Bonner Smog Hog - 60 years later
06-01-2016, 05:44 AM
#51
Something special today. No replica of Howard Bonner's Smog Hog would look right without the decals of his RC club on the fuselage as seen in the magazine articles. Fortunately Col. Jack R. Albrecht of the U.S.Army (Retired) was a member of of the LARKS (Los Angeles Radio Kontrol Society) in the late 50's. He was able to graciously provide two decals of clubs he had belonged to.
In fact the second decal is even more remarkable, as it may have been one of the very first RC clubs ever to exist. The Pacific Radio Control Society was most likely formed around 1950, but I do not know the exact date. The address of PO Box 6 Menlo Park is interesting as well. Menlo Park is just north of what is now referred to as "Silicon Valley" when that area was mostly orchards in the 50's. Based on the colors used and the general design of the Logo, I suspect that the PRCS eventually became Pioneer's RC Club which was the largest RC club in the US with over 400 members and me in the 80's. One of the members back then was Ken Willard, and an earlier member was Bob Noyce, cofounder of Intel.
.
In fact the second decal is even more remarkable, as it may have been one of the very first RC clubs ever to exist. The Pacific Radio Control Society was most likely formed around 1950, but I do not know the exact date. The address of PO Box 6 Menlo Park is interesting as well. Menlo Park is just north of what is now referred to as "Silicon Valley" when that area was mostly orchards in the 50's. Based on the colors used and the general design of the Logo, I suspect that the PRCS eventually became Pioneer's RC Club which was the largest RC club in the US with over 400 members and me in the 80's. One of the members back then was Ken Willard, and an earlier member was Bob Noyce, cofounder of Intel.
.
Last edited by HighPlains; 06-01-2016 at 12:25 PM.
06-01-2016, 10:19 AM
#52
I like the electron tube in the Larks logo, very cool indeed. Notice the plane is rudder only as well.
Howard used to host the LARKS club meetings at his home on Tilden avenue, and encouraged the sharing of ideas to further the development of R/C technology for model planes. The LARKs membership roster reads like a who's who of R/C. Sepulveda Basin, and Western and Rosecrans were a couple places I remember where these guys flew.
You don't hear much about Howards novel plane "The SUDs" and "SUDs II" which can be seen on the Duramite and Transmite instructions. This Delta design was apparently a pylon racer, the first version being a pusher, and the SUDs II being a mid engine puller with the engine nacelle on the vertical fin.
Howard used to host the LARKS club meetings at his home on Tilden avenue, and encouraged the sharing of ideas to further the development of R/C technology for model planes. The LARKs membership roster reads like a who's who of R/C. Sepulveda Basin, and Western and Rosecrans were a couple places I remember where these guys flew.
You don't hear much about Howards novel plane "The SUDs" and "SUDs II" which can be seen on the Duramite and Transmite instructions. This Delta design was apparently a pylon racer, the first version being a pusher, and the SUDs II being a mid engine puller with the engine nacelle on the vertical fin.
06-02-2016, 07:47 AM
#53
Nice decals HighPlains. If you scan them, the decals can be easily cleaned up using a good graphics program. I did a F&M decal using Microsoft Paint that came out reasonably well.
06-02-2016, 09:18 AM
#55
I've seen those same drawings of Bonner's delta pylon ships. Remember that back then the pylon event was a single airplane on the course, so the race was against the clock.
The F106 jet was a delta wing interceptors, and flew in the late 50's through the 60's. I believe "W" flew the 106 in the air national guard. Not a great design except to go very fast and shoot missiles. High accident rates.
It would be great if there were a thread dedicated to club emblems and decals along with a brief description. Maybe a vender supported thread.
The F106 jet was a delta wing interceptors, and flew in the late 50's through the 60's. I believe "W" flew the 106 in the air national guard. Not a great design except to go very fast and shoot missiles. High accident rates.
It would be great if there were a thread dedicated to club emblems and decals along with a brief description. Maybe a vender supported thread.
Last edited by HighPlains; 06-02-2016 at 12:09 PM.
06-02-2016, 01:30 PM
#56
HighPlains,
I have had the top portion of a Deans reed bank from my old CG 5 receiver in a "miscellaneous drawer" for about 55 years. Would you like to have it for your project ? If so, it's yours. PM me with a mailing address if you wish.
Dick
I have had the top portion of a Deans reed bank from my old CG 5 receiver in a "miscellaneous drawer" for about 55 years. Would you like to have it for your project ? If so, it's yours. PM me with a mailing address if you wish.
Dick
Last edited by otrcman; 06-02-2016 at 01:34 PM.
