanding the mechanical option=easy
    points part of your explanation. But, to use your example, if a
    cub does a procedure turn, and a war bird does an 8 point roll,
    you seem to be saying that the cub is doing the "higher percentage"
    maneuver.
    
    	Are you in reality saying that because the cub is doing the
    "easier" maneuver that he has a "higher percentage CHANCE" of doing
    it correctly therefore having a better chance of scoring a 10. Where
    the war bird, doing the more difficult maneuver, has a better chance
    of screwing it up.
    
    Steve 

    Re: .631, Steve,
    
    >	I  hate to sound like I have a cracked crystal here, but I'm
    >still not clear on scoring at these contests. I think part of the
    >problem stems from a phrase you've used in your last couple of reply's.
    >That phrase being "higher percentage" maneuvers. Initially, I interpret
    >that to mean "higher point value" when that may not be the case.
    
    ** Part of the problem here is _my_ assumption that my term "higher
    percentage maneuver" would be instantly understood.  As yer' guessing,
    "higher point value" is NOT the correct interpretation of the term. 
    *_ALL_* maneuvers in scale, mandatory and optional, are worth EXACTLY
    the same points value...10-points.  By "higher percentage" I mean that,
    the simpler the maneuver, the better the chance of receiving high
    points for that maneuver; conversely, the more complex the maneuver,
    the less the chance of scoring well.
    
    >You also seem to indicate that the "easier" maneuvers have the higher
    >"percentage value" when, 
    
    ** Go no further!  This, as far as it reads above, is absolutely
    correct!
    
    >	I don't have a problem understanding the mechanical option=easy
    >points part of your explanation. But, to use your example, if a
    >cub does a procedure turn, and a war bird does an 8 point roll,
    >you seem to be saying that the cub is doing the "higher percentage"
    >maneuver.
    
    ** EGG-ZACKLY!!  This is precisely the situation and is the reason I
    disdain a high performance plane doing the "higher-percentage," lower
    difficulty J-3 Cub maneuvers.  Though completely within the rules,
    _this_ pilot is obviously "trophy-hunting" and is NOT demonstrating the
    capabilities of the full-scale prototype.
    
    >	Are you in reality saying that because the cub is doing the
    >"easier" maneuver that he has a "higher percentage CHANCE" of doing
    >it correctly therefore having a better chance of scoring a 10. Where
    >the war bird, doing the more difficult maneuver, has a better chance
    >of screwing it up.
    
    ** NOW YOU GOT IT!  Now we're in sync and those who've had similar
    problems understanding my objection to P-47's doing straight flight
    out-procedure turn-straight flight back, traffic pattern approach,
    proto-taxi and other such "gimme'" maneuvers while I fly a full
    schedule of "real" maneuvers should start to see my point.
    
    It's true that the rules allow me the option to do the same sorta'
    tripe but my pride won't allow it.  I'll fly the aircraft to suit _me_
    first, then take whatever the judges decide it's worth.  And _THAT'S_
    why it means so much to me (Bob, Chuck and a very few others) to win
    over (or seriously threaten) the guy who's flying his high performance,
    heavy metal, warbird like a J-3 Cub..._WE_ did it the hard way!
    
    Steve 
    

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    Thanks Al. My hat's off to those that attain their status the
    "old fashion way......they EARNED it."
    
    Steve

    OK scale buffs, I just got off the phone after chasing thru three
    U.S government agencies for the following info. If you want a copy
    of Federal Specification #595-A, then send a letter requesting such
    from this address:
    
    Military Specifications and Standards.
    Building 4, Section D.
    700 Robbins
    Philadelphia, PA 19111-5094     
    
    I'm not sure exactly what is in Federal Specification #595-A but
    its listed in the bibliography of 'Basics of RC Scale' as color
    chips. It's a free so I'm a sending for it. 
    
    Now a warning. Note that it says COLOR chips and not paint chips.
    The book warns that color chips are ink-printed simulations of the
    original paint. Because of that, they may be accurate in hue but
    vary in saturation or gloss to the original paint. 
                                                      

This months Model Aviation has lots of interesting stuff
for scale folks.

1.  John de Vries column "Giant Scale" page 52
    Scale Data Source List (free with $6.00 membership in NASA).
    Lists Museums, photo sources, plans sources, libraries, research
    centers, modeler-friendly aircraft manufactures, government
    agencies, aviation booksellers, and documentation hints.

2.  John de Vries column "Giant Scale" page 52 (again)
    Dick Gleason (Gleason Enterprises, 1106 10th Dr., S.E. Austin, MN
    55912) has a $2.50 catalogue.  He is preserving scale plans and
    3 views and for a fee will provide a listing of references for a
    specific aircraft.

3.  Page 180 Color Charts.  A 98 page color cross-reference guide
    is available from Tom C. Butz, 22446 Bywater, Lake Forest, CA 92630.
    No paint chips but lists Federal Standard paint color numbers charted
    by country and to the popular paint companies.  $10.00

4.  Page 154.  Photos from Rare Birds, 791 Nisqually Dr. Sunnyvale, CA 94087

5.  Page 155.  Copies of Hans Mueller's glider catalogue (mostly F3b but
    some scale). can be had by sending 3 stamps to Byron Blakeslee
    3134 N. Winnebago Dr., Sedalia, CO 80135.

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

    Congrats to the Scale guru.
    
    ajai
    

    Al,
    
    Refering to a note of yours a while back re: glue drop rivets and
    silver paint over them so that they show thru' the finish coat when
    'weathered' ...
    
    I was just reading the latest ( bi-monthly now ) R/C Scale Aircraft
    ( remember SAQ? ) this weeken when I came accross an article by a 
    David Vaughan on scale surface detail.
    
    He mixes silver paint in with the PVA glue and gets it to the right
    consistency using a hairdryer then uses the thin brass tube method
    to apply the rivets.
    
    Sounded like a good idea to me .. I'm sure you've heard of it but
    just thought I'd mention it in case it was of interest to others.
    
    Bye for now
    
    Brian
     

    Brian,
    
    Thanx for the tip.  No, I don't think I'd heard of the technique Dave
    Vaughan uses.  Is PVA what we colonials call "white glue".....a
    [usually] milk-based or aliphatic resin type glue, commonly used for
    woodwork/furniture-making?  Popular brands stateside include Elmer's
    and Willhold...model-specific brands being Pica, RC-56, etc.
    
    How does Dave apply the glue-drops from the small tube or does he dip
    the dube in the mixture and apply them one-at-a-time?  
    
