Conference vmszoo::rc

1126.0. "Dodgson Designs" by K::FISHER (Stop and Smell the Balsa!) Wed Oct 11 1989 09:01

From: [email protected] (Henry Pasternack)
Subject: Don't buy Dodgson.
Date: 9 Oct 89 18:02:01 GMT
Sender: [email protected]
 
 
   If you are into sailplanes and you have looked at the
coverage of the Nats in the latest issue of Model Aviation,
you will see how many people are flying Dodgson Designs
airplanes: Lovesongs, Windsongs, Camanos and Pixies.  I am 
sure that these planes fly quite well when built by highly
skilled craftsment.  However, the design of these planes
has got to go down in history as one of model aviation's
all time abortions.  And the quality of the kits, despite
the assurances of Mr. Dodgson, is hardly exemplary.
 
   The fuselage of a Dodgson sailplane consists of an open
shell of fiberglass into which various formers and stringers
and wood blocks are added to build up a strong, light structure.
The amount of work required to do this is enormous, and the
possibilities for error are vast.  It is next to impossible
to build one of these straight without a jig.  The edges of
my "taco shell" were cut improperly from the start so that
my fuselage never had a chance of coming out right.  I got half
way through it and put the pieces on the top shelf of the
closet in disgust.
 
   Wing construction is also excessively complex.  Mr. Dodgson is
a firm hater of wing-mounted servos, preferring pushrods and
bellcranks instead.  As a result, there are a bunch of cutouts on
the bottom of the wing into which the hardware is installed prior
to sheeting.  The holes are to be closed off with balsa caps
which must be sanded to match the foam contour.  There is a lot
of work that must be done putting spars and the like into the
wing.  All of this leaves plenty of opportunity to screw up the
foam contour.
 
   My cores came to a 1/16" edge at the trailing edge instead
of a knife edge.  This cutting inaccuracy made it impossible to
taper the lower sheeting without sanding the core material,
another major nuisance.  Because Dodgson doesn't extend his 
core beds past the trailing edge, it is extremely difficult to get
the the rear sheeting straight and well-adhered.  I ended up
destructively testing my wings to examine my glue work.  It
just wasn't worth the hassle.
 
   Dodgson thinks electronic mixing is a bad idea.  Wake up, Bob!
His alternative is called "Der Devastator".  It is an incredibly
complex mix of linkages and hardware that makes your Futaba 4NL
act like ATRCS.  Sort of.  The most devastating thing is the
pain in the ass of setting it up.
 
   So the Camano was a $150 waste.  Am I pissed?  You bet.  Could
I have turned his kit into an airplane.  Probably.  But at every
step of the way, I would have been struggling to correct problems
and designed-in hassles.  It just wasn't worth the effot.  For
the price, there are far better alternatives, with full molded
fuselages and decent cores.  Sure, Dodgson planes win contests.
But that says a lot more about the pilots than the planes.
 
   Dodgson: Gag.
 
-Henry

From: [email protected] (~Dave Regis)
Subject: Re: Don't buy Dodgson.
Date: 9 Oct 89 22:27:17 GMT
 
> So the Camano was a $150 waste.  Am I pissed?  You bet.  Could
> I have turned his kit into an airplane.  Probably.  But at every
> step of the way, I would have been struggling to correct problems
> and designed-in hassles.  It just wasn't worth the effot.  For
> the price, there are far better alternatives, with full molded
> fuselages and decent cores.  Sure, Dodgson planes win contests.
> But that says a lot more about the pilots than the planes.
 
I completely disagree.  I bought a Camano and it _was_ more difficult
than a Sagitta to build, but it was FAR superior and versatile.  All
components of the kit were well crafted, and the design philosophy
was not so backwards.  
 
The built-up fuse has proven to be very strong.  I did opt for the
pre-built fuse, (just add top-decking, fin and glass) and had no
problems at all - the fuse came out true-er than any other kit I
had built.  The wings were not that difficult, and if you wanted
you could have easily added servoes...the Soaring editor in either
Model Builder or Model Aviation News talks extensively about this.
 
