Conference vmszoo::rc

        Re:< Note 217.0 by ANKER::ANKER "Anker Berg-Sonne" >

                A question I forgot to ask.
        
                I saw  one  fly  last  Sunday and it's a screamer.  I'm a
        little troubled by  the  landing  speed and am thinking of adding
        flaps to slow dwon on landing. Any thoughts?
        
        Anker

    
    Don't add flaps. The plane has a low stall speed. It will slow down
    for gently landings. Also build the short winged version. It flies
    the best of all the wing versions.
    
    						Tom

What about the ACE 4-40 Bipe?  What happened to that?

Bye
Kay R. Fisher

        Re:< Note 217.3 by TALLIS::FISHER "Battery, Mags, & Gas Off!" >

                The ACE  is  doing really well.  It's my current favorite
        and gets a  lot  of  use.    Twioce  I have been too ambitious on
        touch-and-gos and cartwheeled which  to  my  amazement  only  did
        minor damege to the lower  wing  (take a bit of the cover off and
        re-CA a couple of ribs) and to  the  carbane struts (half an hour
        with a soldering iron).  Other than that  just  immense pleasure.
        It tracks like an arrow and I have started  doing  patterns  line
        upside down  flying,  Immelmann's, rolls, stall turns etc..  Only
        reverse  loops  have  caused  me  nervousness  because  the  fuel
        talk/battery  compartment  hatch  tends    to  open.    Once  the
        windshield came loose at the  front  during  a  reverse  loop and
        totally changed the trim of the plane,  forced  me to change from
        reverse to normal before the ground came up.    In  short, I love
        it.
        
                My Trainer 40 finally retired to the trash can.    I  had
        radio  problems one day and finally on a takeoff, about  30  feet
        up, a glitch hit me and the plane spun into the ground.  No great
        loss, I was never as happy with the Trainer as I am with the ACE.
        
                The Aeromaster I bought in order to use the K&B 61 that I
        bought a couple of month's ago through this notesfile.
        
        Anker

    pardon my ignorance but what is a reverse loop? 

	re -.1


		Firstly you fly backwards....... no seriously it's
	also called an outside loop, ie the loop is pulled with
	down elevator so that the bottom of the plane is on the
	inside of the loop, rather than the outside as in a normal
	loop..




	bob

THE LIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME I HAVE ON THE AEROMASTER WAS OVER 17 YEARS AGO,
WHEN THE KIT WAS AVAILABLE ONLY AS A SHORT SPAN, TOP WING SWEPT, BOTTOM WING
STRAIGHT VERSION. THE LATER KITS HAD THE LONGER WING AND THE OPTION OF
SWEEPING BOTH WINGS. I KNOW THE SHORT WING MACHINE WAS REALLY A FANTASTIC
BUNCH OF FUN TO FLY (AND LAND....WOW)!

I NOTICE THE REMARK WAS MADE ABOUT THE SHORT WING VERSION STILL FLYING BETTER,
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE COMPARISON OF BOTH WINGS SWEPT (ALA, JUNGMEISTER) INSTEAD
OF JUST THE TOP ONE (ALA GREAT LAKES, PITTS, EAGLE)? ANYBODY HAVE EXPERIENCE
ALONG THESE LINES?

     
     I'm  very  curious  about  how  the AEROMASTER is kitted by GREAT 
     PLANES this day and age.  Originally, WAY BACK WHEN, it was designed 
     and kitted by  LOU ANDREWS.  He used an  engineering  form  of  
     construction called "BOX LOX", a way  of keying the  fuselage  formers  
     into specific positions using thick, soft blocks of  balsa  from  
     the  nose, and back quite a way on the fuselage, contouring to the  
     the  side outlines as they went.  Very nice  for  reinforcement  and 
     alignment,  but  used  up  a  lot  of available  fuselage  space  and  
     raised  aircraft   weight  if  not dead-soft stuff.  I wonder if the 
     GREAT PLANES kits are still using that technology.  What with the cost 
     of balsa, I shouldn't think it too practical nowadays. Does anybody out
     there know? Joe Bridi, who's planes are also being kitted by GREAT 
     PLANES, used to also use a form of this construction, with side sheets
     relieved with a milled slot for the formers to fit into. Nice but used to
     break right at that point. I believe the AEROM...., if pranged hard 
     enough, also used to break at those non-carry-through areas. Anybody out
     there care to comment?

        Re:< Note 217.9 by WINERY::HUFF >

                The Super  Aeromaster  still uses "Box Lock" construction
        and I found  it really nice, particularly the way the holders for
        the carbane struts slipped  into  the slots.  The fuse is, as you
        mention, all balsa and is  likely  to  break at those points.  It
        dosn't bother me that the balsa  reduces  the  width, because the
        Aeromaster has plenty.  What bothers me  instead  is  the way all
        the stuff  in  front, fuel tank particularly, gets built into the
        plane and can't be reached without breaking it apart.
        
                I have had a terrible time gtting the cowl and the engine
        mount right so that the propeller axle comes out in the middle, A
        whole  week was put into just this and I had to  saw  the  engine
        mount  box  off  the  firewall  and epoxy it back on in a  better
        position.  The  old  kits didn't have cowls, and I'm not sure the
        improved looks justify the trouble.
        
        Anker

                The Aeromaster  is  nearing  completion.  I had one major
        area of difficulty,  namely  the ailerons.  The instructions tell
        you to build the  wing,  sheet  it and then cut the ailerons out.
        The sheeting was easy enough  to  cut,  but  the ribs were really
        hard and they looked a real  mess  when  I  was  done.    I would
        recommend  cutting  the  ribs before building the  wing  and  the
        building the ailerons and wing seperately.
        
                I am covering with Solartex and what a  wonderful product
        that is.  It's  a fabric-covered, iron-on heat-shinkable product.
        Glues on very fast and  is easy to shrink.  I discovered too late
        that it's so translucent that the  ball  point  markings  on  the
        balsa shine through.  I plan to paint trim on, so it will be OK.
        
                Can't wait to fly the thing!
        
        Anker

                Well.  I got the Aeromaster far enough to flight test it.
        Fuelling it was  a  bitch  because  of the inverted engine, and I
        don't dare try adjusting  the  mixture  with  the  engine running
        because of the cowl and propeller.
        
                With the engine running rich,  but  with what seemed like
        enough power I sent it down the runway and rotated.  It then kept
        trying to bank left and wobbled around  the  air  like  a wounded
        goose  with  me pumping the sticks.  Finally  I  decided  that  I
        coudn't keep it going and throttled back upon which  it  promptly
        stalled and spun into the ground.
        
                The damage wasn't too bad and a week in the basement with
        get it back into shape.
        
                What I need help on is an analysis.  My theory is that it
        was  out  of trim - no surprise since this was the first  flight.
        The  real  problem,  I  think,  was  that I rotated too early and
        didn't have enough airspeed.  The wobbling around would have been
        caused by control  surfaces  stalling,  which  my frantic aileron
        movements wouldn't have helped.    The  fact that it stalled when
        throttled back I believe confirms  the theory.  If this indeed is
        true the banking to the left  would  be caused by a near-stall of
        the lower or upper left wing.
        
                Any suggestions?  I'm going to be  real  nervous the next
        time it charges down the runway.
        
        Anker

     This is  just  a  guesswork on what may have been the reason(s) for
     your problem:
     
     1.  The  turn  could  have been many things.  Since you altered the
     thrust line, the ratio  of  fuselage  area  above and below the new
     thrust  line probably changed.   This  will  alter  the  right/left
     thrust required for straight flight.   More  area  ratio  above the
     thrust line requires more right thrust.   More area ratio below the
     thrust  line,  less  right  thrust is required.   A  point  can  be
     achieved where straight away thrust will work or even  left thrust,
     like many subrudder free flight jobs. Also a Warp in the wings?
     
     2.    Hanging on power?  Possibly up thrust and/or  too  much  wing
     incidence  on  the  top wing?  With this combo, chopping power  may
     have  taken  away  the  only thing holding the nose down.  But  the
     first  thing to do is to check your balance.  With most bipes,  the
     designers want  pleasing lines and they al seem to end up balancing
     right at the  leading  edge  of  the  LOWER  wing.   This generally
     corresponds to a bias  drawn line, connecting the 25% point of both
     wings, at a point on  the  fuselage  half  way  between  the wings.
     Things do change a little for a swept upper wing, or both wings
     swept.  Check your plan for the  recommended  balance point and try
     to stay on it or if you have  to  displace  yourself,  go  FORWARD.
     Tail  heavy  airplanes  crash  in  the  REAL WORLD, TOO!  They  are
     squirrely, hang  on  the prop, are almost uncontrollable, stall and
     spin in!
     
     3.  I trust you had a head of  steam  on your engine.  As I recall,
     the  AEROMASTER needed POWER to move in any direction except  DOWN!
     A lot of  built-in headwind, there!  
     
     4.Also, make sure you  don't  have  too  much control throw on your
     control surfaces.  Again, check  the  plans for recommended throws.
     This airplane is short coupled and pops around real fast.
     
     
     Good LUCK on your next attempt. Put the results in NOTES.
     
     
     D. Huff       

    Anker,
    
    Sure wish I could've witnessed the flight?...it's hard to recreate
    the situation through words alone.  But from the mental picture
    I've formulated and experience/knowledge of the bird, I'll hazard
    a "guess" at what might've happened.
    
    First, I doubt if your incidence/decalage set up was out of whack.
    I say this because the kit does a REAL good job of self-aligning
    itself...IF you built it strictly according to the plans, I feel
    sure you had no problem in this area.  Bare minimum, you should've
    been in a "safe ballpark."  Second, if you didn't have to "horse"
    it off the deck with LOTS of elevator, I'd have to assume you had
    adequate power...The AeroMonster typically comes out about 6-6 1/2
    lbs. and doesn't require a Nuclear .60 to fly well.
    
    The only thing left is CG.  If the bird was tailheavy, it would've
    behaved just like you described, wanting to snap one way or the
    other (usually WITH the torque - "to the left") while you frantically
    try to catch up with it using ailerons.  Of course, chopping power
    eliminated any chance of recovery if the nose was still high and/or
    it was still in the snap left-snap right syndrome.  If you'll allow
    me to make a suggestion...ailerons only COMPOUND the problem when
    you find yourself in a snap situation.  The drag/adverse yaw of
    ailerons merely aggravates and encourages the snap.  Next time
    yer' in a similar situation (God forbid!), grit yer' teeth and
    PUSH the nose down with down-elevator, leave the ailerons alone
    as much as you can and fly out of it with RUDDER ONLY.  Try not
    to panic if it snaps and remember, up-elevator is the KISS-OF-DEATH
    in this situation and will LOCK you into the snap/spin.  GET THE
    NOSE DOWN to attain flying speed then allow the nose to come up
    when needed by relaxing the DOWN-elevator, worry it around using
    rudder and get 'er on the ground ASAP!          
    
    If you built a stock AeroMonster (straight bottom wing - swept top
    wing), the maximum aft position for the CG, as I recall, is about
    1/2" forward of the rear cabane strut.  Anything AHEAD of this point
    is acceptable (within reason, of course) BUT, get it rearward and
    yer' gonna' have an unruly tiger by the tail.  Set up the CG at
    or ahead of the point I've mentioned and I believe you'll find the
    performance "crisp" but NOT life-threatening!
    
    Lemme' know how you make out...I'll be anxious to hear.
    
