Conference vmszoo::rc

    Bill,
    
    Have you thought of dropping flour bombs?
    
    It might be a good idea to have a target rather than drop them on
    each other - though that could be more fun!
    
    Brian
    

    We've had fun-flies with egg drops and such (attach styrofoam cup
    to plane, carry egg or other items and try to drop on target).
    I bet those bombs w/dedicated servo would make things a lot easier
    to judge!  I still remember the guy that did a quick up/down maneuver
    to get the egg out of the cup - watched the egg instead of his plane
    and dove it right into the runway (followed by the egg, which added
    insult to injury).  The planes fly a bit funny with a cup hanging
    on - I think the flour bomb idea is a great one!
    
    Bill

    
    I seriously doubt you can legally do this anymore, but I recall
    reading an article in a model mag many years ago about a guy who
    used a fifth channel to ignite two model rocket moters strapped
    to the bottom of a Senior Falcon. Talk about vertical acceleration!!!
    
    Dan
    

    Not on the subject matter but...  One way to get rid of the bomb
    out of a cup at a funfly is to fly over the target and the pull
    up into a vertical climb. The climb is then adjusted right to left
    with elevator to align yourself with the target. Rudder is used
    for in and out alignment. Full down elevator will pop the bomb
    out of the cup. Best thing about this is that you end up higher
    than you started. I haven't seen anyone crash using this method.
    I have seen three crashes using the level,blip down,  method
    of bomb release. Try it, it works great.
    
    						Tom

  What about a ejection seat?  You could try to hit a target with your
parachutist.  A spring loaded seat (preferably on an open cockpit) 
connected to your extra servo should work.
  But how do you explain the fact that the plane can land without
a pilot?  |-)

    Brian,
    
    "What do I think of that?"....not too much, I'm afraid.  As Tom
    suggested, a check of the AMA rule book forbids any/all pyrotechnic
    devices and plain old common horse sense should be enough to dissuade
    any one from launching any potentially dangerous object from an
    R/C model.  Even relatively harmless objects, e.g. water-balloons,
    flour bags, eggs cannot be consistently delivered on-target by the
    very best of model pilots.  It'd be absolute folly to believe that
    MORE control could be exercised over potentially deadly objects!!!
    
    I saw a guy in California several years ago who had small model
    rockets attached to the wings of his scale-like fighter.  We all
    watched with a jaundiced eye as this fellow ignored the protests
    of his fellow-pilots and prepared to take-off to fire these rockets
    from the air.  Fortunately (or unfortunately as the case may be)
    he accidentally triggered the rockets while still in the pits, nar-
    rowly missing several bystanders and damaging two parked aircraft.
    This "gentleman" was ignominiously "escorted" from the field, never
    to be seen or heard from again...a leper would have been more welcome
    on the field than he was, and for good reason;  his irresponsibility
    had damaged two models and very nearly caused injury to several inno-
    cent spectators, thus jeopardizing the availability of the public flying
    site, not just to himself, but TO EVERYONE, because AMA insurance
    would NOT have covered any claims.
    
    I don't think you REALLY want to put yourself in a similar position.
    If you must vent your dog-fighting fantasies, be content to holler'
    TAK-A-TAK-A-TAK when making your mock firing passes.  I've never
    heard of this uttered phrase putting out an eye...or worse!
    
    FLY SAFELY AND RESPONSIBLY for the benefit of ALL of us!
    
    Thanx,	Al                                   

Well, anyway, I think that you may have had some vision of aerial
dogfighting...isn't there a fun fly event where they clip
streamers just like the CL guys do?  I think that this could
become legitimate, but I suppose, there are some safety
considerations.

Along those lines, I've thought of using one of those sound
generator chips along with a IC power amp and a small speaker to
simulate machine gun fire.  I hear that some folks are using a
similar arrangement on stand-off scale -- ever seen that one Al?

A little Nieuport putting through the air on a 4 cycle going
RAT-TAT-TAT would be kind of neat.  Curse you Red Baron!

    Yeah! John, a guy had just such a set-up on a Fokker D-VII at last
    year's U.S. Scale Masters...problem was he had to throttle back
    to (barely) make it audible and it wasn't very realistic sounding.
    Sounded more like a rapid-fire squeak than gunfire.  But, things
    like this have a way of getting better in a hurry as the gadgeteers
    get ahold of 'em and I'd consider using it if it was light enough
    an airborne package and sounded realistic.
    
    Al

    
    I don't know of any rules against streamer combat, and it's a blast
    if you have a plane you're willing to sacrifice in the event of
    a mid-air.  I would think it a good idea to keep the combat well
    away from pilots/spectators and keep the streamers as long as possible
    so you don't have to get too close to cut the streamer and win
    the battle.  Anyone seen streamer combat?  Anyone know of any rules
    against it?

    To Tom, that sounds like a good way to drop stuff, because you get
    rid of ground speed before dropping.  I've always done a dip up
    then down, and it's hard to judge how far the egg or whatever will
    travel before hitting the ground.  I'll have to try it next time!
    
