Conference vmszoo::rc

    
    Hello,
    
    An RS540 motor should have much, much less power than a Lemans 260,
    the RS540 is what is sent as an entry level motor in most cars when
    you first purchase them. The Lemans is just about the most powerful
    motor you can use in a car, and still be able to run at least 4
    minutes. I might also suggest checking the prop pitch, did the prop
    come with that plane/motor in mind?
    
    							Good luck,
    							Lorrin Lee
    

    A friend of mine has a valencia, and yes it does fly.
    At first he had problems similar to what you are having.
    The valencia did not havea lots of power and if he tried to climb
    just a little to fast it was all over. He finally got used
    to what it could do by hand launching from the top of a small
    hill and when he lauched he did not have to worry about climbing
    out before the plane had enough airspeed.

    
    	Scat Cat's build fast, straight and light. They have a semi
    symetrical airfiol yet fly excellently inverted. With any engine
    they can be a great sport plane. They are somewhat groovey.
    They stay going where you point them. I flew mine until I had
    a radio problem and it tracked will in a loop. I used to do
    my entire sportsman pattern with it. Being light it had plenty
    of vertical.  One more excellent point is that they can be
    slowed down to land gently. They make a good low wing plane for
    someone new to low wingers if you power them with anything
    from a .19 to a .35.  With a .40 in them they should be flown
    be someone that has had a little experience. 
    
                                                 Tom

    A FUN PROJECT FOR YOU SCRATCH BUILDERS..... OVER XMAS MY FLYING
    PARTNER TOOK THE SCAT PLANS (I HAVE 3 SCAT CAT'S00) BLEW THEM
    UP 20% ON THE COPY MACHINE AT WORK. HE RUNS AN OS60 WITH PIPE.
    I RUN A ST61 WITH PIPE ON MINE. THEY MAKE GREAT 1st PATERN PLANES.
    REAL EASY TO BUILD AND EXTRA LIGHT. LIKE 4.5 LBS.....
    
    BOB
    

   I just finished a Craft Air, Piece O' Cake.  The kit was easy to build
but the materials left something to be desired.  Much of the 1/4 x 1/8 
balsa had the strength of sponge.  I replace a lot of the balsa with
some I picked myself. 
   Although the kit I got was pretty good about the die cutting, I have 
heard that some of these kits are mashed instead of cut.
   I have not yet flown my 'POC', but hope to get it up this weekend (sounds
like a personal problem |-) ).  

    
    	To start I think I'll go through some kit Manufacturers and
    rate them from 1 to 10, 10 being the best.
     
    Mfg.        Flight Doc. Balsa Ply Other Assembly Kitting Cutting  
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    Sig           8     10    8    8    8      6       10       7
    Balsa USA     8      2    8    7    8      7       7        8
    Airtronics    8      7    8    9    8      8       10       9 
    N.E. Aero.    8      8    9    9    8      9       10       9
    J.Casburn     9      6    8    9    9      9       9        9
    Andrews       8      6    7    8    8      7       8        8
    G. Planes     8      8    8    8    8      8       10       8   
    Top Flite     7      7    7    7    7      7       6        7
    Flite Line    8      6    9    8    7      8       8        8
    
    
    
    	If anyone is interested in details let me know I'll give you
    what I have.
    
    						Tom

    I'm in the covering phase of my Piece O' Cake. The balsa in the
    kit I got was good (not great) but the die cutting was the pits!
    If you are going to buy a kit that has die cut pieces do yourself
    a BIG favor and check the whole kit before putting down $.

    I had the chance to assemble a Train-Air 40 for a friend. So far
    this is the best kit I've seen. All precut pieces are sanded and
    all the wing formers are the same size.
    
    Richard.

    I am currently building a Goldberg Electra. The quality of
    the die cutting and the wood is only adequate. But they seem
    to fly pretty well.
    Wayne




                 

Well, I really can't recall ever buiding a kit...but if I could
recall such an act, it would've been of a Goldberg Eaglet.  And I
would probably comment that the instructions were first rate (this
from a professional scribe of instructions), the wood average, the
die-cutting (and consequent fit of the parts) very good, and ease of
assembly very good.  Though I would've remembered some dicey moments
fitting the wing halves together. 

Someday, when my engine comes back from the factory, I may even fly
it! :-) 

>    I am currently building a Goldberg Electra. The quality of
>    the die cutting and the wood is only adequate. But they seem
>    to fly pretty well.

I have just finished an Electra (a Gentle Lady was my first kit).  I put an 
Astro Cobalt 05 in it.  It seems to fly well with the trim set up as per 
instructions - at least as well as can be expected on a cloudy April afternoon 
in North Carolina where the wind blows all directions at once!  I like 
Goldberg for the directions, there's never any confusion about what goes 
where...  

Now if I was a real modeller...

Monte

    I'm in the middle of building the Sig Kavelier and I've found that
    the directions are very easy to follow.As far as die cut piece's
    they weren't to bad.The thing you have to remember is to cut the
    piece's out with an exato knife do not "punch" them out.
      I would prefer to have the part just drawin on the balsa and I
    would cut it the way I would want it cut.
      In the plans it specificly tells you that this aircraft is not
    for the inexperienced builder.
      Well that's my two cents worth.
    
    
                                         KEEP'EM FLYING
                                         JERRY

    I HAVE A HOVERCRAFT, IT TAKES ANYWHERE FROM A .40 TO .65 ENGINE,
    YOU CAN USE IT ON LAND, WATER, GRASS(THE GREEN KIND).  ITS PREETY
    NEAT AS THERE IS NOT MUCH FRICTION BETWEEN IT AND THE SURFACE YOU
    ARE ON.  IT CONSISTS OF THE ENGINE WITH AIRPLANE PROP, FOUR RUDDERS
    TO DIRECT THE AIR TO CONTROL DIRECTION, AND A SKIRT THAT YOU MUST
    SEW TO KEEP IN THE AIR USED TO LIFT IT.  I BELIEVE THE KIT COST
    $40 AND ALL AS YOU NEED IT AN ENGINE, GAS TANK, AND 2 CHANNEL RADIO.
    A CHEAP WAY TO GET STARTED.