    Adios,	Al
                

                Last night  the  Aeromaster  was  finally  patched enough
        together for another try.   So this morning I was out on the CRRC
        flying field again.  My working  hypothesis  that  I  hadn't  had
        enough power and lifted off too early to be able to control it.
        
                I decided to be very careful and  took  a  couple of runs
        down the runway until it started getting light and then throttled
        back.  I needed a bit of right rudder  trim  to  get  it to track
        straight.    Finally on the third run I had enough  guts  to  try
        liftoff.   It  was obvious that there was too much elevator trim,
        so I gave  it  a  little  down  trim and the darn thing flew just
        great - for about  20  seconds  before  the engine stalled and it
        came siling down dead stick.    Anyway  it balanced just fine and
        came in slow and easy.
        
                Second flight was great - the darn ship was tearing round
        the sky.  It's great for getting  some adrenaline pumped into the
        bloodstream.    Engine  still  had  trouble  at other  than  full
        throttle, so another dead stick approach was made.
        
                Third  flight  I  was  even braver.  Loops, stall  turns,
        upside down flying, rolls - it did them all and just beautifully.
        Confidence  was  coming back.  Then the engine died again and  on
        this dead stick landing the gear caught some grass and tore right
        out. The balsa fuse sides are a real weakness in this kit.
        
                Anyway, this is the opportunity to do a bit of relocation
        inside.  The  batteries and receiver changing place with the fuel
        tank to bring it  a  bit  down and get the engine running better.
        Also a cnance to put some ply inside for reinforcement.
        
                I think I learned the following:  It's better to have too
        much down than up trim.   Try  a couple of runs and aborts before
        committing a new plane to the skies.    Don't pull the stick back
        until the plane starts getting light.
        
        Thanks for all the help/Anker

    
    	You missed the most important one... Make sur you have a
    consistent runing engine.
    
    						Tom

    Anker,
    
    CONGRATULATIONS...just goes to show what a little perseverence will
    do!  (Lemme' see, I had a bottle of that stuff around here somewhere.)
    Whatever you do in your re-doing things, DON"T alter the configuration,
    position, track or anything else of the main-gear.  Let that ol'
    AeroMonster teach you about tail-draggers! It'll make a pilot out
    of ya'.
    
    Adios,	Al

        Re:< Note 374.0 by LEDS::WATT >

        Charlie,
        
                Elsewhere in  this  notes  file  I have recounted the sad
        tale of my  Super  Aeromaster.  It was built exactly according to
        instructions  and had the  weaknesses  described  in  our  recent
        interchange.  One I missed  was the wing sheeting.  The following
        is my advice to all Super Aeromaster builders:
        
        A:  Put a thin ply  doubler  inside  the fuse.  The soft balsa is
        not crash resistant and even hard landings will shear the landing
        gear off.
        
        B:  Do not mount the engine upside  down  inside  the  cowl.   My
        preference is to mount it right side up and  eliminate  the  cowl
        altogether.  The sad fate of my aeromaster was primarily  due  to
        the  difficulty  of  adjusting,  starting  and  mounting a K&B 60
        upside down.  The scariest moments of my life still remain trying
        to adjust the needle valve,
        
        C:  Go  one  step  up  with the forward wing sheeting.  The balsa
        sheeting is so thin  that  you run the risk of making dents in it
        with your fingers.
        
        D:  Be very careful cutting the ailerons out of the wing.  I made
        a mess of it.  Also,  I  would recommend separate servos for each
        aileron instead of the stupid bellcrank, wire etc.  scheme in the
        plans.
        
                I looked at the wreck over the weekend  and  will probaly
        make all of the above mods before I try flying it again.
        
        Have fun/Anker

I have my eye on an Aeromaster also!!  From all the bipes I've seen fly, 
it looks like one of the finest in terms of maneuverability and ease in flying.

I've got a close friend that has an old Andrews Aeromaster with a Supertiger
.60, and it flies very nice.  In fact, he has a couple of kits that he bought 
years ago because he like them so much.  He has over three-hundred flights on
it if I'm not mistaken.  I'll have to ask him if he made any modification to
his model, and also what kind of wing configuration he used.  I know he doesn't
use the cowl, and his engine is mounted upright.  I don't think he had 
any problems with the bellcranks and he uses only one aileron servo.

I bought a O.S. 60 for mine, and I look forward to starting soon!  Hence I'm
also VERY interested in any conversation in this note!!

/Brian

    Correctly installed, there's no reason why a single, center section
    mounted servo won't operate the aillerons just fine through bellcranks.
    This is the time honored method for actuating barn-door (as opposed
    to strip) ailerons and is a perfectly acceptable way to do it. Matter
    of fact, I've never seen an Aeromaster rigged otherwise.
    
    Additionally, the Aeromaster wings are so thin I believe you'd have
    difficulty installing any but the tiniest servo(s) out in the wings.
    
    Finished weight of an Aeromaster should be 6-to-7 lb.'s so just
    about any mild/friendly .60 engine would provide fine performance.
    The two I've had were powered by an Enya II .60 and a Webra Blackhead
    .60 and both were fine flyers, though the Webra powered version
    had more vertical whallop!  I still have 2-Webra Blackead .60's
    so chances are very good I'll use one of these to power my next
    one.  An O.S. .60 is "more" than enough power and, depending upon
    skill level, you may spend a lot of flight time at less than full
    throttle just to keep things happening at a reasonable rate `til
    you've really found the handle.
    
    Adios,	Al

    
    	Charlie, there are two other ways of actuating barn-door ailerons
    from the center section of the wing.
    
    	Some of the scale nuts run a rod-in-a-tube all the way out to
    the aileron, attaching the aileron along the length of the rod (the
    tube stops short of the aileron).  This is real nifty if you also
    have flaps to actuate and you don't want any stuff hanging out of
    the wing -- the outer tube is used to drive the flaps.  Anyway, in
    the center section of the wing, you can bend up the rod and hook
    it up to its own servo just like strip ailerons.  I saw a P-51
    that did this... looked real slick.

    	Another way is to use one of them new-fangled Swing-ees.  I've
    got a couple at home if you want to look at them.  They take the
    push-pull motion of a center mounted servo moving across the wing
    and turn it into up and down motion for the aileron.  They seem
    a little stiff, but perhaps some lubrication and use would fix this.

    	Let me know if you want me to bring 'em in.

    Charlie/Fred,
    
    Personal experience and observation prompt me to warn you off of
    the Swingee type hinge.  They're limited in amount of throw and,
    worse, they're verrrry fragile...just bump `em once and they're
    broken, leaving you the task of digging them out and replacing them
    or installing a more durable hook-up.     
    
    The torque-rod setup Fred describes in _.4 is a good setup but be
    aware that the inner [actuating] rod *must* be sturdy enough to
    resist twisting [music-wire won't hack it].  Otherwise, you'll have
    too much flex in the linkage; the ailerons'll lose effectiveness
    proportionate to airspeed and you'll be vulnerable to the possibility
    of aileron flutter.
    
    I've got as far as getting my old Andrews Aeromaster-II kit down
    out of the attic so I'm getting closer to starting construction
    and I plan to use the time-proven wire & bellcrank setup.  In all
    the planes I've built, I've yet to have the first problem with this
    method.
    
    Adios,	Al

About how large a model can you go to without danger of twisting
the torque rod aileron arrangement?

    Goldberg sells a torque rod kit for .60 sized ships. It's made of
    what appears to be 1/8 inch wire running in a plastic baring tube.
    They come about 10 inches long. These should work.
    
    
    						Tom

    I have no problem with the bellcrank method of actuation as shown
    in the plans.  I will be careful to get it right before burying
    it in the wing though. 
    
    	How about flaps?  Can I use two servos and a mixer to actuate
    the ailerons as flaps with barn door ailerons?  I have seen this
    done with strip ailerons with good results, but I don't know about
    Barn doors as flaperons.
    
    
    Charlie
    

    Charlie,
    
    I wouldn't do it!  With barn-door ailerons, if you dropped them
    both [as with flaperons] you'd be effectively introducing "wash-in"
    making it more likely to get into a tip-stall [snap-roll] situation.
    
    The Aeromaster really doesn't need flaps...with all the drag produced
    by two wings , you have only to raise the nose a tad and it slows
    right down.
    
    ======================================================================
    John,                                                                 
    
    Torque tubes will work well on virtually any size aircraft, up
    to and including, full scale *PROVIDED* that the material used is
    resistant to torquing/twisting "itself."  That's why wire is usually
    not a good choice in larger models.  You can take a piece of music-wire,
    grasp it by the ends with 2-pairs of pliers and torque the heck
    out of it so the air-loads of larger [I'd say low-performance .60
    size and up] planes will do the same thing.  The trick [as the name
    implies] is to use "tubes" rather that wire to construct the torque
    tube arrangement.                                       
    
    Adios,	Al

                This discussion  got  me to dig out the old wreck and fix
        it up.   Unfortinately  the  drizzle  didn't  let  up today, so I
        didn't get a chance to try to fly it.
        
                The old cowl got thrown in  the  trash and the engine got
        turned 180 degrees. Looks just fine.
        
                When you get the ship built and get  ready  to  fly  make
        sure you give it plenty of speed before pulling  it  up  into the
        air.  My ship snaps like a deamon if I try to take off too early.
        Is this a common trait to aeromasters?
        
                Darn,  I  use music wire per the instructions.  I'll have
        to fix that up later.
        
        Anker

                Mounting the engine upright made all the difference.  It,
        a  K&B 60, started  right  up  and  ran  smoothly  thoughout  the
        throttle range.  Over the  holidays  I put close to 10 flights on
        it without a hiccup.
        
                I  noticed  a  fairly interesting flying  characteristic.
        When I throttle back the plane gains  some lift!  Coming in for a
        landing  I actually have to give it a  tad  down  elevator.    It
        doesn't seem to be because of a tail heavy condition because when
        I  let  it  stall  out  it  drops  the  nose.   Anybody  have  an
        explanation for this.
        
                Another  guy  at the field had an Aeromaster with an O.S.
        120  four  stroke  in  it.    With  that  engine  the plane flies
        vertically.   His  takeoffs  were  interesting:  about 10 feet of
        roll and then  the  nose  straight  up  until  he had come to the
        altitude he wanted.   The  K&B 60 doesn't have quite enough power
        to do that, but it still flies like a rocket.
        
                After having some decent flights  on it I wonder how good
        it is as an interim trainer  before going to scale war birds.  It
        seems to be much to easy.   It  lands  at  a  crawl and takes off
        really beautifully, and in the air it goes where you point it.  I
        let my novice nephew fly it a bit and he had no trouble at all.
        
        Anker

    Anker,
    
    That snap on takeoff you experienced...?  That's just "1" reason
    the Aeromaster is a good pre-scale trainer...it taught you "not"
    to rotate before sufficient flying speed is attained, right?  Also,
    its control resonsiveness/sensitivity is very good for honing yer'
    reactions to the fine edge necessary for many scale ships.  If it
    seems too friendly on the ground, I'd have to guess that's the
    benefit(?) of flying from grass.  Try it from asphalt and you'll
    probably think you've gotten hold of someone else's airplane it'll
    feel so foreign to you...provided, that is, that you left the landing
    gear configuration absolutely stock.  Of course, another possibility
    exists too;  could be that yer' a natural taildragger pilot...if
    so, yer' one of the fortunate few and are to be envied.
    