06-02-2016, 02:55 PM
#57
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Clifton,
NJ
Posts: 1,859
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bush flew the F-102 in Texas ANG.
The SIX still holds the single engine jet official speed record-1525.93 mph with a basically stock airplane,
this in Dec 1959.
Real fighters don't carry bombs!
The SIX still holds the single engine jet official speed record-1525.93 mph with a basically stock airplane,
this in Dec 1959.
Real fighters don't carry bombs!
Last edited by F106A; 06-02-2016 at 02:57 PM.
06-03-2016, 02:37 AM
#58
Your assumptions about the motor-prop combination can be even proven "theoretically" (by calculation). (I didn't doubt them, calculating is just fun for me.) The figures are not exact and may be even wrong, they are just ballpark and show the idea.
Static rpm (orange line) is about 8000, "unloading" begins at 22 mph and would go to 14000rpm at 110 mph in a dive. Probably too fast for the Hog.
Static thrust (green line) is 3.7 lbs and decreases nearly linearly to 0 at 110 mph. That means 0.7 thrust/weight ratio, what is a decent value, and - at least as important - still much thrust at maneuver speed.
The prop has its good 67% peak efficiency (light-blue line) at even 52 mph, and efficiency is better than 60% between 34 and 74 mph.
Propulsion-power (thrust times speed, red line) has its 0.275 hp peak value at 65 mph, it's more than 0.24 hp between 39 and 81 mph.
That's because shaft-power (yellow line) has its 0.45 hp peak value only at 87 mph.
So the propeller choice seems to be made for torque and thrust, not rpm and power. The Fox 35 seems to be good at torque (meaning big torque ever increasing if rpm decreases) even though it's a short-stroke. I think later engines had more power by more rpm at the cost of less torque.
Anyway, another assumption of yours is nicely proven here: zero-thrust rpm is much bigger than "theoretical pitch-speed". The latter would be 17000 rpm * 6" pitch / 60 = 95 mph, the former is even 110 mph at only 14000 rpm. The difference stems partly from the cambered blade airfoil (Clark Y), but also from a different pitch over the radius and all-in-all more pitch than nominal. I took the geometry of an old 7x5 Graupner Super Nylon and modified it to 11x6 or what pitch matched Peter Chinn's specifications. (All done with Hepperle's JavaProp tool.) This way it became a 11x7.5 actually. Well, all my props have more pitch than specified in the vital outer blade parts.
Now it's still a mystery for me how the Hog could be flown with 2° wing incidence; I would think a 0-0-0 setup would be just about right. The next mystery is how a nearly square 2415 wing could be stalled (spun, snapped) at all, at least with the Hog's small controls.
Static rpm (orange line) is about 8000, "unloading" begins at 22 mph and would go to 14000rpm at 110 mph in a dive. Probably too fast for the Hog.
Static thrust (green line) is 3.7 lbs and decreases nearly linearly to 0 at 110 mph. That means 0.7 thrust/weight ratio, what is a decent value, and - at least as important - still much thrust at maneuver speed.
The prop has its good 67% peak efficiency (light-blue line) at even 52 mph, and efficiency is better than 60% between 34 and 74 mph.
Propulsion-power (thrust times speed, red line) has its 0.275 hp peak value at 65 mph, it's more than 0.24 hp between 39 and 81 mph.
That's because shaft-power (yellow line) has its 0.45 hp peak value only at 87 mph.
So the propeller choice seems to be made for torque and thrust, not rpm and power. The Fox 35 seems to be good at torque (meaning big torque ever increasing if rpm decreases) even though it's a short-stroke. I think later engines had more power by more rpm at the cost of less torque.
Anyway, another assumption of yours is nicely proven here: zero-thrust rpm is much bigger than "theoretical pitch-speed". The latter would be 17000 rpm * 6" pitch / 60 = 95 mph, the former is even 110 mph at only 14000 rpm. The difference stems partly from the cambered blade airfoil (Clark Y), but also from a different pitch over the radius and all-in-all more pitch than nominal. I took the geometry of an old 7x5 Graupner Super Nylon and modified it to 11x6 or what pitch matched Peter Chinn's specifications. (All done with Hepperle's JavaProp tool.) This way it became a 11x7.5 actually. Well, all my props have more pitch than specified in the vital outer blade parts.
Now it's still a mystery for me how the Hog could be flown with 2° wing incidence; I would think a 0-0-0 setup would be just about right. The next mystery is how a nearly square 2415 wing could be stalled (spun, snapped) at all, at least with the Hog's small controls.