    Many of the kits mentioned so far, I have never heard of. (actualy
    I havn't heard of any of them :^) ).
    
    Here in Europe we mostly see W.German made kits like ROBBE and GRAUPNER
    Has anyone seen them in America?. (Does anyone want to see them!)
    
    When I was in Ausie I built mostly from PILOT kits, made in Japan.
    These were very good. Excelent die cut parts and good hard balsa
    ribs etc. They obviously selected the balsa for the job as the bits
    you had to sand were of softer density. Most of the hardware which
    was model specific was included, and the other bits (Tank, wheels
    etc) were left out so you could use cheaper local parts.
    
    Now I have found a local supplier of Pilot kits and I am Building
    one of their Quick Build 20 kits. 

    I wouln't mind trying something which will look a little different
    at the flying field. Is anyone interested in an exchange? A European
    kit for an American kit of about equal price.
    
    Send me mail
    
    John Mackney

		Here in the UK,most kits are produced by small
	specialist companies.Pilot,Robbe,Krick are easily available
	but tend to be rather pricy,especially Pilot.....

			Chris Foss kits are great.I've built a couple
	of Wot-4s and an Acro-wot..The wood selection is very good,and
	everything fits where it's s'posed go..I HATE putting a kit
	together when the bits don't fit properly....

	bob

    I built the SIG Citabria for my first scale effort, the kit had
    good wood and decent hardware, but the documentation was sketchy.
    Some day if I ever become a scratch builder I will probably thank
    SIG for forcing me to figure a lot of stuff out on my own.  With
    an ENYA .46 4-stroke it flies great.
    	I've done the Great Planes Super Sportster .20 and am building
    the Great Planes CAP-21 now.  These are both excellent kits with
    good wood and hardware, and very thorough documentation.  The
    documentation for the CAP also includes complete trimming guidelines.
    I think the Great Planes stuff is more expensive but you do get
    what you pay for.
    							Bill
    
    
    

Regarding  kit  qualities,  I  had  only positive experiences with Goldberg
(Eaglet, Falcon).  The last kit I built from G.   Planes  (Sports  Air  20)
however, had a vary nasty surprise in store for me at the very end...

The  kit  was  great,  the building fast, the documentation excellent.  But
during  the  maiden  flight,  while  attempting  a  rather  sharp   reverse
Immelmann,  I  had  the  distinct displeasure of watching helplessly as the
left half of the horizontal stab parted company of the rest of  the  craft,
and  my  pride  and  joy  span  out  of  control,  luckilly  away  from any
spectators.

Upon  inspection  of  the pieces, I noticed that the horizontal stab (which
consists of a single 3/8 inch thick balsa sheet) had failed  at  the  root,
apparently due to excessive flight loads!  I know it seems hard to believe,
but it happened.  Upon closer examination, I noticed that  the  wood  grain
along  the line of the failure was not very smooth.  Well, better luck next
time...

							Costas

I just completed a Sig Riser sailplane (haven't flown it yet). It's the
first kit I've built so I have nothing to compare it to. However, I'd say
the overall quality was pretty good. Instructions were clear and helpful,
all materials were there and the right size, and the die cut parts fit just
fine. My only complaint (a minor one) was the quality of the balsa varied
from piece to piece. I'd give it about an 8.

By the way, I used both Super Monokote and Ultracote to cover it, and found
the Ultracote easier to work with, but a little bit heavier.

Dave Walter

    
    	The kit quality was Excellent with the exception of the fiberglass
    cowl that I would rate a Good. The fiberglass cowl had aa little
    cloth weave that wasn't filled.  All other aspects of the kit were
    excellent. I only made two changes. The first change was to the
    aileron torque rods. The ones supplied in the kit were a two piece
    arangement. There was a piece that had to be soldered to the torque
    rod so that the push rod from the servo could be connected to the
    torque rod. I replaced these with Goldberg (large) torque rods.
    The second change was to the hinges. I opted for the Sig nylon
    material rather than use the pin hinges supplied. Personal preference.
    The wood quality was excellent and the ship is light. There were
    also excellent instructions.
    
    	The only thing is that these kits aren't cheap!
    
    
    					Tom

    I'd built and flown the Butterfly when it was a Craft-Air company.
     I found that the wood quality was mediocre, and it built slightly
    tail heavy.  It could be hand launched without wheels with ease,
    and was very stable with good glide characteristics.  It is in many
    respects 'hands off' in that it is a leisurely airplane to fly.
    Mine was rekitted due to radio failure, but should be difficult
    to destroy if you've got some flight time in.
    
    			-Mike
    

    
    I've seen this kit. What is plastic is mainly the cowl and some
    additional blisters around the retracts. I however wouldn't recomment
    this plane as a first low winger. Chipmunk's are limited in their
    wing area and can be nasty at slower speeds. If I were you and you
    do like Chipmunk's I would buy the Goldberg Chipmunk and put it
    on the shelf for a second or third low winger. If you want to buy
    a less expensive kit for the first low winger look at a Balsa USA
    Smoothie (tail dragger) of the Moonraker (trike gear). they are
    the same plane with suttle differences. With a non schnerled .40
    they make great first time low wingers. After you get this ship
    in the air and have a couple of flights on it then you could go
    back and start the Chipmunk. By the time it would be ready to fly
    you should have sufficient time to keep the chipmunk in one piece.
    
