| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 337.1 | | BARNUM::WALTER | | Wed Oct 21 1987 15:18 | 22 |
| Right now I'd most like to hear about methods of getting the sailplane
up there, and fields in the Eastern Massachusetts area that are
appropriate for flying.
I have a Sig Riser (first plane... I'm a beginner) and I've been using
a hi-start exclusively for launches. The hi-start gets it up 250 ft or
so, good for about a 3 minute flight, but I want longer flights. I just
invested in an .049 engine (Tee Dee .051, actually) and I'm building
the power pod now. I'm hoping the little gas tank will still take
it up higher than the tow line.
As for fields, the one in Concord near the rotary is great now that
the corn field was cut down, but it's very popular. Lots of planes
buzzing around. I'm looking for quieter alternatives. Or, better
yet, does anyone know of a place around here that has good conditions
for slope soaring? I've heard of a spot in a town near Sturbridge
which is ideal, a nice hill with plenty of clear land up-wind of
it, but it's supposed to be private land, and I didn't get any detailed
directions.
Dave
|
| 337.2 | Let's talk gliders | USRCV1::BLUMJ | | Tue Jun 07 1988 08:30 | 8 |
| I thermal fly using a high start and do some slope soaring when
the wind is right. My first shipo was an Olympic 650, not a bad
trainer but penetration in windy conditions was terrible. currently
I am flying a Pierce Arrow Paragon. This is a beautriful flying
sailplane, much easier to fly than a 2-meter ship. A top flite
Wristocrat for slope soaring is 50% done. My next project will
be a 4-meter ship, possibly a Pierce Aero Paramount or Stan Watsons
Pegasus
|
| 337.4 | Slope soaring in Upstate N.Y. | USRCV1::BLUMJ | | Thu Jun 09 1988 08:30 | 6 |
|
I work in upstate N.Y.(rochester). We have many nice hills, however
most are tree covered. There are a couple of acceptable sites.
Good slopes are hard to find, especially facing the prevailing
winds!
|
| 337.5 | Sloping locations | K::FISHER | There's a whale in the groove! | Thu Jun 09 1988 12:30 | 13 |
| I was looking at the Quabbin Reservoir a couple of weekends ago.
They have two earthen dams which have great slopes to the south.
Landing would be tricky but to me they seemed ideal. On the weekends
the place is over run with picnickers tho. Does anybody know it
flying slope is permitted there? If somebody knows who to call
it would make an interesting place and maybe we could meet there
some week day that has winds from the south?
Bye --+--
Kay R. Fisher |
---------------O---------------
================================================================================
|
| 337.8 | Large Gliders Fly Better | USRCV1::BLUMJ | | Tue Jul 05 1988 15:11 | 6 |
| I am fortunate to live in a rural area with many open fields. I
usually fly at the local highschool where there is mowed grass.
This makes high start retrieval easy and doesn't scratch up the
glider too much. Spoilers are a good idea on large gliders because
they seem to glide forever when they are near the ground. Large
gliders fly better, cost more, take longer to build, and crash harder!
|
| 337.9 | Help me find my next ship | CSC32::M_ANTRY | | Mon Jul 11 1988 19:45 | 46 |
| I think that I will leave this under this topic for now if some
one would think it would do better on its own please move it.
I have just move to CXO and as before mentioned really enjoying
the Pikes Peak Soaring Society. I have flown mostly 1/4 scale power
planes for about 3+ years. I have been flying my gentle lady with
the PPSS club since 2/88 and now at every contest I enter that old
lady is starting to get me down. There are people who have only
been flying anything for 3 weeks and they are flying a 100" very
good ship. My delimea about this is that all they have to do is
stay up 100 seconds longer than I and dont have to worry about a
landing. So if I stay up 4 mins and score a 100 out of 100 possible
landing points (I knew those dead stiks would come in handy). All
the other novice has to do is stay up 5 mins and 30 secs and then
crash. Wallah he just out scored me.
What this all leads up to is, What to build for my next glider kit.
My criteria:
Not overly expensive. ($50-200 dollars).
Fairly easy to build. Hard would be OK if it produces good
results.
At least spoilers (to help my landing) and possibly alierons.
Glass Fuse and flying stab (Just because).
I guess what I am looking for is at least a 100+" plane with a glass
fuse and flying stab. Something that is below the F3b ships and
is above the Oly's.