    I don't paint the glue-drops silver.  What I do is wait to apply rivets
    until the silver undercoat has been sprayed on the airframe.  This
    accomplishes a couple things: 1.) It makes it MUCH easier to see where
    yer' putting the rivets as compared with putting them (white
    glue-drops) over white-primer. 2.) The "rivets" dry clear so, after
    color painting is complete, a light buffing with 0000-steel wool or a
    worn piece of fine wet-or-dry sandpaper exposes the silver sealed
    "underneath" the clear rivet creating a very convincing simulation of
    an aluminum rivet with the paint worn/chipped off of it.
    
    I'd be interested in hearing more detail on Dave Vaughan's method if
    you couls post it here.    

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    Sorry I did not give all the details -- he uses a syringe with the
    fine brass tube.
    
    Yes, PVA is woodworkers ( white ) glue -- the aliphatic we get over
    here is usually yellow.
    
    I did not realise from previous description that the silver shows
    thru' the rivet -- I thought you put the rivets on then silver painted
    the whole fuse -- then after top coats the tops of the rivets could
    be sanded to show the silver!
    
    This means that the rivet glue has to dry clear -- does that 
    aliphatic/woodworkers glue dry that clear?
    
    I find these techniques fascinating -- as even though I still haven't
    got to flying solo I am thinking already about a scale project in
    the future some time.                     
    
    I think I'll end up with so many planes built or in the pipe that
    I'll never get time to fly them!
    
    Must dash for a meeting
    
    Brian
    

Al, I'm not sure that RC-56 is an aliphatic resin: it might be a
close cousin, but its effectiveness with plastic means that its
differenct from say, Titebond (my favorite).

Brian: Please describe this operation with a syringe and tube; I
still can't picture how its done.  I wonder if you can sharpen
the end of the tube (like you were making a circle cutter out of
it) to eliminate the syringe.  Personally, I avoid any operation
that uses the syringe; I find them dangerous and pesky to use.

    John,
    
>Brian: Please describe this operation with a syringe and tube; I
>still can't picture how its done.  I wonder if you can sharpen
>the end of the tube (like you were making a circle cutter out of
>it) to eliminate the syringe.  Personally, I avoid any operation
>that uses the syringe; I find them dangerous and pesky to use.
 
    all I can do is reproduce the words from the article ...
    
    "Polyvinyl Rivets
    
    The well known method of using PVA glue to make rivets is very simple.
    Thicken the PVA with a hairdryer, stirring as you do so. Use a syringe
    with a short ( 1 1/2" ) length of fine brass tubing epoxied into
    the end; the bore of the tube will depend on the size of rivet you
    want. A slight pressure on the syringe will keep the PVA flowing
    for some time, so quite a few rivets can be laid down at a go. Getting
    the PVA to the right consistencey is a matter of experience, making
    the rivets even in size and spacing a matter of practise. Errant
    blobs can be removed with a damp cloth or a cotton bud. I found
    that a little silver Humbrol ( enamel paint often used by railroad
    modellers ) stirred into the PVA helped too. Rivets done with plain
    PVA become invisible when dry and can easily be knocked off. This
    way they are realistically silver when the camouflage waers off
    and show up when they are being applied." 
    
    note: he had been tallking about tissue and dope up till now and had 
    not mentioned an undercoat of any king other than the dope -- he
    ghoes on to describe a way of imitating Zeus ( Dzus? ) fasteners
    before moving onto painting.
    
    Hope this helps
    
    Brian
     

    Brian/John,.
    
    The method Dave Vaughan describes is very similar to what we do here
    except for the addition of silver paint.  He's right in his assessment
    that the rivets dry so clear as to be hard to see...that's why I wait
    to apply them 'til after the silver/aluminum base coat is
    applied...and, yes, the glue dries so clear that the silver undercoat
    is readily visible; in fact, it does some optical sort'a thing that
    makes the entire rivet seem to be aluminum, not just a clear blob
    through which silver can be seen.
    
    I didn't mean to suggest that RC-56 was an aliphatic resin...I think I
    categorized the generic glue type as [milk-based] white glues/aliphatic
    resins.  BTW, because of its very fast drying and extreme sandability,
    I now prefer PICA when I have a need that requires white/aliphatic
    glue.   
    
    In any event, here's how we (I) apply rivets:  Panel-lines are applied
    using the masking tape/primer method, then the silver/aluminum
    undercoat is sprayed on.  I apply the rivets by eyeball but, if you
    prefer, you can add a step here which is to lay out the centerlines for
    each row of rivets using a straight-edge and soft lead pencil.  Next,
    modify a Dritz-wheel (like a clock-gear mounted on a handle) by
    removing teeth (if required) such that the distance between imprints
    (dents) made by the teeth when the wheel is rolled on a test material
    is approximately the same as the desired width between rivets.  Now use
    the straight-edge as a guide and "roll" the rivet locations onto the
    model with the modified Dritz-wheel.  This is rather a time consuming
    process which is why I choose to skip it and go right to application of
    rivets, establishing spacing by eye.
    
    I use a med./small hypodermic syringe for an applicator, the only
    modification to which is to gring the end of the needle flat.  I prefer
    PICA aliphatic for rivets and this glue is poured into the syringe. 
    Now, reinsert the plunger as you turn the needle straight up and, as
    you slowly push the plunger in, force all the air out of the syringe.
    Fresh, unthinned PICA is about the right thickness but it can be warmed
    to thicken or thinned with water as needed.  Now, use a piece of recipe
    card or similar reassonably non-porous material to practice on; a
    slight pressure on the plunger keeps the glue flowing to the needle at 
    a rate proportional the the pressure.  Adjust this pressure as
    necessary to attain the application speed you want.
    
    Now, it's time to do the real thing.  Using the Dritz-wheel
    indentations as a guide or spacing by eye, start applying drops of glue
    to the model surface.  If you screw up, no sweat...just wipe off with a
    damp cloth or cotton swab and continue.  Some modelers say _not_ to
    touch the surface but to let the glue's surface-tension kind'a suck the
    glue-drop from the needle but I've found that these rivets tend to
    wrinkle up like a raisin as they dry.  I have better luck gently touching
    the needle to the surface as the glue is deposited.  Experiment and use
    whichever works best for you.  You'll want to wipe the needle-tip clean
    every so often to prevent build up.  The "rivet-gun" can be stored for
    short periods without problem but I recommend you keep going until yer'
    finished to avoid any problems with glue drying in the needle. When done,
    thoroughly clean syringe and needle with ordinary warm tap water and
    yer' rivet-gun will last a lifetime.
    