    Bill

    P.S. to Brian - even staying on your own land doesn't guarantee
         against a runaway plane.  The reason you'll find people so
         emotional about violating AMA rules is that a few incidents
         can give the hobby a bad name.  If one of our planes started
         a fire or seriously injured someone it could affect all of
         us - clubs are having trouble keeping flying fields as it is,
         we can't afford to give people more reasons to kick us out!
         Sorry you got so much abuse for your response - but I hope
         you got talked out of it!

    I  remember reading an old RC modler magazine back in the early
    1970s. a guy installed an air horn in his plane. When he did
    a fly by the croud he let it sound off. Dogs yelped kids screemed
    ladies fainted and grown men almost Shi* .
    Sounds like fun to me. I would only try this around good friends.
                          

>    1970s. a guy installed an air horn in his plane. When he did

Great idea - it's on my list of things to do.

The mind is working like crazy now.  

1.  Could you orient it such that the blast has some interesting effect
    on flight.

	a.  Blast the nose up in an emergency?
	b.  Blast the wing over for a noisy snap roll?
	c.  Blast the tail around for making U turns in the Pits and
    	    scaring guys like Al Casey who's pet peeve is courtesy
	    in the Pits.
	d.  Blast out the rear for simulated JATO (Jet Assisted Take Off).
	e.  Blast out the Pilot for simulated Martin-Baker ejection seat.
	f.  Just as a noise maker it would be great for surprising the guy
	    who comments on how quiet your 4 stroke is.
	g.  Blast out a handful of flower for simulated combat hits.
	h.  Just for find my plane in the corn field this would be great.
	    As it is we walk silently wiggling the sticks listening for
	    the servo noise to find them.
	i.  Tom T. could put one in his racer to surprise and confuse the
	    competition.

	Of course the failure modes could be interesting.  I can hear each
	of my crashes and hard landings now.  If you turn on your receiver
        in the Pits and some is up on your freq they could set it off and
        you could only turn it off by asking them to wiggle their 5th or 6th 
	channel or taking your wing off or stepping on it.

	Can you fiddle with the output nozzles and make other interesting
	but not quite so loud and obnoxious sounds?

I may never do it but the next time I see one of those cans in a store
I'm going to size it up.

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

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

    How about using a laser tag system on a plane? It should work very
    well in daylight and the recieving unit makes a noise when hit. After
    four or five hits the unit sounds a loud yelping sound. Or a dog
    fight with the target in the rear of a plane and when the target
    sounds off the plane is out of the game.
    Just another thought.
    
    Russ

    What I'd like to know, is how big a plane is needed to attatch,
    lets say, a 'disk' camera to, in order to get off the ground.
    
    AND,,, how was the thing rigged to trigger off the servo.
    
    This might be a good time to explain how to hook up such FUN things
    on our birds!
    
    Ken

    How about smoke systems??  I have not seen a mention of those...
    
    How easy are they to hook up?  How well do they work?  Is it worth
    the effort??  Can you use them on 4 cycle as well as 2 cycle??
    How big a tank do you need for a given length of time of smoke??
    
    I would love to hook up smoke to my Great Planes SS-40 with my OS-61
    FSR in it...
    
    thanks,
    jeff
    

    The lastest issue of the AMA mag or RCM (I can't recal which) has
    an article on smoke systems
    
    md

    Re: .26
    
    Not a large plane.  The plane I started out with was a Scout .15
    with a .25FSR.  The camera was rubber-banded with two dowels right
    under the leading edge of the wing (half under wing, half under
    tank area of fuse).
    
    The disk camera that I used (Kodak something or another) has an
    oval pad over a microswitch about .3" x .7".  I epoxied two ply
    rails north of this pad and mounted an S-33 micro servo on them.
    Then I took one of the servo horns and sanded it to a cam shape
    so that the pointy part wipes over the pad and fires the shutter.
    Hooked it to my LG channel.  Each throw of the switch takes one
    picture.  I hooked this via an aileron extension to the receiver,
    the cable routed between the fuse and the wing. The extension plus
    the servo sit out in the breeze...

    Two drawbacks...  The camera isn't as spiffy looking as it once
    was.  You know: the epoxy, the two dowels, the plywood...  Get a
    cheap one or have lots of money.
    
    Second, if you want quality pictures like we got when we switched
    over to Bill's Citabria (the Scout pictures look horrible), you'll
    probably want a larger plane with a four-stroke engine and isolate
    the camera well.  Basic idea is to get the engine induced vibration
    period larger than the shutter window.  Of course, a nice 35mm at
    1/500 or 1/1000 should work great!
    
    I still want to ask the same question that Bill did...  Anybody
    got one of those Sony 2 lb. video cameras?  Love to mount that thing
    in Bill's Citabria and tape an entire flight looking out from the
    cockpit!  Bill's a great pilot, so your $1000+ investment will be
    in good hands...