I have been looking at the Larry Jolly Pantera and the Dynaflite
Sensor 117. Anyone who has comments on these kits please post your
oppions. Everyone else can post their recomendations.
I am a little scared of the Dynaflite because of past experience
with a Butteryfly.
I am not sure if Dynaflite kitted the butterfly but whoever did
should be shot in my mind. Never before have I paid 40+ dollars
(mail order) for a kit only to find a box of balsa. Granted this
was my first stick kit (fully built up stab etc, Non-Goldberg stlye)
but I cant believe spending that much for a kit and having the leading
edge be a square hunk of balsa (for example).
I will be waiting for the public to decide my next glider.
ps. It should be good for Distance, Thermal, etc. All around plane.
|
| 337.10 | Windsong | K::FISHER | There's a whale in the groove! | Tue Jul 12 1988 12:00 | 19 |
| > good ship. My delimea about this is that all they have to do is
> stay up 100 seconds longer than I and dont have to worry about a
> landing. So if I stay up 4 mins and score a 100 out of 100 possible
> landing points (I knew those dead stiks would come in handy). All
> the other novice has to do is stay up 5 mins and 30 secs and then
> crash. Wallah he just out scored me.
Out here in the east I have not seen an advantage in up time taken by the
Standard or Unlimited class gliders over the two meter types. So I have
been only thinking along the 2 meter line for my next (this winter) sailplane.
> I will be waiting for the public to decide my next glider.
I also will be interested in this feedback.
Bye --+--
Kay R. Fisher |
---------------O---------------
================================================================================
|
| 337.11 | Cumic Plus | IGUANO::WALTER | | Tue Jul 12 1988 14:13 | 14 |
| Kay,
I think there is an advantage to the larger span sailplanes, although
I've never flown one to prove it. However, at the Salisbury contest,
the scores for the Standard and Unlimited class were generally higher
than for the 2M class. (Maybe those flying the 2M's were less
experienced?)
Re: -.2
As for a choice of 100" ship, you might look at the Cumic Plus.
I've seen two of them fly, and they definitely stayed up longer
than my 2M. It does have a fiberglass fuse but I can't remember
if the elevator is full flying.
Dave
|
| 337.12 | New Ship Considerations | USRCV1::BLUMJ | | Wed Jul 13 1988 11:02 | 16 |
| When deciding on which kit to build the first question you must
ask is whether to go with a polyhedral or straight wing ship. Being
relatively new to soaring I thought the straight wing ships were
much better looking, hence that's what I wanted to get. For a low
time pilot the straight wing ships are much more difficult to fly
well and the debate still rages over which type actually flys better.
A count at the last NATS showed two thirds of the ships were
polyhedral. My personal observations at contests in Upsate NY are
most flyers still have polyhedral ships but there are more straight
wing ships appearing each year. The straight wing ships seem to
handle better in higher winds but you must be an excellent pilot
to take advantage of this. Know your skills before spending the
time and money building a sleek ship only to crash it because you
haven't acquired the skills to fly it properly. I would recommend
flying a hot bent wing ship(ie Sagitta,Pantera,Gemini,etc.) before
making the jump to straight wing.
|
| 337.13 | Using Flaps | USRCV1::BLUMJ | | Mon Aug 22 1988 13:58 | 13 |
| After attending a contest this weekend held in windy weather(gusts
to 20mph) I was impressed with the flying techniques permitted when
flaps are used. The better pilots were able to come close to the
spot almost everytime by placing the glider in a steep dive almost
over the tape and using flaps and spoilers to slow down, rounding
out at the last minute. Granted these guys were good, but this
technique would not be possible without flaps. Does anyone have
any experience with flaps which they care to relate?
Thanks,
Jim
|
| 337.14 | Full scale flaps | LEDS::JENSEN | | Mon Aug 22 1988 15:39 | 34 |
| This experience with flaps is not with gliders but I think it's
kinda applicable and I certainly plan on putting flaps on any glider I
might make.
I won a spot landing contest in a full scale Cessna 150 by putting
the flaps all the way down and pointing the nose of the beast at
a point about 10 feet in front of the spot at a very steep angle of
approach. The 150 wouldn't do over 70 with full flaps (40 degrees),
even pointed straight down!
Since not much speed was picked up in the landing approach (dive?),
one simply flared out about 2 feet off the ground, the speed
immediately bled off, and the 150 just sat down on the spot.