    An important rason I like PICA for rivets is its rapid drying time with
    minimum shrinkage (raisin-effect).  Still, I like to give all rivets a
    GENTLE sanding with a worn piece of 200 open-coat, aluminum carbide
    paper before painting.  Despite maximum care, you'll still probably
    knock a few rivets off; no big deal, just use a toothpick to dab on a
    replacement rivet...no need to dirty up the syringe again.  After
    painting, the rivets seem to be cast in concrete and won't come off
    like they can when first applied over the undercoat.
    
    Now, paint the model and watch the rivets make it come to life.  But
    HERE'S where things _really_ start to look real: use 4-aught (0000)
    steelwool, worn wet-or-dry paper etc. to "wear/weather" through the
    paint in high wear areas and the rivets look absolutely real, their
    natural aluminum look standing out from the surrounding area. The same
    technique is used to highlight the edges of panels in high
    wear/maintenance areas by exposing the silver along the tape/primer
    panel lines.

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    
    	I was talking to Bob Banka of scale model research of Ca. last
    night. Looking foe details on P47D's. He had two examples. I'm
    wondering if anyone has ever seen a model of a ship called;
    
    			Big Chief?
    
    	Bob tells me it's a bubbled P47 with olive drap green paint.
    I'm wondering because this paint is rather rare in a Bubble
    styled P47. At the time in the war when the bubble was introduced
    the allies had gained the upper hand in the air over the axis
    powers. This allowed them to stop camoflouging their aircraft
    and go with natural metals.
    
    	So, Anyone ever hear of the Big Chief?
    
    
    Tom

    I answered Tom's question off-line in response to his inquiry via
    E-mail but thought I should respond here as well.
    
    While perhaps not as well known as [then] Lt. Frank Klibbe's razorback
    D-model Jug named "Little Chief," the bubble-canopied -D known as "Big
    Chief" is fairly widely known.  I've seen pix of it several times
    fairly recently in full-scale aviation mag's, most likely in Air
    Classics.  As I recall, the pix were B&W's of the original aircraft,
    not a currently flying replica.
    
    This would be a great and different scheme for a bubble-top as only a
    very few of them were painted.  By the time of their introduction in
    Europe, air superiority had pretty much been secured by the allies and
    American aircraft were reverting rapidly to natural metal
    (un-camouflaged) schemes as a propaganda ploy, i.e. flaunting their
    superiority in the Germans' face by openly scorning camouflage paint
    schemes.    

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

I'm trying to gather some documentation on a kit motorglider
called a Strojnik S-2A.

It was designed by Alex Strojnik in Tempe,Arizona and released
to the public around 1980.  I talked to Alex on the phone
and he was as cooperative as the IRS.  I tried to explain that
I was interested in building a model of his aircraft but that
only got me an offer to sell me the plans for $170 instead of $230
if I promised never to build a full scale plane.

After a bit he volunteered that everything I would need to build one
was published in "Soaring", "Kit Planes", and "Sport Aviation"
in the years 1980-83.

I tried to talk him into a subset of the documentation as I didn't
have any need or desire for the several hundred page instruction set
etc. but alas - I think I was between Alex and his supper.

So - could one of you kind soles rummage thru the old magazines
and send me a copy of any articles on the S-2A motorglider.
It is a pod and boom type with a pusher prop and it the last
1/8 or so of the wings have a noticeable taper (front and rear).

If there are color pictures and you don't have a color copier (does anybody?)
and you don't want to part with the original then please make a note
for me about the colors so I know if I want to order the back order
of the magazine for color documentation.  The only one I've seen
has been white - sure would like to find a picture of a nice red or blue
one!

Assuming I get lucky and someone actually gets to the rummaging
stage if you have any extra or decide to purge your old "Soaring"
magazines I sure would like them.  I've never seen one.

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

    re .646
    
    This sounds like an interesting plane, and I'll be on the lookout
    for those magazines. My own issues of Soaring are not of that period.
    A friend probably has the issues you need, but it may be awhile
    before I can rummage thru his collection as he suffered a mild heart
    attack last week, and I don't want to bother him right now. To make
    matters worse, his doctor says no flying for 6 months, so his $80k
    Glaser-Dirks 600 sits in its hanger for awhile.
    
    In the flying file in note 58 are a bunch of soaring types, many
    in your area. Maybe one of them could help you with back issues.
    
    Ol' Alex sounds like a typical home kit builder/designer. Must
    be something in the genes.
    
    Terry
    

    I thought I would throw this in hear.  I am toying with the idea of
    building a 1/3 scale ASW-20, the wingspan will be 21', the fiberglass
    fuse is 8' long.  I can get the kick but am trying to assess wether or
    not I want to take on such an undertaking an what will the hidden costs
    be to get this thing finished.  Also if I do it I would like to do it
    scale and I have never done any scale projects.  I would sure like to
    do this but I want it to be done right.  I guess the way to go would be
    slow and not worry about if I dont have the money etc, just what I do
    do it right and if I have to shelf it for small periods of time then so
    what.
    
    Terry, do you know of any full size ASW 20 planes in your area?

    I ment "I can get the KIT...." not Kick, it would be a Kick also to fly
    a 21' 1/3 scale glider though!!!!!!  I think it would be neat to say to
    a full size owner, "I am going to build your plane, but it will be 1/3
    the size and will only hold a Cat as a pilot"  Do full size owners
    generaly get a thrill out of having someone do this?

    re .648, .649
    
    Mark,
    
    Out at Moriarty airport,east of town,where the Albq. Soaring Club
    bases their planes there are several ASW's but don't know off hand
    if any are -20's. I know there is a -21 and the 2-place model, is
    that a -23 ? Also a DG-600 which is pretty impressive, and a Pik-20
    partner-owned by Steve Work and some Schempp-Hirth, etc. So if
    you guys get down here for our fun-fly and contest at our sod farm
    site, on Jun. 3, you'll go right past Moriarty airport.
    
    Why are you specifying 1/3 scale. Will this be scratch built? There's
    a couple of big ASW kits available from Calif. I'm not sure if
    they are as big as 1/3 scale though.
    
