Logo
Builders' Plan Gallery  |  Hip Pocket Web Site  |  Contact Forum Admin  |  Contact Global Moderator
October 18, 2019, 03:18:01 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with email, password and session length
 
Home Help Search Login Register
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ... 37   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Show us your P-30's  (Read 61393 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Maxout
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 96
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2,724


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #375 on: June 11, 2011, 10:20:31 PM »

Which one do you think is more likely to take up the hobby?

I guess it depends whether their interest was drawn by a model airplane like the ones they might have built (with mixed or limited success) as kids, twenty to forty years ago or like the ones they've seen in their granddad's stash of old M.A.N. and Flying Models magazines -- or by seeing something that looks like it came out of a toy factory and they ought to be able to buy, fly, and then trash when they're tired of it.

The latter is all most people have ever seen. That's just the way it is.

BTW, those who claim composites, plastic covering, and such are easier need to explain to me why we always start by recommending a Hangar Rat, Guillow Cadet, Sig Cub, etc. as a starter model -- why would even a Lancer be any good in training to put carbon cap strips on ribs and cover with mylar?  After all, the Lancer starts with cutting loose all those die-cut parts and cutting and installing all those verticals and cross pieces, mounting parallel ribs with multiple spars, and covering with tissue -- all skills I hear being decried as obsolete and unserviceable.  

Sorry to be blunt, but I’d not recommend any of those to a beginner. The old Phantom Flash is the colsest I've come to that stuff, and I've had good success with coaching people though it. The only one I’ve ever recommended to anyone is the Rat, and those are notoriously difficult to get trimmed for reliable performance. It’s an indoor ship anyway… I have, however, recommended the Peck Prairie Bird for lack of anything else…I’m more inclined toward the DeBut these days because it’s more reliable, but we’re tracking down the road of FAC models which is most of what I coach people into and the problems I mentioned still remain with these kits. There aren’t any good kits I know of for introducing beginners to composite construction. Additionally, I don’t believe any of the P-30 kits I mentioned use cap strips, and those are not appropriate for beginners—too fiddly and structurally unnecessary. I’d recommend Starlink’s P-20 kit, but it’s a little pricey and not useful for anything other than sport flying. Definitely an easier build than the aforementioned. Half the reason you’re scared off by composites is that no one is showing how it’s done. I figured most of it out for myself after much trepidation, and much like learning spins in a Cessna, my concluding reaction was “that’s all there is to it?”
I use indoor methods for attaching mylar. It’s easy. Easier than tissue. It does wrinkle if you mess up, but I don’t much care about looks provided it flies well. I normally use produce bags for plastic covering on outdoor ships….prefer it over mylar because punctures stay isolated.

No, we need to start those new kids off with $85 "kits" that require a couple hours to glue together (assuming they don't glue themselves to their model with the CA).  Budgets?  Who could possibly want to fly model airplanes if they can't afford to drop $100 a month on their hobby?  And when was the Builder of Model rule repealed?
 

$85? That’s my modeling budget for a year! Did you not see my complaints that those kits are too expensive?

Nowhere did I mention BOM. All of the kits described are BOM compliant, including the ARF’s (unfortunately).

I can still buy balsa suitable for P-30 models at the local R/C shop or even Hobby Lobby (which is mainly a craft store); I can get silkspan at the LHS

Most people can’t. I’ve never been to a LHS that even carried silkspan, and have now seen several that didn’t even have balsa. Like it or not, internet ordering is the way it’s gonna be.

Come to that, I don't even have access to a pool cue.  Do I have to be rich enough to own my own pool table to start flying P-30 now?

It was an example of the ideal. I also mentioned dowels, or you could use a pipe, broomhandle, whatever. Don’t make this harder than it has to be.

Look, I’m on your side on this. I’m doing my level best to show why these modern airplanes are so good and demonstrate that they are not expensive or difficult. Please don’t go on the defensive. You’ve done so and missed numerous pivotal points of what I’ve been trying to say as shown above.