This is a very safe approach since you are well above
stall and you always have the runway made even in the event of an
engine out. Just pull off a little of the flaps and the glide can
be greatly stretched, allowing easy compensation for misjudgements.
The two ways to hit a spot without flaps are either to make a very
precise approach so the airspeed is just above stall as you come
over the fence or slip it in. Both of these are much more difficult
and dangerous. In the case of the precise approach the craft
is barely above stall. For the slip, the moment to kick the plane
straight must be precisely judged or you could land sideways. On
the other hand, the slip is very pretty to watch and is much
appreciated by the troops on the flight line!
I learned to fly on a plane with a tailwheel and no flaps and was
very pleased when I got my second plane (the 150) and found the
wind just seemed to go away. You can talk about the golden age,
but if flying's what you want, get flaps.
Ed
|
| 337.15 | | SPKALI::THOMAS | | Tue Aug 23 1988 08:37 | 9 |
| What I suspect you saw was a "Windsong". A dodgson design . Great
ship. Mechanically adds down elevator when flaps are deployed. Also
reflexes the flap area to change the airfoil of the wing. Great
design,big ship.
Tom
P.S. If your serious about competition I'd but one for unlimited.
|
| 337.16 | Your Right! | USRCV1::BLUMJ | | Tue Aug 23 1988 10:19 | 11 |
| Your right, several of the ships I described using this kamikazee landing
technique were Windsongs which are far and away the most popular
open class contest ship in Upstate New York. Many local flyers
are building their Sagitta 900's with flaps now. The most interesting
design was flown by Pete Carr, it had a single spoiler acrooss the
center span of the wing, flaps, ailerons, and Schempp-Hirth double
swept back Discus Wings. This ship flew beautifully and penetrated
like nothing I've ever seen before.
Jim
|
| 337.17 | The Flap about Flaps! | MJBOOT::BENSON | __Frank Benson, DTN 348-2244__ | Tue Aug 23 1988 11:03 | 14 |
| Jim or anyone else who's seen flaps on a sailplane:
Are the flaps essentially ailerons that move together or is there
more to the design/placement?
Also, are the "fowler-type" hinges an advantage or is standard hinging
just as good?
Thanks in advance for the comments...
|
\ ____|____ / Regards,
\________________________O_________________________/ Frank.
|
| 337.18 | Real flaps | MURPHY::ANKER | Anker Berg-Sonne | Tue Aug 23 1988 11:42 | 11 |
| Re:< Note 337.17 by MJBOOT::BENSON "__Frank Benson, DTN 348-2244__" >
Frank,
The flaps I saw are proper flaps set inboard of the
ailerons. The spoilers are at the normal position. The idea is
that the combination of flaps and spoilers create both drag and
reduced lift, which enables the planeto descend at about 15
degrees without picking up speed.
Anker
|
| 337.19 | Flaps, slats, spoilers and speed brakes... | 30399::FISHER | There's a whale in the groove! | Tue Aug 23 1988 12:51 | 37 |
| > The flaps I saw are proper flaps set inboard of the
> ailerons. The spoilers are at the normal position. The idea is
> that the combination of flaps and spoilers create both drag and
> reduced lift, which enables the planeto descend at about 15
> degrees without picking up speed.
Sailplane flaps are in the normal position BUT unlike real flaps they
usually can deploy 90 degrees negative thereby acting more like speed
breaks. Windsongs do not have spoilers. They instead have spoilerOns.
Not sure how to spell that. They have extra linkage to move the ailerons
both up for a spoiler like effect - again more like a speed break than
a true spoiler. In combination (usually with the help of an Airtronics
Module SP radio you can set the plane up for a Crow configuration landing
where the flaps drop 90 degrees and the ailerons go up. There were two
windsongs that I watched at the CRRC event and neither of those did
crow landings BUT with just flaps they did some impressive approaches
at steep angles.
Confused - sure.
Spoilers (and flaps) have an additional use in sailplanes. Getting
out of a thermal. Sometimes they can be so strong that you really
need to deconfigure the wing to get out. You can usually do loops and
rolls and inverted flight but that is harder to time precisely when
your in a contest and want to be down in one minute exactly. Some
planes can spin down - but some can't. My Drifter used to be able
to spin out of thermals but after adding weight - it can't do that
anymore.