    Terry
    

    Terry, could you look at the airport for a asw-20 for me or call out
    there.  The reason is I know where a 1/3 kit is that I can get. It is
    designed by Mark Smith I believe.  I will probably cut new foam cores
    so they can be glassed vs balsa and monokote (YUK).

    re .651
     
    That sounds like the kit that Gary Anderson sells. I didn't realize
    it was that large. I'll make a few calls this weekend and see if
    I can track down the location of an ASW-20.
    
    Terry
    

    I dont think the one by American Sailplane Designs is that big but I'm
    not sure, I think it is 1/4 or 1/5  oh well.  I know Gary flies a large
    ASW-20, he was pictured in one of the mags on the scale slope fly or
    one of the slope fly's in Wash.

    re last few
    
    Mark,
    
    I checked this weekend, and there are no ASW-20's based at Moriarty.
    As far as anyone knows, the nearest one is at Alamagordo, about
    180-200 miles south of here.
    
    Terry
    

    thanks Terry, I will have to check things out here.  I think I am going
    to wait on the scale project.  We have a slope contest comming up in
    April and I am slope/planeless right now.  I want to get one built for
    the contest.  Are you going to come up for our slope contest?

    When I was at the New England Air Museum I noticed a lovely little
    bipe that just begs to be modeled. Maybe some day. 
    
    
    I'm wondering about one unique feature on this bipe. It sported
    ailerons on the bottom wing only. It was a racer. The interesting
    item is that the ailerons were/are mounted on hinge brackets that
    create a 4" gap between the trailing edge of the wing and the
    leading edge of the aileron.
    
    
    WHY???
    
    
    Tom

    I have no knowledge of the kit you mention, but I am building (at this
    stage nearly completed) a Pilot Scale Spinks Acromaster. 
    
    As per typical all wood is of excellent quality. Plans are excellent -
    one could nearly frame them - they look so good. Everything that should
    fit fits ! I think they could improve on the nuts & bolts etc side.
    Just recently I saw a nice tail dragger setup from a Dragon Lady -
    comparing this to the Pilot equivelent - Pilot lost. 
    
    As regards scale info - they gave very little apart from some panel
    markings, painting quidelines, and cockpit interior - then its up to
    the builder to go after all the details. I have a note in here looking
    for scale data on the plane,... still waiting in anticipation.
    
    If you do a search in the notes file you will find that the Pilot kits
    are held in high esteem - if somewhat expensive.
    
    Eric();
    

Long long ago I asked in this notes file if anybody new a Jim
Metziger(sp) from Whittier(sp) California because I had seen a picture of his
GROB motor glider in the IMAA magazine and wanted to know more about it.

Well after some weak leads nothing turned up.
At the WRAM show in N.Y. I came across the IMAA booth
and they had a membership list handy - but I couldn't remember
the guys name.  I thought it was Whittier and there was no one by that
name.  

Anyway they gave me another complementary magazine and that night
there was ANOTHER picture of Jim Metziger(sp) with his GROB again.

Next day at the WRAM show IMAA booth I got his name and address.

So I finally called him up the other night and found out some details.

1.  It is a Witt(sp) kit that was sold by Hobby Lobby 7 years ago and
2.  He is going to be at the 1/8 Air Force Spring Fun Fly this weekend.

So not only is the mystery solved but I'm meeting Jim Friday morning.

P.S.  It has a 130+ inch wing span and flys with a Saito 60 (or 80).

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

I have a couple of questions about the masters this year.

They passed out some masters info sheets at the 495th club
Scale night.

1.  They have the New England Scale Championships and the S.P.A.R.K.'s
    Scale Championships both on the same weekend (July 28-29).
    Assuming this is really true this only gives us one shot this year.
    Since I would probably still only enter sportsman this is a real
    bummer because I have to maintain a plane for one contest a year.

    Soooooo - So Al - yell at Harris Lee and let's try not to book close
    contests on the same day!

2.  Reading the rule exceptions there are some confusing ones.

    1.  Giant and sport scale combined.

        What exactly does that mean?  Last year we had
              Expert
              Giant
              Sportsman.
        Now we have ???????

    2.  No declaration of parts not made.

        What exactly does that mean?
        Does this mean no declarations page is required?
        Does this mean we should only declare parts made?
        All parts are made - some by me - some by others - even paint
        is made.

    3.  Average "three" best flights.
        
        Is the contest void if they can only get in two flight rounds?

    4.  Craftsmanship will be judged at eight feet.
        Craftsmanship judge will not look at documentation unless
        contestant requests it.

        This should be an advantage for Al's MiG 3.  Last year one of my
        BJ's lost a point in craftsmanship because the wings were 
        undercambered.  I know that doesn't make since but Harvey was
        the judge and had just scored the BJ without undercamber (at 15 feet)
        and thought the undercamber was a wrinkle.  This was while I had
        both planes entered and before they found the rule to disqualify
        one.  But you might imagine a scenario where the judge thinks something
        is a craftsmanship mistake (like large aileron gap) when actually the
        real plane and the documentation proves this to be correct.  On the
        other hand giving a craftsmanship judge documentation is just asking
        him to find details that you did not model - extra landing wires,
        rivets, etc.  For my part I wish they either all got the documentation
        or all didn't get it - opinions?

    5.  One ground maneuver.

        One max or one Min?  See comments on next rule exception.

    6.  Taxi out and back - one maneuver.

        As I understand this I will have to taxi out and back.
        I have two problems with this - seldom do I land with the
        engine running and I don't like to taxi the BJ because my tail
        skid gets ripped up on tar.  What other ground maneuvers are
        there?  Does this mean there is one less flight maneuver?

    7.  Two mechanical options.

        Was it one before?

    8.  Judging on landing will begin when turned on "final".

        Swell - I have personally aborted and not lost a landing point
        a couple of times.  He's a couple of related questions.
        You call "the next maneuver is a landing" then just before your
        final turn you say "starting now".  Is that too soon - should
        you call "Starting now" during or after your final turn?  Should
        you let the judges figure out when starting should begin and
        you pass the buck to them by calling "starting final turn now"?
        Now what if your past starting and way way out and there is somebody
        doing a dead stick.  So you abort but the judges have already started
        judging?  What happens then.  If I need to abort and I don't have
        an excuse handy should I tell my caller to pass out and fall on the
        runway :-)

    9.  At "Regionals" - if you have fourteen (14) or more "combined
        giant & sport expert" contestants, you can qualify five (5).
        If you have thirteen (13) and below, you can qualify 30% to the
        nearest higher number, i.e., if you have eleven (11) contestants,
        you can send four qualifiers.