Bear in mind that I’m coming at this from the perspective of someone who has put a lot of mental exercize into figuring out how to make the most difficult classes of FF accessible to us mere mortals. I didn’t go and enter two of the three hardest indoor events at USIC just for my own benefit. I also wanted to see if it was possible for someone to do it cheaply. I’ve concluded that it is. Though it’s probably not of interest to you and beyond the topic here, I could have you flying F1D competitively in 6 months. Why that is important is that I’m trying to find resources and promote techniques and understanding to help you and everyone else break the sterotype of modern freeflight design so that we can introduce beginners to good modern models which will give them early success and retain them in the sport instead of turning them away as the Guillow’s products have.

This is the same reason I took the time to build a Guillow’s Typhoon as an FAC Scale model and recorded the modifications necessary to make it legal and competitive—to make it clear that this stuff isn’t as hard as people perceive it to be.

One final thought: we are marketting this hobby toward the wrong people. I've had success with only one group of people who are willing to even take up the hobby and put forth the time needed to learn--homeschoolers. The average young person will not show an interest. The average homeschooler will, and is likely to show up at the next flying session with a scratch built winder in the process.
Logged
Rewinged
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 19
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 652



Ignore
« Reply #376 on: June 11, 2011, 10:23:51 PM »

As a competent newbie at P-30, I'd like to think my opinion here should mean at least a little.  My opinion is that P-30 is just fine as it is.  There are a sufficient variety of models available to suit most people's abilities, and high-tech doesn't provide a huge advantage in performance.  There could be some easier-to-build models of modest price, perhaps, since I certainly agree that a ladder fuse is somewhat tedious--a lot of work for something that just has to handle the motor and be someplace to mount the flight surfaces.  But while time-consuming, they're not hard to build.  I managed to be somewhat competitive with my first P-30, which was an overweight One Nite 28.  I managed to get it flying good enough to eke out 2 minutes in dead air, until I created a problem and it went out of trim.

As an aside, I consider the Gizmo Geezer a simplification rather than a complication.  It makes thrust adjustments easier, and makes it easy to wind.

I've considered a number of these "arguments" in deciding what to build this year.  Living in a wet climate the mylar is attractive.  However, I'm still a bit scared of an X-rib or geodetic structure.  I don't have a drill press, but I've still considered a carbon spar.  I think I've settled on another traditional-type model with a rolled fuse, and use tissue over mylar to get weather proofing and structural stiffness, and still hopefully fit within my build capabilities.  (I'm likely going to build one of FFBruce's designs, since all his models are so good.)

Bottom line, one can be competitive in P30 with a traditional model, or one can go high tech and maybe gain a small advantage.  To me, this is a feature of the class, not a bug.  It shows beginners that they can have a good performing airplane that is fairly easy to build, and perhaps similar to what they did as a kid if they are an adult getting back into free flight.  Or, if somebody prefers high tech or ARF, that is also OK.   Beginners can be competitive with experts, if their trimming and flying skills are adequate.  And the experts are generally willing to help the beginners.

P-30 is great--a class where people of different interests and experiences can fly together, and compete together, with no particular technology having a huge advantage.  What could be better?

--Bill
Logged

Good air don't care!
Maxout
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 96
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2,724


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #377 on: June 11, 2011, 10:47:01 PM »

Very well said, Bill!!!

I've considered a number of these "arguments" in deciding what to build this year.  Living in a wet climate the mylar is attractive.  However, I'm still a bit scared of an X-rib or geodetic structure.  I don't have a drill press, but I've still considered a carbon spar.  I think I've settled on another traditional-type model with a rolled fuse, and use tissue over mylar to get weather proofing and structural stiffness, and still hopefully fit within my build capabilities.  

X-ribs/geodetic aren't hard. I cut a bunch of rib blanks the height and length of the rib set (I don't make a lot of tapered wings) and pin them together and plane them down to about the right cross section. Those that cross are split off in pairs and one each cut in half to go on either side of the other. Any tapering is done by cutting at the TE and trimming the underside of the rib. I don't care much about an exact airfoil and have yet to see any reason to change.

Carbon tube spars make things easier...no X-ribs needed, so you just cut out your blanks as before and hack them to about the right shape. I don't use a drill for such things...just use progressively larger and larger pieces of Al tubing sharpened on the end to get the right size hole going through all the ribs.