    Hello there,
    
    I realise this note hasn't been active for about a month but if
    anyone is still reading....
    
    About 10 years ago I saw some very small and lively 2 channel 'planes
    engaged in combat (just like the control line stuff, but with an
    extra dimension!). It was really exciting to watch. The only "rule"
    seemed to be to attach the streamer to about 4 feet of nylon thread,
    thus reducing the traget area near the 'plane. Other than, keep
    out of the way!!
    
    On the cancorder theme, again about 12 years ago this time I went
    to the club evening and we were shown a cine film of an entire flight
    (if I remember correctly). The camera was large and bulky and so
    was the 'plane - a real monster (at that time the biggest engine
    was a .60 I think). Anyway, the film ran from take-off to landing
    and was very good quality. The camera was facing forwards and you
    could just see the wing (high wing 'plane) and propeller. Towards the
    end of the flight (naturally) the engine cut and one blade of the
    propeller stoped infront of the camera. Then came the landing -
    not quite a study in dead-sticks. The 'plane approached the runway
    and all seemed to be going well, but at the last minute it ditched
    just short into some muck. The final shot was of the wing/propeller
    and ground immediatly infront of the 'plane.
    
    The film was magic and I'm sure anyone brave (and wealthy) enough
    would be more than rewarded by trying the cancorder idea out. The
    film itself was reviewed in RCM&E by Peter Russell (anyone remember
    when he wrote "Straight and Level"??). If anyone is interested,
    I'll try to find the article (bear in mind it was 10-12 years ago
    and I've moved 3 times since then!).
    
    CU
    
    Keith.

    The RCM&E that came acrross my desk (1981 vintage) had an add for
    a on-board starter.. I wonder if the guys selling it at that time
    are still in business or whether te device was ever a viable thing
    to have... Now that sounds to me like a REAL good use of extra
    channels: being able to re-start engine in flight....!!!
    
    md
    

    Marc,
    
    There used to be an onboard starter available from a company called
    Eastcraft.  I haven't seen it advertised for a long time so chances
    are it went down the tubes.  I saw the .60 size unit work on a few
    occasions and it was impressive to watch BUT, it was HEAVY, took
    up a LOT of space in the engine compartment, required extensive
    mod's to the engine and, most prohibitive of all, it was EXPENSIVE!
    (Probably never sold too well due to these drawbacks, thereby ex-
    plaining its disappearance from the commercial market.)  Nice gimmick
    but, somehow, seems a little impractical for the average size model.
    
    Adios,	 Al
    

    To Bill Lewis,
    
    Received the aerial shots made from yer' Citabria today...pretty
    neat!  How big is yer' field??  It's hard to tell for sure from
    the pic's but it would appear to be a tad on the small side...right/
    wrong??  Just guessing, I'd swag about 200' x 300' of mowed strip.
    
    It'd take a pretty good eye to tell the pic's weren't taken from
    a full-scale bird...the only give-away is the aileron linkage and
    clevis showing on the underside of the wing visible in the photos
    and, probably, only another modeler would pick up on that.  I was
    surprised at the clarity and sharpness...were you throttling back
    when you tripped the shutter?
    
    I sent ya' a Vax-mail saying I'd return the pic's to ya' pronto but 
    I'll hold onto `em 'til you lemme' know whether to forward them
    to someone else or what??
                                 
    Gracias amigo and adios,	Al

    At the Brimfield, MA Seaplane meet (spring and fall) there is a
    modler who flies a very large PBM.  It is very impressive in that
    he has onboard starters and starts the engines after he is in the
    water and he also uses 'Estes' rockets as JATO bottles for the take
    off.  The plane is 10+ years old and looks very heavy, probably
    the reason for the JATO.
    
    Charlie

    Marc,
    
    I forgot to add that Byron has onboard starters on all 4 Quadra
    82's on his GIANT B-29 Superfort.  A friend and fellow 1/8 Air Force
    mamber travels to Ida Grove to spectate each year and saw the -29
    go this past August.  He described the start-up procedure as folows:
    
    The -29 is pushed into position at the end os the runway, several
    hundred feet from "anyone." (Charlie [my buddy] showed me a picture
    of the -29 being rolled out and a guy of about average height [6'
    tall, maybe] had his arm extended, straight out from the shoulder,
    parallel to the ground, pushing the big bomber's rudder...his hand
    was only about half way up the rudder!!!!  The rudder-tip appears
    to be 10-12' above the ground.  BIG "MUTHA!")
    
    Once in position, standing alone at the end of the runway, each
    engine, in succession, is turned through to get a prime...then,
    the procedure is repeated, starting each big Quadra, one at a time
    from the transmitter.  With all engines running, the -29 is taxied
    into position, brakes locked and pre-flight run-up's are performed,
    after which it's turned into the wind and takeoff commences.
    
    Really sounds impressive, don't it?  Unfortunately, I'm sure these
    onboard starters were custom built/modified in Byron's shop and
    would be MUCH too large for average model application in any event.
    