        If any of the qualifiers cannot attend the "Masters" do not go
        down the line.  The only way you can send more than five (5), is 
        if someone has already qualified.  The same goes for the 30%.

==============================================================================

Hasn't been much activity in the Scale notes lately.  I just picked up a 
copy of a Squadron publication "In Action" series on the Grumman S2F Tracker
last night.  Always been one of my favorite planes.  To my knowledge no body 
has ever published a kit or plan of it.  If anybody knows of any please 
let me know.  I assume there are plastic kits but I've now knowledge of
any of them either.

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

    I got a present monday while home for Patriots day. The UPS man
    came and delivered a package from Scale wheels. This is the outfit
    highlighted in this months scale RC modeler. I was quoted one price
    for my wheels (which are not stock) and they were delivered at 40.00
    over the quoted price. I haven't made a phone call but will soon
    to clear up the matter.
    
    As far as the wheels go they are  EXCELLENT. They are every bit
    perfect as claimed during our phone conversation when I ordered
    the wheels. The hubs are made from a casting them machined on a
    CNC machine. They are screwed together from the back side and will
    be invisible when installed. The hub has a brass bushing pressed
    in where the axle will run. They are secured with a specially made
    wheel collar which doubles as an axle cap. Very scale. They have
    the exact number of scale cast spokes as pictured in my scale
    documentation. They are a bit pricy and heavy but I figure my
    Thunderbolt is worth it. When the IRS check gets here I'll be
    ordering by retracts from Jet Age Hobbies. Should start construction
    within a couple of months.
    
    
    Tom

    I'm very interest in building a scale P-51 Mustang in the future.
    Now my question is, what is the best kit to get?  I have seen
    ads from many manufactures and they just add to the confusion.
    So I figure with everyone's experiences out there, you guys would
    have the best opinions.
    
    Thanks in advance
    
    John
    

    John,
    
    
    DEfine Best??   Best what?  Flying? building? scale? 
    
    What are you looking for out of this ship?
    
    
    Tom

    In order of priority I would say;
    1.  scale
    2.  Flying
    3.  building
    I want something that is really going to look like the real thing
    and fly like it.
    
    John
    

Re: .663, Kay,

You have some good questions and, maybe, a few misconceptions.  Lessee' 
if'n I can shed some light for you:

>1.  They have the New England Scale Championships and the S.P.A.R.K.'s
>    Scale Championships both on the same weekend (July 28-29).
>    Assuming this is really true this only gives us one shot this year.
>    Since I would probably still only enter sportsman this is a real
>    bummer because I have to maintain a plane for one contest a year.

* Nothing I can do here except concur with you that it's rather poor 
scheduling.  Harris is supposed to be here for Top Gun so I'll mention the 
conflicting dates to him and see what can be done (it may well already be 
too late to change anything this year, but next year.......?

>2.  Reading the rule exceptions there are some confusing ones.
>
>    1.  Giant and sport scale combined.
>
>        What exactly does that mean?  Last year we had
>              Expert
>              Giant
>              Sportsman.
>        Now we have ???????

*  What this means is that all classes will be combined into just one 
competition, just like it's done at the Masters itself.  There'll be no 
sorting of [say] the first 3-places from Expert and the first 2 from Giant
qualify for a Masters birth...simply the top-5 qualify, period.

>    2.  No declaration of parts not made.
>
>        What exactly does that mean?
>        Does this mean no declarations page is required?
>        Does this mean we should only declare parts made?
>        All parts are made - some by me - some by others - even paint
>        is made.

* This is Harris's way of trying _NOT_ to discriminate against aircraft
built from glass/foam kits or which use custom hardware (retracts, e.g.). 
Note that this is a "Masters rule only" (as are most of the others you've
questioned) and the declaration way well still be required at an AMA
contest along with the new "automatic deduction matrix" which has found its
way into AMA rules this year.  Bottom line, the rule means that you declare
_nothing_ at a Masters event.  (But, I retain the declaration page in my 
documentation "just in case.")

>    3.  Average "three" best flights.
>        
>        Is the contest void if they can only get in two flight rounds?

* A contest is actually "official" as soon as static judging is complete 
and, if weather or whatever circumstance prohibited the flying of even 
_one_ round, the contest is considered official and awards are determined 
according to static scores.  The 3-flight average, obviously, encourages a 
contest to fly a minimum of 4-rounds but the intent is to determine who was
_consistently_ excellent in flight over those who [maybe] just got lucky on 
two flights.

>    4.  Craftsmanship will be judged at eight feet.
>        Craftsmanship judge will not look at documentation unless
>        contestant requests it.
>
>        This should be an advantage for Al's MiG 3......

* I assume you mean because the MiG will bear up under closer scrutiny.  :B^)
This is meant to absolutely ensure that the craftsmanship judge is looking 
at craftsmanship ONLY!  In to many contests, the craftsmanship judge has 
set himself up to include outline, color, markings, etc. as areas of domain 
above pure and simple "How well was the model crafted?".  Their 
justification has been that if an outline is incorrect, a color slightly 
off, a marking incorrect, that _this_ also constitutes craftsmanship as the 
modeler had control of these areas.  Perhaps so, however, you've ALREADY 
been judged and [perhaps] downgraded for these areas so having the 
craftsmanship use these criteria also constitutes nothing short of double 
(or triple) jeopardy.  I fully support this change.  Of course, the reason 
for shortening the judging distance is obvious and could help or hurt a 
model.  Some don't look nearly as good close up as they do from 15-feet. 
Others (and in all humility, the MiG-3 is one) will benefit as detailing 
not all that visible from 15' _will_ be apparent closer up.

>    5.  One ground maneuver.
>
>        One max or one Min?  See comments on next rule exception.

*  This applies to a maneuver(?) performed on the ground, usually by just 
flicking a switch, like turning on nav-lights/strobes, brakes, etc. and is 
aimed at preventing someone from loading up on "freebie/gimme' points"
before his wheels have even left the ground.

>    6.  Taxi out and back - one maneuver.
>
>        As I understand this I will have to taxi out and back.
>        I have two problems with this - seldom do I land with the
>        engine running and I don't like to taxi the BJ because my tail
>        skid gets ripped up on tar.  What other ground maneuvers are
>        there?  Does this mean there is one less flight maneuver?