Last edited by UStik; 06-04-2016 at 06:41 AM. Reason: max. rpm / pitch speed corrected, picture amended
06-03-2016, 04:43 AM
#61
UStik - interesting material. About the only way I can see a Hog doing 110 mph is when the wing comes off after breaking in half. That was the end of my Falcon 56, so it is based on experience.
Most control line stunt models with the Fox and a 10x6 were targeted at about 50 mph, albeit at a very rich four cycle. Just about every article I have ever read on the subject claims that 70% of the drag is from the lines.
Hard to say how a spin or snap roll could be done. Especially when you consider that only one control is available at a time and the forward balance point. To me the elevators seem quite large, while the rudder is very small. Perhaps you blip the escapement from high to low, then hold the elevator until the nose has pitched up and the servo will be slow going back to neutral, then hit the rudder. About this time if the altitude is enough you reach that terminal 110 mph speed.
As to the decalage, perhaps this is a holdover from single channel design. Maneuvers depended on excess speed and timing on the escapement. I recall reading that some people setup their elevator servo in the trim only mode of operation. How it flies is one of the questions that can only be answered by doing.
Most control line stunt models with the Fox and a 10x6 were targeted at about 50 mph, albeit at a very rich four cycle. Just about every article I have ever read on the subject claims that 70% of the drag is from the lines.
Hard to say how a spin or snap roll could be done. Especially when you consider that only one control is available at a time and the forward balance point. To me the elevators seem quite large, while the rudder is very small. Perhaps you blip the escapement from high to low, then hold the elevator until the nose has pitched up and the servo will be slow going back to neutral, then hit the rudder. About this time if the altitude is enough you reach that terminal 110 mph speed.
As to the decalage, perhaps this is a holdover from single channel design. Maneuvers depended on excess speed and timing on the escapement. I recall reading that some people setup their elevator servo in the trim only mode of operation. How it flies is one of the questions that can only be answered by doing.
06-03-2016, 07:16 AM
#62
Sorry, "small controls" was an expression of my wonder, in fact both rudder and elevator have 25% of the vertical or horizontal stab's area, respectively. That's more than many reeds models had, but at least the rudder is smaller than that of the Taurus, which employed kick-up elevator for stalling. I tried 45° elevator on the simulated Hog, that helped the stall.
The simulator now shows all the characteristics specified in the Aeromodeller article (last paragraph on first page): "In the air it performs snap rolls, spins, inverted flight, loops inside and out, Cuban 8's and feather-like touch-and-go's." It does this just not the way I had expected. I don't know of any video showing 1950s aerobatics, unlike the 1962 video of Taurus and similar models. I'm very curious how your Hog will fly.
By the way, with the calculated prop data the virtual 0-0-0 Hog flies level at 29 mph (13 m/s) with 45% throttle and at 39 mph (17.5 m/s, 180 W thrust-power) with full thottle and down trim. Balanced at 33% as per plan. It seems a bit draggy but is a wonderful flier. And I see why one would use the elevator trim function only. Once trimmed, the model is still a rudder-only one even with the 0-0-0 setup. Maybe the magazine recommended 3° for beginners and rudder-only fliers.
The simulator now shows all the characteristics specified in the Aeromodeller article (last paragraph on first page): "In the air it performs snap rolls, spins, inverted flight, loops inside and out, Cuban 8's and feather-like touch-and-go's." It does this just not the way I had expected. I don't know of any video showing 1950s aerobatics, unlike the 1962 video of Taurus and similar models. I'm very curious how your Hog will fly.
By the way, with the calculated prop data the virtual 0-0-0 Hog flies level at 29 mph (13 m/s) with 45% throttle and at 39 mph (17.5 m/s, 180 W thrust-power) with full thottle and down trim. Balanced at 33% as per plan. It seems a bit draggy but is a wonderful flier. And I see why one would use the elevator trim function only. Once trimmed, the model is still a rudder-only one even with the 0-0-0 setup. Maybe the magazine recommended 3° for beginners and rudder-only fliers.
Last edited by UStik; 06-03-2016 at 09:04 AM.
06-03-2016, 08:30 AM
#63
I used to snap roll my rudder only Dicks Dream:
Hold rudder and do three spirals, release rudder when plane is headed upwind, and wait for it to pull out of the spiral dive. When it is just starts to raise it's nose, hit rudder and enjoy an nice snap roll! There is some trim requirements too: Add 1/2" extra dihedral and increase the incidence by 2 degrees from the stock design, and move the bale on the rudder for maximum throw. To do this, I had a second wing I used for stunting, and moved the GC aft 1/4".
We had a Flite Streak w/ a Fox .35 break off the lines once. It climbed up about 400 feet, the engine did a hiccup, the plane nosed over, then the Fox came on full bore and the Flite Streak came barreling down at over 100 mph and augured into the turf. It destroyed everything, even the engine case. Spectacular, and scary all at the same time.