In Sudbury one guy was still going up with his spoilers deployed.
But he wasn't trying hard to shake it until after he lifted the
spoilers.
Bye --+--
Kay R. Fisher |
---------------O---------------
================================================================================
|
| 337.20 | Confused? Sure. | MJBOOT::BENSON | __Frank Benson, DTN 348-2244__ | Tue Aug 23 1988 13:37 | 7 |
| Kay, why would somebody launch with spoilers deployed? Am I missing
something here?
|
\ ____|____ / Regards,
\________________________O_________________________/ Frank.
|
| 337.21 | Spoiled my launch... | K::FISHER | There's a whale in the groove! | Tue Aug 23 1988 16:25 | 22 |
| >< Note 337.20 by MJBOOT::BENSON "__Frank Benson, DTN 348-2244__" >
> -< Confused? Sure. >-
>
> Kay, why would somebody launch with spoilers deployed? Am I missing
> something here?
Now I'm confused also Frank. I reread my last note and didn't see where
you saw anything that would imply launching with spoilers deployed.
The closest I could find was that I said in Sudbury a guy was still going
up with his spoilers deployed.
If that's where I mislead you let me add that he had launched 6 minutes
earlier and was in a good thermal. When he wanted to come down he deployed
his spoilers and it kept going up. The thermal was so good that he
had to do more than disturb the lift on the wing with the thermal.
Bye --+--
Kay R. Fisher |
---------------O---------------
================================================================================
|
| 337.22 | Stretched Gemini with Selig 4061 | USRCV1::BLUMJ | | Mon Aug 29 1988 10:23 | 30 |
| My father flew his scratch built stretched Gemini for the first
time this weekend. This ship is based on the popular Ed Slobod
design(100") and has been kitted for years by Pierce Aero. A plan
for a 122" version of this ship using the Selig 4061 airfoil was
presented in a past issue of Radio Control Soaring Digest. The
finished weight of this glider including Schempp-Hirth type spoilers
came out at 80 ounces(heavy by my father's conservative standards).
This is the most gentle ship I have ever seen fly in my life! When
trimmed nose high it floated just like his 39 ounce Mirage. The
stall was very gentle with no tip stall tendancy at all! The designer
Bob Champine claimed that it could be flown like a Gentle Lady but
still have excellent penetration ability, boy he wasn't kidding!
Bob has achieved LSF Level V with this ship and won tons of contests.
This ship is a WINNER, I have never seen a Glider with such a wide
speed range. My father is legally blind and has a difficult time
flying fast gliders, which atests to the magnificent handling of
this bird. Michael Selig has defintely come up with a great airfoil
in the 4061, I only hope the Algebra I am building which employs
the Selig 3021 flys half as well. The airfoil is a little tricky
to build because it is undercambered and uses a 1/64" of plywood
on the trailing edge to achieve the razor sharp trailing edge.
Mr Champine is very helpful and enthusiastic if you call him with
any problems, indeed he will talk longer than you might
wish(considering its a long distance call). If you have sctratch
building ability this ship will not disappoint you.
Regards,
Jim
|
| 337.24 | Stretched Gemini Info. | USRCV1::BLUMJ | | Wed Aug 31 1988 10:12 | 20 |
| Building the Stretched Gemini requires one to have the original
100" Gemini fuselage plan and be able to scale it up. The wing
is totally different. I do not know if the Gemini plan was ever
offered separately, however this is a very popular ship that has
been around for years so you might be able to find someone who would
let you borrow the plan. The ribs were presented in an article
in a past issue of Radio Control Soaring Digest along with the
designer's name and address. I could provide all this information
if you were serious about building the ship. A scratch building
project is a big undertaking, I have met few people with the time
or interest in these type of projects. If you are seriously interested
in soaring I would recommend that you subscribe to Radio Control
Soaring Digest. This is a pamphlet type monthly magazine not available
on the news stand. It is exclusively dedicated to RC Soaring and
has more useful information than all the glossies combined. I will
obtain the address of RCSD and post it.
Regards,
Jim
|
| 337.25 | design the wing ? | BZERKR::DUFRESNE | VAXKLR - You make'em, I break'em | Wed Aug 31 1988 10:47 | 15 |
| re Address: there is a note (real early one) used for that purpose..
pls put there..
Asfor scaling up: Nema probleme.. I have a friend who has a machine
that you can use to blow plans. You just give him the scale factor
and presto !! One set of plans..