    						Tom

>    Kyosho. They market the H*LL (you're right about the missing vowels!)
>    out of the Valencia, and I haven't heard any glowing reports on

    Dan,

    The Valencia was the plane that convinced me never to buy another
    ARF so long as I lived.  Although it did fly pretty well, decent
    rate of climb and pretty stable inverted flight, handling was a
    little squirrely, glide was kind-a fast.  The biggest problem was
    that the fuse was made of that plastic that they make potato salad
    type containers out of.  Not the vacuum formed thin stuff, but the
    stuff that is great for mixing epoxy on, since no glue in the
    world (that I know of, anyway) will stick to it!  As a result of
    this design oversite (or maybe intentional) on the part of Kyosho,
    if you broke the fuse, you just could not repair the stupid thing.
    This problem was compounded by the fact that my fuse broke as a
    result of a wing folding when I pulled out of a dive, so it broke
    in a LOT of places (I think "auger" is the term that best
    described the flight characteristics exhibited by the plane).

    Anyway, it was the fastest $150 I'de ever spent.  Bought it on a
    Saturday, threw it in the trash on Sunday.

    The rule I use now for my planes is, if I can't fix them when they
    break, I won't bother wasting my money on them.

    Bob,
    
    I haven't built one but I _have_ flown the Astro-Hog, several of
    them in fact.
    
    From the standpoint of flyability, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend
    it to anyone.  It's stable and gentle while remaining responsive.
    This means it'll forgive some amount of "dumb-thumbs" but has the
    performance to take one well into aerobatics.  It might even make
    a reasonable trainer for a student with good aptitude, though I
    wouldn't advise that to just everyone.

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

    	The Great Planes is the best on the market.  Thier die cutting,
    overall packageing and documentation, wood (all), would be in my
    opinion a 99 out of a 100.  Some planes I've built by other
    companies...
    	
    	Balsa USA      Sopwith Pup   92 out of 100
    	
    	Flown with zenoah G62.  Out of sight vertical climb.
        Or will putt putt excellant.
    
    	Goldberg       Anna. Cub     85 out of 100
    
    	Flown with OS61FS.  Excellant all around handling.  With 12-6
    	prop= 45 min. flying time with 12oz. tank.  
    
    	Bud Nosen      9 Ft. Citabria  60 out of 100
    
    	Flown with G38.  If you buy one of these kits, throw away the
    original wood.  Replace it with your own and beef it up about double.
    Then you have got a good plane.
    
    	ACE    4-120 Bipe   95 out of 100
    
    	Flown with OS120 Surpass.  Die cutting could be a little better.
    Flies perfectly.  
    
    	Top Flite   Kitty Wake     50 out of 100
    
    	Flown with OS28FSR.  Extremely fast, extrem~rely poor construction.
    Building methods are about twenty years old.  Varied wood quality.
    
    					Bob
    
    	PS  If anyone else is still out there on this one, I'll list
    some more.  Sig has defenitely gone down hill.
    
    

    	I started work on the Easy 100 last night, and the more I look
    over the kit, the more impressed with it I get! The wood quality
    is excellent, the die-cutting is some of the best I've seen, and
    I appreciate the rolled, not folded, plans.
    	I wouldn't, however, reccomend this as a first time builders
    kit. You get the plans, which are very crisp and clean, and maybe
    a page and a half of notes. Other than that you're on your own.
    I do have the copy of the construction article that was in the July
    issue of RCM which will be helpful. It's also intersting to note
    the changes that were made to the construction from the plans in
    the mag to what was finally kitted.
    	I would imagine with my 12 year old cracking the whip over me,
    (technically this is HIS plane!) I'm looking at about 3 weeks to
    get the plane completed and ready to fly. Part of that depends on
    when I can get the $50 or so together to order the Davis Diesel
    muffler and soft mounts. I'd love to make this in the tail-dragger
    version, but son is insisting on a tri-gear set-up. Oh well, if
    this plane flies as well as advertised I might just be persuaded
    to order another for myself. At $38.00, why not.
    
    
	---------
	|  NOT  |
	|  FOR  |
	| SALE  |
	---------	  |	
	   | |     _______0_______
	   | |           / \
		Dan Snow
			

>                            -< Falcon 56 mkII eh? >-
>
>    Kay,
>        How did the falcon work out?? I just got the kit dropped in
>    my lap (given to me), and I wondered whether I should build it with
>    Ailerons or not. Will ailerons be effective on this plane? Will

I got 50 flights out of mine including several tree landings and two
crashes where I lost elevator linkage and both times NO damage.

I built ailerons on mine.  Since it was my first RC plane I think a lot
of it but I don't have the perspective necessary to rate it.  I've seen
experts build them for fun flys (and win) and they roll them fine.  I 
hadn't learned to roll by the time I finally totaled mine.

>    it roll? Is it as friendly as a Sig Kadet? I'm going to put my old

I think it is not quite as forgiving as a Kadet but it is built
stronger.

>    K&B .40 on it.......

I had an OS 40FP in mine and it had plenty of power - I did my own take
offs after the 4th flight - lots of power is good for beginners take
offs.

>    
>    doug

I'll be interested to see it at one of our fun flys.  Thanks for the
fond memories.  Oh yeah - the instructions and building are great.

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

    KAY, DOUG,
    
    The Falcon-56 and Senior Falcon continue, after some 25-years, to
    be two of the finest beginner and intermediate ships around.  As
    Kay says, the Falcon may not be as "automatic" in terms of stability
    in the hands of a novice but I _personally_ consider this a plus
    as it allows the student to actually "feel" the airplane and what
    his control-inputs are doing to it.  Far too many times I've seen
    students who learned on the flat-bottom winged, ultra-stable, rudder/
    elevator birds have to essentially learn all over again when they
    graduate to a more advanced aircraft.  Set up with the controls
    nice and gentle, the Falcon makes a wonderful trainer and, after
    the basics are learned, tightening up the controls yields a great
    advanced trainer which will carry one through the rudiments of
    aerobatics.  As Kay also stated, set up correctly, the Falcon makes
    an excellent sport ship with acceptable aerobatic capabilities.
    