Hold rudder and do three spirals, release rudder when plane is headed upwind, and wait for it to pull out of the spiral dive. When it is just starts to raise it's nose, hit rudder and enjoy an nice snap roll! There is some trim requirements too: Add 1/2" extra dihedral and increase the incidence by 2 degrees from the stock design, and move the bale on the rudder for maximum throw. To do this, I had a second wing I used for stunting, and moved the GC aft 1/4".
We had a Flite Streak w/ a Fox .35 break off the lines once. It climbed up about 400 feet, the engine did a hiccup, the plane nosed over, then the Fox came on full bore and the Flite Streak came barreling down at over 100 mph and augured into the turf. It destroyed everything, even the engine case. Spectacular, and scary all at the same time.
Last edited by jaymen; 06-03-2016 at 08:37 AM.
06-03-2016, 08:45 AM
#64
06-04-2016, 06:25 AM
#65
Thanks jaymen, you cleared things up for me. I didn't increase dihedral and didn't move the C/G backwards, but I went back to 2° incidence/decalage and sticked to 45° rudder and elevator throw. Now the virtual Hog still doesn't Class 1 aerobatics as you described, but it does Class 2. The decalage is obviously needed to do a proper snap roll, that is one that ends in the same direction it began in. Still I have to try elevator and rudder in sequence to emulate the non-simultaneous reeds radio.
--> To no avail. The airplane needs sustained elevator. It's possible to start a spin with elevator, then additional rudder, then release rudder and stop the spin by releasing elevator. Snaps similar. Class 1 aerobatics still not really.
But here's another conundrum. I compared a 10x6 propeller to the 11x6, diagrams for both added below. Maximum speed is slightly lower (103 instead of 110 mph), maximum rpm slightly higher (15000 instead of 14000). Thrust decreases slightly more with increasing speed, but from a higher level (4.0 instead of 3.7 lbs). Thus thrust is even higher in the 29 to 39 mph speed range. Maximum power is where the prop's maximum efficiency is. I stand corrected.
Now I think I know why the 10x6 was THE popular stunt prop, but I have no idea why Bonner used the 11x6. I didn't notice any difference in the simulator yet. A bit more torque (44.75 instead of 41.5 oz in) helping left rolls is all that comes to mind, but it doesn't seem really relevant. Will look for errors in my calculations. (--> No errors found.)
--> To no avail. The airplane needs sustained elevator. It's possible to start a spin with elevator, then additional rudder, then release rudder and stop the spin by releasing elevator. Snaps similar. Class 1 aerobatics still not really.
But here's another conundrum. I compared a 10x6 propeller to the 11x6, diagrams for both added below. Maximum speed is slightly lower (103 instead of 110 mph), maximum rpm slightly higher (15000 instead of 14000). Thrust decreases slightly more with increasing speed, but from a higher level (4.0 instead of 3.7 lbs). Thus thrust is even higher in the 29 to 39 mph speed range. Maximum power is where the prop's maximum efficiency is. I stand corrected.
Now I think I know why the 10x6 was THE popular stunt prop, but I have no idea why Bonner used the 11x6. I didn't notice any difference in the simulator yet. A bit more torque (44.75 instead of 41.5 oz in) helping left rolls is all that comes to mind, but it doesn't seem really relevant. Will look for errors in my calculations. (--> No errors found.)
Last edited by UStik; 06-04-2016 at 08:58 AM. Reason: amendment
06-04-2016, 11:19 AM
#66
Sorry for that many posts, but now I might have found the error. Peter Chinn specified 10200 rpm static for the 10x6 TopFlite in the MAN article and 8000 rpm for the 11x6 TopFlite in the Aeromodeller article. The latter seems to be a typo. At least with 9000 rpm the prop is more a 11x6 (and not a 11x7.5) and the performance curves look reasonable, especially when comparing both props (below).
Still the 10x6 seems to be better. I'm at a loss...
P.S.: Not quite. This prop gives 0.81 thrust/weight ratio, and of course thrust decreases faster with increasing speed. But that means it's "stiffer" than the 10x6 and it just pulls through the energy-consuming manuevers.
Still the 10x6 seems to be better. I'm at a loss...
P.S.: Not quite. This prop gives 0.81 thrust/weight ratio, and of course thrust decreases faster with increasing speed. But that means it's "stiffer" than the 10x6 and it just pulls through the energy-consuming manuevers.
Last edited by UStik; 06-04-2016 at 11:31 AM.
