NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/rec/models/rc/3585

Text File | 1992-09-02 | 8.0 KB | 170 lines

Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
Path: sparky!uunet!ftpbox!mothost!white!rtsg.mot.com!svoboda
From: [e-mail] (David Svoboda)
Subject: Re: R/C Flying: Part 1 of 2/rec.models.rc FAQ
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: guppie44
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 21:21:33 GMT
Lines: 157

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Coleman) writes:
|In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David Svoboda) writes:
|>
|> For instance, the Flightstar 40 is the most
|> popular ARF trainer in my area, and that airplane has a landing gear
|> which is completely insufficient to handle the hard landings of
|> training.  Now, not to say that the problem doesn't have a simple
|> fix, but not having built the airplane themselves, the student is
|> often overwhelmed by a simple solder job, and I have not had a
|> *single* student *ever* take my suggestion to replace the darn thing
|> with regular piano wire.
|
|I'm a student (well I guess not any more. I've been flying solo since
|mid-May).

You're still a student.

|I have a Flightstar 40. I'm kinda tired of the fragile landing
|gear. I have replaced the nose gear arm with a longer nose gear, but it
|also has bent rearward.

Well, the landing gear problem to which I was referring was the very weak
main gears.  See, when the mains bend upward due to normal landing stresses,
it causes the airplane to assume a nose-up attitude on the ground, which
makes non-bounced landing very difficult.

How did your nosegear get bent back?

|I'm not afraid of working on my plane. I've already made a number of small
|modifications.
|
|About this landing gear problem -- how do you suggest I improve the landing
|gear on the Flightstar?

My suggestion is to solder a wire cross-brace onto to mains about halfway
up each leg to improve the vertical stiffness.  Be sure the airplane sits
on the ground with just about a zero degree angle of attack.  For the
cross brace, use 1/16" music wire, silver solder, and bare copper wire
wrap.  Use emry paper and solvent to clean off the wire before soldering.

|> As far as a beginner not having enough skill to build a flyable
|> airplane, I submit that a trainer is exactly the kind of kit that
|> is best for a student to learn building skills on.
|
|The Flightstar does require some building. Indeed, I think that it offers
|just enough building for someone to understand exactly what is involved
|with building a full plane.

I disagree.  You learn how to *assemble* an airplane, which is the last bit
of building a kit.  You learn nothing about how to sand balsa, how to bend
sheeting, how to plan a radio or engine layout, how to cover with monokote,
or, indeed, how to build a straight wing.  Admittedly, assembly is a critical
part of building, but it is not by any means a major part.

|> The real solution to novice building troubles is to have an
|> instructor involved with the building process, as well as the
|> flying process.
|
|I don't think this is the problem. I really wasn't afraid to build a plane
|from scratch. I just didn't want to learn to fly on such a plane. As it was,
|it took me a solid week of evenings (about 20 hours) to build the Flightstar.
|If I had invested 3 to 5 times more effort in builing a plane, I'd be
|afraid to fly it.

Why?  I risk five to six *hundred* hours every time I go flying.  My time is
as valuable as anyone, and I am as susceptable to radio problems, "dumb thumbs",
and stupid co-channel radio operators as anyone.  I would guess that an airplane
of my students' is *less* likely to crash with me as an instructor than my own
aerobatic airplane is (which I admittedly put under greater risk when flying.)

|That's the appeal of ARFs! In a few hours you can go out and learn to
|fly. If you crash, you just buy and build another one.

Right.  And not learn a thing.  And spend a LOT of money.

|> Yes, a builder has emotional investment in a model.  I say that
|> there is nothing whatsoever wrong with that.  Okay, the first
|> few flights are nervous for the student.
|
|As someone who has just recently been there, the first few flights with
|an ARF are nervous. With a kit-built plane, they must be terrifying.

Nonsense.  MOST of the experienced fliers you see built their first
airplane.

Very few people are terribly nervous after the first few minutes in
the air.  And any good instructor has tricks to ease the students'
mind a little.

|> The fact is, students crash.  All of them do, sooner or later.
|
|Judging from the crashes I've seen at the flying field, ARFs are a better
|idea. Many students get discouraged quickly from the crashes anyway. If
|they had invested 50-100 hours building a plane, they would quit after
|the first crash.

Why would they?  If they have all this time invested in the airplane, and
the know-how to build it in the first place, the first thing that comes to
their mind is "fix it".  Too many beginners with ARFs crash seriously (say,
snap off a wing, crush the nose back to the wing, and break off a rudder),
then, after placing the remains in the garbage dumper, make a decision about
whether to continue in the hobby.  Builders make a decision, but it more
likely involves what kind of glue they will use to make repairs, as they
just don't have the heart to throw all that work away.

Simply put, it's MUCH harder to "total" a homebuilt, because there is so
much already emotionally invested.  And that emotional investment is an
investment in the *hobby*, not in the airplane.

|As for rebuilding ARFs, I've lost count of the number of Flightstars
|I've seen that have obviously been recovered after repair. Whoever
|says no one rebuilds ARFs is obviously wrong.

You just said (above), "If you crash, you just buy another one."  That is
the mentality of the ARF, like it or not.  Just compare the number of ARFs
you see in the trash can vs the number of homebuilts; even though the
homebuilts slightly outnumber the ARFs at my field, I see almost nothing
but ARFs in the trash can.

Yes, if you consider a cartwheeled landing a "crash", then I guess you would
think that many people "rebuild" Flightstars.  But I ask you--have you ever
seen a Flightstar with, say, a scratch-built wing?  It is fairly common to
scratch-build a part of a kit airplane after a crash (after all, you have
the plans right there), and almost unheard of for ARFs.

|Perhaps I've been lucky. I've only had one "crash" and that was months
|ago. (A cartwheel on landing, nothing came off, nothing severely broken)
|Another hard landing broke the gear mounting block out, and popped the
|firewall loose. (this has since been massively reinforced with 1/2"
|45 degree stock and lots of epoxy)

I'm talking *crashes*, here.

That was a rough landing.  You have yet to experience your first crash.

That's another one of my complaints about the Flightstar, though; that the
firewall is built rather weakly.  A lot of people break it off on landing.  A
trainer is *supposed* to be able to take that kind of abuse.

|My wife claims my plane has lasted perhaps 3 or 4 times its expected lifetime.
|Aside from the landing gear, it is practically new on the outside. I'm
|still flying it. I want to get to the point where I can make consistantly
|good landings before I rush out and get another plane. I've already
|gotten complements on my take off and landing technique.

I suggest you start on your next airplane now, because your first serious crash
can come very suddenly, and put you out of flying for a while.

|I've only been flying since January.

You are progressing pretty well, it sounds like.  A trainer should last about
long enough for you to grow out of it.  About the time that the airplane starts
getting oil-soaked, and the extra epoxy (from hard landings, and more serious
repairs) starts to weigh the plane down, you should be getting kind of anxious
to move up to a little more performance.

            Dave Svoboda, Palatine, IL