    Pitch changes at various throttle settings is a definite indication
    of an incidence/decalage problem.  If the ship balloons when you
    pull the power, my guess is that one or both wings have too much
    positive incidence...this would also correspond to the "snap sen-
    sitivity" you've experienced.  With too much positive, you have
    to carry down-elevator trim for full-throttle level flight so, when
    you pull the throttle, airspeed decreases and the down-trim becomes
    less effective allowing the too-positive angle of attack to overcome
    the elevator trim and ballooning results.  Get a Robart Incidence
    Meter and check the incidence/decalage setup.  We had some discussion
    about the correct setup for a bipe sometime back but I still recommend
    the lower wing and stab be 0-degrees to the fuse centerline and
    that the upper wing be ~1-2 degrees negative.  A local modeler had
    a particularly nasty Bucker Jungmeister which became a pussycat
    (as much as a Bucker can, that is) after applying this setup recently.
    
    Adios, amigo,	Al

        Re:< Note 374.12 by GHANI::CASEYA "THE DESERT RAT (I-RC-AV8)" >

        Al,
        
                You are  right  about  the  ground  handling.    I wasn't
        thinking about the  amount  of  training  I  have  had  with tail
        draggers.  The ACE 4-40 bipe was just perfect and had such a long
        tail moment and good landing  gear  placement  that  it  flew  as
        easily as a trainer.  The next, a Mark's Models Fokker D VII, was
        the exact opposite, short tail moment and gear way back.  Quite a
        handful.
        
                What  I  learnt  from  the two was to  apply  power  very
        quickly so that the prop wash helps steering.   At  the same time
        up  elevator  has  to be given to prevent the plane  from  nozing
        over.  The hardest part is to remember to release the up elevator
        as  the plane gains speed.  If you don't you lift too  early  and
        snap right  back  in.    For  some  reason  this  took quite some
        learning and concentration  an  my  part.    Bill Clark's advice,
        which works real well,  is  to have the mindset that you just are
        going to take a practice  roll.   It helps you keep the plane onm
        the ground till it's ready.
        
                Changing the incidence on the Aeromaster will be a bitch.
        The kit is built in such a way  that  both  wings should come out
        with  them  correct.    Could  I use washout in  the  upper  wing
        instead.  This would change the incidence on part of the wing and
        if  my theory is right reduce the probability of tip stalls.    I
        would be very interested in your thoughts.
        
        Thanks/Anker

    
    You might also have some down thrust in your engine mounting, which
    would cause it to climb when you throttle back.  The incidence meter
    can measure that too.
    
    Bill
    
    

    One quick question. Is everyone using the standard AEROMASTER build
    of short wings with just the top wing swept back? Anybody building
    the LONGWING/BOTHWINGSWEPT version?
    
    don

    I have just started building my Aeromaster, making good progress
    on the tail feathers.  I started here to postpone my wing decision
    until I decide what to power the beast with.  I am leaning toward
    a 4-stroker, possibly an OS 120 Surpass.  If I do decide to go with
    this heavy engine, I will build the two long wing version to get
    the extra lift.  My other engine choice is a Supertigre 61.  If
    I go with this engine, I may opt for the minumum wing are version.
    ANY COMMENTS???  If I get any more building time this week, I will
    have to start making these decisions soon.
    
    Charlie
    

    Regardless of what engine you decide to use I would build the short
    wing version with the top wing swept and the bottom wing straight.
    Of all the aeromasters I seen flown this wing set up seem to be
    the best.
    
    							Tom

    Don,
    
    Looks like Tom and I are gonna' disagree on this point [seems like
    we're in sync about nearly everything except bipes].  In my humble
    opinion, the short wing, both wings swept is the best flying version
    with the version Tom describes in .-1 a close second.  It'd be hard
    to go wrong with either version.  My observation has been that the
    long wing version [in any configuration] is inferior in the area
    of aerobatics to any of the short wing versions.
                                                    
    Adios,	Al

    
    Hell AL!!  Don't be so negative. Think on the positive. We agreed
              on the short wing versus long wing version.:-)
    
    						Tom
    
    The only thing I would suggest (and I've started doing this of .60
    sized ships with sheet stabs) is to take a piece of sandpaper app
    3/8 of an inch wide and sand a depression into the top and bottom
    of the horizontal stab. Glue a piece of carbon fiber tape in this
    depression and then fill any remaining voids. This will certainly
    stiffen up the stab.
    
    

        re .-1

		As a low-tech alternative I insert a length of
	1/4 x 1/4  spruce into the tailplane.... 

	cheers

	bob
	

    Thanks all for the advice on the wing configurations.  Tom, what
    adhesive do you use to lay in the carbon fiber tape.  I like this
    idea as I do want this ship to be stiff and strong.  I am also
    interested in having high performance aerobatics, so I plan to build
    it light, but strong.  Does anyone have any experience with 4-strokes
    in an aeromaster?  I am not presently a 4-stroker, but I am considering
    giving it a try. (Maybe against my better judgement.)
    

    
    	Swept back vs. straight...  Swept back wings tend to tip stall
    where straight wings tend to stall the root first.  Do the building
    instructions put any kind of washout at the tips?  Or is stability not
    a desirable feature in this kind of airplane?

    Fred,
    
    Wing sweep also tend to behave like dihedral so some stability "is,"
    in fact added...guess everything's a tradeoff, one way or t'other.
    
    Responding directly to yer' question; the more maneuverable an
    aircraft is desired to be, the less inherently stable it is...not
    to the point of being treacherous, certainly, but requiring more
    attention/skill from the pilot.  The Aeromaster neither specifies
    nor requires washout in either the straight or swept wing versions.
    A pilot qualified to fly the straight lower wing version would have
    no problem whatsoever handling the both wings swept version. 
    
    Adios,	Al

	My Aeromaster has short wings with a straight bottom wing, swept
	top wing.  Landing gear and wing incidence are as per the plans
	and I have added no extra wood, stiffeners or doublers.  It is
	all covered with monokote and so is very light.  I am using a K&B
	.61 with a muffler and a Futaba fg radio.  The plane flies great
	with good low and high speed characteristics.

	The aeromaster is an honest tail dragger which requires that you
	hold up elevator on the takeoff roll, gradually releasing this as
	the plane picks up speed.  It also requires that some small amount
	of right rudder be held until it is off the ground and flying or
	it most definitely will enter a left turn as it breaks ground.  If
	your not comfortable doing this, I would recommend that you slide
	the rudder trim to the right before takeoff until you are.

	I'm suprised that no-one mentioned this (or maybe I missed it), but
	this plane needs all the aileron you can get.  Most planes I've
	seen flying successfully have sealed the aileron hinge line gap
	with clear tape/monokote or use gapless style hinges.  This mushy
	aileron response is probably part of the problem with needing some
	rudder during takeoff.  The engine must be mounted with the right
	thrust (3 deg if I remember) or all of this will probably be worse.

	Use lots of rubber bands on that top wing or it will actually 
	"flutter" against the wing saddle on the cabane.  #64 rubber bands
	which are those sold in most modeling stores are really too long.
	I bought some #62 at a stationary and they work fine, about seven
	or eight per side.

	I guess any plane that will knife edge under a limbo stick can't be
	all bad!!!

	ron

    Ron,
    
    I found yer' comments on the Aeromaster's flight characteristics
    somewhat puzzling.  Of the 6 or more Aeromasters I've had personal
    experience with [I had the first one in the Phoenix back in `67],
    I've never know one that wasn't crisp and responsive on the ailerons,
    a feature I, personally, appreciated as I like the controls as fast
    as possible without being jumpy/hunt-ey.  We've never done anything
    out of the ordinary to achieve this responsiveness...they just came
    out that way.
    
    Also, our S.O.P. for the engine setup is to build the front end
    fairly stock, then hacksaw the entire nose off flush with the firewall,
    install an aluminum motor mount at zero-zero incidence, then fair
    the engine compartment in to a spinner using balsa block-stock or
    leave the engine hanging out in space and mount a radial/ring cowl.
    This zero-zero engine thrust setup has produced no adverse behavior
    whatever...a touch of right rudder squares things away early in
    the takeoff run, then the rudder is returned to neutral through
    the remainder of the T.O. run right through rotation.
    
    Have you noted these behaviors as typical of "all" Aeromasters or
    just 1-or-2 examples?  We just haven't experienced the behavior
    you describe at all locally.  I agree with all yer' other obser-
    vations, by the way and agree whole-heartedly that the Aeromaster
    is a fine, fine ship.
    
    Adios,	Al

        Re:< Note 374.25 by MAUDIB::CASEYA "THE DESERT RAT (I-RC-AV8)" >

                My Aeromaster is  short  wings,  swept upper and straight
        lower.  No problem with aileron response - not quite as snappy as
        a pattern ship, but what  do you expect.  Cuban eights, rolls and
        Immelmanns are all done perfectly.   I  did have to work a little
        on the servo connections to get the response symmetrical.
        
                The engine is mounted squarely.  I  have  found  that the
        left turn on takeoff invariably is caused by  rotating at too low
        speed.  If the plane has flying speed it  will need no correction
        at takeoff.
        
                The upper wing is bolted on on the Super Aeromaster.  The
        carbane  struts are the same as on the original design, but  they
        fit into slotted blocks and are locked in to little plates bolted
        on to both sides of the slot.
        
                I did some interesting experimenting last weekend.  First
        I tried to move the CG way forward by putting a load a bolts just
        behind  the  firewall.      It   has  no  effect  on  the  flying
        characteristics    other    than   severely  limiting    vertical
        performance.  It surprised me that  the  plane  still didn't drop
        the nose noticably when throttling back.
        
                I did change the lower wing incidence a  little  bit with
        very little effect either, but the behavior is now under control.
        I  have  learned  that the Aeromaster is extremely susceptible to
        balloooning  at  low  speeds.    By  working  the  elevator  very
        carefully I can  make  smooth  landings and approaches.  But pull
        that elevator too much and it lifts five feet.
        
        Anker

    
    
    
    	HEY!!!!!!  all you aeromaster wizzards!!!!!!! I suspect that
    there is one thing about your ships that you haven't thought of!!!
    :-):-)
    
    Al, How old are the aeromasters that your talking about??
    
    Anker, How old is your aeromaster??
    
    
    Here's what I think.  
    
    		1, Al,s observation are of the original Andrew's produced
    aeromasters.
    
    		2, Anker's is a new GP aeromaster.
    
    Same design but with one suttle difference that would show up at
    low runway speed.
    
    
    
    			THE COWL
    
    
    If I'm right Anker's ship has that big round cowl mounted on it
    and if his observation of pulling to the left at low airspeed
    on takeoff is correct then I suspect that this cowl is dampening
    the vertical stab and rudder. When sufficient runway airspeed is
    produced then sufficient air is getting by the cowl so that the
    rudder becomes effective.
    
    
    						Tom
    
    Just a thought
    

        Re:< Note 374.27 by SPKALI::THOMAS >

        Correct observation Tom,
        
                Mine is  the GP Super Aeromaster and was originally built
        with the large  balsa  cowl.  About a month ago I ripped the cowl
        off, literally, and threw  it  in  the  trash.  This improved the
        flying characteristics dramatically, mainly by making it possible
        to adjust the engine properly.   Whether  it made steering on the
        ground easier, I can't say, but it's quite possible.
        