06-04-2016, 11:55 AM
#67
I think that over sized props were normal in that time period so that the engine stayed loaded and the natural speed of powered flight and unpowered flight would be as close as possible. This was so the model would react to the control at about the same rate.
Earlier designs often had a vertical spine to the fuselage, like the Rudderbug, or even twin vertical tails so that they were outside the higher speed air from the prop.
Still the question of stunting is perplexing. Perhaps a slight dive was the entry to a roll or snap roll, with the excess speed allowing a chance to get the nose up to a near stall where the rudder would become effective and no elevator needed. I'm sure that allowances were made for these early designs with monotone reeds, that any kind of controlled flopping around was counted. It may have been why the 8 channel systems with two simultaneous tones came on so quickly.
I started cutting parts for the horizontal stabilizer the other night, and the very first thing that happened was the back half of my oscillating saw's motor just broke off. This part holds the motor brushes and rear bearing on my Ryobi. So it worked well until it became junk with a 16" throat and tilt table.
Earlier designs often had a vertical spine to the fuselage, like the Rudderbug, or even twin vertical tails so that they were outside the higher speed air from the prop.
Still the question of stunting is perplexing. Perhaps a slight dive was the entry to a roll or snap roll, with the excess speed allowing a chance to get the nose up to a near stall where the rudder would become effective and no elevator needed. I'm sure that allowances were made for these early designs with monotone reeds, that any kind of controlled flopping around was counted. It may have been why the 8 channel systems with two simultaneous tones came on so quickly.
I started cutting parts for the horizontal stabilizer the other night, and the very first thing that happened was the back half of my oscillating saw's motor just broke off. This part holds the motor brushes and rear bearing on my Ryobi. So it worked well until it became junk with a 16" throat and tilt table.
06-04-2016, 07:02 PM
#68
I don't have a definitive answer on whether the Smog Hog ever did a real snap roll with 5 channel only. But here is my theory:
It looked to me like the model never did a real snap roll as understood by full scale flyers. In a full scale airplane, one might think of a snap roll as a horizontal spin. The wing was stalled at about 30% over the one-G stalling speed by an abrupt application of full aft stick. At the same time, full rudder would be applied. The wing, thus stalled with a great deal of yaw angle, would rotate rapidly. Approaching a full rotation, the stick was moved abruptly forward and a pretty generous amount of opposite rudder applied to stop the roll rate. If the timing worked out perfectly, the airplane would stop with the wings level and the nose somewhat lower than when the maneuver was initiated.
The "snap rolls" that I saw performed by models in those days did not appear to stall the wing. It was just a case of building up a bunch of speed, allowing the nose to rise up to 45° or so, and then applying full rudder. The result was a rapid, yawing roll that looked somewhat like a real snap roll. I doubt that most model flyers knew the subtle differences, or cared.
The purpose for the extra dihedral is that the rolling response due to yaw is much greater with more dihedral. In the full-scale world, the ability to raise a low wing with rudder application is known as "dihedral effect".
All this is not to downplay R/C stunting of that era. Those guys did incredible things with just rudder only or rudder / elevator.
Dick
It looked to me like the model never did a real snap roll as understood by full scale flyers. In a full scale airplane, one might think of a snap roll as a horizontal spin. The wing was stalled at about 30% over the one-G stalling speed by an abrupt application of full aft stick. At the same time, full rudder would be applied. The wing, thus stalled with a great deal of yaw angle, would rotate rapidly. Approaching a full rotation, the stick was moved abruptly forward and a pretty generous amount of opposite rudder applied to stop the roll rate. If the timing worked out perfectly, the airplane would stop with the wings level and the nose somewhat lower than when the maneuver was initiated.
The "snap rolls" that I saw performed by models in those days did not appear to stall the wing. It was just a case of building up a bunch of speed, allowing the nose to rise up to 45° or so, and then applying full rudder. The result was a rapid, yawing roll that looked somewhat like a real snap roll. I doubt that most model flyers knew the subtle differences, or cared.
The purpose for the extra dihedral is that the rolling response due to yaw is much greater with more dihedral. In the full-scale world, the ability to raise a low wing with rudder application is known as "dihedral effect".
All this is not to downplay R/C stunting of that era. Those guys did incredible things with just rudder only or rudder / elevator.
Dick
06-05-2016, 12:54 AM
#69
Thanks Dick for the explanation. Then again, I could have known that autorotation is unknown in model aerobatics since I've been taught (2008 here at RCU) that even a spin is flown with ailerons. 
