Fuel-proofing styrofoam

It doesn't need fuel proofing. Last thing these bricks need is more weight.

Ken Day

Reply to
Ken Day
Loading thread data ...

Apparently you havn't flown any other aircraft.

So....big deal ! Many of us are full scale pilots .What does that have to do with flying RC aircraft ? DO you see any of the other guys bragging about how much stick time they have ? NO ! You sure do like to blow your own whistle ,don't you ?

Not at my field. They all fly their big bucks models. Maybe all those 'other people' at your field don't want to fly while you're there...... running into tress , cartwheeling ....at full bore.

Ken Day

Reply to
Ken Day

I don't know why you bothered to reply to my post with your snide comments. I often notice that the people most critical of others and their equipment are usually trying to find excuses for their own inferior perfomance.

The Duraplane is a fine flying airplane, but it has its own quirks like any model. Obviously you couldn't fly it due to lack of skill and talent, but most aspiring pilots will find it an enjoyable model. Yup, the Duraplane does have a bit more performance than the typical trainer, but I have talked about how to get a head start on it using a flight simulator like FMS. Also you should be able to get instruction at any RC field. Any instructor who refuses to give lessons on it because it's a Duraplane is a jerk and should be avoided anyway!

RC, like most human endeavors, has its share of unhappy discontented people who try to remove the joy and pleasure from it with their disturbed personalities and fragile egos. I suggest you seek some help for your problems.

Finally, model airplane fuel will rot foam out very quickly. It soaks into the foam destroying it structurally.

Mr Akimoto

Reply to
Mr Akimoto

"Mr Akimoto" wrote

(snip)

I don't know about modern foam formulations, but the old white styrofoam of many years ago was very tolerant of model airplane fuel. In fact, many models were sold with uncovered, unpainted foam core wings that held up for many seasons of high nitro fuel exposure. Today's foams may be another matter entirely.

As someone else mentioned, polyurethane paint worked well for making clean up easier and did not attack the foam of old. However, small models are very susceptible to becoming over weight with just a single coat of paint. While the model may be easier to clean if coated with polyurethane, it surely will suffer in the performance department.

Ed Cregger

Reply to
Ed Cregger

| I don't know why you bothered to reply to my post with your snide | comments. I often notice that the people most critical of others and | their equipment are usually trying to find excuses for their own | inferior perfomance.

I'm not really sure who you're responding to. The post you followed up to is from another author (Ken Day), not me, but the comments about an instructor must be aimed at me. But do be aware that it's not just you and me.

Looking through the thread, Ken Day, Robbie and Laura Reynolds, Storm's Hamburgers, I_FLY_CL and I all seem to have disagreed with you recently on some aspect of the Duraplane's wondefulness ...

| The Duraplane is a fine flying airplane, but it has its own quirks | like any model.

It's wing loading is high, therefore it does not slow down well, and I tend to feel that a trainer should slow down well. Even your Ultrastick 40, which is marketed as an aerobatic plane (and is) weighs about the same but yet has a larger wing as the DP40.

And yes, if you cut the control throws down, I think an US40 would make a reasonable trainer. Not ideal (no dihedral), but better than the DP40, since it slows down better. Especially if you set the flaps on a bit to help is slow down even more.

Personally, I think a trainer _should_ slow down very well. My Dynaflite Butterfly uses the same engine (or smaller) as the Duraplane

20, yet has an 8' wingspan -- over twice the size -- and yet it weighs less (3 lbs vs. 4 lbs for the DP 20.) It can fly at as slow as 8 mph, and is prefect for practicing landings. In fact, I'd say it would be a perfect trainer for a beginner, at least until you start wanting to learn how to deal with ailerons.

Also, since it flies _so_ slow, crashes almost never do any damage, even though it's all balsa wood. | Obviously you couldn't fly it due to lack of skill and talent

This must be aimed at me.

I could fly it. It did nice circles around the field. If I took it up high and let it dive for a bit, it could do a loop, but you could see the wing bending which suggested that maybe I shouldn't be doing that.

(Yes, I was lacking skill. I was a beginner, after all. As for talent, well, it's not the first ad hominem attacks I've been hit with.)

Rolls were out, because it didn't have enough control authority to complete a roll before it had lost too much altitude. Granted, in a trainer you don't normally do much in the way of aerobatics, but most trainers can do some simple things like loops.