Yes, I do build like a redneck. I don't use jigs, and I build F1D wings with CA in mid air. I cover Moffetts with produce bags, leave planes full of wrinkles, cover jumbo scale models with junk tissue from Christmas, and so on. Somehow that junk will still get you a Blue Max...
Logged
applehoney
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 279
Offline Offline

Canada Canada

Posts: 3,156




Ignore
« Reply #378 on: June 11, 2011, 10:52:45 PM »

Quote
it's hard for a beginner to make a ladderbox fuse

If that be so then there would be far fewer of us.  Almost everyone as a novice, started with a ladderbox fuselage and we did fine. You included?

By the way I did say somewhere above that some newcomers would progress to rolled fuselages

It's probably fair to say that most F/F'ers enjoy building and I've no recent recollection of anyone complaining it's difficult or too tedious tp build a box fuselage.   Well .. maybe one   Grin

Logged
Olbill
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 67
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2,548



Ignore
« Reply #379 on: June 12, 2011, 12:03:52 AM »

The analogy to Penny Plane vs. Limited Penny Plane is exact; any LPP model can be flown in Penny Plane (though it's very unlikely to be competitive; times differ by around 2:1 last I checked).
Not even close to 2:1!

Here are the current AMA records for LPP and Pennyplane
Cat 1 - 16:14, 16:18
Cat 2 - 12:53, 16:41
Cat 3 - 15:38, 17:45
Cat 4 - 19:04, 21:47
« Last Edit: June 12, 2011, 12:32:44 AM by Ratz » Logged
Maxout
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 96
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2,724


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #380 on: June 12, 2011, 08:14:27 AM »

>it's hard for a beginner to make a ladderbox fuse

If that be so then there would be far fewer of us.  

I think the few of us there are bears out my point...

Almost everyone as a novice, started with a ladderbox fuselage and we did fine. You included?

By the way I did say somewhere above that some newcomers would progress to rolled fuselages

Yes, I did start that way. I almost gave up over it, having no glue how to get a straight fuselage. I still have no idea how to get  a straight fuselage, but it doesn't bother me anymore.

It would be much easier to progress the other way. A practically one-piece fuselage is a lot easier to deal with than one with 50-100 pieces.
Logged
applehoney
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 279
Offline Offline

Canada Canada

Posts: 3,156




Ignore
« Reply #381 on: June 12, 2011, 10:20:38 AM »

Quote
I think the few of us there are bears out my point...

Not at all.  My reference was that there would be far fewer modellers in general if basic box fuselages were difficult to build - not to the number here on this forum or even thread - most of whom are quite comfortable with such anyway.

Quote
I still have no idea how to get  a straight fuselage,

Strange ...  with a few supporting triangles, etc I find no problem with - for example - a 3' Mulvihill fuselage.    Back in the dimmer past some built 5'-6' fuselages for Wakefield and obviously they were straight.    A little patience is all that is required

Quote
A practically one-piece fuselage is a lot easier to deal with than one with 50-100 pieces.

I'm sure it is. But some of us are in less of a hurry and actually like to build .. .to take pride in one's ability to produce an excellent result regardless of effort involved.
 
Logged
Zeiss Ikon
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 10
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 567




Ignore
« Reply #382 on: June 12, 2011, 11:51:07 AM »

Whatever you consider easier, there's still a technique to be learned.  With stick-built fuselages, the techniques are cutting/sanding to exact fit, building side frames on top of each other and with matched longerons (consecutive strips from the same sheet are usually just right), and getting the formers or cross braces aligned correctly so the tail end pulls together straight.  I've almost got that mastered after building about five such models in the past twenty-five years --  I expect my next one, number three if you discount the two in the 1980s, to be near-perfect.  By contrast, the one time I've tried to roll a fuselage I wound up with a tube that weighed several times what a ladder-built fuselage does (even after covering), not perfectly straight by any stretch, and with no good way to attach the tail surfaces without adding a lot of extra weight where it's least welcome, and it took me about six hours to build -- I can do a ladder-built P-30 fuselage in under three, not counting breaks for glue to dry, but including time to strip the wood from sheet (which takes about ten minutes for all the wood I need).  If I were building the same design repeatedly, cutting fixtures and a frame jig would very roughly cut the time in half.  The only advantage I see to a rolled fuselage is it's less prone to damage if I break a motor, but a blast tube solves that problem nicely.