        Anker

    Re: _.27..., Tom,
    
    Yer' supposition is, indeed correct in that I am, in all cases,
    referring to the older Andrews kits.  However, My flyin' buddy,
    Bob Frey, just picked up a new GP kit and, except for minor en-
    gineering changes, e.g. replacing all rubberbands with bolts and,
    of course, the ring cowl, we could find no difference in the two.
    
    You could certainly have a valid point about the ring-cowl blanking
    the rudder at low speeds allowing torque to produce a left swing
    on/just after takeoff.  Years ago, I had an Andrews Aeromaster with
    an aluminum ring-cowl but, I frankly, can't recall if it exhibited
    this behavior or not.
    
    Adios,	Al

Kevin Ladd and I have just joined the Aeromaster owners club.
God really didn't want me to get one tho.  First I called Tower hobbies
about a week ago and they were out of stock and wouldn't come till late
Jan.  Skip it I said and later Santa spent the Aeromaster money on
a scroll saw.  Then I saw two Aeromasters at McManus hobbies in Fitchburg.
Sign...  Then Santa had a windfall and I went down to the hobby shop
Sunday to get one.  All sold out.  Sigh.  This morning Kevin comes in
to say he bought one Saturday at McManus.  Sigh.  I called Tower again
this morning and they are back in stock and I ordered one.
Soooooooo at least in theory after Christmas there should be two more
Super Aeromaster Bipes under construction.

There - now that I have more reason to follow this discussion I have a couple
of questions to ask.

re Note 374.19 by SPKALI::THOMAS >
>    The only thing I would suggest (and I've started doing this of .60
>    sized ships with sheet stabs) is to take a piece of sandpaper app
>    3/8 of an inch wide and sand a depression into the top and bottom
>    of the horizontal stab. Glue a piece of carbon fiber tape in this
>    depression and then fill any remaining voids. This will certainly
>    stiffen up the stab.
    
Clarification please.
If I lay this tape flat on the stab (top and bottom) it will only strengthen
it against for and aft flexing - right?
Is the horizontal stab a week link?

============================================================================
About those wing configurations.  Tom and Al - you both didn't elaborate
enough on the lower wing disagreement.  I think we all learn a lot listening
to two experts disagree.  What is it about the swept/straight bottom wing
that you like?  Can you describe what difference we would notice if in
mid air our bottom wing were to change to the other version?

============================================================================
What about colors and scale.
What is it, can it, should it, and would it look like?
I plan to use the Al Casey covering and painting instructions form
the "So you wanna fly scale" and "spraying" notes.
============================================================================
You can't believe how excited I am about building and flying this plane.

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

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

    Kay,
    
    In the 20 or so years the Aeromaster's been around and the "MANY"
    examples I've seen and/or had personal experience with [I've had
    3 of `em and will be building a 4th before long], I've only seen
    "one," count-em', one stab failure and that was when Bob Frey's
    tool-box fell over on the stab in the back of his suburban.  Tom's
    suggestion to reinforce the stab laterally would be good insurance
    against stab breakage in the event of a cartwheel but would have
    no real effect in flight as there is no inherent weakness in this
    area.
    
    The swept-versus-straight bottom wing makes the ship more maneuverable
    in snap and free-style, barnstorming type maneuvers but would be
    more or less unnoticeable in more gentle/normal flight regimes.
    If you don't expect to be doing all-out, balls-to-the-wall, hot-dawg
    maneuvers, build the bottom wing straight, if only for the simplicity
    of construction.  No noticeable nastiness would result from the
    swept version, however.  If the pilot is up to an Aeromaster, this
    [or any] version will bw completely manageable.
    
    The Aeromaster [particularly with the ring-cowl] comes closest to
    resembling a Bucker Jungmeister.  In fact, Ernie Huber [lately a
    big name in the helicopter world], who worked for Andrews at the
    time the Aeromaster was introduced, once told me that Lou [Andrews]
    borrowed heavily from the Jungmeister when he designed the Aeromaster
    [which may be why it flies so d**n well...the Bucker is, to this
    day, considered the finest aerobatic bipe ever designed - a real
    pilots' airplane].
    
    Some minor cosmetic changes to the tail-feathers, an authentic paint
    scheme and you'd have a passable fun-scale Jungmeister.  Glad to
    hear you took the plunge...I learned more about flying from my first
    Aeromaster than any bird before or since.  It's a great teacher
    if you'll let it be.
    
    Adios amigo,	Al

	Al,

	My Aeromaster has (yes I know, how awfull) the wooden beam
	mounts.  I would never do that again as the d**n motor mounts
	are always loosening up.  It is the original style Andrews kit
	as were the two others that I have flown.  These were built
	by fellow club members and I didn't get a lot of stick time
	on their planes.  I usually fly from a grass field and so the
	takeoff speeds are most certainly lower.  Anyhow, when I first
	flew the plane, I almost snapped it in on the maiden flight, not
	expecting the left turn, which happened to be towards the pits.
	To tame this, I added the 2 deg of right thrust and it seemed
	to help a lot.

	The ailerons on my ship are the barn door style with the hinge
	line at the top surface of the wing so that only the lower edge
	of the aileron is beveled.  Before I sealed the air gap, which
	I have to admit was not as tight as it is on planes I build these
	days, the aileron response was sluggish.  The plane would kind
	of lumber through rolling manuvers as if it really mattered that
	top wing was going along for the ride.  After the "fold the aileron
	back, and apply mylar tape to the underside" treatment, the
	response was much improved with the same control throw.  By the
	way, what are you using for control throws?  Any differential?

	Hasta lluego
	ron

    Ron,
    
    I've never done anything but install the ailerons/linkages exactly
    as shown on the plans.  Unless this stock setup provides some dif-
    ferential, I don't use any.  Yer' absolutely right about hinge-gap;
    if the gap isn't nice and snug, sluggishness could result and sealing
    the gap would be required to restore the crisp aileron response that's
    typical of the Aeromaster.  I've never had to do anything unusual
    in this area.  Sounds like we're gonna' have a bumper-crop of new
    Aeromasters this spring, eh?  That's great!
    
    Adios,	Al

>< Note 374.18 by GHANI::CASEYA "THE DESERT RAT (I-RC-AV8)" >
>                        -< HERE WE GO AGAIN, TOM...... >-
>
>    Don,
>    
>    Looks like Tom and I are gonna' disagree on this point [seems like
>    we're in sync about nearly everything except bipes].  In my humble
>    opinion, the short wing, both wings swept is the best flying version
>    with the version Tom describes in .-1 a close second.  It'd be hard
>    to go wrong with either version.  My observation has been that the
>    long wing version [in any configuration] is inferior in the area
>    of aerobatics to any of the short wing versions.
>                                                    
>    Adios,	Al

OK Al - I just looked at the plans for the first time last night and I guess
I have to add some confusion to your opinion.  There are only three wing
configurations in the plans.  (1) Short swept top wing and short straight
bottom wing.  (2) Long swept top wing and short straight bottom wing.  
(3) Long swept top wing and long swept bottom wing.  Now maybe in the
original Andrews kit you could get a short swept bottom wing - but no such
animal exists in the new Great Planes Super Aeromaster.  So unless you can
correct me and assuming that I can't be tempted to hack the plans then
it looks like the wing configuration of choice would be what Tom suggested
with the Short swept top wing and the Short straight bottom wing.

Sooooo are all you Aeromaster builders not up to the "build the wing" part
yet?

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

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

    Kay,
    
    I'll double check the plans in my Andrews kit but I'm reasonably
    certain that the swept lower wing "was" a kit-option in the Andrews.
    I certainly don't remember "modifying" the lower wing, though it'd
    be easy to do by just duplicating the center-section arrangement
    of the top wing.
    
    In any case, both wings short/top-swept/bottom-straight is a fine
    flying bird and you can't go wrong with this configuration if you
    feel disinclined to modify the bottom-wing.
    
    Adios amigo,	Al

    Kay,
    
    After re-reading yer' note, I see where the confusion's coming from.
    As you said, the 3rd option is both wings long "and" swept. I guess
    we simply added a 4th option, that of building both wings "short"
    and swept.  The parts and instructions are there to do this even
    though the plans don't specifically list this configuration as an
    option; simply build the top wing short and build the bottom wing
    swept but "don't" add the parts to make it longer...keep it short. 
    
    Adios,	Al

Some of the guys at my club say that the stock Aeromaster landing gear doesn't
hold up very well. They're using aluminum gear. Is there any truth to this? Will
adding ply doublers per some previous notes help out (i.e. keep the wire
gear from ripping out of the balsa)?

Glenn Schrader

    Glenn,
    
    The stock Aeromaster landing gear is a [builder soldered-up music-wire
    affair comprised of [I think] 4-wire components.  If properly assembled
    [and it ain't that tough to do], I've never known this gear to fail
    unless, of course, you prang it so hard that "any" gear would be
    reconfigured.  The gear attaches to the fuse by means of a heavy
    plywood plate, grooved to accept the wire and secured by straps
    screwed to the plate.  Other than a little triangle stock on the
    inside of the fuse, maybe, further beefing is unnecessary.
    
    I strongly recommend retaining the stock landing gear as it makes
    the ground-handling just challenging enough to "really" teach you
    about taildraggers.  Dural-aluminum gears that lower the nose and
    have a wider track remove this feature by making the ground handling
    almost too tame.  Of course, if that's what you want, go for it
    but I'd suggest retaining the stock gear for use after the alum.
    gear has been mastered, just so you can let the bird teach you
    something about handling tricky taildraggers.  
    
    Adios,	Al

	I like the stock gear too!!

	It looks so much "classier" than a flat piece of al (ha ha)
	hangin' out there in the breeze.  Only failure mode I've seen
	is user input error on the soldering.  Make sure to wrap the
	good clean steel wire with some real fine copper wire before
	soldering and you should have no problems.  A coat of clear
	epoxy paint after assembly keeps the steel from rusting.

	BTW: you gota' learn this technique anyway cause you wouldn't
	use a dural cabane would ya??

	ron

    
    	What I have seen in a lot of solder jobs is that people aren't
    using sufficient heat. Most solder jobs are globbed on cold solder
    joints. What I suggest is careful use of a torch when soldering
    large wire/rods. As Ron indicated wrap the joints with wire. Wrap
    them as tight as you can get it. Use plenty os flux. 
    	What I usually do is go back and reheat all the joints with
    the flame of the torch on the wire not on the solder. I start to
    heat the wire and then transfer the flame to the solder then back
    to the wire and the back to the solder. I do this until the solder
    flows. Usually some solder will drain from the joint. More solder
    doesn't make the joint any stronger. It is the flowing and the 
    intermetalic bond of the solder/wire/rod that is the strength of
    the joint. I pulse the flame from solder to the steel rod to keep
    from heating the wire to a cherry red condition. This red cherry
    condition usually serves to weaken the wire. You want to avoid this
    red cherry condition. If after the solder joint is done some
    impressionsof the wire can be seen in the joint and you don't want
    this then fill the joint with epoxy and sand it smooth. After this
    you will usually paint the wire anyways. OH, don't forget to wash
    the soldered joints after the solder opperation with soap and water.
    This is to remove and active flux. Use a brush during this washing
    operation. 
    	To dress up the landing gear and the cabanes try adding some
    balsa,bass or ply fairings.
    