Near the ground, the high stall speed becomes more of an issue, since your student needs faster reflexes than he would for a slower plane.

| but most aspiring pilots will find it an enjoyable model.

Even DuraPlane itself does not suggest that the Duraplane Trainer 40 be used for a beginner. From

formatting link
--

The DuraPlane Trainer 40 is intended for intermediate to expert level pilots. Beginners can enjoy flying the Trainer 40 also, if they have had experience flying trainer models.

(Alas, the DP 20 instructions are not online.)

That seems a strange thing to put in the instructions for what they market as a trainer.

| Yup, the Duraplane does have a bit more performance than the typical | trainer,

It weighs more. Therefore, it must fly faster to stay in the air, since it has the same sized wing as other planes with similar wings, but that also means it climbs slower and turns slower.

If that's what you mean by higher performance, then I guess you're right.

Yes, it will survive a crash better. If that's what you mean by higher performance, then you could also be right.

But if you mean anything else ...

| Any instructor who refuses to give lessons on it | because it's a Duraplane is a jerk and should be avoided anyway!

My instructor didn't refuse anything. He knew I had another plane, and suggested I get it fixed up because it would fly better, so I did. And he was right -- my landings improved immediately, I had less trouble taxiing on the ground in the wind, my instructor could let me get `a little more out of control' before taking over, so I learned faster ...

As for being a jerk, he was instructing me out of the goodness of his heart. He didn't have to. He wasn't getting paid. He was doing me (and lots of other people in the club) a favor, and I appreciated that. He's definately not a jerk.

| RC, like most human endeavors, has its share of unhappy discontented | people who try to remove the joy and pleasure from it with their | disturbed personalities and fragile egos. I suggest you seek some help | for your problems.

If you feel that saying bad (but true) things about your plane of choice is somehow an attack on you, and it removes your joy and pleasure from the hobby, then perhaps it's you that should seek help. Certainly, I haven't commented on your lack of skill or talent, or called you a jerk (though to be fair, you are acting like one.)

This is Usenet (or the Internet, if you wish, though the two are indeed different.) If you want to say something, that's fine, but don't be surprised when people disagree with you. And you would do well to not assume that anybody who disagrees with you is automatically wrong -- when several people disagree with you, and nobody agrees with you, that's usually an indication that perhaps you should at least re-evalulate your position. It doesn't mean that you're wrong, but perhaps you should consider the possiblity that you are.

If you think the Duraplane is the greatest trainer ever, that's fine. But lots of people aren't going to agree with you. Which should also be fine, and if it's not, perhaps the problem is with you and not them.

Reply to
Doug McLaren

Doug McLaren:

My post was directed towards the twit Ken Day.

I often wonder where you people learned to fly or got your information about aerodynamics! I can slow the Duraplane T40 down to a crawl for landing. You must know by now that pitch controls airspeed and power sink rate. To get it down nose it down and to bleed off the excess airspeed pull the nose up. Do this with the throttle closed. Sometimes I need to add some power to drag it in if I come up short on the runway threshold.

I am often amaze bystanders by landing the plane dead in front of me. The plane flies fine, and I don't see why any novice wouldn't want to use it for a trainer. We're not talking about the space shuttle, so the wing loading is reasonable. In fact, the OS LA 40 does a fine job hauling the plane around, and I can go as fast or slow as I want. With the 40, I get an easy 16 minutes of flight from an 8 oz tank with at least a couple of ounces left over.

I fly the plane with abandon which isn't the way I flew Uncle Sam's muti-million dollar jets. I go out to have fun, and I don't care about an occassional slip when I'm buzzing the runway (where I usually do a couple of cartwheels). I have put at least 25 gallons of fuel through the OS and done hundreds of landing with this little plane. Lately I have been practicing flying inverted, and I expect to soon be making low inverted passes over the runway scraping the tip of the rudder.

Even though the Duraplane is a simple design, it's truly an elegant aircraft. It may not have much in the looks department, but I think it does have a very clean and modern look of its own. Anyway, I have tons of fun with it, and it asks very little in return, perhaps having a few bugs cleaned off its exterior.