As far as the wing is concerned, do I undertand that will have to
basically deisgn my own or is the info on the newsletter sufficient..
I can work from a set of plans. I can cut wood.. I don't think I
would want to tackle the design at the same time..
md
|
| 337.26 | Additional Gemini Info. | USRCV1::BLUMJ | | Wed Aug 31 1988 17:53 | 18 |
| You do not have to design the wing, basically you use the same
construction techniques shown on the original Gemini plan(sheeted
D tube, spar webbing, etc.) but use the rib drawings(Selig 4061)
provided in the construction article in Radio Control Soaring
Digest instead of the standard Gemini ribs. Building this model
requires that you have some previous building experience because
not everything is totally documented and relies on your previous
modeling experience. My father is retired and has a lot of time
to build. He is pretty fussy(tends to take a lot of time) but
has scratch built at least 15 models previously, he knows what
he's doing. It took him 3+ months to build this ship, so that
might be some gauge of the time frame. Hope this information is
helpful.
Regards,
Jim
|
| 337.27 | That is nit so bad | BZERKR::DUFRESNE | VAXKLR - You make'em, I break'em | Thu Sep 01 1988 10:43 | 12 |
| sounds like something I could handle.. The instructions on the AQUILLA
(my current project) also expect you to know what you are doing.
The only difference here is that I got a box full of pre-cut parts,
so I save time in that dept..
BTW, did your father get thicker wood due to blow up or did he use
the same thickness as on the original??
tx
md
|
| 337.28 | More Stretched Gemini info. | USRCV1::BLUMJ | | Thu Sep 01 1988 17:29 | 9 |
| I am not sure if the dimensions of the balsa were changed or not.
I will be seeing him this weekend and will try to get a copy of
the construction article. I will mail this to you if I get it.
Good luck on the Aquilla!
Regards,
Jim
|
| 337.29 | RC Soaring Digest Address | USRCV1::BLUMJ | | Tue Sep 06 1988 10:07 | 13 |
| Anyone seriously interested in RC Sailplanes should subscribe to
Radio Control Soaring Digest. The cost is $16 per year. The address
is: RC Soaring Digest
P.O. Box 1079
Payson, AZ. 85547
This magazine is exclusively dedicated to Sailplanes, unlike the
glossies where it is rare to have more than a few pages about
anything related to Sailplanes.
Regards,
Jim
|
| 337.30 | I'm all AMIX'ed up in a Sailplane Radio | CSC32::M_ANTRY | | Wed Oct 05 1988 17:52 | 41 |
|
I need to ask a sail plane related question. What is the best thing
to do with your spoilers on a ship. I know that as you come in
for a landing if you need to loose altitude you open the spoilers
and then to correct the nose down atitude you feed in up elevator.
The soulution to the two thumb approach is to automatically mix
those two channels so that as you open the spoilers it feeds in
the up elevator.
Now for the questions:
What are the standard notations on a radio as far as channel numbers:
1 - Rudder
2 - Elevator
3 - Aileron (usualy working the rudder on a non-aileron plane)
4 - Throttle (Spoilers/Flaps on a Glider)
Is this correct????????
So assuming that you have the Spoilers hooked up to the Throttle.
I want to mix the Elevator with the Throttle.
What type of radio does this take??????
I have normaly seen most plane radios mix Rudder/Aileron,
Aileron/Elevator.
I am looking for a Futaba radio that is hopefully not more that
$200.00 that will do this.
Are the Heli radios set up to do this by default?????
Would a Cristi-mixer do that same thing for cheaper. I read the
info in Tower and I didnt really gather that it would do what I
want. You know is the mix adjustable in proportions????
Oh well, thanks for all the help in advance......
|
| 337.31 | Christi-mixer should work | RICKS::MINER | Electric = No more glow-glop | Wed Oct 05 1988 23:27 | 25 |
| RE: < Note 337.30 by CSC32::M_ANTRY >
> Would a Cristi-mixer do that same thing for cheaper.
I think the Christi-mixer would work fine for this. I base this
comment only on having read the Ace R/C description (more detailed
than Tower's). The way I understand it, you can mix any amount of
either channel to the other one. In your example, any amount of
spoiler to elevator _AND_ any amount (including none) of elevator to
spoiler.