The main advantage of recommending traditional models to beginners is that we can also recommend books that give very good detail on how to build them -- Bill Winter, Keith Laumer, Don Ross, all show details and techniques for stick-built frames.  I don't recall ever seeing a publication I might expect to find in a library on how to roll a fuselage or how to apply Mylar -- for that matter, I've only seen about one web page for each, the latter without any explanation of what's better about Mylar or tissue over Mylar compared to straight Esaki with doped-in adjustments, and web pages are hard to recommend at a flying site (my cell phone may be able to load the page, but won't allow me to forward a link).  I honestly think no one has been writing this stuff down since about the time plastic coverings and rolled fuselages came along; almost the only way to even learn these techniques exist is to see a model built with them, and then you pretty well have to ask the builder how it was done (and try to remember the explanation well enough over a period of days or weeks to reproduce the technique).

BTW, I won't argue that Gizmo Geezer doesn't simplify building and trimming -- but it does make a propeller (including thrust bearing, nose block, and hook) cost $10 (or much more if you're outside the USA), compared to under $3 for propeller, bearing, button, and commercial shaft (save fifty cents if you buy music wire and bend your own shaft).  I can build an entire P-30 the old way for about $10 in wood, tissue, wire, etc., and on my budget, money is more important than time.  And I can build a wing, stab, and rudder(s) with 1940s techniques that will hold its warps over a season or two or three (it's mostly a matter of doping in the warps and using dope that doesn't continue to shrink over time, which method is well documented over the past seventy years).

I don't think stick-built techniques are keeping people out of our hobby; I think that's mainly due to the blister-pack and video game "entertain me" attitude we've built up over the past forty years or less.  Kids now want to be able to unwrap a toy and play with it, then throw it away when it breaks, or spend twenty or thirty hours "beating" a video game instead of building a couple models that they'll still be able to fly in a year.  It's not a fault of our hobby, it's a fault of our society, and rolled fuselages, mylar covering, and carbon fiber aren't going to fix it.
Logged

I'm here to have fun -- but winning isn't bad, either.
T Newton Morgan
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 2
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 43



Ignore
« Reply #383 on: June 12, 2011, 09:24:57 PM »

Well said, Zeis Ikon.

Tom
Logged

Thomas N. Morgan    [email protected]
3730 SE 15th St
Ocala, FL  34471
Oldtime Flyer
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 10
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 335


"Keep it Simple"



Ignore
« Reply #384 on: June 13, 2011, 01:10:07 AM »

There is one item that's being forgotten--kit availability. This actually is a valid problem. I know of four kits for decent P-30's--Clint Brooks', the two Burdov kits, and the Bob White design. They are all overpriced for a beginner because they are all ARF's. There is nothing to fill the gap between the outdated ladder box fuselage P-30's and the modern ones with the whole fuselage assembled and all the ribs cut out and everything else ready for glueing up or even mostly assembled. There's a 200% cost increase in most cases. We need to see a kit for a composite P-30 that gives the materials, maybe even with the fuse pre-formed and glued, but with everything else at most laser cut so that it can be cranked out for a profit at $30-35 or so. You could even just throw in the fuselage blank and some silkspan and say "follow these instructions and wrap it around a pool stick until dry."

I'm trying to think of an affordable P-30 kit I can actually recommend...I'm coming up dry...

This is not a valid problem for anyone that I know of, except YOU! ........ Wake-up Joshua, you're having a wet dream.
Logged
Oldtime Flyer
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 10
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 335


"Keep it Simple"



Ignore
« Reply #385 on: June 13, 2011, 01:14:24 AM »

My only response to this thread.... What a bunch of overkill?!....

OtF'er


You're kidding, right? People are having fun building airplanes that will last longer, fly better, and look better, and all you can do is slam them for it?

Not a slam, a fact!
Logged
Oldtime Flyer
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 10
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 335


"Keep it Simple"



Ignore
« Reply #386 on: June 13, 2011, 01:43:17 AM »

Carbon fiber is not needed to make a competitive P30. However, I use a lot of carbon fiber simply because models stay in trim. Carbon is easy to work with, and cheap in the quantities we use. Much easier to use a little bit of carbon then to find contest grade balsa imo. And I never, ever use tissue of any kind for the same reason (models covered in mylar stay in trim).