    Incidentally, I learned to fly R/C on an old, busted up, hand-me-down
    Senior Falcon nearly 25-years ago so, like Kay, I also have a warm
    spot in my heart for it but I have seen/flown enough (if not all)
    of the so called "perfect-trainers" to know that the Falcon would
    be my choice again, hands-down.  Whenever I'm asked, I'll always
    recommend any of the "Stik" types or the venerable Falcon!

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

    Tom,
    
    If you choose to build Sterling's PT-17, be prepared to work with
    beau coups parts.  Not that that necessarily makes it bad, it's
    just that Sterling, like the old, old Berkley kits, uses many, many
    parts in its construction.  This will be a definite departure from
    the trainer-type kits of today that have a total parts count of
    about 24; Sterling kits are built-like-a-bridge but are tough as
    an old boot.  The main thing you have to watch out for is not to
    let it get too heavy on you. 
    
    This should more correctly go in Ramblings but I'll never forget
    flying Ted White's Sterling Stearman in the bomb-drop event at the
    El Paso Sun Carnival Fun-Fly some 20 or so years ago.  Failing to
    find a good place to rubberband on the paper cup, we opted to simply
    put the water-balloon in the rear cockpit.  You had to be careful
    in the turns not to accidentally lose the balloon but it worked
    to perfection; I'd approach the target straight-on, in a shallow
    dive then pull up vertically, directly over the target...pushing
    the bird back to level with down-elevator would pitch the balloon
    out, almost motionless for an instant, then the balloon'd fall straight
    down [hopefully] right on target.  I got lucky and won the event
    that year with the tired, overweight old Stearman which Ted had
    powered with an old Fox .74.  A really fun experience! 

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

    Dear Tom,
    
    I have very nearly compleated a SIG Citabria myself,once it is
    compleatly finished(probabaly a fortnight)I will be happy to loan
    your friend the plans.However there is only one minor logistical
    problem I am in the U.K. Also being a salesman and working out on
    the road,I do not often get chance to check notes.Send me a mail
    if you are interested.
    
    Dave Leyland @ubo
    
    Boomstrike H.Q.

    
    	Last night late, I started construction of a World Engines kit
    called the Enticer. It's a Dick Sapoulas (sp) design. Very basic.
    At the last DEC Fly-In one of the CRRC guys had a dragon lady at
    the field with an OS120 in it. This tickled my fancy so I started
    looking for a large sized plane. The Dragon Lady and the Nutten
    Special are ARF's kind of but to must money for what I wanted so
    I decided on the enticer at 55.00 for the kit. For the most part
    the parts are die cut. This is ok but some crunching is evident.
    If your a new commer to building this is not the kit for you. The
    instructions were one page. They have since been filed. The plane
    sports an 18% wing thickness with 930 squares and a wingspan of
    72 inches. It was designed for the Maloney 120 but I've opted to
    install an Enya R120. I figure that I'll be able to take 8 oz. out
    of the tail by builsing ut the vertical stab abd rudder. They are
    solid sheet stock in the kit. If I don't build them up I'll put
    some big lightening holes in them. Other than that I think I'm going
    to install a round cowl with blisters on it rather than the 1/2"
    sheet thock cowl that is in the kit. It has large surfaces with
    the horizontal stab set on the engines thrust line. With the incedences
    set at 0,0,0 with the weight around 9 lbs and the semetrical wing
    section it should be somewhat aerobatic.
    	As of last night I have one wing panel 50% built. I should get
    this finished before my club meeting tonight.
    
    
    Tom

    Not worth the money.
    
    The tipo is OK however not the Tipo most seen. A couple of places
    make Tipo's. The Illusion never really made it. Probably because
    when it came out Dave Brown, the plane designer and Chief user
    was over the hill and wasn't on the top hence the airframe didn't
    get the exposure.
    
    For AMA pattern look at an FK Career 60. It's a Jap copy of the
    Tipo. Comes with presheeted wings/stabs abd all bulkheads installed.
    A little heavier than one could build but for the time and money
    (only 130.00) it's a great deal. Put a YS in it and you'll have
    a winner.
    
    
    Tom

    
    
    Well.... after doing everything possible ( and reading note 231.*
    ) I have determined that, at best, it's going to fly too slowly
    to really learn on. It's fun to put it up there and fight the wind,
    but that's about all it'll do. 
    
    I've stepped up construction on the C.G. Falcon 56....it's really
    going together fast. The die cut parts fit tight, and I'm MUCH more
    aware about how heavy I am building. I'm building it with ailerons,
    and it will be powered by a .40 sized engine. 
    
    Doug

    Doug, 
    
    You'll like the Falcon-56.  It's a veteran design (goes back 25-years
    or more) but it remains a great trainer and early-intermediate ship.
    Annnnd, it ain't half bad looking either..., unlike many of today's
    so-called trainers (but we won't get into that) :B^).   

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

If any of you members of the Charles River Club got a Scooter kit but no plans,
fear not! I got my hands on a copy of the plans, and I'll be glad to send them 
out to anyone in need. Just send me a note.

Dave

Anyone in notes-land every built a 'Spinks Akromaster' ? The kit I am looking
at is a Pilot kit. As per normal Pilot standards everything is top quality.
It is a 40/45 powered 2.7-3Kg, 1.65 meter wingspan model. My only reservation
is the amount of plastic involved for the front cowling.

Any comments ?


Eric();

    
    Pilot plastic tends to be thin. If used I'd suggest you laminate
    fiberglas on the inside of the plastic. Look at the Circus Hobbies
    Akromaster. I think they make a .60 two stroke and 1.2 four stroke
    version.
    
    
    
    						Tom

    
    	OK, To start things off I ordered a kit from a compamy in Ca.
    Pattrem Tek. It was the Supra Star. "A direct copy of the EZ 60
    sized Supra Star" in carbon reenforced fiberglas. The kit featured
    plug in wings and incidence adjusters. What I got...
    