However, since I have never seen one in person, maybe someone else
out there can correct this possibly mis-understood idea. Another
idea may be to call Ace R/C and ask them specifically.
_____
| \
| \ Silent POWER!
_ ___________ _________ | Happy Landings!
| \ | | | | |
|--------|- SANYO + ]-| ASTRO |--| - Dan Miner
|_/ |___________| |_________| |
| / | " The Earth needs more OZONE,
| / not Caster Oil!! "
|_____/
|
| 337.32 | NOT HELI RADIOS | SALEM::COLBY | KEN | Thu Oct 06 1988 14:57 | 12 |
|
Heli radios do not have the type of mixing that you are looking
for. They mix the throttle and usually an aux. channel that is
used for collective pitch. They also couple this to the
tail rotor (rudder) channel to compensate for torque.
________
/ __|__
=========[_____\>
/ __|___|__/ BREAK A BLADE,
Ken
|
| 337.33 | Do what they did before fancy radios | K::FISHER | There's a whale in the groove! | Thu Oct 06 1988 15:07 | 6 |
| Buy a cheaper radio and mix it mechanically.
Bye --+--
Kay R. Fisher |
---------------O---------------
================================================================================
|
| 337.34 | Airtronics MD7SP 53 mhz???? | CSC32::M_ANTRY | | Thu Oct 06 1988 18:55 | 30 |
| It looks like the radio of prefrance in our club, for a no holds
barded, spare no expense radio is the Airtronics MD7SP which has
all the mixing you would ever want.
This infor was obtained from some of the F3b'ers in our Club (Pikes
Peak Soaring Society)
I guess this radio wsa intended for the Giant/Pattern flyers and
now Tower even has them on sale for $249 or about 1.5 pager shifts.
Now for the next questions:
If I buy one of these I would like to take advantage of having a
Ham Radio licence and get one on either 51 or 53 mhz. Just what
is the status on those frequencies now and in the 1991 future.
Also,
Has anyone heard of a Flying wing slope ship that is made by a young
fellow out in San Dieago called I believe the Slope Master. I seen
it and talked with the fellow about 2 years ago out at Torrey Pines
before I knew I was interested in Gliders. I am looking for
fun/cheap/easy to build slope ship and I thought this would be one.
It comes with foam core wings and a mechanical mixer for the elevons.
Also there are about 12 of us in our club that has gotten together
to build the MARIAH slope plane that was in MAN about 2 issues ago.
It should be fun, we hope to have a 1 plane class contest on the
slope here soon.
|
| 337.35 | SP = Sail Plane | K::FISHER | There's a whale in the groove! | Fri Oct 07 1988 09:30 | 26 |
| > barded, spare no expense radio is the Airtronics MD7SP which has
...
> I guess this radio wsa intended for the Giant/Pattern flyers and
> now Tower even has them on sale for $249 or about 1.5 pager shifts.
MD is for Modular, 7 is for 7 channel, SP is for Sail Plane. So even
tho it is (was) the preferred Airtronics radio for pattern that is just a
side effect - the mixing setups were designed with Sail Planes in mind.
Also in the issue before last the AMA magazine credited only one company
with certifying radios for 1991 - Airtronics and they listed the models
certified and the Modular series was one of them (includes MD7SP) so
if anyone orders one from Tower or anybody else make sure you get the
newest version (gold sticker transmitter and double tuned receiver).
Also Tower has been selling this radio for $250 for a few years. Their
last few flyers try to make this look like a reduced price - but it is
normal. You could argue that it is a good price in that JR prices have
increased 25% in the last year.
P.S. I give up - what is a pager shift?
Bye --+--
Kay R. Fisher |
---------------O---------------
================================================================================
|
| 337.42 | Check the balance | CURIE::ANKER | Anker Berg-Sonne | Mon May 15 1989 11:57 | 37 |
| Re:< Note 998.1 by CLOSUS::TAVARES "John -- Stay low, keep moving" >
Gliders are extremely sensitive to balance and typically
balance problems are aggravated on landings because of the slow
speeds and sharp turns. With my latest glider that is properly
balanced I have not had a very hard landing yet.
It took me a long time to learn how to balance a glider
correctly. On a power plane you want to have the CG at or in
front of the CG marked on the plans. On gliders I have several
times found that the correct GC is BEHIND the one marked on the
plans.