* This applies ONLY if you have selected taxi-out/back (proto-taxi) as an 
optional, scored maneuver.  If you _have_ done so, the ramifications are 
clear: failure to taxi back after landing due to dead-stick landing, broken 
prop, etc. results in a severe downgrade of at least half the possible 
points.  If you have NOT selected taxi as an one of your 5 optional 
maneuvers, you have nothing to fear...no score or downgrade is given for 
taxi to takeoff and the flight is officially complete after the model has 
rolled out 50-feet after touchdown (distance can vary depending on 
individual contests but 50' is usual).  This, again, is an attempt by the 
Masters to discourage "gimme" maneuvers.

>    7.  Two mechanical options.
>
>        Was it one before?

* No, I think it was always two.

>    8.  Judging on landing will begin when turned on "final".
>
>        Swell - I have personally aborted and not lost a landing point
>        a couple of times.  He's a couple of related questions.
>        You call "the next maneuver is a landing" then just before your
>        final turn you say "starting now".  Is that too soon - should
>        you call "Starting now" during or after your final turn?  Should
>        you let the judges figure out when starting should begin and
>        you pass the buck to them by calling "starting final turn now"?
>        Now what if your past starting and way way out and there is somebody
>        doing a dead stick.  So you abort but the judges have already started
>        judging?  What happens then.  If I need to abort and I don't have
>        an excuse handy should I tell my caller to pass out and fall on the
>        runway :-)

* Kay, an emergency or safety consideration *_ALWAYS_* takes precedence 
over ANYTHING.  I call my landing for new Masters rules by saying, "Turning 
base-to-final; landing maneuver will commence at roll-out." meaning when 
I've rolled the wings back to level onto the final heading.  If ANY situation 
or emergency dictates that I abort for safety reasons after calling 
landing, I simply state so to the judges and reinitiate the maneuver when 
the hazard has cleared and I've NEVER had a judge challenge my right to do 
this.  Of course, the "hazard" must be apparent to everyone...you can't 
just start inventing reasons to abort as the judges'll see through this 
ploy like you were Claude Rains (the Invisible Man).  :B^)

>    9.  At "Regionals" - if you have fourteen (14) or more "combined
>        giant & sport expert" contestants, you can qualify five (5).
>        If you have thirteen (13) and below, you can qualify 30% to the
>        nearest higher number, i.e., if you have eleven (11) contestants,
>        you can send four qualifiers.
>
>        If any of the qualifiers cannot attend the "Masters" do not go
>        down the line.  The only way you can send more than five (5), is 
>        if someone has already qualified.  The same goes for the 30%.

* I'm not sure what your question is here.  This is merely an attempt to 
create some equality between a contest that hosts two-dozen contestants and 
one that has only 5.  In the past, both would've qualified and sent 5 
qualifiers to the Masters which is patently unfair to the guy who places 
10th in the big contest and could easily have won the small meet.  It also 
helps to eliminate less than Masters-worthy planes and pilots who sandbag 
their way to the championships by entering a small qualifier where a birth
in the Masters was guaranteed to all 5-entrants before the first engine 
was fired.
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    Re: .667, John,
    
    I need a coupla' more criteria before I can give you a good answer:
    
    1. What size/scale do you have in mind?
    
    2. This goes along with #1; what size engine are you looking at?
    
    I'm sure this discussion has taken place before somewhere in
    here...maybe Alton can dig up some pointers for you but I'll be happy
    to respond  if we can be pretty specific about the desired parameters.
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    I need a favor, guys.  My aviation artist buddy from Sedona, AZ, Jerry
    Crandall, is going to Russia in June to interview Alekzander Khozedub
    (sp?) for the next in his series of paintings of the great aces of
    WW-II in a memorable combat situation.  Khozedub was/is Russia's 2nd
    highest scoring ace of WW-II (85 kills in the MiG-3 and La-7) and Jerry
    wants to do a painting of him flying a very colorful La-7.
    
    Shooting the breeze with Jerry over Top Gun weekend, he offhandedly
    asked, "Why don't you do an La-7 for yer' next project?  I'll be
    collecting _tons_ of documentation on Khozedub's ship that's not
    available _anywhere_ else in the world...it'd be a natural!")  That got
    the wheels turning and I determined I'd start researching the ship a
    bit to determine its possibilities and, most importantly, whether I
    like it enough to build.
    
    Therein lies the favor; if'n any of y'all have anything on the Russian
    Lavochkin La-7 fighter of WW-II, I'd be grateful for a Xerox of
    anything/everything you've got.  Please send by goatmail to Al Casey at
    loc. code/mailstop PNO/E4.  Muchicimas gracias, mi amigos!
    
    I never entertained the notion of scratch-designing my own bird before 
    but a conversation with Frank Tiano got me to reconsidering.  My
    biggest hangup had always been with the lack of drafting equipment and
    materials, not to mention space, to draw up full size plans.  However,
    Frank says to take a good 3-view, blow it up on a Xerox to a workable
    size, then draw in the model structure and send it to him...he has the
    facility to blow that drawing up to whatever scale (wingspan) one might
    desire and, Voila!, almost instant full-size plans.  And how, I ask
    you, could you do a better job of matching the models outlines to the
    3-view?!!  Sounds trick.
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    Al,

    I have a little book "The Concise Illustrated Book of Fighters of
    World War II". It has a page on the La-7 (also has the MiG-3).
    Unfortunately, the sources of the information are not mentioned.

    There is a side-view color drawing, plus a pretty hazy black-and-
    white photograph that doesn't show much detail. The article
    contains the following information:

    LAVOCHKIN La-7

    Entering service with the Soviet Air Force mid-way through 1944,
    the La-7 was an aerodynamically improved version of the La-5FN
    which had proved itself in combat against both the Fw 190A-4 and
    Bf 109G. The La-7 was probably the USSR's best wartime fighter.

    Country of Origin: Soviet Union
    Type: interceptor fighter
    Crew: one
    Power Plant: One 1,700hp Shvetsov M-82FN 14-cylinder two-row
    air-cooled radial
    Dimensions: span 9.8m (32ft 2in); length 8.5m (27ft 11in); height
    2.84m (9ft 3in); wing area 17.5m� (188.4sq ft)
    Weight: empty 2,638kg (5,816lb); loaded 3,400kg (7,496lb)
    Performance: maximum speed 680km/h (423 mph); service ceiling
    10,500m (34,450ft); range 635km (395 miles)
    Armament: three 20mm ShVAK cannon in upper cowling; provision for
    200kg (440lb) bombs or six RS-82 rockets on underwing racks.