This is it right here. There is no extra difficulty in using the modern materials, and in fact I find it easier. There are no warps to contend with, the airplanes are stronger (this is a huge advantage--you can fly a composite P-30 in winds that would take that pretty ol' Sparky and shred it to pieces), and let's be realistic--the building time is WAAAAY shorter. OT'F constantly harps that composites and rolled tubes gain nothing. (This is pure Joshua BS) Try slamming that beloved Majestyk against a fence, then do the same with mine. One will be fit for the trash, the other goes on flying (there's no carbon in my current one either, so it's still rather weak compared to what's in this thread). The old box fuselages take forever to build, while I've been known to whip out an entire rolled tube fuse in less than two hours including the time it spends drying over the stove.


Let's not forget that so called ("Beloved") piece of trash and it's flyer, held the National Open P-30 Record for 12 years... (DIP poop!)... Plus the current record holder, didn't fly a compsite constructed model to set the newest one either!!
Logged
Tapio Linkosalo
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 28
Offline Offline

Finland Finland

Posts: 1,182



Ignore
« Reply #387 on: June 13, 2011, 01:53:29 AM »

A nice tangent this thread is taking. Ok, here is my two cents under the title "overkill". The model is still waiting for the final touches, I need to figure out the pylon position (by low power flights) before glueing it on, but could not start that until I built a few timers during the weekend. Looks like the model will end up around 45 to 46 grams with the digital timer and tracker, so I can pack in a larger battery and even squeeze in the RDT receiver before meeting the 50 grams minimum weight we have here in Finland.

But, by the spirit of the tangent, I'll now step onto the soapbox. Some have said before that using carbon is nonsense and a overkill. I strongly disagree here; in my opinion (and as already mentioned above) building with carbon structures is easier than with balsa. No need for diagonals, just slip the ribs (preferably laser-cut to precise dimensions!) to the carbon tube, drop of cyano and yo are done. With carbon trailing edge, no painstaking triangulating the balsa strip nor numbers of gussets to reinforce the joints, simply tack the TE in place and add small strips oc carbon caps to support the back of the rigs and the rib to TE joint.

Further, some say that gadgets should be banned. I disagree here, too. I find it much easier to trim a model with VIT. No need for hassling with thrust angles, moving CG back to reduce decalage, just keep the tailplane down for 4 seconds, and you get your model climb rather straight for the burst, after that the rest of the climb is easy when the burst is done. Also the gatgetry is dead easy, I recall reading in Aeromodelled in the late 80's, how Dave Hipperson made the VIT hammer from a single piece of piano wire. The bottom had a couple of loops to make it a spring, then a straight sections and a right angle to form the hammer for the tailplane to rest against. Should take a minute to bend and maybe 30 minutes to install.

Finally, did I mention 50 grams minimum weight? We have had that rule here in Finland for maybe 5 years now, and it was the wisest decision we have made in years. adding 10 grams does not harm the performance of the models to mention, but helps to build much sturdier models, and most of all, even beginners are competitive with their models, as they can quite easily meet that target (while building a strong model to 40 grams is much more a challenge).
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: Show us your P-30's
Re: Show us your P-30's
Re: Show us your P-30's
Logged
Oldtime Flyer
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 10
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 335


"Keep it Simple"



Ignore
« Reply #388 on: June 13, 2011, 02:10:56 AM »

Carbon fiber is not needed to make a competitive P30. However, I use a lot of carbon fiber simply because models stay in trim. Carbon is easy to work with, and cheap in the quantities we use. Much easier to use a little bit of carbon then to find contest grade balsa imo. And I never, ever use tissue of any kind for the same reason (models covered in mylar stay in trim).

This is it right here. There is no extra difficulty in using the modern materials, and in fact I find it easier. There are no warps to contend with, the airplanes are stronger (this is a huge advantage--you can fly a composite P-30 in winds that would take that pretty ol' Sparky and shred it to pieces), and let's be realistic--the building time is WAAAAY shorter. OT'F constantly harps that composites and rolled tubes gain nothing. (This is pure Joshua BS) Try slamming that beloved Majestyk against a fence, then do the same with mine. One will be fit for the trash, the other goes on flying (there's no carbon in my current one either, so it's still rather weak compared to what's in this thread). The old box fuselages take forever to build, while I've been known to whip out an entire rolled tube fuse in less than two hours including the time it spends drying over the stove.