To balance a glider put the CG EXACTLY as marked on the
plans. Then hand launch it a few times to tim it out and then
put it on a hi-start. One its trimmed out for horizontal height
put it into a shallow dive and release the controls. If the
glider pulls out of the glide, stalls, dives, pulls out, stalls,
etc. then your CG is too far FORWARD (which I find
counterintuitive). If it stays in the dive or dives steeper and
steeper, then your CG is too far back. You want the glier to
pull gradually out of the dive without porpoising.
I don't know whether this is a problem for you, but its
worth repeating because a poorly balanced glider is a bitch to
control.
_
/ |
| _====____/==|
|-/____________|
| | o \
O \
O
Hang in there! o_|_
|
Anker \_|_/
|
| 337.43 | Prophet 941 sailplane | IGUANO::WALTER | | Thu Nov 16 1989 13:13 | 24 |
| Now that I've finished the Scooter, I can move onto my real winter project, a
Davey Systems Prophet 941 sailplane. Up to now I have only flown 2 meter
gliders. This plane has polyhedral wings of 100 inch wingspan that may be
separated into two pieces (which is the only way it will fit in my car). I
plan to also include spoilers.
Why choose the Prophet? This is the plane that Tommy Keisling flies. Tom
became an Expert sailplane pilot in the Eastern Soaring League last year,
accumulating a record number of points for a single year. Now, I'm not
suggesting that I'll start flying like that once I get the plane in the
air. However, I've watched his style intently, trying to pick up pointers,
and I've noticed that the Prophet turns into a thermal very nicely. It's
able to make tight, flat turns without loosing much altitude, something
I've found very tough to do with my 2 meter Metric. And the extra wingspan
makes it much more visible, especially useful when riding a thermal way
down wind. It also has a very strong wing for those hard winch launches.
I figure it'll take me well into February to complete it.
I also promised to build a cheap and quick glider for a guy in the CRRC
club (Paul Desorcy in case you know him). I figured a Gentle Lady would
be fine, but I've never built one. Any comments?
Dave
|
| 337.40 | review of R/C Soaring Digest | ABACUS::RYDER | perpetually the bewildered beginner | Wed Dec 20 1989 00:26 | 25 |
| I received my first issue of R/C Soaring Digest today. It seems to
be worth the $17 for 12 issues. It is a black and white pamphlet
from a garage shop, 5.5 x 8.5 x 32 pages, not a glossy. It has
ads, brief articles, press releases, letters, and product reviews.
( 9 pages, 6 + 3 4 4 2 plus 4 misc)
The articles in this issue:
Jerry Slates: one page on carbon [shielding] effect on radio & fix
Gordon Jones: one page on several uses of carbon fiber
B&B Kuhlman: two pages on sweep angle of flying wings
Pancho Morris: 2/3 page on dive testing CG positioning
I noticed that the drawings of the Competition Products Phoenix
show the ailerons in the outer wing sections are driven by servos
just over the border in the inner/main wing sections. Is that common?
Jim Blum recommendation this little magazine and gave its address
in 337.29. He referred to the magazine in notes 337.6, 337.22, 337.24,
and 687.1 I now second his recommendation.
Alton
|
| 337.41 | Aileron Servo positions | K::FISHER | Stop and Smell the Balsa! | Wed Dec 20 1989 12:44 | 31 |
| > I noticed that the drawings of the Competition Products Phoenix
> show the ailerons in the outer wing sections are driven by servos
> just over the border in the inner/main wing sections. Is that common?
Yes.
If you put the servos in towards the center you have more linkage slop.
If you put them out further you have your mass too far from the center
line of the aircraft.
Ideally you want the servo(s) in the center with no linkage slop and the
control horn in the exact center of the aileron. That way you keep the
mass in the center (remember when gliders land how a wing tip touches
the ground and the plane just spins around with seemingly no mass).
You want the horn in the center of the aileron so that if there is minimal
flex to the aileron. When you have the horn at the inside edge (like
they typically do) then the aileron must be stiff so it doesn't flex
which means it is fiberglassed or covered or harder wood or... all of
which adds weight. The reason they want two servos is because they want
the fancy radios to give aileron differential and optionally flaperons
or spoilerons. In scale power planes they want the redundancy of the
extra servo and the increased power of two aileron servos in giant scale.
You will almost never see a 1/4 scale Cub with only one standard servo
for ailerons. In the tournament of champion planes they have the servo
horns very close to the control horns to minimize control linkage slop.