    Adios,	Al

    Marc,
    
    there "used" to be several makes and types of brakes commercially
    available.  I think it was Rocket City that had a simple, friction
    type brake, actuated by pulling (tightening) a string/cable/line
    with down elevator.  This unwound/expanded a spring forcing a drum-type
    mechanism against the wheel, stopping it via friction. Memory dims,
    but it might've been BuBro who marketed a set of drum/shoe-type brakes 
    for use on the main gear, again, mechanically actuated by tightening a
    line via a servo; I had a set of these on one of my early R/C birds
    and they worked OK but were a little finicky to set up just right...I 
    still have a set of these, new in the box so I can verify the manufacturer
    but understand, they may not be available anymore.  
    
    The "hot setup" brakes used to be available from a manufacturer named
    Aero-Piccolo; they were electric - had their own battery pack and were
    actuated by a microswitch tripped by any control you preferred, e.g. down
    elevator.  Again, I don't recall seeing these advertised for years
    so they may no longer be available.
    
    The only brake I've seen advertised recently is a simple drag-brake
    mechanism marketed by Prather Products.  It looks sorta' like a
    fender mounted above the nose-wheel with a line attached to one
    end such that, when pulled, the opposite end is pulled against the
    wheel, providing drag to stop the wheel's rotation. This, obviously,
    is a very simplistic, almost primitive brake...kinda' like dragging
    yer' foot...but it works and you could easily fabricate a drag-brake
    mechanism yer'self.
    
    The brakes like those used by Byron are, undoubtedly, custom-made
    for his HUGE B-29 model(?).  As for what guys like Ramon Torres are
    using on the more normal sized models, I'm not sure but will endeavor
    to find out fer' ya' if yer' "really" interested.  I found brakes
    to have more "gimmick value" that real practical application in
    my sole experience with them.                                    
    
    Adios,	Al

    re .37
    
    Reprinted from the Byrons' Catalog
    
    New Landing Gear Brake Systems
    for Byron Originals' Large Scale Gear
    
       This unique brake system is available for either mechanical or
    pneumatic operation and is comparable with all Byron Large Scale
    Gear (such as those used in our Warbirds and F-15).
       The pneumatic version is activated by a small air cylinder and
    is excellent for shorter landings and run ups prior to take-off.
       The mechanical version is excellent for tail draggers and most
    warbirds.  A servo is connected by cable to the brake shoe cam.
     It is fully trimable and can be tied to the rudder for super scale
    operation.
       Included in the brake assemblies are:
    		Injection molded brake shoes
    		Aluminum brake shoe pads
    		Return spring
    		Brake hub back plate
    		Brake drum
    		Cam activator
    		(pneumatic valve is included in pneumatic version)
    
    Mechanical system is only $32.85/pair
    Pneumatic system is       $59.95/pair
    
    My Comments,
    
    The brakes would seem to be real handy on a Ducted Fan kit to let
    you run up to full thrust at the end of the runway before you pop
    the brakes and start running.  Would also be great on the shorter
    fields to keep your bird from running off the end into the rough
    stuff.
    
    
    BTW, I am in the process of completing a Byrons' Glassair and am
    about to order an F-16 from them (soon as I see how yours flies
    this weekend, Mike).   8^)
    
    Happy Flying,
    
    Charlie

>        To Bill Lewis,
>    
>    Received the aerial shots made from yer' Citabria today...pretty
>    neat!  How big is yer' field??  It's hard to tell for sure from
>    the pic's but it would appear to be a tad on the small side...right/
>    wrong??  Just guessing, I'd swag about 200' x 300' of mowed strip.

    Sorry about taking so long to respond Al, I've been waiting for
    the old node to come back and just found out it moved!  Actually
    the field is probably a bit smaller than that and there are
    obstacles (read: trees) in strategic areas to make takeoffs, landings
    and normal flight more exciting.  The only way to get one of those
    Byron's ducted fan jobs off on our field is to crank it up with
    someone holding it at one end and let it rip!  Ususally trims the
    tall grass at the other end on the way up.  And when it's been wet
    and the grass is growing fast it can get real interesting just before
    they mow it.  But the advantage is that if you can fly at a field
    like that you can fly just about anywhere!
    
>    I was surprised at the clarity and sharpness...were you throttling
>    back when you tripped the shutter?

    The combination of throttling back the Enya .46 4-stroker, plus
    the fact that the Citabria is large enough (70 in. wingspan, 5-6 lbs)
    to keep it smooth, did the trick.  Fred Zayas, who originally started
    all this, first did it with a Scout .20 but got somewhat blurred results.
    

    The pictures have gone through DEC mail for several weeks now without
    any ill effects.  Anyone else interested before I put 'em away?
    If you are, send me mail at LEDS::LEWIS.
    
    Bill

    Nobody's looked at this topic for a while, so I thought I'd try
    to liven it up a little.
    