    	I ordered the semi-kit. It contained a fiberglas fuse that had
    an external gell coating. At least parts of it had a gell coat.
    The gell coat was missing,scratched or had voids in a number of
    areas. The inside of the fuse was covered with a sheet of 1/8"
    foam board that appeared to have a coating of resin over it. The
    cockpit cover was pitted and the canopy looked like it had been
    heated to much or the mold had been dusty. The kit also featured
    foam cores for the wing and horizontal stab. The stabs cores were
    fine. The wings cores were ok except for the leading edges which
    looked like the hot wire was dragged over them. They exhibited a
    lot of ridges and gouges. The fuse itself weighted 1.8 lbs. Heavy.
    That's all. I called them and told them of my displeasure. They
    said they would replace anything that wasn't to my satisfaction
    or send me a kit of one of their other designs. I declined and
    sent them the kit back via UPS.  I have yet to see my money.
    
    
                        			Tom

    
    	I just received from Joe Pinkston models a ship called the Super
    Lucky Fly II. Its a 90% built ARF with foam wings covered with 1/16
    balsa. What caught my eye was that the fusalage was prebuilt with
    excellent quality. It takes a 60 engine, wing span of 61 inches and
    651 sq in wing area. Its currently advertised in RCM and the AMA
    magazine. Cost is $99.00 plus S&H. I will let you know what it takes to
    finish it up but for now it looks well worth it. 
    
    Bob G.

    Bob,	If Joes' kits are like Johnny Casburnes were then you'll
    love the ship. Bob bought the designs and tooling from Johnny a
    couple of years ago. I've had a number of Johnny's "little Lucky
    Fly's " and they were excellent. Let us know how things go.
    
    Tom

    I just recieved a new kit from World Engines, A Calypso. Excellent
    quality. All wood with sheeted wings,horizontal stab and built fuse.
    Firewall is not installed so you and make some choices. I'll be
    installing a rear exhaust 61 in mine. Papered and painted it shouldn't
    weigh more than 7 1/4 pounds. 
    
    
    Tom
    
    P.S. Price is only 124.95. 64" span and 730 squares.

Rich TRNING::FRANCO asked about the manufacturer of Miss Martha.

    Model Engineering 
    P.O. Box 58306
    Raleigh, NC 27658
    
    The kit was reviewed in RCM 9/90 pg 217.

    Four channel, fun fly sport for an 0.40 to 0.51 engine.

    Available from the mfg and from Action Hobbies (800-848-6339) and 
    AAA Model Supply (800-735-0252) --- price about $60.

    Ron ELMAGO::RMouser provided the leads for this information.

    
    I have just started the new ACE Whiz 40, a highwing, 40 size "trainer".
    (I say "trainer" because it is advertised as so and has many
    characteristics of one.) 
    
    My comments about this kit are as follows.
    
    It is said to be a terrific "first time" kit with a tutorial approach
    in the instructions.  NOT SO!!!  It may be a first time kit for
    some people but I can almost guarantee you it will come out wrong.
    ACE has done much to provide you with enough printed material to
    start your own recycling plant.  Three sets of prints, two construction
    manuals and multiple bags of parts.  (I will say that this kit does
    include everything you need to fly except engine, radio and covering.
    I mean they even give you fuel line and foam!)  
    
    Here are some of the "gotchas" I have encountered thus far.  (BTW,
    I have been building planes for 4 years and have built many ACE
    kits and was impressed with them all.  This is their first disaster.)
    
    First, one of the "prints" is a parts layout showing all the respective
    ply and balsa die-cut pieces.  On this sheet they show you a ply
    part labeled "Crutch rear".  It is "suppose" to fit on the top of
    the fuse from about mid-fuse to the tail.  WRONG!!!  What is labeled
    is actually the BOTTOM REAR fuse section not the top.  Also, the
    correct crutch rear is labeled "bottom rear fuse section."
    
    Secondly, when drilling and mounting the firewall they forget to
    tell you that the firewall is beveled on both top and bottom.  This
    bevel allows the bottom front of the fuse to meet the firewall
    correctly. Same for the top of the fuse.  A first time kit builder
    has a 50/50 chance of drilling the holes correctly so that the bevels
    are correct.  
    
    Third, the die-cutting of the ply is terrible.  None of the pieces
    are die-cut cleanly.  All require extensive work with a knife and
    a saw to remove.  
    
    Finally, the matching of of "interlocking tabs" is way off, so bad
    that even ACE has supplied a piece of ply to cover over a gap, and
    I'm talking 1/8", between the fuse bottom middle and fuse bottom
    tail pieces.  Oh, one more note, the main landing gear plate, a
    piece of 1/4" maple, is about 1/8" to wide to fit in between the
    inner fuse sides.  It seems that the designer forgot to compensate
    for the inner fuse side braces that cover the gap between the front and
    rear fuse sides.
    
    Well, I guess that's it for now.  All I can say is "buyer beware".
    

    Franco,
    
    	I'd suggest that you gather up your comments and fire off a letter
    to Ace.  You never know what it may yield you.  At any rate, I'm sure
    they (Ace) would be interested in some comments from a consumer.
    
    Tom

Yeah, really.  You've done a fine job of documenting the problems with
the kit, and from my past dealings with them, I'm sure Ace wants to
know about the kit.  

    
    Thanks guys for your recommendations on firing off a letter to ACE.
    AS soon as I finish this reply I will type up a quick note to them.
    I too felt that they should know but decided to just "let it go",
    however now I've changed my mind.
    
    Again, thanks.
    
    Rich

	Rich,

	The Wizz 40 is the plane I was considering for my first plane in 20+ 
	years. Since I'm sure that I would put the plane through several tough
	manovers, such as cartwheel end over end when landing, or the ground
	is actually three feet higher then expected, What I am more interested
	in, is how sturdy a plane is it? It it a solid plank covered fuse? I
	can't tell from the picture in the Tower flier if it has a cockpit
	area, or if it is solid.  Can you fill me in?