They also use very expensive accurate servos.
Bye --+--
Kay R. Fisher |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################
|
| 337.44 | The Prophet flies | 7983::WALTER | | Mon Apr 02 1990 18:58 | 33 |
| I finally got my winter project, a Prophet 941 sailplane, finished to the point
where it was flyable this weekend. (If you're interested in a description of
the model, see note 1079.8). It looked like the weather wasn't going to
cooperate, but Sunday afternoon it cleared up, the sun came out, and I set out
for my favorite field.
I have to say I've never had a plane perform so well right off the building
bench. My first test throw was to check out the elevator trim, and I ended up
having to walk about 300 feet to retrieve the plane. It seemed to slice
through the air like a scimitar.
It felt so good, I didn't bother with more hand throws, so I strung out the
high start. With the adjustable towhook placed where the instructions
suggested, it went up solid as a rock, a nice high arc with no weaving. I
intended to concentrate on setting the trim, but it immediately went up in a
thermal, so I decided to ride it up. Damn, it flies nice! I can stand it on a
wingtip in a turn with only minimal loss of lift. It floats very nicely, but
has a pretty wide speed range. I haven't weighed it yet, but guessing around
42 ounces, and 941 sq. in. area, that's around 6.5 oz/sq.ft. Stalls are very
gentle and there's plenty of time to react to them.
I also did the dynamic trim test for CG (put it in a dive, let controls go
to neutral, see if it continues in a straight line), and I got it pretty much
right in one try. I have about 2 oz. of lead in the nose, but I'm using
a 270ma battery until I can figure out how to fit a 500ma in. When I put in the
500ma battery, most of the lead can be taken out.
It DEFINITELY outperforms my 2 meter models, but I'm not sure if that's due
to the design, or the increase in wing area. But who cares? I love flying
this thing!
Dave
|
| 337.3 | gliders come down, sailplanes are reluctant | K::FISHER | Stop and smell the balsa. | Wed Apr 25 1990 18:05 | 65 |
| > <<< Note 539.3001 by CSC32::M_ANTRY >>>
> -< WEll......... >-
>
> A glider is plane that was designed as a power plane but has no engine.
> A sailplane is designed as a sailplane from the very beginning.
>
> Glider's are like all the army/navy/airforce stuff.
>
> Sailplanes are like GROB's and the such.
I don't agree with your first line but you're certainly close to our
definition so I'll give it to you.
Here's what the old buzzard has to say about the matter.
============================================================================
Glider, Sailplane.
Interchangeable words, to most folk. A few cranks insist that a glider
glider downward after release, a sailplane soars upward. This would seem
to make the definition largely dependent on the weather. In the 1920's the
British formally declared a sailplane to be "a glider having a sinking
speed of less than .8 meters (2.6 feet) per second." Conclusion: the
Brits had long winters, with little to occupy their minds, back before
the BBC.
============================================================================
The following is taken from the August 1981 issue of AOPA Pilot.
============================================================================
One way to be given the cold shoulder is to walk up to the proud owner of
a 20-meter Schleicher ASW-17 and say, "Gee, what a beautiful glider."
Such a remark has the same insulting effect as referring to a Stradivarius
as a fiddle.
Technically speaking, all fixed-wing, powerless aircraft belong in the
glider category; but soaring purists reserve this generic term for aircraft
that usually are not expected to gain altitude in free flight and that have
glide ratios (or lift-to-drag ratios) of less than 20:1. A glider
designed to gain altitude after tow release is called a sailplane. In other
words, gliders glide and sailplanes soar.
The term sailplane seems to have originated from the German, segelflugzeug,
and was introduced in the United States during the late 1920s by pioneer
designer Holly Bowlus.
Since virtually all modern gliders have glide ratios better than 20:1, it is
appropriate to refer to all of them as sailplanes. Those with glide ratios
exceeding 30:1 are called high-performance sailplanes. A design topping
40:1 is a very high-performance sailplane, and those rarities exceeding
50:1 are known as extremely high-performance sailplanes.
The Schleicher sailplane mentioned earlier has a glide ratio of 48.5:1 and
can glide 7.98 nautical miles in still air from a pattern altitude of only
1,000 feet. It definitely is not a glider.
-- Barry Schiff
============================================================================
Bye --+--
Kay R. Fisher |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################
|