    How about a "full" autopilot capability? The glider guys have invented
    pitch and roll sensors for riding the thermals up almost out of
    sight. What if we expand on that idea some? We "high-tech" folks
    out here in the east can play in our labs during the winter. What
    I have in mind is to add airspeed, altimeter, and compass to the
    pitch and roll. Take a microprocessor (some of us are experts in
    those, right?) with all the sensor input, and program it for automatic
    flight. It should be possible to program in a complete pattern flight
    from takeoff to landing, or at least the individual maneuvers to
    be executed on command from the ground. Just line it up, dial in
    "program 9" and out comes an inverted square loop.
    
    Since the pattern boys are allowed to use special features such
    as coupling, snap roll buttons, invert switches, etc, this would
    have to be legal as well - just an extension of those things.
    Hook it up to a smoker and you can do precision skywriting - you
    could even have down-line (up-line?) loadable fonts!
    
    I bet Al would be the first one in line for one of these set-ups,
    don't you think?  Put it in a scale bird and knock their socks off
    with flight bonus points. (Sorry, Al, couldn't resist!)
    
    Dave

    Dave,
    	This could be fun.  The pattern rules do exclude gyros for control.
    I'm game if you are.  I'll bet we can convince Bill L. to participate.
    He's not busy, is he.  Debugging should be fun.  I can see it now
    - DAMN, WE GOT IT HOOKED UP BACKWARD, Positive Feedback!  On the
    serious side, we do have to find some challenging diversion to
    keep our minds off of the weather when it is not nice enough to
    fly.  
    
    Charlie
    

That autopilot thing is interesting.  I ran into a fellow from
Stanford who built an autopilot for a helicopter using a similar
rig to the one used in gliders.  The way he explained it is that
the atmosphere has an electrical charge gradient that changes
with altitude (I forget whether it goes up or down).  He built
sensors for each rotor tip and hooked it up to a rather simple
comparator circuit.  The durn fool contraption worked to
stabilize the copter, so he said.  The glider guys do something
similar, only the sensors are in wing tips.

What amazed me about it is that the gradient is so fine that
there is enough differential between a raised and lowered wing on
a model to be detected!

I've since read references to this contraption to the effect that
it was invented in Germany quite a few years ago,  and that is
used in world-class competition. 

By the Stanford fellow was a PHD in Aeronautical Engineering, and
an expert on helicopter blades.  

I've heard of this "electrostatic stabilizer" system before. In fact,
it's already been done for planes. A long,long,long time ago (10 to
14 years as a wild guess) I had a copy of MAN (??????) with an article
where a couple of guys put one of these systems in some sort of delta
wing plane. The system works on the basis of the electrostatic potential
gradient in the atmosphere (which is the same thing that causes lightning).
Normally it's about 1KV (yeah! 1000 volts) to 10KV (??) per meter for normal
conditions up to a few million volts/meter for lightning conditions
The basic system consisted of two "probes", each of which was a slightly
radioactive material used as an ionization source (probably alpha particle
emitters). Assumeing that the voltage gradient is even then measuring the
voltage difference between the two probes will give you an indication of
the difference in their altitudes. So, one pair on the wingtips can
give you roll information and one pair at the engine and tail can give you
pitch information. Anyway, these guys used this stuff to get up to some
ungodly altitude like 20,000ft (they get it back somehow). They also
did a few tests where the plane was completely de-trimmed to produce
a climb-stall-dive-climb-stall-dive-...etc flight path with hands off.
When the stabilizer was turned on (it could be engaged/disengaged from
the transmitter) the plane went immediately to straight & level.

The biggest problem with using this type of system for precision (?)
flight would be the WIDE variation in the atmosphere's voltage gradient.
It doesn't matter too much if you're just trying to keep the wings level
since you just drive the servo to try to zero out the probe's voltage
difference. Anyway .... this sounds like a fun project!!! (an awful
bunch of work, though).

How about a mini LORAN set to keep the plane from straying too far? 8^)

GES

    Certainly another possible source of info for the type of thing
    is the Smithsonian...  They funded that project of the pre-historic
    bird (I won't even try to spell it's name) that was R/C and had
    an on-board computer.  The circuitry would adjust the feathers on
    the wings to keep an even attitude...
    
    The MA magazine had an article about it a year or so ago..
    
    Cheers,
    jeff
    

    Glad to have sparked some interest! What got my mind going on this
    was that I've seen some glider guys at our club that have those
    electrostatic sensors on their birds. I don't know the details of
    how they work, but they work incredibly well. You can stand there
    holding the glider and tilt the wings very slightly and the ailerons
    move to correct it. Same for pitch and elevator control. The circuit
    looked quite simple (one that I saw was a few chips wirewrapped
    on about a 1" square perfboard). I figured that if that has already
    been designed, the rest should be easy. How about teaming up here
    in Marlboro, guys? Charlie is the analog guy, Bill can do the digital
    design, and I'll do the microprocessor (oops, forgot... I'm a manager
    now so I'd have to delegate that work to one of my people...).
    