Mr Akimoto

Reply to
Mr Akimoto

What an odd thing to say, regardless of who the intended recipient was. I never owned a Duraplane, although I have flown a few belonging to other people. I have, however, built at least 400 balsa planes for various customers and myself, and I have flown at least a hundred of them. I am fairly confident in my abilities to build as well as fly an airplane. No offense intended to anybody who likes Duraplanes, but I don't particularly like them, and I have good reasons for not liking them. The ideal that aircaft designers strive for is rigidity with light weight. The duraplane has neither. Even the slightest stress deforms the wings as well as the silly aluminum tail boom, which I have seen on a flyby wagging like a dog's tail. Deformation decreases performance by reducing lift and increasing turning radius. And it certainly is not light. The wing loading is in the mid twenties. I very much prefer planes with a light wing loading because they maneuver better. My plans-built airplanes made of balsa can turn in a very small radius, sometimes as small as the wingspan. The Duraplane has to make huge turns, unless you cut the throttle to lose some momentum, in which case you lose a huge amount of altitude in the turn. Also, if you build your "fragile balsa plane" lightly enough and with strength in the right areas, it will survive crashes better than you might think.

I stand by my observation that you can always tell when somebody learned on a Duraplane, because the Duraplane student tries to fly everything like a Duraplane, turning wildly, racing around at high speeds, and landing nose-up with power on.

I'm not saying that the Duraplane has no place in the world of RC. Obviously some people like it, and that's great. You can have a ton of fun with a plane that didn't cost you very much, and I'm glad that it makes you happy. But I don't like it much. If somebody gave me one I'd most likely give it away, but I can't think of anybody who would want it, so everything but the balsa tail would probably end up in the trash.

Personally I would much rather fly a Lazy Ace, Telemaster, or a Kaos

  1. Ever land a Kaos? Now THAT'S a nice airplane.
Reply to
Robbie and Laura Reynolds

Why did I bother to reply ? First of all I stated the facts about a Duraplane and you came back and said you have no idea where I get these ideas. The answer is , I get these ideas from over 20 years experience flying most every type of airplane out there except turbines and pulse jets. I became aqquainted with Duraplanes in the late 80's and after having so much bad luck instructing new flyers with them , I suggested other aircraft. I will have to say they are slightly better now than they were in the 80's , due to a larger wing but not much. They were a terrible piece of crap when they first came out. Another thing , after reading your posts you seem to have the idea that with your approx 2 years experience , you know more about RC flying than these guys in this group who have been doing this for

30 , 40 and even over 50 years.

I respect the fact that you were a miltary pilot , but that certainly doesn't make you any better at RC than the other guys here. As a club instructor for many years , I have found that many full scale pilots are the hardest to instruct , though not all of them. Having an understanding of basic aerodynamics and what the control surfaces do is a lot of help , but beyond that...no help..

Thats true in many cases. Here are some of your comments from other posts:

Destroyed your Duraplane ?

Looks like you're being very critical or others and their equipment here too. There are more , but I won't bother. We're all guilty of saying hurtful things from time to time.

Now how could you possibly come to this conclusion ? After only a few comments about a Duraplane and how much I dislike it ?

I guess I'll pull my own chain a bit now in reference to your remark about my lack of skill and talent.

I have built and flown more airplanes than I can even remember...I said "built" in the true sense of the word , not assemble an Arf. Some of them even won contests. I have flown pattern , pylon raced, float planes and all sorts of strange little flying things. Never did any of them extremely well , just your average sport flier.

I have a couple little electric pylon racers that you may get a kick out of flying. 25" span , about 1lb , approx 100 mph. Sorry....you detest electrics , don't you. Oh....almost forgot my 1/4 Midgets and Quickie 500's.

The Duraplane will not hold a light to any built up trainer that I can think of , but if you like it , that's great. Apparently some others must like them since they are still in business. I would like to have the chance to show you the difference.

I didn't say I 'refused' to give lessons on them. I did instruct people with them for a very short while about 15-16 years ago. But part of the instructors role is to reccomend a good trainer , and the other instructors and I reccomended other , much better aircraft. Probably hasn't been a Duraplane at our field for years.

Mr Akimoto , I'm a VERY happy camper and I certainly do not try to hinder the happiness of anyone else. GEEEZZZ....how do you come up with all this because of a few comments about an RC airplane ?

Lets see....no disturbed personalitiy and fragile ego here either. LOL

I need NO help because I have NO problems in that area.

Mr Akimoto , I am however , wondering how your mind works. How can you possiby assume these things with what little information you have about me.