    I'd be happy to send you a copy of the page, or other info about
    the book if you want to try to track down the source.

    Dave

    Al,

    Just a caution on the XEROX trick.  Not all copy machines enlarge
    uniformly.  In fact, I've found that they often distort an image along
    one edge, or at a corner.  Try enlarging a sheet of graph paper first.
    Make two copies, and then check to see that the grid lines along all
    four edges of one of the enlarged sheets match with those along all four
    edges of the other sheet (look for ALL the grid lines to stay matched up
    across the whole edge).  Also, get a straight edge and check to make
    sure the gird lines are straight (just check two lines, at right angles
    to each other, that meet in the center of the page).

    You might also want to copy onto graph paper.  That is if the drawing
    is not overlayed on graph paper to begin with.

    Re: .674, Dave,
    
    Sure fire a Xerox of whatever you have.  I'm just doing rough,
    preliminary research at this point to familiarize myself with the bird
    and try to decide whether it's one I could like well enough to model.
    
    Re: last two,
    
    I'm aware of the problems you refer to regarding possible distortion of
    Xerox reproductions (I worked for Xerox for 12-years).  I'll only use
    Xerographic enlargement to blow up to reasonable working size. 
    Enlargement to full size (~80" span) will be done by a professional
    blueprint house Frank Tiano has an in with.
    
    Thanx to all for the response thus far.  I expect John Nataloni might
    have some useful stuff (he always seems to) and, at this point, I'll
    take copies of virtually anything anyone has 'til I decide whether to get 
    serious or not.
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

Al, did you catch the segment of The Unknown War on A&E/Discovery
Sunday nite?  This series is on the Russian Front in WWII, and
the segment was on the Russian Air Force.  Very nice footage of
the planes of that era, including something they identified as
the YAK-3, but I think it was the MIG.  Anyway, despite the
gloomy showing on the ground, the Air Force apparently put up one
heck of a fight in the sky.  I missed the first half of it, and
will be sure to look for it again since it was a better than
average documentary.

    John,
    
    Nope, I missed it, though I have spotted the MiG-3 just briefly in two
    scenes rather frequently seen in documentaries covering the siege/defense
    of Leningrad.  I'll watch the listings for a replay and try to catch the
    ships you mention.  Gracias....
    				                 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    Re. 678
    
    I missed it too.  Did they show any footage of the P-39?
    
    Not very well discussed in the annals of history, but the
    Russians put the Airacobra to extensive use in that phase
    of the war, and they seemed to like it a lot, at least
    according to my vintage sources.                 John.

Yes indeed!  The top Russian ace flew them and they showed some
of his gun camera footage (of his 50th kill) as well as a short
interview with him.  He said that they modified the plane with
extra guns in the wings and this was the difference between the
success in Russia and our own experience with the plane.

Now, an Aircobra in Russian WWII markings would be something
nice.  I don't recall anything like that in the scale scene, even
back to the sixties from my magazine collection...gosh, it *has*
to have been done????

What really surprised me was that they did meet and beat the
Luftwaffe on equal terms, according to the documentary anyway.  I
can understand why Al picked the MIG; they really did have a
first rate air force and some fine-looking planes.

The Unknown War documentary itself continues to run; next weeks
segment is on the eastern front ground fighting.

    John,
         Glad to hear your comments about the P-39.  I was just
    a "tad" when the Airacobra (Incidentally, Air a cobra was its
    given name rather than Aircobra which is how it is often currently
    referred to) first appeared, and being at an impressionable age, I
    was stunned by its clean lines, overall beauty, and many innovations
    for its day.  It was, as history tells, outclassed by its higher
    flying, more powerful follow-on fighters.  Remember though, that for
    its assigned role (Low altitude, and ground support) it did yeoman
    work, and played an important part in our early defensive positions,
    particularly in the S. Pacific and in Alaska.  
    
       I do recall reading an occasional mag article (WWII) where it was
    mightily praised by the Russians and, as you say, held its own against
    the Me 109.  Edwards Park (or Park Edwards - I forget) who is an
    aviation curator for the Smithsonian, authored a book called "Nannette"
    which is an account of his experiences in this craft in the S. Pacific
    during those early days of the war.
    
      Whoah!, .... I better slow down!  I get carried away when
    conversation comes around to this long-nosed beauty!  Incidentally,
    it has been modelled in Russian markings (Don't remember who did it)
    and, at least for a while, the C.A.F. was flying one in their War-
    bird presentations done up in the red star configuration.
    
      (Just one more parting shot) -- Don't forget! right after the war,
    very slightly modified P-39's and P-63's  were leaving the competition
    behind in their exhaust wake, in the "Thompson" races. 
    
      I have a 36" balsa R/C 2 ch. (ail/elev) P-39 done up in Zebra stripes
    (a la "Pin Ball" gunnery training version), but so far have been 
    reluctant to launch it. (Rather just look at it!).
    
      Someday I'll do an all out 1/5 or 1/4 scale model, which will be a
    labor of love.  I often wonder where that design would have gone had
    they left the supercharger in it.  I know, the P-63 had that extra
    power, but by then Mustangs, Thunderbolts, Lightnings, Corsairs, Hell-
    cats, etc. were in command. ... and thankfully so !           John.

    I'm a bit surprised to learn that there was a top Russian ace who
    achieved his success in a P-39.  The Russians did, indeed, purely love
    the Airacobra and it bigger sibling, the P-63 King Cobra but, at least
    _I_ always thought, it was due to their ruggedness and dependability in 
    the role of ground support and, in the main, tank busting.  The large
    caliber cannon pointing straight out the spinner made it ideal for this
    purpose.
    
    However, while the prototype P-39's were quite fast and nimble,
    addition of ordnance, armor, self-sealing fuel tanks, etc. reduced the
    ship's agility to the level where it well deserved the pseudonym "The
    Iron Dog!"  On its best day, it'd have been a poor match for the
    Me-109's and Fw-190's it would've had to face in air-to-air combat so,
    if this top ace did, indeed, achieve his successes in a -39, he must'a
    been ONE HELLUVA PILOT!!!  Not that I mean to dispute you, John, but I've 
    just gotta' see this segment for myself.
    