Sarcasm aside, the virtual Hog doesn't do Class 1 snap rolls, not even with 8° dihedral and a far back C/G. I found a way to do sort of a monotone-reeds snap roll, though. Of course it wasn't my idea, I sought advice in our "Holy Book of aerobatics" of some 30 years ago - Neil Williams, Aerobatics. He suggested a "cheated" snap roll, gently pulling up and then tapping on rudder. The Hog refused but obeyed the other way around: In nearly 45° nose-up attitude, yawing by a decent blip of (left) rudder and then holding up elevator led to something looking like a snap roll.
Meanwhile I'm thinking the simulator (or my parameters, for that matter) doesn't really render this Class 1 stuff. That would mean I'm splitting hairs and should wait for the real model showing its behavior.
P.S.: On second thought, Dick could your observation explain why they used nearly square wing planforms and (blunt leading edge) NACA four-digit airfoils back then? After all, to be able to fly such tight corkscrew-maneuvers like Class 1 the wing must not stall. And the models had a short horizontal stab moment arm. Not much later, in Class 2 and above all in Class 3, they needed kick-up elevators on a longer moment arm (for instance Taurus with NACA 2419). Only even later they used airfoils with a sharper leading edge and bigger elevators (33% of stab area) to facilitate stalling (for instance Kwik-Fli III). Was it a learning curve?
Sarcasm aside, the virtual Hog doesn't do Class 1 snap rolls, not even with 8° dihedral and a far back C/G. I found a way to do sort of a monotone-reeds snap roll, though. Of course it wasn't my idea, I sought advice in our "Holy Book of aerobatics" of some 30 years ago - Neil Williams, Aerobatics. He suggested a "cheated" snap roll, gently pulling up and then tapping on rudder. The Hog refused but obeyed the other way around: In nearly 45° nose-up attitude, yawing by a decent blip of (left) rudder and then holding up elevator led to something looking like a snap roll.
Meanwhile I'm thinking the simulator (or my parameters, for that matter) doesn't really render this Class 1 stuff. That would mean I'm splitting hairs and should wait for the real model showing its behavior.
P.S.: On second thought, Dick could your observation explain why they used nearly square wing planforms and (blunt leading edge) NACA four-digit airfoils back then? After all, to be able to fly such tight corkscrew-maneuvers like Class 1 the wing must not stall. And the models had a short horizontal stab moment arm. Not much later, in Class 2 and above all in Class 3, they needed kick-up elevators on a longer moment arm (for instance Taurus with NACA 2419). Only even later they used airfoils with a sharper leading edge and bigger elevators (33% of stab area) to facilitate stalling (for instance Kwik-Fli III). Was it a learning curve?
Last edited by UStik; 06-05-2016 at 01:29 AM.
06-05-2016, 03:01 AM
#70
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: London, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://youtu.be/xZ2iWmgTFbc
Alan
06-06-2016, 08:21 AM
#71
I find myself wondering what the pattern really was at the 1956 Nat's. I assume that certain ground handling requirement due to the tail wheel brake, and maybe landing in a circle, but really don't have any idea of the other requirements. Perhaps this is a question best put to the AMA.
As to a snap roll, I would think if you put it into an accelerated stall, that you might get it to break into a snap or spin. But until it flies, this seems to be an open question.
As to a snap roll, I would think if you put it into an accelerated stall, that you might get it to break into a snap or spin. But until it flies, this seems to be an open question.
06-06-2016, 12:08 PM
#72
HighPlains,
The reed plate and contact plate went into the mail to you this morning. I don't recall why I had just those parts out of the complete reed bank, but am thinking that the fellow I gave the 5 channel receiver to may have converted it to an 8 channel then given the leftover parts back to me. In any event, I believe that the five channel parts will fit directly onto a Deans 8, or 10 channel tone coil assembly.
Dick
The reed plate and contact plate went into the mail to you this morning. I don't recall why I had just those parts out of the complete reed bank, but am thinking that the fellow I gave the 5 channel receiver to may have converted it to an 8 channel then given the leftover parts back to me. In any event, I believe that the five channel parts will fit directly onto a Deans 8, or 10 channel tone coil assembly.
Dick
06-06-2016, 12:31 PM
#73
HighPlains asked me to relate what other radios or airplanes I might have flown during the 1950's and 60's. I don't know if this is the correct thread in which to relate the information, but will try to keep it short.
I bought an Ace Commander single channel transmitter/receiver kit with money from my first summer job in 1956. I assembled the kits with all the soldering skill that an unsupervised 13 year old could muster. Neither RX nor TX ever worked. I'm sure that a radio savvy adult could have quickly put it right, but such people were few and far between at that time. I also bought a Miniature Models 9 foot Taylorcraft kit. My Dad had been a free flighter in the 1940's, so I had access to a hand me down Ohlsson 60 for power.