    Dave

    Re: -.44/-.45,
    
    I can contribute nothing as to the origin of the concept but Maynard
    Hill pioneered the application to R/C models when he ran a series
    of successful tests on the electromagnet gradient auto-pilot perhaps
    as far back as 20 years ago...the article referred to in -.45 may
    well have been about one of Hill's experiments.  At that time, Hill
    posessed virtually every significant R/C world-record there was;
    speed, duration, distance, altitude etc. and the auto-pilot was used
    in the setting of several of these records.
                                            
    Adios,	Al

    Hey, I'll do the S/W..
    
    md

        Re: .46 

        Quetzalcoatlus Northropi (QN) was built by Paul MacCready for the
        Smithsonian IMAX film. He is well known as the builder of the
        Gossamer {Condor,Albatros,...} series that won the first two
        Kraemer prizes for man-powered aircraft. 
        
        QN was written up in MA about 18 months ago. QN had an 18 foot
        wingspan, about half what the real bird is believed to have been.
        I seem to recall from a talk that he gave in Chicago that it took
        2 folks to fly and had something like 16 channels of controls. It
        had an autopilot to keep it flying after dropping off the "tail"
        that was used to stabilize it on the way up. It was a most
        unconventional sailplane. 
        
        After the filming (he showed some of the footage at his talk) and
        the MA article, QN crashed during a demo flight. I don't know if
        it was ever fixed or what might have happened to it since that
        final flight. 

    I believe it was more than a sailplane, as .50 said.  It actually
    flew by flapping its wings, and it adjusted its flight by moving
    wing feathers.  Yes, it needed a boost and a dolly to get into the
    air, but once up, I believe it could sustain flight for a reasonable
    time.
    
    If I remember the report correctly, somehow the auto-pilot kicked
    in during the birds ascent.  This caused the head (it's rudder)
    to try to adjust the flight.  But, at the speed it was going, the
    strees was too much.  It broke its neck.
    
    They immediatly deployed the safety parachute and it was recovered.
    I guess the damage was substantial enough and the bird had already
    fulfilled its task that they retired it.
    
    Cheers,
    jeff
    

    According to a special on the QN, broadcast by PBS some time back,
    the bird(?) could prolong to some minor extent but could not sustain 
    flight with it's wings.  This caused MacReady and company to speculate
    whether the full-scale(?) bird could either...they proposed that
    QN might've been only capable of gliding down upon intended prey.
    This, however, always provoked a humurous mental image for me,
    imagining this incredible creature squawking, clawing, biting its
    way back up to the top of some hill, rock or tree after missing 
    an attack.  I'd prefer to believe it was capable of some primitive
    measure of sustainable flight, though it's not nearly as funny that
    way.
    
       Adios,	Al

No need for microprocessors and software; the circuit I saw was
bascially a very stable instrumentation amplifier.  He built it
four or five years ago, and used a couple of op amp chips to
build it.  I imagine that one of the new stabilized
instrumentation amps could do it in one chip.

    re .54
    Ah, but you miss the point! The idea is to take the sensors from
    those auto-stability systems, but not to hook them up to a simple
    feedback system to maintain level flight, but use them as attitude
    detectors for a programmed flight path. For aerobatic flights, you
    want to measure the rates of roll and pitch (gee, just thought,
    you'd probably want one on the top and bottom to tell if you were
    inverted...). Mostly pipe dreams, but we design engineers
    like to dream...
    
    Dave

    Is it still too late to think about the Handicam 8mm video camera?
    I've got a 'spare', though with battery and tape it's closer to
    3 lbs, but it might be fun to try!
    
    Willie

    Oh, OK, I had seen some reference to 'winter projects' and had assumed
    you couldn't fly when it got too cold for the engines to run or
    something.  I'll be moving to Action in a week or so, does anyone
    in that area have a bird that can lift a 3 lb camera who wants to
    make movies?
    
    Willie

    I don't know if anyone is reading this file anymore, but it's a
    place to start. I was wondering if anyone can explane how a smoke
    system for planes works? Is it servo activated? And were can I get
    one?
    
    Thanks
    nrc
    

    Re: .-1,
    
    Most [if not all] smoke systems work by injecting a mist of
    `smoke-fluid' into the muffler to be burned/converted to smoke by
    the hot engine exhaust.  Most installations would include: an additional
    fuel tank for the smoke fluid, usually some sort of oil/parafin
    mixture; a fuel pump for pumping the fluid into the engine muffler
    under pressure; a servo operated valve for turning smoke on/off;
    an additional servo; a ball-check valve in the tank-to-muffler line
    and a pre-heater coil installed inside the muffler which pre-heats
    the fluid to near combustion temp before it's injected into the
    exhaust.
    
    Harry Higley and John Tatone [through J-Tech] are two manufacturers
    that market smoke systems...I believe there are others but I can't
    get their names to come at the moment.
    