Let's not forget that so called ("Beloved") piece of trash and it's flyer, held the National Open P-30 Record for 12 years... (DIP poop!)... Plus the current record holder, didn't fly a compsite constructed model to set the newest one either!! I WROTE DIP poop AND I MEANT IT!!
Logged
DerekMc
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 53
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1,421



Ignore
« Reply #389 on: June 13, 2011, 02:31:07 AM »

Hey Thom, how about posting some pictures of your latest P30? I would love to see how you built it.
Logged

They fly better when you smile!
Derek
Pit
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 129
Offline Offline

Germany Germany

Posts: 5,507


aka staubkorb


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #390 on: June 13, 2011, 06:30:47 AM »

Hey guys,
build what turns your crank, fly it and enjoy it as long as it fits the rules...
Logged

A Dedicated Convert to:
WWWoFF (Wonderfull Wacky World of Free Flight)

Comparing Spammers to a pile of organic waste is an insult to the organic waste!
Maxout
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 96
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2,724


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #391 on: June 13, 2011, 09:22:12 AM »

Let's not forget that so called ("Beloved") piece of trash and it's flyer, held the National Open P-30 Record for 12 years... (DIP poop!)... Plus the current record holder, didn't fly a compsite constructed model to set the newest one either!! I WROTE DIP poop AND I MEANT IT!!

About as logical as saying that since the Supersweep held the Cat IV IHLG record for 36 years that we should keep building JLG's an forget composite DLG designs.

Even more so than indoors, outdoor records are about having a good field, good conditions, and being able to pick air. There's a huge luck factor too, and having a particular model doesn't make much difference. Interesting to note that the Nats P-30 winners are much more technologically advanced...

I'm with Tony--quit bashing us and post some photos of your planes.
Logged
Tmat
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 68
Offline Offline

Canada Canada

Posts: 2,933




Ignore
« Reply #392 on: June 13, 2011, 10:04:16 AM »

Put me firmly in the "overkill" camp!  Grin Wink
Tapio, your new model looks great! Can't wait to hear about how it flies.

The discussion is interesting, but it sounds as if there are two camps and both have their own opinions. I agree with Joshua, the thread is titled "show us YOUR P-30's", and I for one like to see a wide variety of approaches. Overkill or not....  Roll Eyes


Tmat
-overkiller, first class...
Logged

F1B guy...
But don't hold that against me!
Oldtime Flyer
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 10
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 335


"Keep it Simple"



Ignore
« Reply #393 on: June 13, 2011, 02:40:48 PM »

Let's not forget that so called ("Beloved") piece of trash and it's flyer, held the National Open P-30 Record for 12 years... (DIP S**T!)... Plus the current record holder, didn't fly a compsite constructed model to set the newest one either!!

About as logical as saying that since the Supersweep held the Cat IV IHLG record for 36 years that we should keep building JLG's an forget composite DLG designs.

Even more so than indoors, outdoor records are about having a good field, good conditions, and being able to pick air. There's a huge luck factor too, and having a particular model doesn't make much difference. Interesting to note that the Nats P-30 winners are much more technologically advanced...

I'm with Tony--quit bashing us and post some photos of your planes.

The typical response when we can no longer defend our position. (change the subject) Furthermore Joshua, there was no bashing of us. (others) My bashing was directed strickly to you! You are clearly a Legend... in your own mind.
Logged
Tapio Linkosalo
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 28
Offline Offline

Finland Finland

Posts: 1,182



Ignore
« Reply #394 on: June 13, 2011, 03:09:34 PM »

I was considering doing the first test hops first before finalizing the gadgets, but got carried away. I eyeballed that there is slight backsweep in the wing, so that if I put the CG at 70% of root rib, I will end up with something like 60+%. Set it there, screwed in decalage that looked about right, and went to the back yard for a couple of hand tosses. Nice floating flight with a gentle hint of right turn, just perfect. So back to the shop to measure: 4mm decalage for 70mm tailplane, which is a tad over 3 degrees. Perfect! So I glued the pylon on, and installed the VIT hammer. While working on it, I also built the AR, so the model is now set for the first test flights. If the wing would just calm down... May be until Saturday that I have time to do any flying, will be busy with other stuff until then.