    					Tom

        Re:< Note 374.40 by SPKALI::THOMAS >

                Another common  mistake  is to use electrical solder.  It
        doesn't work well  at  all  because it's too soft and cannot take
        the strain that's put  on a landing gear.  Use silver solder, and
        as  the  previous  note stated,  use  a  torch.    I  speak  from
        experiance.  The first landing gear  I  have done right was on my
        aeromaster and in spite of ripping the bottom of the fuselage out
        several times the gear is still in perfect condition.
        
        Anker

    	I am finally making good progress on my fuse.  I am planning
    to beef up the landing gear plate attach to the fuse with triangle
    stock.  It looks too weak to me without more glueing surface on
    the fuse sides.  I have seen some people use this weak mounting
    technique to minimize damage during a really bad landing or an
    overshoot into tall grass by allowing the gear mount to tear out
    if the gear gets snagged.  I have not been having gear problems
    with my other birds, so I intend to mount it as solid as I can without
    adding unnecessary weight.  Does anyone know where I can get silver
    solder for doing the gear?  I really haven't looked for it yet.
    Can I use the same flux that I use to solder copper water pipes?
    
    Charlie
    

        Re:< Note 374.42 by LEDS::WATT >

                Be very  careful  in  this  area.    The problem with the
        design is that  the  landing gear indeed will tear out, even on a
        soft landing in long  grass.   Unfortunately, it will tear out by
        breaking the fuse balsa, and  after  a  while  you  will turn the
        front end of the fuse into  a  hideous  mess  of epoxy, balsa and
        other stuff.  I would suggest going further and glue in some thin
        ply doublers on the fuse side above the  landing  gear plate that
        extend  several inches up into the fuse and then  use  reasonably
        large triangle sock to get a good bond between the  landing  gear
        plate and the fuse.
        
                Any hardware  store  has  silver  solder.  I haven't used
        flux, but I  sanded the wire just before soldering.  In addition,
        I used fairly heavy  gauge  copper  wire  to wrap the gear.  As I
        sais earlier, the gear has  held up without any problems, as have
        the carbane struts.
        
        Anker

        Re:< Note 374.42 by LEDS::WATT >

        Charlie,
        
                I don't remember what engine you  are  planning to put in
        the Aeromaster.  If it's a two stroke you will find that you need
        to add weight to the nose to get it to balance right.  The weight
        might as well be useful weight, so I wouldn't  be troubled by the
        weight of the ply doublers.
        
        Anker

    Has anybody seen an Aeromaster with ailerons on both top and bottom
    wings (maybe with a second aileron servo buried in the top wing)? I
    plan on building mine stock (short wings/straight bottom wing) but i'm
    curious about if this has ever been tried. 

    Glenn 

The silver solder that's being talked about here is, I believe,
the low-temperature variety such as Sta-Brite.  This solder can
be used with an ordinary iron and is much stronger than regular
lead-tin solder.

Real silver solder must be used with a torch as it melts at 1200
or so degrees. 

    I made good progress on my fuse this weekend.  I got the low temp
    solder from Ray's RC in Worchester and I used my trusty soldering
    gun. (250 W) I knew it would come in handy some day.  It gets way
    too hot to solder electronic stuff.  I'll probably take Anker's
    advice and beef up the fuse sides above the gear mounts.
    	My original plan was to use a 60 2-stroke, but I just ordered
    an OS 1.2 4-stroke and I think I will use it in this plane.  This
    engine is fairly heavy, so I don't expect to have to add nose weight.
    
    Charlie
    

    Glenn,
    
    Re: yer' question about using 4-ailerons on the Aeromaster...I've
    never seen this done and, frankly, believe it'd be overkill.  If
    properly built and setup, the ailerons on the Aeromaster are plenty
    crisp enough with surfaceson the bottom wing only.
    
    If, however, someone felt bound to try ailerons on the top wing,
    I'd certainly recommend against installing an extra servo in the
    wing...in lieu of that, I'd simply install and hinge the upper sur-
    faces then drive them from an external pushrod interconnecting the 
    servo-driven bottom ailerons to the "slave" upper ailerons as is
    done on many full-scale and model bipes, e.g. the Bucker Jungmeister.
      
    Adios,	Al

    	I haven't updated my progress lately, so I'll do it now:
    I have completed rough assembly of the upper wing and I am done
    with the lower wing except for sheeting the wing tips.  The top
    wing went quickly, but the bottom one with the ailerons was alot
    more work.  I should finish the wings completely this weekend since
    it's gonna be too cold to go outside much.  
    	The fuse is almost complete also.  I haven't attached the stab
    and fin or the gear block.  The tank installation is almost complete.
    I received my OS 1.2 Surpass, but I am having second thoughts of
    using it in the Aeromaster.  The engine is long and heavy and I
    think that I will have to add tail weight to balance it.  I am setting
    up my mount so that I can substitute my Supertigre 61 without much
    trouble.  I am planning ahead in case I decide the OS is just too
    much of an engine for this plane.  I will throw everything together
    temporarily as soon as I can to check how bad the balance will be
    with both engines.  By the way, does anyone have any experience
    with the Aeromaster with a 90 or 1.2 4-stroke?  If so, what kind
    of problems with balance?
    	Overall, I have enjoyed this kit.  It is a good step up in
    complexity from my last project - a Super Sportster 40.  I am
    really looking forward to flying the Aeromaster.  Actually, I am
    just looking forward to flying - period as soon as the weather
    improves.
    
    Charlie
    

        Re:< Note 374.49 by LEDS::WATT >

        Charlie,
        
                The Aeromaster  is  set  up  for  4 stroke engines, and I
        would have no  hesitation installing a 1.2.  With regards to nose
        heavy operation my experience  is  that  it's  a problem when the
        plane can't dead stick in  with  full  up  (my Robinhood was like
        this till I added 4 oz of lead to the tail).  I can gaurantee you
        won't have this problem.  Aerobatic ability is  also  supposed to
        suffer if the plane is nose heavy, but I haven't noticed (may say
        more about my aerobatic capabilities). 
        
                Go for it.  There's a guy on our field with an Aeromaster
        set  up  with  an  O.S.   1.2 and it's awesome to  see  it  climb
        vertically.
        
        Anker

    Charlie,
    
    The Aeromaster at 6 1/2 to 7 lb.s performs magnificently on a plain-
    vanilla .60 and is spectacular with a schneurle .60.  In my estimation,
    a 4-stroke .90 would probably provide equivalent performance and
    the 1.20 seems a little like overkill but I'll have to defer to
    Anker as I've never seen one perform in an Aeromaster.
    
    Many of the locals, however, routinely run 1.20's in larger (70-80")
    Tournament of Champions type ships, semi-scale aerobatic types like
    Chipmunks, Spinks Akromasters, Lasers, Diabolos, etc. in the 8-12
    lb. range.  These birds have impressive perfomance at their size
    and weight which causes me to think that the same engine in a little
    6/12 lb. bipe is a little much, unless yer' out for a real "hot-rod"
    with rocket-like performance that would require a cool, experienced
    hand at the controls.  In the hands of a pilot possessing less than
    above average experience/skill, I'd imagine such a ship as being
    an accident looking for a place to happen...just my opinion.
    
    Adios,	Al

        Re:< Note 374.51 by MAUDIB::CASEYA "THE DESERT RAT (I-RC-AV8)" >

        Al,
        
                You are right.  In terms of power the 1.2 may be a bit of
        a handful.   I  was only commenting on the weight.  My Aeromaster
        performed extremely well on  a regular K&B .61, but I had trouble
        getting enough weight into the  nose to balance it properly.  One
        possiblity with a large engine is  to  use  a large diameter, low
        pitch prop, which should give great vertical  penetration without
        being a screamer on the level.
        
        Anker

    Re: -1 and -2
    
    	I am not only a little worried about the weight, but the moment
    since the 1.2 is very long.  The best I can do since I have already
    positioned the firewall, is get the prop about 3/8 inch in front
    of where it is shown in the plans.  Even this requires a small mod
    to the mount to provide clearance for the choke flap.  In the unchoked
    position, the flap sticks back toward the firewall and hits the
    rear of the mount that I have.  I want the plane to have spectacular
    performance, but I don't want it to glide like a brick either. 
    I will give the 1.2 a try unless the balance comes out ridiculous.
    I am still going to provide the option to go with the ST61.  
    
    Charlie
    

        Re:< Note 374.53 by LEDS::WATT >

                You will  find  that a .61 two stoke is too light and not
        only has to  be mounted on a 1-2" block in front of the firewall,
        but you'll also have  to  add weight to the nose.  Even worse, an
        inverted  two  stoke  is  a  menace.   Adjusting  the  engine  is
        downright dangerous (scared me out of my wits), but the fuel will
        siphon  out  of  the carb with the fuel tank in  the  recommended
        position.    If  you  insist on installing a two stoke, mount  it
        sideways  and make sure the carb adjustment is easy to reach.   I
        would recommend mounting it so the fuel line is above the carb.
        
        Anker

    Re:.54
    	I definately will not mount any engine inverted in the aeromaster!
    Inverted engines are too much trouble to start.  I spent quite some
    time planning my engine installation this weekend, and I came up
    with a couple of ideas.  First, I am going ahead with the OS1.2
    installation.  I am mounting it sideways with the cylinder to the
    left.  I modified my mount to allow me to move the OS1.2 back as
    far as possible by machining out a spot for the choke plate mechinism.
    If I try the ST61 2-stroke, I will use the same mount since it has
    sliding plates to adapt to the width of the engine.  I will move
    it forward to put the prop washer where it is with the 1.2.  The
    only problem with the sideways mount with a 2-stroke is the muffler.
    I have a swing muffler on my SuperTigre, so it will go on, but it
    would fit better if the engine were mounted vertical.  I could rotate
    the mount 90 degrees and mount it vertical, but I would have to
    move the mounting holes on the firewall.  This might be tricky after
    the fuse is closed up on the bottom.  I did make sure that I can
    remove and install the fuel tank after the fuse is finished off.
    I have been burned before when I had to remove a tank to fix a
    leaky stopper.  I now try to make them removable without having
    to tear the fuse apart.
    	I got my wings sanded and the center sections glassed.  I used
    envirotex epoxy for this and it came out nice.  The stuff takes
    forever to cure at 70 degrees though.  I had to put a head lamp
    on it to help it along.  I ended up waiting overnight to sand and
    apply the next coat.
                                            
    
    Thanks for the advice - keep it comming.
    
    Charlie
    

    Charlie,
    
    As an alternative to isde or vertical mounting, you might want to
    consider this: I like to mount my engines at some angle between
    vertical and 90-degrees, somewhere in the area of 40-45-degrees
    from vertical.  This setup offers all the benefits of both the vertical
    and side-mounted installations in addition to nestling the 2-cycle
    muffler snugly alongside the bottom of the fuse.
    
    I mark the propshaft centerline on the firweall then, with
    engine/muffler installed on the mount, I let the desired muffler
    position determine the optimum engine angle.  You may want to play
    with this idea before committing yer'self to either a vertical or
    side-mount setup.
    
    Adios,	Al
    
    BTW, I must be lucky or have managed to build such that no excessive
    tailweight is realized as I've never had to add noseweight to any
    of my three .60-2cy. powered Aeromasters.

    Al,
    	I like the 45-degree idea.  I may see if I can drill my mount
    so that I can mount it 90 degrees for the 4-stroke or 45 degrees
    with the 61.  I would like to use the same blind mounting nuts.
    I was also toying with the idea of making a 90-degree exhaust
    manifold extension so that if I mount the 61 at 90-degrees the muffler
    would exit the side instead of the bottom of the fuse.  Has anyone
    ever done this?  It seems like it would be easy to make out of a
    small aluminum block.  I am going to ask one of our mechanical
    techs for a little help on this.
    