Maybe so , in time. I have flown and have seen other people fly scads of foamies with no fuel proofing with nary a problem. They usually don't last long anyway.

Ken Day

Reply to
Ken Day

"Twit" ...? LOL . Don't think I've been called a 'Twit' before. Don't know if I should kick ya or kiss ya. I'm just a country boy. I had to look up 'cognascenti' when you used it in another post. Wasn't sure whether it meant talking down to someone or if it was some sort of Italian dish.

I learned to fly many years ago in a place far far away called Ft Lee I studied aerodynamics on Uncle Sams money for a while. I have also picked up what I can in magazines and so forth. I don't pretend to know aerodynamics like you do , probably not even close. But , I do know about RC airplanes and before that free flight and control line. Whew , gonna date myself in a bit if I'm not careful. Built my first model airplane around 1948.

I'm glad you can do that. With enough power I can probably do it. Point is though , a light wing loaded trainer will do it much slower and easier.

You do keep mentioning how you amaze people...and your friends. Maybe you can do magic with this plane that other beginners cannot.

As I said earlier , if it suits you ...Great ! But , it don't suit many beginners , well , none that I've seen as well as the built up trainers..

Mr Akimoto , I will take issue with that statement. The wing loading is NOT reasonable for a trainer. For a P 51 and other warbirds , some aerobatic aircraft yes , but not for a trainer. All of the Duraplanes are in the 26 - 30 oz wing loading range. Most trainers are in the neighborhood of 15 oz.

You have mentioned this 2 or 3 times concerning the wing loading. Power seems to be your answer to a heavy wing loading. It's not a matter of being able to 'haul' the plane , thats not the problem. No matter how you slice it , a heavier wing laoding equates to higher takeoff , flying and landing speed. Also , they are more subject to snap and some other nasty things.

Thats good that you like the plane and enjoy it so much. There are some things I enjoyed when flying the Duraplane and the first one out in the 80's was truly a brick, much smaller wing area. But remember , we were talking 'trainer' and new flyers. Also , as durablity goes , I teach students how to fly and avoid crashes. I like planes built to fly , not to crash.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder , sure can't argue with that. And I can tell you really enjoy it. I say , good for you. By the way , what branch of service and what was your ride ?

Ken Day

Reply to
Ken Day

Ken Day:

You're a legend in your own mind, and you're still a twit. Only a twit has the tenacity and patience to follow me around can parse through every word I have written. Also I do believe you're a country bumpkin looking for trouble.

I wouldn't brag about building dozens (or hundreds?) of model planes either or being involved in the RC sport for however many decades (I'm too lazy to hunt through your nonsense). What's your problem? Couldn't you find anything better to do with your time?

I often see many inaccuracies or mistakes in logic posted here, but I don't go out of my way to correct these mishaps in thinking. Sometimes I offer a comment or two when I feel I can help the person. However, for the delusional, like yourself, I offer nothing. Now don't bother me again. I have better things to do with my time that waste it on an irritating fool.

Mr Akimoto

Reply to
Mr Akimoto

Well, you can't argue with that logic!

Reply to
Robbie and Laura Reynolds

Really ????

Ken Day

Reply to
Ken Day

"Follow you around and parse every word " ????.... most all my responses have been to posts directed to me. You haven't posted enough for anyone to " follow you around" .

What an immature response. I'm sure I could find other things to do , but I can't think of many things I would rather do than build and fly model aircraft. Ask most of the guys in here what they would like to do in their spare time. Seems as though you like it real well also.

Apparently you forget what you have said in your past posts.

OK, Mr Akimoto. You've convinced me that there is absolutely no point in trying to discuss anything with you without you turning to personal insults. We were talking about airplanes and how they fly and when anyone disagreed , you turned to personal insults. So, I won't bother you again if you refrain from that.

Ken Day

Reply to
Ken Day

Yeah, you know, it's hard to argue with somebody who is all over the place.

Reply to
Robbie and Laura Reynolds

I see. I wasn't sure how you meant that. :-) You're so right.

Ken Day

Reply to
Ken Day

Reply to
pcoopy

Phil. Do the posts below , that you responded to sound like an arguement ? Robbie and I were not even close to arguing. :-) See the smiley face.....just like the one I left for you . ....heres another :-). Have a good day.

Ken Day

Reply to
Ken Day

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.