The fact that Bob offers the mechanical mixing is great.  Nowhere
in the instructions does he disallow the use of mixing radios.
I set mine up according to the plans and the only adjustments req'd
were to the flap throw.  I can't afford a $550+ radio at this
time, so Bob's offering was greatly appreciated (ever throw full
flaps on a plane without elevator compensation?? Yow!).  
 
I've flown the plane from winch, hi-start, and slope and have had
no problems anywhere.  I don't consider myself an expert pilot,
but the plane outperformed all that I flew with.  Its piloting
was very undemanding considering its capabilities.
 
The plane was not at all easy to build, but I felt fully rewarded
by its performance;  I would build another if I were to lose the
one I've got.  This was the first glass/foam plane I had built, so
the building process was slow, but I didn't rush it and if I got
frustrated I would set it aside and work on another project.
 
BTW, I have a friend who flies a Pivot (short winged version) and
loves it. It can fly slope when Genitil Ladys are having a hard
time coping with light conditions, yet when the conditions pick
up, he can fly along with the Swifts.
 
I hope you expressed your concerns to Bob before expressing them
here.  Feedback to the manufacturer can only improve quality in 
the future...
 
Dave Regis

From: [email protected] (Henry A. Pasternack)
Subject: More on Dodgson.
Date: 10 Oct 89 17:11:01 GMT
Sender: [email protected]
 
Dave Regis says:
 
>I bought a Camano and it _was_ more difficult than a Sagitta to 
>build.
 
   It should be possible to build a high-performance foam and
glass plane with considerably less effort than it takes to build
a Sagitta.
 
>...but it was FAR superior and versatile.
 
   The airfoil, tail and nose moments, sheeted construction, etc,
of the Camano or any decent competition glider are definitely
superior to the Sagitta.  If you can manage to build your Camano
properly, it should fly very well, indeed.
 
>All components of the kit were well crafted, and the design 
>philosophy was not so backwards.
 
   Some kits you open and find that each piece is so well-conceived
and carefully thought-out that everything fits precisely into place
with a bare minimum of fiddling and hassle.  These kits are a joy to
build.  Others seem to fight you at every step.  You must constantly
make adjustments; you are always in for unpleasant surprises.  The
Sagitta, for all its flaws, is an example of the former category, and
the Camano is an example of the latter.
 
>The built-up fuse has proven to be very strong.  I did opt for the
>pre-built fuse, (just add top-decking, fin and glass) and had no
>problems at all - the fuse came out true-er than any other kit I
>had built.
 
   If you want a strong, true fuselage, send sixty bucks to Viking
Models USA, and Jerry will mail you a kevlar-reinforced, molded
fuse with a clean-fitting hatch that is straight as an arrow and
100% complete with no assembly required.  The main advantage of
Dodgson's fuselage design is that it is cheap to kit.
 
>The wings were not that difficult, and if you wanted you could
>have easily added servoes.
 
   Wouldn't it have been so much nicer if 1) the wing trailing edges
had tapered properly to a knife edge, and 2) the core beds had been
made an inch wider to allow the TE sheeting to be clamped properly?
 
   Send forty dollars to Dave at Precision Foam Cores, and he will
mail you a pair of standard-class E214 cores that have the features
I have described.  Add another fifty dollars in parts, and you have
a kit that costs the same as a Camano, goes together faster and
easier, and flies just as well.
 
	Viking Models USA
	2026 Spring Lake Drive
	Martinez, CA  94553
 
	Precision Foam Cores
	850 Concord Street
	Pleasanton, CA 94566
 
>The plane was not at all easy to build, but I felt fully rewarded
>by its performance;  I would build another if I were to lose the
>one I've got.  This was the first glass/foam plane I had built, so
>the building process was slow, but I didn't rush it and if I got
>frustrated I would set it aside and work on another project.
 
   Why should modeling be a frustration when it can be a pleasure?
 
-Henry