The build went slowly and wasn't encouraged by the non-working radio. By summer of 1959 I had the airplane completed and the engine working well, but no radio. Thinking the receiver was the culprit, I acquired a new state of the art Babcock Magic Carpet All Transistor receiver. It worked, but never reliably enough to make a flight. Range was very short and I think I wore out the threads on the tuning slug trying to get it just right.
And then came an opportunity to buy a used but perfect condition Orbit single TX and Rx. What a breakthrough ! That set was foolproof. I made about 10 flights with the Taylorcraft, marred only by a balky engine.
And then a fellow flyer offered to trade me his CG 5 for my wonderful Orbit. The 5 channel was well used, but the allure of moving up to the "big time" was simply too great a temptation.
I flew the Taylorcraft a few times with the 5 channel, but the engine remained troublesome. In retrospect, I think it was nothing more than fuel foaming. But actual flight experience was so rare among the handful of other flyers I knew that nobody had a solution.
The CG 5 had come with a nicely built Dmeco Cosmic Wind as a deal sweetener. I got a couple of flights in before it met it's demise. Then a Mambo which made 10 flights or so before losing a wing in flight. Then another Mambo. And then an Ace Ranger S10W. All that time I seemed to be limited by what I called "The 13 Flight Barrier". In those days most everybody kept track of how many flights they had on their current model and 100 flights would have been considered a miracle. I never met anyone who had more than 40 or 50 flights on a model. Oil soaking was definitely not a problem !
In 1962 I built an (Ace kit) Kraft 10 channel transmitter and receiver. Triple simultaneous, theoretically. It worked pretty well, but suffered with limited range. The 13 flight Barrier was finally broken. I flew a number of models with that radio, including a Mighty Mambo and several Jerry Nelson Pegasus clones. The Pegasus was one sweet flying plane. Somewhere in the middle of the Kraft 10 career I got to know a fellow who was electronically savvy and also had an oscilloscope. He determined that the transmitter output, when tuned for best output, suffered from clipped output tones. He backed the output down slightly until the tones made nice sine waves. Never another range problem after that. And the simultaneous really did work.
In about 1965 I built a Debolt Jenny. The Jenny was one ugly sport model, but it flew well. That is, until I found out why it had that funky little ventral fin. I kept breaking the ventral fin off on landing. Each time I'd take the plane back home and glue the fin back on. One Saturday morning I cracked the fin on the first flight of the day. Not to have my day ruined on the first flight, I broke the fin off and tossed in the car. On the very next flight I decided to demonstrate the simultaneous feature of my radio to one and all. I got up pretty high and threw in up elevator, rudder and aileron all at the same time. The model made a really violent gyration and then settled down into a flat spin. I have no idea how many turns of the spin it made before hitting the ground, but do know that I tried all the combinations of opposite rudder, down elevator, etc. to no avail. I found out later that other Jennys had suffered the same fate for the same reason. Hal Debolt knew what he was doing with that ventral fin, but I sure wished he had put some warning on the plan not to omit it.
My first proportional radio was a Bonner 4RS, purchased in 1967. That radio worked quite well, but was plagued by short range again. One had to be very careful not to taxi too far down the runway before turning around for the takeoff run. The range problem turned out to be noise generated by the servos. I finally solved that problem decisively by building a set of Controlair S-4 servos. The new servos made a dramatic improvement in the Bonner set and I never had another range problem.
Overlaying this story is the high cost of radio batteries at that time. We don't think much about it these days, but batteries in those days didn't last very long and the cost of a new set was really significant, especially for a kid in high school and then college. There were some long periods where planes languished for lack of money to buy batteries.
If my one remaining reader has stuck with me to the end, I'll make my closing statement an apology for having been so wordy.
Dick
I bought an Ace Commander single channel transmitter/receiver kit with money from my first summer job in 1956. I assembled the kits with all the soldering skill that an unsupervised 13 year old could muster. Neither RX nor TX ever worked. I'm sure that a radio savvy adult could have quickly put it right, but such people were few and far between at that time. I also bought a Miniature Models 9 foot Taylorcraft kit. My Dad had been a free flighter in the 1940's, so I had access to a hand me down Ohlsson 60 for power.
The build went slowly and wasn't encouraged by the non-working radio. By summer of 1959 I had the airplane completed and the engine working well, but no radio. Thinking the receiver was the culprit, I acquired a new state of the art Babcock Magic Carpet All Transistor receiver. It worked, but never reliably enough to make a flight. Range was very short and I think I wore out the threads on the tuning slug trying to get it just right.
And then came an opportunity to buy a used but perfect condition Orbit single TX and Rx. What a breakthrough ! That set was foolproof. I made about 10 flights with the Taylorcraft, marred only by a balky engine.