    Yer' quite right about Russia having a fine Air Force equipped with
    excellent aircraft but it wasn't that way at the outset of Operation
    Barbarosa.  While the Russian's had the largest standing Air Force in
    the world at the time of the German invasion, it was equipped in the
    large part with obsolete and obsolescent aircraft, the primary fighters
    being the Polikarpov I-16 Ishak (Little Donkey...aka Rata [Rat] and
    Mosca [Fly] during the Spanisk Civil War) and the earlier, even _more_
    dated Polikarpov I-15 biplane which strongly resembled the I-16 except
    for having two wings.  The most modern fighter in the Russian inventory
    was the brand new MiG-3 and herein lies one of those intriguing tales
    of strategy backfiring, known in today's vernacular as "shooting oneself
    in the foot."
    
    The Russians invited the German Air Ministry to visit and inspect the
    Red Air Force with the propoganda motive that, once the Nazis saw a
    multitude of the obviously high quality, state-of-the-art MiG-3's in
    the forefront of Russian Airpower, they (the Germans) would be
    discouraged from entertaining any notion of invading Russia.  However,
    the whole scheme flew in the Russians' faces as the Nazi Air Ministry
    reported back to Hitler that, if he had any notion of defeating Russia,
    he'd betted get on with it quick before the Red Air Force got anymore
    of this sinister looking fighter.
    
    In actual fact, the entire Russian Air Force within the range of the
    Luftwaffe was wiped out within the first 48 hours of Operation
    Barbarosa.  What primarily saved the Russians' bacon was their
    tremendous reserves and a bold move on their part; to protect their
    aircraft (and other war materiel) industry, they effectively dismantled
    entire plants and trucked or freighted them by rail over the Balkans
    well out of reach of the Luftwaffe where they could continue rolling
    out new fighters (tanks, guns, etc.) to replace their horrendous losses.
    
    Ironically, the MiG-3 that had literally scared the Germans into
    attacking, turned out to be a less than outstanding fighter in the role
    it was thrown into.  Optimized as a high altitude interceptor, the MiG
    was an excellent and lethal weapon over 20,000' but, history shows us
    that the vast majority of air combat over Russia in WW-II took place at
    2500' and below.  The little MiG-3 was not a nice airplane to fly at
    these low altitudes and _demanded_ an experienced hand to guide her,
    taking the lives of _many_ lesser experienced pilots who weren't up to
    the task.  The best that can be said of the MiG-3 is that it held the
    line 'til newer, better Yak and Lagg fighters could be made available.
    
    Even at that, however, the MiG-3 made numerous aces, including at least
    one female pilot.  Russia's two top aces, Alekzander Pokryshkin(sp?)
    and Ivan Kozhedub both became so flying MiG's, adding to their scores
    after moving on to Yaks and Laggs.  Pokryshkin was said to have
    preferred the MiG-3 even after flying the newer, more nimble fighters.
    
    In any event, it's overstatement to simply say that the Russian Air
    Force defeated the Luftwaffe one-on-one in the air.  Actual, historical
    fact is that the Germans had by far the better equipment and pilots (at
    least in the earlier stages of the campaign).  The list of German aces
    with over 150 kills on the Eastern Front is simply staggering; one
    source I have lists no fewer than 35 of themstarting with Major Erich
    Hartman with 352 kills and ranging downward to Oberst Gordon Gollub
    with 150.  The average appears in the area of 180 kills and this figure
    time 35 aces yields a total of 6300 Russian aircraft destroyed by the
    equivalent of barely 5-German fighter squadrons.  No other country's
    Air Force could've sustained such horrific losses but the Russians
    overwhelmed the Luftwaffe in the end due first to vastly superior
    manpower and industrial resources.  Only in the waning months of the
    campaign is it accurate to say the Russians had better planes and
    pilots.  By then, the former was true due to monumental forward leaps
    in the Russian aircraft industry's technology; late marks like the
    Yak-9 and La-7 could stand toe-to-toe with _any_ fighter in the world,
    having performance specs right up there with the P-51 Mustang. 
    However, what made the latter statement regarding pilots true was the
    simple fact of attrition...most of the best Luftwaffe pilots were dead
    by now and the surviving, experienced Russian pilots like Kozhedub were
    honed to razor-sharpness.  The writing was on the wall and the
    Luftwaffe as an effective instrument of war, to all intents and
    purposes, ceased to exist following their defeat at the hands of the
    Russians.
    
    BTW, if you've dug through as much documentation of the Russian Air
    Force of WW-II as I have in researching the MiG-3, you won't be
    especially surprised to learn that the P-39 & 63 werent the only
    western produced ships to wear Russian livery.  I've seen photos of
    Spitfires, Hurricanes and even P-47 Thunderbolts, all in Russian
    colors, complete right to the red star!
    
    P.S. to John Nataloni,  How 'bout it, John?  You got anything on the
    Lavochkin La-7?
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    Al, that's great stuff about Russian Air Force history.  I really
    don't believe that the majority of the world's current population
    has a valid concept and appreciation for what the Russian populace,
    and all Europians for that matter (not slighting other "Western" 
    peoples either) went through in those days.  It was truly a "World
    at War".
    
    As for the La-7, no, at least not yet.  I started looking when you
    mentioned it first a few notes back, but haven't located a thing.
    I really doubt that I will because since the La-7 was a late-war
    development, by that time I was abroad myself and had no opportunity
    to collect publications.  The only hope is if I come across something
    that may be in the 50's/60's collections.  We-lookin' though!   John.

Thanks for the information Al and John, I can tell that you've
read a few books!  Yes, the fellow they interviewed was a top
ace and he had something like 60 kills, so your info puts things
in better perspective.  The documentary was very one-sided, and
the section I saw did not mention the German kills (a "minor
detail"...:-) ).  The ace said that he achieved many of his kills
in the Airacobra, as well as other Russian-built planes.

While we're on this though, they showed two planes mainly.  one
was kind of stocky looking, which they identified as the YAK-3,
as I said earlier I think it was actually a MIG-3.  They also
showed the underbelly of a plane which had a squared-off looking
Mustang type belly scoop.  I don't know if this was the same
plane, since I don't remember that detail on your model.

Just a comment on the Smithsonian...when I requested information
from a couple of obscure Polish texts on the ZUCH-2 (my someday
model), they came through with great eagerness -- I was almost
sorry that I didn't have anything else to trouble them with!
Fine bunch of people.

Al, are there any experts on Russian aircraft in this country? 
I was pleased to locate the Polish aircraft expert through
Don Berliner...maybe there's one for the Russian stuff too.  Bet
Don knows!  This fellow was able to translate the Smithsonian
info for a nominal cost and he was the  one who took the pictures
of the plane that you saw when you were here.  Might be a good
resource to tap on your research.