    Adios,	Al

    Re: .-1,
    
    In rethinking my previous reply, I believe I made one minor mistake;
    a ball-check valve would serve no purpose in the fluid tank-to-muffler
    line.  Some smoke systems use engine crankcase pressure in lieu
    of a fuel pump tp pressurize the fluid flow to the muffler and,
    in this setup, the one-way ball-check valve is installed in the
    line from the crankcase pressure fitting to the tank to prevent
    smoke fluid from being allowed to back-flow into the crankcase.
    As I recall, the smoke fluid tends to have solvent properties which
    can undermine proper engine lubrication, therefore the use of the
    ball-check.                            
    
    Adios,	Al

    Re: .-1,
    
    It's been awhile since I paid any attention to the ads so this is
    strictly a SWAG but I'd say a smoke system setup goes for between
    $15-30.  This, as I recall, includes hardware items such as pre-heat 
    coil, on/off valve, ball-check valve, pump [maybe], etc.  You have to
    provide your own tank, tubing, servo, etc.  I'm a little fuzzy on
    this but I think I'm in the ballpark. 
    
    Adios,	Al

    Well, I couldn't find where we discussed electronic machine gun
    fire....  So I will add it here...
    
    RAM industries has apparently heard our cries!  In the latest RCM
    (thanks al) they announce a module that you can adjust for rate and
    sound characteristics.  (Page 100, FYI)
     
    It runs from a 6V to 14.4V source (you supply) and you supply the
    speaker.  It uses a micro switch to turn on/off. 
    
    In the picture they also have a quarter to show the size;  it looks
    to be a little larger than 3 quarters laid out flat.
    
    I have ordered mine...  I will let you all know how it works...
    
    cheers,
    jeff
    

    Well, that was quick service...  The unit arrived yesterday...
    
    The unit is a little hevier and larger than I thought it would be.  I 
    don't have a scale, but I would say that it weighs about 2 oz. (without
    battery nor speaker).  It measures 1.25"w x 2.5"l x 0.75 high (the
    height is of the tallest capacitor on the board.
    
    The ad in the paper isn't quite correct.  The documentation recommends
    using 18V (its maximum) by connecting 2 9V batteries together.  The ad
    stated that the max voltage was 14.4V.  They say that the 2 9V
    batteries weigh 3oz.
    
    The recommend at least a 5 watt speaker rating at 4-10 ohms.  They 
    accurately state "You will find that more efficient and light weight
    speakers are more expensive.  Be prepared to pay for the effect that
    you want."  I will be starting my speaker search this afternoon...
    
    There are 4 adjustment pots to adjust tone and rate.  Other major
    components on the board include an IC (CD4093BE  RCA H 750), a 
    220 uf 16V capacitor, a large transistor with heat sink (537835)
    and assorted other resistors, capacitors and transistors.  There
    are a total of 26 components on the board.
    
    The instructions also explain how best to install the speaker for the
    most sound.  
    
    After I find a speaker, I will be setting up a test of it, and let you
    all know how it works..
    
    cheer,s
    jeff
    

hi all,

during the weekend i did work again on one of my old projects:
an airborne flashligt for models.

does anyone remember any articles featuring something in this direction?

i think with nowadays rc-equipment, not even bugged by electric motor noise,
it should be possible to build shuch a device.
it might be favorable for big gliders flying high (they also would not bother 
carrying an extra nicad-pack) or some bigger scale attempts.


cheers
joe t.

Joe,

Here in the states theres a company called (I believe) RAM that make all 
sorts of running lights, strobes (I think this is what you mean by 
flashlights), and sound effects. I don't have any catalogs here but I 
think they're in the Tower and Ace catalogs.

    Jim,
    
    Are they (RAM) making a decent machine gun noise generator? I've got a
    Flair Puppeteer in the queue, and it's sooooo tempting to equip it with
    a high intensity LED in the machine gun, and a nice TAKATAKATAKA noise
    on a slow low pass would be hysterical.......
    
    Cheers
    
    Nigel
    

I'm pretty sure they have gun noises as well as engine noises and some 
boat noises also. I'll try to remember to look them up (unless someone 
has a Tower catalog handy)

How about one that yells "Look out!" by servo command 8^)

Strobes would be possible using some of the flashing LEDs if you weren't 
looking for high visibility.

    
    There are several offers in the CONRAD Electronic Catalogue :
    The one that is best suited for your case is order No. 225118-22 for
    DM 39.80. The supply voltage is between 4.5V - 6V with 80mA. Up to 
    50 flashes per second.
    As Flash light bulp there are more options :
    580422-22 DM 2.95  straight version, energy 25 Ws, 43 x 3.2 mm (L x D)
    582255-22 DM 5.95 miniature straight, 12 Ws, 22 x 3.2
    581607-22 DM 8.80 U-shape, 60Ws, 36 x 25 x 6
    581569-22 DM 15.00 U-shape with 1 full turn, 100Ws, 46 x 25 
    
    They recommend it particularily for model airplanes.....
    