	Walt Miller

Walt, I'm not saying that the Whizard (or whatever) isn't a good
plane, but I suggest that you pick up one of the established trainers,
such as the Great Planes PT40.  You will not be taking any chances
with such a plane.

Additionally, instructors have a rather nasty bias to such things I've
noticed.  If you show up with an odd-ball they tend to blame problems
in training on your equipment.  You'll spend more time fooling around
trying to make the changes they suggest than you'd spend actually
flying. 

We have quite a body of opinion in this file about trainers, learning
to fly, and instructors.  Please take the time to skim over this
material; its as valid today as when it was written. 

    I would suggest that you check out your local club, hook up with an
    instructor, and ask their opinions on trainers.  Go with what's popular
    at the club you plan to join!  You will get better help if you have a
    plane that the instructors are familiar with.  There are no real
    bargains in trainers - they're all about the same cost in the same size
    range.  Some are more work to build than others though.
    
    Charlie
    

    
    Over the weekend I had a chance to look over my new PICA Junkmeister
    kit.  Really a fine design and quality kit.  The wood (so far) seem
    ideally choosen for the tasks.  With a cockpit and fake radial engine
    the weight should come out in the 10 lbs range.  Building techniques
    for the fuse are different.
    
    In most cases the designers choose either the top of the bottom of the
    fuse a a reference to build the fuse over a plans.  This is due in part
    because for the most cases one of these areas is usually flat and
    straight.  On the Junkmeister, neither is straight.  So the designer
    made a straight surface by spliting the fuse into a top and a bottom
    section.  To assemble the fuse tu build the top section and then add
    the pieces for the bottom section.  the fuse is assembled first
    followed by the tail feathers and then the wings.  I'm now delayed in
    finishing my Seamaster for a week until I get some new covering.  I'll
    probably start the Junkmeister construction tonight.
    
    
    Tom

    Re -.58
    
    Walt,
    
    Sorry I haven't gooten back sooner but DEC ha skept me busy.  (I
    guess in this day that's good.)
    
    Well alot of these guys have given you some good advice on trainers.
    I will answer your question(s) about the palne being sturdy, plank
    fuse and cockpit.  
    I have built many planes in the past 3 years, around 11 and this
    one, in my opinion is NOT that well built.  It has a solid fuse
    but many of the pieces are glued togther to give you one big piece.
    Example: I have built an Airtronics JetFire 40 which has a one piece
    solid ply fuse sides and top.  The bottom is ply glued to balsa.
    The Whiz has sides and bottms that are glued together.  In fact
    in my original reply I mentioned that they must have made an
    engineering boo boo on the fuse bottom.  They supply a piece of
    ply to cover an opening in the bottom of the fuse made by two
    "mismatched" pieces.  Not what I would call quality or sturdy.
    
    As for the "cockpit" all you get is a built up side of the fuse.
    You could probably put something in there to make it more realistic
    but again it is all solid ply.  This built up area makes it a little
    bit difficult to get at your servos if your hands are really big.
     You have to reach down about 7" to  the servo rails and you feel
    like your "leaning over" the plane.
    
    To whomever reads my replies: Please understand I have no complaints
    about ACE in general.  I have built their Bingo, Big Bingo and the
    4-120 Bipe which are all excellent kits.

    Rich

    Thanks for the reply Rich,

    I tried to get to the last CMRC? meeting at TAY a couple weeks ago,
    but DECWorld kept me busy until the wee hours of the night. I hope I
    can get to the next one in MRO. I know Ken Berstal and he is the one
    whom left me know about the club.

    I still have not selected a plane, based on the prior replies. I will
    let that up to the experts but I still have some preferences although
    they may not be for the right reasons. (But I'll listen!!)

    I also have not selected an engine, but after reading this notes file
    and the DECRCM, it appears that OS is the way to go. OS was the engine
    of choice +20 years ago!!

    I am also considering the X-347 as my radio of choice, after following
    the comments in this notes file.

    I figure that, if I'm going to return to RC, DO IT RIGHT!! 8^;
    I'd rather put the money up front now and get it over with, rather
    than upgrade later and spend 30-50% MORE than what I would have spent
    the first time by doing it right.

Walt

    
    
      Has anyone seen, built, or have any knowledge around Cressline
    Models? I'm looking at the Tower catalog and see a 1/5 scale LONG-EZ.
    This looks like a very unique model and would stand out in a croud.
    Can someone tell me anything about this plane.
    
    Thanks 
    Bruce 

Bruce, 
I don't know anything about the Cressline Models LONG-EZ other than it looked 
like more than my neihbor wanted to pay. See' he's interested in building a
full size version of the four-place EZ and was wondering what it would cost
to build a model first to investigate the flight characteristics. I took a 
gander thru the Tower catalog and decided his wife would never let him spend 
that kind of money. I did better with the RCM plans catalog. There are several
plans for a couple of different EZ versions in there. You might want to check 
it out. If you don't have the catalog (an excellent refernce tool for 
daydreaming) I can copy the revelant pages for you.

    
    
    If the kit is worth $119.95 i'll buy it. If someone bought it and got
    ripped off I don't want to make it two in a row. I'm planning on going
    to Sun and Fun next spring and.... well you know the rest.

    Having described the first flight of my Flair Puppeteer I suppose it
    might be a good idea to post a brief description of the kit, so here
    goes:
    
    The Puppeteer is loosely based on the Sopwith Pup WWI fighter
    plane. It spans 50 inches, and is of all built up construction. You get
    a spun aluminium cowl, aluminium cabane struts, wire for the
    undercarriage, two *large* plan sheets (very clearly drawn), an
    instruction booklet and a *lot* of wood! It looks a bit daunting at
    first sight, but construction is actually remarkably quick. I built it 
    pretty much as per the plan (who am I to try to "improve" a Dudley
    Pattinson design? 8^). The only real mod I made was to build a box
    on the back of the firewall to accomodate the rather large engine I
    am using. After taking the advice of the good folks in here I built 2
    degrees of downthrust into this box, and used 2 degrees of right
    thrust on the mount. This seems to work just fine (thanks to all
    those who advised on this!).
    