Logged
Maxout
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 96
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2,724


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #395 on: June 13, 2011, 03:25:32 PM »

The typical response when we can no longer defend our position. (change the subject) Furthermore Joshua, there was no bashing of us. (others) My bashing was directed strickly to you! You are clearly a Legend... in your own mind.

I did not change the subject. It was merely a continuation of my conflict with your logic. You changed the subject by talking about records, and I simply made a statement about your use of that subject. Please do not blame me for what you did. I was perfectly ok with your changing the subject. Please show me at least some of the respect you expect me to show.
Logged
Dave Andreski
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 82
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 3,052




Ignore
« Reply #396 on: June 13, 2011, 04:10:00 PM »

  Here's a pic of my one and only P-30, a "Rodger Dodger" by Larry Kruse, Flying Models Magazine, NOV. '79.
 I had no touble building it to a decent weight-~ 41.5g, with the extra weight mostly due to the clutch I used which weighs 1.4g. This is a 'Crockett' item sold by lee Campbell. See attachment.
 Built mostly to plan, the only mods I made was to build the pylon with no incidence, use a small, metric, nylon bolt (from Mike Woodhouse) under the stab for adjustments and move the peg location ~ 3 inches aft. A fly-off wing is also used. With this set-up I needed very little down thrust and the Model is a fantastic flyer having turned in many 4 minute+ flights at both Geneseo and Muncie in 2007. The flights at Geneseo were 'warm up' flights for Muncie a week or so hence. At Muncie, my first flight was an EASY MAX with the Model reaching the ground after 4 minutes and 28 seconds. A subsequent migraine took me out of the competition.
 I'm using a 1/8" fuse, from Woodhouse again, that took some getting used to which partly explains the long flights.

 This what Lee Campbell had to say about this Model-"The design is sound and flies well. Some of it's ideas were used in the design process for the souper 30.

Bill Barr had great success with this design.

Lee Campbell

P-30 Afficianado"

 I'd recommend this Model to anyone wanting to build a simple, well designed P-30.

 Dave Andreski
 Key West,FL
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: Show us your P-30's
Re: Show us your P-30's
« Last Edit: June 13, 2011, 04:20:51 PM by Dave Andreski » Logged

Aspire to inspire before you expire.
T Newton Morgan
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 2
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 43



Ignore
« Reply #397 on: June 13, 2011, 05:35:48 PM »

All this talk about balsa tube vs. stick and tissue has been interesting.    I haven't seen any mention of the SparrowHawk  P-30 anywhere  on this forum... As many of you know, it is tube job.     I have had trouble keeping the wieight down using that tube.   They do fly well.   Several of them have flown away.

Any comments on the SparowHawk?

Tom
Logged

Thomas N. Morgan    [email protected]
3730 SE 15th St
Ocala, FL  34471
Pit
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 129
Offline Offline

Germany Germany

Posts: 5,507


aka staubkorb


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #398 on: June 13, 2011, 05:43:43 PM »

The Sparrowhawk (MAL) was one that I wanted, but waited too long due to the limited area I have to fly in my local area.  Would STILL like to have one.
Logged

A Dedicated Convert to:
WWWoFF (Wonderfull Wacky World of Free Flight)

Comparing Spammers to a pile of organic waste is an insult to the organic waste!
Dave Andreski
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 82
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 3,052




Ignore
« Reply #399 on: June 13, 2011, 06:08:36 PM »

  More "Rodger Dodger" info...
    Hook to peg is about 24 inches allowing me to use barely slack motors 4 X .155" or 6 X .105" all cut from 1/4" (.260" actual) TAN SS. I have one of the so-called 'Polish' Rubber strippers bought from Ed Liem about 12-13 years ago. Great bargain at $85 including an extra set of cutting wheels.
  No braiding needed, no shifting of CG with this set-up.
  An o-ring is used on the 4 strand motor and the appropriate 'Crockett Hook' on the 6 strander.
   Attached is the winder I use. It's 10:1, cost $50, is lightweight and smooth but after a 're-call' for gear replacement was admonished to limit torque to about 20 in/oz, a disappointment after initial claims were ~ 40 in/oz. Live and learn I guess.

    Dave , low tech for now, Andreski
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: Show us your P-30's
Re: Show us your P-30's
Logged

Aspire to inspire before you expire.
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ... 37   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!