    Thanks,
    		Charlie
    

    Charlie,
    
    Just be aware that acute 90-degree angles in the muffler's header
    are extremely power-robbing...that's one of the reasons I like the
    45-degree setup; the conventional muffler can be made to lie along
    the lower edge of the fuse with no modifications required.
    
    Adios,	Al

    Re :-1
    Al,
    	Good point!  I looked over the 45-degree idea last night, and
    I think that I will do that rather than take the time to make an
    adapter.  I drew something up that would position the muffler up
    even with the top of the head, and I got worried about putting too
    much stress on the exhaust port mounting surface.  The extra moment
    arm of the muffler 'looked' bad to me. (I'm not on solid ground
    here.)  
    
    Charlie
    

    Charlie,
    
    Go fer' it...I know you'll like the setup and the numerous advantages
    it provides, accessibility and ease of handling being among the most
    important.
                                                          
    Adios,	Al

    	I havn't given an update on my progress lately, but the Aeromaster
    is progressing nicely.  Wings and Fuse are sanded and ready for
    covering.  I covered the top wing after assembling everything uncovered
    to check for balance.  I tried both the OS1.2 and the Supertigre61
    and I found that the plane is nose heavy with both.  Especially
    with the heavy 1.2.  I have decided to go with the 61 2-stroke so
    I'll save the OS1.2 for my next plane.  I should have everything
    covered by this weekend if I get any evenings free to work on it.
    
    Charlie
    

        Re:< Note 374.61 by LEDS::WATT >

        Charlie,
        
                Don't  forget  that  the  covering  changes  the  balance
        drastically.  I never bothered balancing an uncovered plane.  The
        covering tends to move  the  CG  towards  the  tail, so you would
        expect the uncovered plane to be nose heavy with any engine.
        
        Anker

    Charlie,
    
    Anker's dead right!  Balancing an uncovered plane is rather
    meaningless.  The covering and _ESPECIALLY_ paint will move the
    CG back considerably.  I do, however, agree with yer' decision to
    go with the .61 2-cycle...you'll have a fine flying ship.  BTW,
    what wing/sweep configuration did you end up with?
    
    Adios,	Al

    Al, Anker,
    	I know that covering will affect balance considerably, but I
    took this into account.  I had already covered the tail surfaces,
    and I temporarily installed the rudder and elevator along with the
    tail wheel. I also temporarily installed control cables.
    I was just looking for a rough idea of what to expect.  I try to
    anticipate where to put the radio gear and battery to minimize balance
    problems later.  I will cover everything before doing the final
    location of the servos, receiver, and battery pack.  I ended up
    building the two swept wing version due to the possibility of using
    the heavy engine.  I also liked the looks of this configuration.
    

>< Note 374.64 by LEDS::WATT >

>    location of the servos, receiver, and battery pack.  I ended up
>    building the two swept wing version due to the possibility of using
>    the heavy engine.  I also liked the looks of this configuration.

I hate to keep re bringing this up (like cud) but there is no two swept wing
version (least not my version of the Great Planes Super Aeromaster).
Al hinted that perhaps the Andrews kit had that variant or that perhaps early
Great Planes version had that variant - but not the present "Super" Aeromaster.

Sooooooo
Did you modify your plans as per Al Casey's suggestion or do you have
plans that include both wings swept?

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

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

    Kay,
    
    My great planes kit suggested the two swept wing version for 4-stroke
    versions due to the increased flying weight.  They show three versions:
    1. Two short unswept wings
    2. Short unswept bottom, long swept top
    3. Two long swept wings (52inches)
    
    I built the version three wings.
    
    Charlie
    

    Charlie,
    
    Are you sure about the configuration you describe as version #1?
    I've never seen/heard of a version with two straight wings.  I think
    version #1 shoud be: both wings short-top wing swept/bottom wing
    straight.  Otherwise, your descriptions jive with the versions I
    remember for the Andrews Aeromaster-Too and {I'd assumed] the Great
    Planes Super Aeromaster.
    
    I can't begin to imagine how/why Kay would've gotten a kit that
    didn't show [and provide parts for] these basic variations.  Could
    it be you're missing something, Kay?  Have another look at the plans/
    instructions and see if this isn't so.
    
    In any event, even if the plans _didn't_ show the variations, it's
    deucedly simple to sweep the lower wing...you just build it over
    the plan for the [swept] upper wing.
    
    Adios amigos,	Al

>< Note 374.67 by MAUDIB::CASEYA "THE DESERT RAT (I-RC-AV8)" >
>                  -< NOT SURE ABOUT YER' VERSION-ONE.....??? >-
...
>    Are you sure about the configuration you describe as version #1?
>    I've never seen/heard of a version with two straight wings.  I think
>    version #1 shoud be: both wings short-top wing swept/bottom wing
>    straight.  Otherwise, your descriptions jive with the versions I
>    remember for the Andrews Aeromaster-Too and {I'd assumed] the Great
>    Planes Super Aeromaster.
>    
>    I can't begin to imagine how/why Kay would've gotten a kit that
>    didn't show [and provide parts for] these basic variations.  Could
>    it be you're missing something, Kay?  Have another look at the plans/
>    instructions and see if this isn't so.
...
>    Adios amigos,	Al
...
>>I hate to keep re bringing this up (like cud) but there is no two swept wing
>>version (least not my version of the Great Planes Super Aeromaster).
...
Sorry for adding the above confusion - there is indeed a two swept wing version.
I forgot because it was two LONG wings and I thought there was a consensus
amongst the noters that versions with the short wings were the way to go.

You didn't say long wings in your original note and I assumed short when I read
it.  

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


>< Note 374.34 by K::FISHER "Battery, Mags, & Gas Off!" >
>                     -< More wing configuration confusion >-
...
>There are only three wing configurations in the plans.  
>(1) Short swept top wing and short straight bottom wing.  
>(2) Long swept top wing and short straight bottom wing.  
>(3) Long swept top wing and long swept bottom wing.

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

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

    Kay,
    
    To [hopefully] clear the air about the various Aeromaster wing configs,
    while it isn't specifically shown on the plans, the both wings
    swept/both wings short variation has been found [here lacally, at
    least] to be the best flying version, from a purely aerobatic stand-
    point.  Merely build both wings over the swept drawings but clip
    them to the short length(s).  CG will be the same as that shown
    for the both wings long/swept version.
    
    A close second is the original,stock config: both wings short, bottom
    wing straight, top wing swept.  Gentlest/friendliest of the possible
    variations is the both wings long/swept version.  Again, if a modeler
    wanted to, even though it's not specifically called out as a variation,
    he "could" build both wings long, bottom wing straight and have a
    slightly even friendlier bird.  
    
    (Now I'm not sure whether I clarified anything ar simply added to
    the confusion)  Point is that parts/drawings are there to build
    more variations than are specifically described by the kit/plans
    if the modeler wants to be creative...that's where the both wings
    swept/short version came from.
    
    Adios amigo,	Al

    Al,
    	I goofed on the version one.  It is as you described with short
    straight bottom wing, swept short top wing.
    Charlie
    

    I'm putting the finishing touches on the Aeromaster, finally.  I
    spent most of this weekend putting on the red trim over the white
    covering.  I got the radio installed and the control surfaces set
    up last weekend, so it's almost ready for flying.  I have left the
    cowel and wheel pants for last.  Has anyone had experience with
    wheel pants on grass?   I am tempted to fly without them at least
    initially.  I have built and glassed the cowel, but I haven't cut
    it out for the engine yet.  I want to test fly it without the cowel
    anyway.  The Aeromaster came out slightly nose heavy even with the
    fairly light wieght Supertigre 61 up front.  I moved the radio gear
    as far aft as I could, but I still will have to add a tad of weight
    to the tail.  
    	Does anyone have any setup tips for the Aeromaster?  I'm used
    to flying a farily responsive Super Sportster, but I've never owned
    or flown a Bipe.  I can't wait to get my new ship flying.  I think
    that I will wait until it warms up a tad though. (It was only
    10 degrees f this morning at 7 AM.)
    
    Charlie
    

        Re:< Note 374.71 by LEDS::WATT >

                My Aeromaster  experience  is  that  you  should  set the
        ailerons for as  much  throw  as  you can put into them, moderate
        elevator throw and depending on what you want to do with the skip
        either moderate or as much rudder throw as you can.  I'm sure you
        have learned from the Super Sportster  that  you  need  a  lot of
        rudder to hold it in a knife edge.
        
        Anker

    Anker,
    	Are the throws called for in the plans a good place to start,
    or should I go with more?
    
    Charlie
    

        Re:< Note 374.73 by LEDS::WATT >

        Charlie,
        
                As far  as  I  remember  I started with the throws in the
        plans and decided  to increase aileron throw.  Less aileron throw
        won't get you into  trouble,  but the manouvers are really snappy
        with full aileron throw and  it  doesn't  make the ship harder to
        fly, for me at least. I hope someone else also comments on this.
        
        Anker
        
        Anker

    Charlie,
    
    I'd throw in with Anker's observations.  Particularly with the long-
    wing version, you'll want adequate aileron response...I'd go with
    no less that the plans specify and maybe a little more, being acutely
    aware of them on that first takeoff so as not to over/under control.
    
    All the rudder you can get is S.O.P. for nearly any/all tailgragger(s).
    the plans setting should be adeduate for elevator. 
    
    Unless grossly nose heavy, I might suggest waiting `til after the
    test hop to add weight to the tail...it's _MUCH_ better to be nose
    heavy than tail heavy on initial fkights.  As I recall, the CG is
    at a point on the bottom of the top wing about 1/4" ahead of the
    rear cabane strut.  A slight nose down attitude when checking from
    this point is desireable but it shouldn't pitch the nose straight
    down.
    
    I think yer' very wise to leave the cowl and wheel pants off for
    the firsr several flights...find the handle on the ship's ground
    handling before exposing these parts to jeopardy.  Remember, though,
    to recheck the C.G. after adding these items.  If memory serves,
    the cowl is built up from balsa so it _shouldn't_ be much of a factor
    but you _should_ recheck.
    
    On using the wheel pants on grass, I don't know what yer' grass
    is like but you should appreciate that the pants won't tolerate
    much abuse before tearing off.  We use them frequently on asphalt
    and smooth dirt surfaces but I'd think, unless yer' flying surface
    is nearly as smooth and closely mowed as a putting green, you might
    be wise to just leave the pants off.
    
    Adios and g'luck with the test hop,	   Al 

    Anker, Al,
    	Sounds like good advice to me.  Right now the balance point
    is a little under 1/2 inch forward of where it is shown on the plans
    for the 52 inch wing version.  I don't intend to add tail weight
    until I find out how it handles like it is.  I shouldn't have to
    add much weight at the tail to move the CG to where the plans show
    it even with the cowl in place unless I go back and install the
    OS 1.2 in the nose.  I think that the 1.2 weighs at least 8 oz more
    than the Supertigre 61.  By the way, has anyone got a way to properly
    service a four stroke that is under a cowl?   It looks like you
    need a way to remove the hose from the crankcase breather that goes
    to the intake manifold and inject after run oil into it after flying.
    I would not want to have to remove the cowl after every flying session.
    