    They also offer an LED flasher, they say "bright as a flash light"
    for DM 13.80 , order No. 192813-22 or 192805-22 for 9.80 if you like
    building it. The nah - part is the supply voltage between 9V-15V, 3mA.
    35 x 35 mm.
    
    
    	Noch 'was ?    Bernd
      
    
    

Article 15077 of rec.models.rc:
Path: sousa.ako.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!munnari.oz.au!mel.dit.csiro.au!its.csiro.au!dmssyd.syd.dms.CSIRO.AU!metro!mippet.ci.com.au!news.cs.uow.edu.au!sol.deakin.OZ.AU!mslater
From: mslater@deakin.OZ.AU (Michael Slater)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
Subject: Strobe Lights!!!!!
Date: 16 Aug 1993 11:57:01 GMT
Organization: Deakin University, Victoria, Australia
Lines: 28
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <24nsmd$a8v@sol.deakin.OZ.AU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: titan.cc.deakin.oz.au

Gudday guys!!!!
	I was reading this group the other week and I saw a couple of articles
about people wanting to know about strobe lights suitable for models, and how
to make/buy them!!!!
	I have a few models at home, 3 planes and 1 helicopter. I was looking
through an English helicopter magazine called Model HElicopter World, and came
across an advertisment for strobe lights for all sorts of models!!
	As I was just completing giving my helicopter a facelift, I decided
I would send away for a set of helicopter lights to complement the overhaul!
	One week later I recieved the above mentioned lights and boy was I
surprised. Included was 4 high intensity LED's connected to a printed circuit
board, complete with chips to allow lights to flash in sequence.
	The 4 lights consisted of 3 red and one green, which enabled me to have
the port and starbord navigation lights, one under the canopy and one on the 
top of the tail!!
	These lights are controlled via a servo on a spare channel, Channel 5
on my radio, so that you don't have them on at all times wasting power.
Incidentally, they use very little in the way of power.
	If anyone is interested in giving these lights a go, I can post the
address to this newsgroup. Unfortunately, they are not cheap, about 24 pounds
Sterling, but the end product is well worth while. I've got another set on
order for one of the planes at the moment.!!!!!
	As I said, if you want to know the address I shall post it here for
one and all!!!!!!


			Until then, if you can apply the golden rule, O.P.M.
(Other People's Models) then do it!!!! It's a lot more fun when you crash!:)




Nich

Article 15093 of rec.models.rc:
Path: sousa.ako.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!spool.mu.edu!caen!batcomputer!munnari.oz.au!metro!dmssyd.syd.dms.CSIRO.AU!news.cs.uow.edu.au!news.cs.uow.edu.au!not-for-mail
From: u9309845@wumpus.cc.uow.edu.au (Martin Erik Bogomolni)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
Subject: Re: Strobe Lights!!!!!
Date: 17 Aug 1993 12:26:37 +1000
Organization: University of Wollongong, NSW, Australia.
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <24pfkt$3md@wumpus.cc.uow.edu.au>
References: <24nsmd$a8v@sol.deakin.OZ.AU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: wumpus.cc.uow.edu.au

After reading the above posts, I figured that I could save a LOT of people a
lot of trouble.  For some time now, I have been outfitting my own models and
designs with lights bells and whistles that I have made myself.  There is no
need to go out and spend 24$L (over $40US) on lights, or even as much as $20
if you have some patience and know how.

Lets face it, you ALREADY spent a few man-hours on the plane/heli/??? and 
building these things is not hard.

So, anyway, I have two solutions - 

1) "Bells, Beeps, and Blinkies" is a small book I have written that uses VERY
common parts, and comes complete with full-scale circuit boards diagrams, 
Bill of Costs and Materials, and well layed out directions.  For $18 (one of
the more EXPENSIVE circuits in the book) you can build a variable-strobe, 
REAL strobe light.  The LED circuit mentioned above (300 minicandela LED
driver) costs about $15 to build for the parts, and a beginner can finish it
in a matter of an hour or so.

2) "The Black Box Book" is another book I have written that has accessory
circuits that many modelers like.   Everything from servo-drivers to "where
the hell is my model" direction finders, from emergency backup-battery cut in
circuits to remote altimeters and telemetry.  Of course THESE circuits are
a little more expensive to build, but again, a variety of ready-to-etch
boards are included and the construction of each circuit is well detailed.

I am in australia till the middle of December so if you wish to purchase one:

"Bells, Beeps, and Blinkies" has always been $15US.  It contains 54 circuits,
over 90 pages, in a 3-ring-binder format. (easy to add, remove pages) and
dont be too surprised if there are MORE.  I'm always adding more in.

"The Black Box Book" is also $15US.  At 32 circuits, and over 80 pages, its
no slim volume.  I am currently working on the second addition to the book,
which will be shipped free when it is complete.  

If you would like one between now and December, please email me at
u9309845@wampyr.cc.uow.edu.au and request one.  Shipping and handling comes
to about $10US... and arrangements will have to be made.

Happy FLYING!