And then a fellow flyer offered to trade me his CG 5 for my wonderful Orbit. The 5 channel was well used, but the allure of moving up to the "big time" was simply too great a temptation.
I flew the Taylorcraft a few times with the 5 channel, but the engine remained troublesome. In retrospect, I think it was nothing more than fuel foaming. But actual flight experience was so rare among the handful of other flyers I knew that nobody had a solution.
The CG 5 had come with a nicely built Dmeco Cosmic Wind as a deal sweetener. I got a couple of flights in before it met it's demise. Then a Mambo which made 10 flights or so before losing a wing in flight. Then another Mambo. And then an Ace Ranger S10W. All that time I seemed to be limited by what I called "The 13 Flight Barrier". In those days most everybody kept track of how many flights they had on their current model and 100 flights would have been considered a miracle. I never met anyone who had more than 40 or 50 flights on a model. Oil soaking was definitely not a problem !
In 1962 I built an (Ace kit) Kraft 10 channel transmitter and receiver. Triple simultaneous, theoretically. It worked pretty well, but suffered with limited range. The 13 flight Barrier was finally broken. I flew a number of models with that radio, including a Mighty Mambo and several Jerry Nelson Pegasus clones. The Pegasus was one sweet flying plane. Somewhere in the middle of the Kraft 10 career I got to know a fellow who was electronically savvy and also had an oscilloscope. He determined that the transmitter output, when tuned for best output, suffered from clipped output tones. He backed the output down slightly until the tones made nice sine waves. Never another range problem after that. And the simultaneous really did work.
In about 1965 I built a Debolt Jenny. The Jenny was one ugly sport model, but it flew well. That is, until I found out why it had that funky little ventral fin. I kept breaking the ventral fin off on landing. Each time I'd take the plane back home and glue the fin back on. One Saturday morning I cracked the fin on the first flight of the day. Not to have my day ruined on the first flight, I broke the fin off and tossed in the car. On the very next flight I decided to demonstrate the simultaneous feature of my radio to one and all. I got up pretty high and threw in up elevator, rudder and aileron all at the same time. The model made a really violent gyration and then settled down into a flat spin. I have no idea how many turns of the spin it made before hitting the ground, but do know that I tried all the combinations of opposite rudder, down elevator, etc. to no avail. I found out later that other Jennys had suffered the same fate for the same reason. Hal Debolt knew what he was doing with that ventral fin, but I sure wished he had put some warning on the plan not to omit it.
My first proportional radio was a Bonner 4RS, purchased in 1967. That radio worked quite well, but was plagued by short range again. One had to be very careful not to taxi too far down the runway before turning around for the takeoff run. The range problem turned out to be noise generated by the servos. I finally solved that problem decisively by building a set of Controlair S-4 servos. The new servos made a dramatic improvement in the Bonner set and I never had another range problem.
Overlaying this story is the high cost of radio batteries at that time. We don't think much about it these days, but batteries in those days didn't last very long and the cost of a new set was really significant, especially for a kid in high school and then college. There were some long periods where planes languished for lack of money to buy batteries.
If my one remaining reader has stuck with me to the end, I'll make my closing statement an apology for having been so wordy.
Dick
Last edited by otrcman; 06-06-2016 at 12:37 PM.
06-06-2016, 04:55 PM
#74
If it helps, my Dicks Dream with the aerobatic wing (more incidence and dihedral) had to be held in a turn to avoid it climbing and hanging on the prop, it had that much up trim with the increased incidence. So you never flew it straight, you were always holding a little rudder to control the climb. And I remember you did the snaps to the left so the torque would help it, which was important as it only did the rolls to the left.
Although I did have rudder only, it was an Adams actuator using an Ace Pulse Commander. I used as much rudder throw as I could get and a TD .020 with a 3/4 ounce tank for really long flights.
Although I did have rudder only, it was an Adams actuator using an Ace Pulse Commander. I used as much rudder throw as I could get and a TD .020 with a 3/4 ounce tank for really long flights.
06-06-2016, 07:44 PM
#75
No apology needed! You're history lesson is fun to read and tie into my own experience. My first radio was a Citizenship single channel system with a super-regen rx and escapement. I put it in a Goldberg Jr. Falcon and only flew it a few times. While the system worked well on the ground, as soon as the plane got off the ground I would get maybe one or two successful commands and then the rudder would lock to one side and the plane became a free flight model. I'm sure the rx was picking up every CB signal for miles around. This was in about 1964 or so. My first proportional radio was a German Rowan (Kraft clone) 4 channel system in 1970....what a difference.