    Charlie
    

    Well,
    	The Aeromaster is ready to test fly.  I'm just waiting for the
    weather to cooperate.  I'm not happy with the muffler setup (Supertigre
    Swing Muffler exiting below the fuse), but it is ok until I finish
    the cowl installation.  I got some info from Davis Diesel on their
    line of quiet mufflers.  Does anyone know anything about them? 
    They have a Pitts Style muffler that would exit downward as well
    as a bunch of standard side mount mufflers.  They claim significant
    engine noise reduction without major performance reduction.  I am
    not sure whether this muffler would fit inside the cowl with the
    ST61.
    
    Charlie
    

Timely that the Aeromaster discussions should start up now.
I started mine last night.  I just finished the Great Planes
Big Stick 20 and now the Aeromaster is also a Great Planes kit.

I gotta say that I am quite impressed with the quality and quantity
of these kits.  By quantity I mean that you get a lot of good wood
and parts for the money.  It would be hard to scratch build an Aeromaster
bipe for less than the $89 for the kit.  I don't think you could and
they do a super job on a lot of custom cut plywood and small music
wire parts.

Here's a challenge - next time your in your local hobby shop compare
the weight of the Great Planes kits against other brands - and that
doesn't mean they come out over weight - there is just a lot to them.

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

    Kay,
    
    When you and Kevin visited my shop, you noticed the Andrews
    Aeromaster-Too kit I have.  Did you happen to notice the price marked
    on the box? (Geez, I hate myself for doing this! ;8^})  $42.95 !!
    But, yer' right, $89.00 is a real good price [today] for a ship
    like the Aeromaster. 
    
    Charlie..., Best of luck on the upcoming test-hop!!!!!   

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

    Kay,
    	I agree with you on the overall quality of the Great Planes
    kit.  Still, make sure that you pick through things and replace
    any marginal balsa pieces.  I had a couple of warped spar pieces,
    and I have learned to replace things like that rather than trying
    to get by with them.  I enjoyed building my Aeromaster, but it was
    fairly time consuming due to the complexity. (compared to a Super
    Sportster for example) There is some good advice in this note about
    strengthing the gear mount attachment, and don't forget to install
    the extra supports for the Wing Mounts.  My kit had a separate added
    instruction sheet that tells you to do this.
    
    Charlie
    

1.  I really liked that wire that Great Planes supplied for the landing gear
    struts and cabane struts.  I would like to redue the cabane struts cause
    I forgot to sand the steel wires first.  But also I would like to get
    a big spool of it for future use.  Where can I get some more?  Before
    you say radio shack - what do you call that stuff?  If the local guy
    at the radio shack store asks me what I'm going to use it for then
    his reply will be - "We don't stock anything for model airplanes!".

2.  After I finished the fuselage the instructions for the wings tell me
    to select nice hard straight pieces of 1/4 x 1/4 balsa for the spars.
    This after I've been randomly consuming 1/4 x 1/4 for days on the fuselage!
    Well - I'm thinking of getting some 1/4 x 1/4 bass wood today.  Can
    I really use balsa for spars?

3.  I read anchors note about reinforcing the fuselage just aft of the
    doubler.  It's a little hard to get at now - but not impossible!
    Any good ideas on exactly how to reinforce this area?  It is not
    a nice flat place where I could epoxy some plywood in cause forward
    of the former there is a super thick (maybe 3/8) Balsa doubler then
    the former edge goes another 1/4 inch in then way back down to the
    balsa fuselage side.  Of course all this is hidden behind a gaggle
    of stringers now.  The side view looks something this:

                             edge of former
	inside			!
    ############################!
for ############################!                                aft
    --------------------------------------------------------------
        outside

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

    Kay,
    
    1. I assume you're referring to the fine, soft wire used to bind
    the wire parts together prio to soldering, right/wrong?  If that's
    indeed what you mean, I buy fine, bare copper wire all the time
    at virtually any hardware store.  What do I call it?  Jeez, I don't
    know...fine copper wire I guess.  B^)  It comes either rolled up
    in a bubble-pak or on a small spool like sewing thread.
    
    2. Yes, the Aeromaster uses balsa spars.  Heck, so does the MiG-3;
    there's nothing wrong with balsa spars if designed/engineered into
    the airframe properly.  Even the ol' Yeller Peril has balsa spars.
    Basswood isn't really necessary 'til we get to the larger types.
    Go ahead and use the 1/4-square balsa...I assure you, if you break
    'em, little else will be unbroken!  They'll never fail in the air.
    
    3. The best you can probably do at this stage is to add some tri-
    stock aft (Oh my Gawd!  Now he's got _me_ doing it.) of the bulkhea...,
    I mean _former_, at the rear of the wing saddle.  It's too late to do it 
    the way I recommend which is to inlay some 1/32" ply between the 3/8"
    balsa doubler and the fuse side and extends several inches aft..,
    er, ah, to the rear of the forementioned former.   

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

    Kay,
    	Make sure that the wire is not coated with any insulating stuff.
    Lots of copper wire is coated with enamel to be used as magnet wire.
    If it is, you must remove it with a solvent before you can solder
    it.  Make sure that you use the low temp silver solder that the
    instructions call for.  Regular electrical solder is too soft.
    I sanded the wire with 400 grit paper as well as sanding the struts.
    I also added some tri-stock above the gear mounting plate to give
    it more strength.  
    	I second AL's motion that the balsa spars are fine for a wing
    this size.  Get some straight ones so that the wing will have a
    chance to be straight.  
    
    Charlie
    

>                               -< Get Bare Wire >-

You guys are helping but let's get closer on the wire.  What came with the
kit was not copper - it was more like what we used to call safety wire
in the Navy and whatever that was made out of - one thing was for sure -
you could not solder safety wire.  So - you guys with Aeromaster kits from 
Great Planes - what kind of wire is that?  Al - I think your Andrews kit
was shipped before the founder of Radio Shack was born.

Hmmmmm - maybe it's some of that genuine Ford bailing wire for holding
up mufflers?  Maybe it's something you buy in the grocery store for
lacing up turkeys?  Maybe it's ECO wire without the EC?  But it's steel
(or something close) and not copper (much stronger than copper).

P.S.  Al - when are you going to crack open the box on that Andrews
      Aeromaster?

P.S.S.  Al - did you upgrade the radio on the MiG yet?

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

    
    	Kay, I would say the wire you are searching for is what is
    available in Auto parts stores known as "Mechanics wire"  Same as
    the military "safety wire" but at half the cost, of course!
    	I was thinking that it is a stainless steel derivitave, but
    I realised it cannot be...cause it would be more resistant to
    rust than it is, and probably less apt to break under stress - as
    when the safety wire pliers are used to tighten it.
    	Hope your search is fruitful,
    
    		Brian
    

    Re: .84, Kay,
    
    The answers to yer' questions are: soon and yes.
    
    I spent 3-full days recently mucking out my shop which was probably
    5-years overdue.  Having moved my wifes sewing-corner into a spare
    bedroom, I rearranged things somewhat from when you visited and,
    at long last, found/made space for everything that was laying around
    cluttering things up.  Now that I can again see the bench tops,
    I'm inspired to finish up the oldtimer Playboy Sr. (or set it aside)
    and start stackin' 'n gluin' on the Andrews Aeromonster.  I'll build
    it stock except for sweeping both [short] wings and modifying wings
    and landing gear for bolt-on rather than rubberband attachment. Oh,
    and I _may_ fair the nose in to a spinner and add wheel-pants.
    
    The MiG-3 radio has been changed but I haven't had the opportunity
    to fly it yet and I won't be able to this weekend either as I'm
    going to the float-fly in Cottonwood (postponed from last weekend).
    Maybe next weekend...gotta' get with it soon as the Tucson qualifier
    is just around the corner.

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

    Kay,
    	My kit came with wire that I think is copper with a coating,
    maybe ni.  It is very soft like copper.  I sanded it before soldering.
    By the way, I saw a package of bare copper wire packaged by SIG
    in the local hobby shop.  
    	I still haven't gotten a test flight on my Aeromaster.  Maybe
    this week if the rain goes away.
    
    Charlie
    

>    and start stackin' 'n gluin' on the Andrews Aeromonster.  I'll build
>    it stock except for sweeping both [short] wings and modifying wings

I've given your suggested mod for sweeping both wings considerable thought.
It sure looks difficult to me.  I would opt for using the long sweep wing
and just leaving off a rib or two but the interesting thing is that the long
sweep wing is swept back at a different angle than the short swept wing.

So in order to make both wings sweep the same you would have to build both
long wings and shorten each of them.  An interesting aside is that the
long wings don't have any more ribs than the short ones - just spaced further
apart.

Hope to start the top wing tonight - probably the short sweep one.

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

I've just about finished my Aeromaster fuse., but I looked at the tailwheel
assembly and wondered if the stock setup would be able to take a reasonable
amount of punishment. What comes with the kit is a nylon bushing with a tab that
gets epoxied into a slot which is cut into the end of the fuse where the two
fuse sides come together. Has this caused anybody a problem or should I
leave it alone??

G. Schrader

        Re:< Note 374.89 by CANDAN::SCHRADER "I am not a PID, I am a FREE PROCESS!" >

                I never had a problem with the tail wheel.  It's still as
        good as new and has never even bent.
        
        Anker

    When I need to bind landing gear together I use a wire that I found
    at the local Rockie's. It was in the "picture haging" section. They
    have a copper and a tin/nickel (?) wire. It's not coated and works
    great for me.
    
    						Tom

My Super Aeromaster flew two days ago - and I won my $5.00 bet with Kevin.
It's on video and we'll probably make it available soon.  

It was a bit of a shock tho because when it took off it did so on it's
own.  If the camera showed my face I was scared.  There was too much
up elevator and I had to fly with most of the entire down trim.  As I 
was taking off I was waiting for the tail to come up and the whole plane
went up - gads.  Landing was a bit tricky because I found that with the 
throttle fully back and the trim all the way back it could climb at idle.

The old (new) OS blackhead heli engine worked pretty good.
Still in primer for now - probably see it's second flight tomorrow morning.
Gotta run.

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

    Kay, 
    
    Congratulations on the AeroMonster's maiden voyage!  Hope you have
    _MANY_ more successful flights with it.
    
    My Aeromasters were the best teachers I ever had; virtually every
    important thing I've learned, every good technique I know came directly
    from the Aeromaster.  Better yet, most of the bad habits I succeeded
    in breaking were a direct result of flying the Aeromaster...great
    bird, that; let it teach you!   

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

    Brian,
    
    The price, while seemingly steep in one gulp, is actually quite
    reasonable...if _that's_ what you really want.
    
    Yer' probably already aware that I praise the Aeromaster highly
    as one of the best "teachers" (in deference to the term _trainer_,
    which the Aeromaster certainly IS NOT) there is.  I'd hesitate,
    however, to recommend it to someone until he has at least an inter-
    mediate  type, i.e. low-wing, symmet/semi-symmet airfoil and has
    learned some mid-level aerobatics, e.g. inverted flight, snap-rolls,
    unusual attitudes, etc. under his belt.  I know little about the
    Duraplane's ability to prepare you but I suspect that you'd likely
    be skipping a vital learning stage to go directly to the Aeromaster.
    You _might_ get away with it (I know nothing of yer' aptitude) and,
    if you did, yer' learning-curve'd go ballistic, saving you the time
    and trouble of an intermediate ship but, be honest with yer'self
    regarding yer' skills and aptitude; the Aeromaster can humble even
    an experienced pilot in a heartbeat.  By all means _build_ one but,
    perhaps, hold it in reserve 'til you have mastered an intermediate
    ship or are honestly convinced yer' ready for it.
    