    Wing ribs are cut from lite-ply, with large cut outs for lightening.
    These are cut incredibly accurately, they really just drop into place.
    This gives you two huge wings to admire whilst you build the
    fuselage. This is a balsa box, with formers over it to support the
    front sheeting and longerons and stringers to build up the rear end.
    Tail feathers are built up structures.
    
    Construction was pretty smooth, with very few if any gotchas. All
    you need to be is awake and fairly sober and you can't really go
    wrong. Having said that I did manage to fit the lower wing dowels in
    the wrong place, but this was definitely me being stupid.
    
    One thing you need to know about this kit is that after you've got it
    you still have a bit of money to spend, or extra effort to put in. I
    bought: a pair of 5 inch "antique" wheels, a 1/5th scale machine
    gun, a 1/5th scale pilot, a set of markings, and a lot of covering! I
    used Solartex for the covering and I used 4 metres of green, 4
    metres of linen, and a metre of silver. I didn't cut the covering very
    intelligently, and I did make a few mistakes, but you're still going to
    use a lot (this ends up being quite a big plane).
    
    As this was my first biplane I was worried about everything being
    aligned properly. I needn't have. When I first trial assembled it
    everything just lined up and fitted. What a relief! What a *pretty*
    aeroplane! I took loads of photos with the structure "naked" (kinky
    beast!)
    
    I used solartex hinges for the ailerons (as recommended) and
    mylar strip for the tail end. This was the only problem with the
    materials supplied with the kit, in that the hinges supplied were
    useless. As soon as they were flexed more that about 50 degrees
    they cracked and fell apart. I'm glad I found that out on the ground!
    I just substituted some mylar strip and all was well. This may just
    have been a bad batch of hinges.
    
    With the Laser .70 in the nose very little nose weight was required
    (about two ounces). Final weight was in the region of eight pounds,
    which gives a very low wing loading.
    
    Flying I have described elsewhere. Suffice to say that it is exactly
    as advertised. It looks great, doesn't take up the whole sky, and
    flies s-l-o-w-l-y. A real pleasure to fly.
    
    So I am very very pleased with this kit. ARTF it ain't, you have to
    do a bit of work, but if you like building this is a real pleasure. The
    end results are very worthwhile.
    
    Now I'm looking at the "Baronette" from the same manufacturer,
    this one's based on the Fokker Triplane!  8^)
    
    Nigel
    

    Nigel,
    
    Sounds like a neat bipe.  Did you use flying wires on the wings??
    
    Will

    
    Will,
    
    No, I didn't use flying wires. I thought about putting some dummy
    rigging in place just for looks, but slight apathy set in, and I never
    got round to it! 8^)
    
    Nigel
    

    I looked thru this file for something on the Sterling Cessna TriPacer
    135, but didn't find anything.  A member of my club built one and it 
    crashed on the maiden flight.  He had modified the tail feathers to be
    more scale-like, and we think there was just too much rudder and
    elevator for it to be stable.  The kit calls for a _very_ small
    elevator and rudder, clearly not to scale, which he thought looked 
    totally inappropriate, so he modified them to be true scale size.
    
    The effect of this change was to make the control surfaces look too big
    for this short, stubby plane, so I immediately suspected he was going
    to have some trouble.  I told him to cut way back on the elevator
    throw, but it might have still been way too much.
    
    At any rate, he attempted a takeoff, and shortly into the rollout, it
    seemed to lift off by itself.  It them immediately began a fairly sharp
    left turn as if the torque effect was pulling it left.  He said he
    tried to give it some down elevator to get the airspeed up, but it just
    snapped clockwise and went in at full throttle.  The damage wasn't too
    bad considering the impact, and its repairable.
    
    Dan Weier and I tried to analyze the situation.  On one hand it seemed
    as though the plane took off prematurely and didn't have enough
    airspeed.  That alone might explain some of the behavior, and would
    account for the right (highest) wing stalling and causing the clockwise
    snap. However, if the airspeed was sufficient, and somehow he had given
    it some up elevator instead of down as he claims, then the large
    elevator could have caused it to snap.  Although we both
    agree he had way too much elevator throw, we weren't entirely sure what
    happened given the observed facts.
    
    Has anyone ever had experience building and/or flying this particular
    kit?   Any information would be helpful.
    
    -Joe
                                 

    Minor nit.....the Tri-pacer (unless there's more than one) is made
    by Piper, not Cessna.
    
    I would think it would depend on how "scale" the kit was. The real deal
    is a VERY highly loaded, short coupled airplane. There not forgiving
    at all and fishtail in the air due to being so short coupled. They also
    tend to porpous (sp?) alot (read not very stable in pitch). It's the
    only airplane I've ever flown in that made me sick on a perfectly calm
    day.
    
    I would think that a kit of this plane would have to be flown fast
    to keep it flying. Also, if it is anywhere near scale in airfoil, you
    probably need a lot of rudder on takeoff and landing to compensate for
    ineffective ailerons at slower speeds.

    I flew a cub that did that to me. It needed coupled rudder. The
    ailerons reversed at slow speed and it flipped in just like a snap
    roll.
    
    With rudder permanently coupled it was a delight to fly.
    
    Wing loading over 25 ozs per sq ft also can do the same thing, I know
    :-)
    
    E.

    (Don't like to mention that I've had dealings with power...)
    
    	But as 'E' describes I had exactly the same reversal problems with
    ailerons on a high wing Twin engine machine. It was realy bad at low speed 
    on take off, and of course you're natural evasive action is to more of the
    same control movement in... bang... plastic bag...
    