    On engines, I can't begin to imagine why Tower's matching a 1.20
    4-stroke to the Aeromaster; that's at least 1/3 more power than
    I'd consider optimum.  You may also be aware from the notes_file
    that I'm definitely _NOT_ a 4-stroke fan but I'd certainly think
    that a .90'd be as large as you'd want to go; a 1.20'd be spectacular
    (if you can keep the wings on it) with rocket-like performance,
    particularly in the verticals, but this setup is most definitely
    for the ace, hot-rock pilot...not the upcoming newcomer.
    
    Quite frankly, a .60 2-stroke is just perfect for the Aeromaster;
    a mild, plain-vanila .60 providing gentle-but-crisp performance
    which is manageable by the fledgling while a hot, schnuerle-ported
    .60-.61 makes the bird sparkle, giving performance almost on a par
    (but not quite) with the 1.20.  The increased weight/balance and
    fiddle-factor of a 4-stroke 1.20 immediately disqualifies it (in
    my opinion) as a viable power-plant for you at this stage of yer'
    R/C development.
    
    'fya' wanna' "Ramble" some more about it, I'd be pleased to do so,
    on-or-off-line.  Use PNO::CASEYA if you want to rap off-line.

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

    I probably mentioned to a couple of noters that I was not satisfied
    with the aileron setup on my Aeromaster.  It was developing slop
    at the belcranks and I could not get enough throw to get nice quick
    rolls.  I decided this past weekend to fix this problem.  I got
    two mini servos and mounted them in the wing instead of driving
    the ailerons through belcranks.  This was a tricky job because of
    the wing being covered and trimmed.  I ended up doing it without
    cutting holes in the top of the covering.  Only the wheels stick
    out of the wing and the pushrods are only 4 inches long.  Now I
    have no slop in the aileron control and I have about 40% more throw
    than before.  I can't wait to try it out.
    	I also ordered a fiberglass cowl.  I never installed the built
    up wood one that came with the kit.  It sure will look better with
    a cowl on it.  The next mod will be in the landing gear.  I want
    to make it a little stiffer for flying off rough ground.
    
    Charlie
    

    Charlie,
    Get some clear packing tape from work and cut a piece the length
    of your aileron. Deflect the aileron up and slip the tape into the
    opening.
    
    Then see how responsive the ailerons get....
    
    
    Tom

    Tom,
    	I did that last summer.  There was NO gap and things were still
    not to my liking.  I used ultracote to seal the gap.
    
    Charlie
    

    
    Bipes are known for being less sensitive in the roll axil than
    monoplanes. That why you see dual ailerons on all of the aerobatic
    bipes. You could try coupling rudder with the aileron input but
    be careful.
    Funny thing is that bipes are more sensitive to loops than monoplanes.
    I guess it's because they are basicly short coupled compated to
    monoplanes (tail moment is shorter).
    
    
    Tom

    Tom,
    	I've noticed the same thing with bipes.  They are very pitch
    sensitive due to the short tail moment and less roll sensitive probably
    due to the extra wing and shorter moment on the ailerons. (closer
    to fuse)  Having ailerons on both wings probably solves this problem.
    I have to get more stick time with my bipe and get used to it's
    characteristics, mainly more drag.  I expect that the extra throw
    on the ailerons will get my roll rate up to where I want it.  It
    should help snaps and spins some too.  I also need to experiment
    with CG location.  It ended up a little nose heavy due to changing
    from the 60 2-stroke to the 91 4-stroke.  Since I was test flying
    it without the cowl, I didn't bother to move the CG back.  I needed
    lots of elevator to get it to snap well.  I had to use dual rates
    on the elevator since it was too sensitive on high rate to fly
    smoothly.  Moving the CG should reduce the stability some and make
    it more exciting.  It'll look much better with the cowl as well.

        Re:< Note 374.97 by CSTEAM::HENDERSON "Mode-1 for Ever" >

                My Aeromaster  has  a  high  roll  rate  and snaps like a
        champ.  All  I  did  was  to cover the aileron gaps with Monokote
        from the bottom and  give  them as much throw as I could.  Its so
        good that I actally use dual rates on both elevator and ailerons.
        I switch to low rates on landings because  I  have found that too
        much  elevator  throw makes the plane easy to stall.    Too  much
        aileron throw is also likely to create a stall if  the  plane  is
        hanging on the edge.
                      _ 
                     / |
        |  _====____/==|
        |-/____________|
        |    |        o \
             O           \ 
                          O
         Hang in there! o_|_
                          |
             Anker      \_|_/

        

    Eric,
    	I can easily try the differential when I fly it next.  I noticed
    that Anker had much more throw that I did and he also has the shorter
    wing version. (Not to mention a little more power)  I just got my
    fiberglass cowl from Fiberglass Master so I have some work ahead
    to install and paint it.  I'm confident that things will be great
    with this plane with just a little more sorting out.  I'm used to
    the Super Sportsters so I need to adjust to the differences.  The
    roll rate wasn't really that slow after I increased the throws and
    sealed the gaps last year.  The thing that triggered the rework
    was the slop developing in the linkages.  To get the throws I had,
    I had to go in too far on the horns which increased the slop problem.
    
    Charlie
    

    Eric,
    	The changes in the Aeromaster are more because Great Planes bought
    the rights to it and did some things to make it more attractive.  I
    don't believe that the changes make much difference structurally.  They
    even say in the new kit that the Struts are optional and not
    functional.  I did not add the struts.  I do like the bolt on wings but
    mainly for the fact that it's far less messy than rubber bands and the
    wings always go on straight.  Another point is that the Aeromaster was
    NEVER intended for a 90 2-stroke.  The max 2-stroke that they recommend
    is a 60.  I think that the top wing support struts would have to be
    more substantial to be able to trust doing full power spins with the
    Aeromaster.
    
    Charlie
    

    the aeromaster is a great airplane,ive had six of the over the years.
    all were built from lou andrews kits,the airlarons are hollow so
    make sure you put some 3/4 inch balsa in the ..while..your building
    them so you have somthing for your nylon dubro type hinges to bite
    into.or use those cloth hinges.i had one depart the airplane,boy
    doe,s that make the heart rate go up,landed it with no problum.
    
       please,please don,t invert the engine ,ive never had any luck
    with inverted engines.they don,t idel as well,they dont run as
    well and there a pain to start,,,,
    
      instead of a cowel ,mount the engine up right ,get one of
    those large metal back spiners 4 inch i think ,and sand the
    front of the model to match the spiner oh ya,build up the
    fuse on both sides of the engine and  sand that up to match
    the firewall. you end up with a nice pointed front end,
    
      again a nice airplane and it lands real slow,a friend of
    mine actully put anothe set of landing gear on the top
    wing and used to land inverted,
                               
                                                    see ya
                                                     pm
    

    I just opened up the instructions for this kit, and was anxious to see
    what it said relative to all the previous discussions about the
    different wing configurations.  Well, it appears as though the
    instructions only anticipate three different configs.  They are:
    
    	Both wings long and straight
    	Both wings long and swept
    	Both wings short, top swept, bottom straight
    
    There are three different CG's given on the plans, one for each of
    these configs.  However, if one wanted to build both wings short AND
    both wings swept, there is NO CG given, hence I wonder if it was ever
    intended.  Since I believe I read that someone had built this config,
    can you clafify this for me.  If no CG is given, how do I determine it? 
    I would ideally like to build the "both wings short, both wings swept"
    version.
    
    ANy thoughts?
    
    Thanks,
    Joe

    
    Best version I've seen fly was the both wings short with the bottom
    wing straight.
    
    Tom

    Just took time to look at this conference and noticed nothing has been 
    added for a while. A lot of good info and since the aeromaster is one
    of my all time favorites I'll add my own two bits. My first one was an 
    Andrews kit. Some twenty years ago. with a long swept top wing and a
    short straight lower. Powered by a webra 61 mounted straight up and led
    with a 3 inch spinner it provided many seasons of enjoyable flying.
    Besides, bipes are just plain pretty. Inspired by my first one I bought
    a second one about 5 or 6 years ago. This one a great planes release
    but all in all very much like the andrews kit. This time I hung an enya
    90 four stroke up front on its side swinging a 14x6 prop. If I was
    doing it again I'd go for the 120-4. I would not consider it over
    powered, and its definately much better in the verticals over the 60
    powered version. By the way I'm using two long swept wings. Its covered
    with coverite and epoxy paint and features a hand crafted copy fiber
    glass cowl. The one in the kit won't last the first nose over. RTF dry
    weight comes in at just bit over 8 pounds. I use dual rates on the 
    alerons  to keep things sensable during take off and landing but you do
    need the extra throw for performance once your up and away. Oh yes I
    must agree, don't try hauling it off the deck untill you've got good
    flying speed, especially with the torque of a big four stroke swinging
    a big prop. The landing gear mount is a definate week spot in an other
    wise tough ol bird, and after ripping it out once just because i did't
    grease it onto the runway I reverted back to the dowel and elastik band
    mount of the andrews kit. Besides, this lets me break it down more to 
    get it into my trunk. I've also shock absorbed the landing gear by
    running a cable between the axles that arches up to a j bolt in the
    center of the gear mount. The cable and j bolt are tied together with
    a # 64 rubber band doubled uo two of three times. I also increased the
    length of the rudder by about 1/2 an inch. Before I log out, anyone of
    you flyers who might be reading this, If you've never had an aeromaster
    under your thumbs, your cheating your self.
        Wayne.
    

    
    
         I bought a used Aeromaster 2 years ago for $60 from a fellow
    flyer, put a .91 Surpass on it, flew it for 1/2 a season, then sold it
    at auction for $75! First plane I ever made a profit on! :)
    
         This version was about 7 1/2 pounds with the .91, and was the
    short wing/swept top wing version. It had an afternmarket fiberglass
    cowling which worked well. It had "bolt on" wings which made it easy
    to dissasemble, but I usually just left it assembled ( not easy when
    you drive a Hyindai! :).
    
         I enjoyed flying it, but as I started to get involved in pattern
    flying, the Aeromaster just didn't have the type of flight performance
    I was looking for, so I elected to sell and focus on other planes.
    
         It did perform "snapping" manuevers very well, and I found it
    was a relative "pussycat" to land, which suprised me, because I had
    heard "horror stories" about it's landing characteristics.
    
                                                               Dan

    I haven't finished reading all the reply's to this note yet but I
    gotta ask this question. Someone gave me an original andrews kit
    a while back and since my cub is now flying, I soon will be building
    the aeromaster. I went through the box the other night and noticed
    there isn't any building instructions, you know, like a booklet. 
    Is this kit assembled just by whats on the plans? I admitt, I didn't
    look over the plans to carefully but at a glance, didn't see any
    numbered instructions.
    
                                              Jim

>    gotta ask this question. Someone gave me an original andrews kit
>    a while back and since my cub is now flying, I soon will be building
>    the aeromaster. I went through the box the other night and noticed
>    there isn't any building instructions, you know, like a booklet. 
>    Is this kit assembled just by whats on the plans? I admitt, I didn't
>    look over the plans to carefully but at a glance, didn't see any
>    numbered instructions.

The newer Great Planes kits have extensive plans.
If you can't find any for the Andrews kit I can try
and find mine (I'm pretty sure I saved them).

Just let me know.

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