    Trev

                                       
      First of all, could someone explain "aileron reversal" to me? I have
    never heard of this phenomenom ( except when the servo's were actually
    reversed, or in full scale aircraft at very high ie; supersonic
    speeds.) 
    
      In thinking further about the Tri Pacer, I think Steve is on the
    right track. The plane is VERY short coupled, thereby minimising
    stability. An extreme example of this is a Gremlin. There is a REASON
    the CG needs to be 12-15% instead of the normal 25-30% on a Gremlin. 
    With the Tripacer, the CG may need to be moved slightly forward. The 
    Tripacer's CG is currently about 25%.
    
      The kit also has very short wings, and although I didn't lift it,
    I suspect the wing loading is high. 
    
       Add to this it might be out of trim, his elevator may be too big,
    there is probably too much elevator throw, there is no wing wash / stall 
    strips to prevent tip stall, no downthrust/sidethrust in the engine, no
    expo / mixing capabilities on his Max-6 radio, and the pilot is relatively
    inexperienced in the use of rudder, and you can find more than enough 
    possible causes of the problem.

    The ailerons work by interupting the airflow and moving the wing in the
    opposite direction to that in which they were moved. So if you move an
    aileron up the wing panel will go down. this is what happens as long as
    there is a normal airflow over the wing.
    
    Reversal is when the wing goes up if the aileron is moved up. In flying
    terms left aileron would give a right rolling effect. This usually only
    seen to occur when a plane is moving very slowly as in take-off
    situations. 
    
    There are several explanations but the one that I prefer is that no
    airflow is reaching the top of the aileron so the aileron creates a
    vacuum on the wrong side.
    
    Usually the ailerons just become ineffective at slow speed but in some 
    cases, as more aileron throw is applied, they nastily cause a reverse  
    effect. Differential with more up than down helps solve some of this.
    
    Coupled rudder aleviates the aileron ineffectiveness at slow speeds.
    
    You might have noticed that when hovering a plane into the wind you
    have had to use rudder instead of ailerons to keep your heading.
    
    Theory #99 based on known facts...
    There could also be a design problem with this plane. As a rule of
    thumb the stab and elev. area should be 25% of the wing area. An
    elevator stall causes a lovely snap at slow speeds.    
    
    
    Regards,
    
    Eric.

Aileron reversal - put another way.

Your at or near stall.

Now if the plane rolls slightly to the left (port)
your natural reaction is to add some right aileron.
This lowers the aileron on the left wing and raises
the aileron on the right wing.  If you were flying
at normal speed all is well - but since you are at
or near stall lowering the aileron on the left wing
greatly increases the angle of attack.  

Again - since you are at or near stall increasing
the angle of attack at the wing tip stalls it and
the left wing looses all lift.  It is morally
the equivalent of adding wash-IN.

The cure as Eric said is to correct roll with rudder
at low speeds or as Eric does - NEVER FLY SLOW!

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

    Kay, what happened was just the opposite of what you described.  The
    plane was banking left, then suddenly snapped clockwise to the right. 
    If he was giving it right aileron input to correct for the left bank,
    then it surely responded correctly and rolled right.  But if that's the 
    case, the right aileron input not only banked it right, it also caused 
    it to snap over.
    
    I don't think ailerons alone can induce a snap, so I believe he was
    also applying some elevator, and with the large surface and large
    throw, it wouldn't have taken much for the combined right aileron plus
    some elevator to cause the snap roll.
    
    But this theory of reversal has me confused, and I don't know if that
    was the cause here.
    
    From experience flying the Aeromaster, I _know_ you must take off
    with rudder, NOT aileron control, and I have to stay on the rudder until
    its fully up to speed and altitude.  SHort coupled planes with large
    elevator surfaces teach you all about the rudder, and it may be that
    Doug didn't work the rudder after liftoff.
    
     BTW, it was pointed out this is a Piper, not a Cessna.  I goofed on
    that.  This is one FAT, short plane.  Fully looking. It looks like it
    would be squirrily as h*ll.
    
    -Joe          

                                                    
    
       I have to admit, my aerodynamics are rusty, but I seem to remember
     some planes will"tuck", and turn into the lower wing when they stall in
     a turn, but others will "go over the top", and turn toward the top
     wing. I believe the situation also varies due to certain conditions.
    
    
     Accelerated Stall:
    
      The stall speed increases as you increase the bank ( when
    MAINTAINING altitude ).
       Ailerons don't cause the snap roll, but as you bank an airplane 
    by using the ailerons, you need to add elevator to maintain altitude.
    This causes in increase in the Angle of Attack, and VOILA all of a
    sudden stall speed is reached (at a higher airspeed than would occur
    in level flight).   
    
    
    AILERON REVERSAL
    
      I can understand aileron's being blanketed and inneffective, but I
    am still not convinced regarding aileron "reversal". What could be
    concieved as reversal is just the top wing stalling, and then dropping.
    
       Ex: Left aileron is applied while climbing. The plane starts
           turning, the stall speed increases in the left climbing turn.
           The wing stalls, and the right wing drops. Left aileron is 
           applied, and the wing continues turning to the right, because
           it is a stalled condition. The correction would be to lower the
           nose first, get the wing flying again, and THEN apply 
           left rudder/aileron to level the wings.
             
    
       The rudder is used at low speed because:
    
             1. It keeps the wings level so they provide maximum lift for
                climbing, maintaining altitude, etc.
    
             2. The ailerons could be blanketed / inneffective at slow 
                airspeeds/high angle of attack.
    
             3. To provide directional control on takeoff and landing. 
             
    
       

    After a recent wing failure on my fun scale Eindecker, I find my
    self with a three channel radio and a .074 queen bee engine in need
    of a home. Im considering the house of balsa's aniversary edition
    P-51 mustang. Any body out there every build a house of balsa kit?
    
    
                                                       Thanks, Jim