If you are the ARF type..

Mine were ok in the air, but the covering started lifting from the adhesive after the first flying session.

Yes, and what's your point?

One of the things I like about Usenet is that we're self-sufficient; if we don't like someone's postings, we can simply block them (or entire threads) from view, and like magic, crap's all gone, without being either beholden or subject to moderators.

How many subscribers do you feel use this forum vs. RCU with 193,843 subscribers?

Red S.

I couldn't begin to guess, and there's really no way to tell. The number is potentially greater, but in practice, I'd think it'd be fewer than 193,843.

But how many of those 193,843 do you feel are active? And are those discrete user IDs, or is that just the number of posts? I'd be surprised if it were the former (but then at my age, I get surprised a lot).

| Red Scholefield wrote: | > How many subscribers do you feel use this forum vs. RCU with 193,843 | > subscribers? | | I couldn't begin to guess, and there's really no way to tell. The | number is potentially greater, but in practice, I'd think it'd be fewer | than 193,843.

Well, the 193,843 figure almost certainly includes anybody who has ever registered on RCU.

| But how many of those 193,843 do you feel are active? And are those | discrete user IDs, or is that just the number of posts? I'd be | surprised if it were the former (but then at my age, I get surprised a | lot).

It wouldn't surprise me if a signifigant portion of those users were automatically generated somehow too.

And don't forget that RCU's mission is far less specific than rec.models.rc.air. It's more of a rec.models.rc.* :)

By going through google and finding the number of unique posters to rec.models.rc.* over the years one probably could come up with a similar number. I suspect it would be smaller than 193k, however.

The kids do love their web forums ...

format of RCU and others, easier for most to use. mk

Personally I like newsgroups better. I can see a lot more threads (at least the top level) at one time, faster to load, faster to scroll the list, etc.

The 2 things I do like about forums is

- appropriate imbedded images. Frequently they may be a small version that links to a full size (thinking of rcgroups.com here). That just isn't done in newsgroups, whether by design or common practice. Other links also work which may not in your particular brand of newsreader.

- ability to scroll thru a number of messages on one page. Once the number of pages > 1 this rapidly looses it's appeal, tho. Newsgroups has quoting but with top vs bottom posting, edited quotes or not, it's less than an optimal solution.

I like using both and everything else that I can find. But I have a LOT of free time, compared to most folks.

I don't see where RCU places any unusual constraints upon me, as some people indicate.

However, one of my other interests (guitars/basses) has a forum that has banned me. I thought it was funny. Apparently, I am too outspoken. I never did get a clear explanation. But, hey, it is their forum and they have the right to do as they please. I'm okay with that.

Ed Cregger

CG: Which one did you get ??

When I did the assembly of the Giles, I had a heck of a time to get th covering removed form where you need to remove it for "wood to wood adhesion. So for this particular one, my initial assertion is "no half bad" for the amount of potatoes I had to fork over. Have flown it more now and after tweaking it a couple of times, lik giving it as bit negative reflex in the ailerons (maybe less than 1/ of an inch), it behaves like I like it to. One thing is for sure, yo have to land it hot. Maybe if I use a larger prop with less pitch, i should be even better. The first few flights were hairy to say th least, but after I gave it a bit of negative reflex, it floated a lo better, and I put a LOT of expo in the controls. The engine positio as suggested in the manual is dead on for me (OS 46 with a pipe, an flying at 5000 feet). CG is right between the "ho-hum" and "oh o oops" points. The slight down thrust is also good as suggested, ver litle up attitude with throttle increase. Gotto watch those loops. bit of ailerons added inadvertently and they come out really bad !! Anyway, for the money, and at 4.25 pounds AUW, I am satisfied and ma even buy another one. Come to think of it (since I scratch built lot), building a ready to fly plane in three days is kind of fun, an the covering has not come off yet.......

-- indoruwe

----------------------------------------------------------------------- indoruwet's Profile:

this thread:

It's users. How many are active? Don't know. At this moment, there's

2440 users signed on. I do know that there's a bunch more than are here, and that the discussions are much more civil and on topic than what's seen here.

Several, but the covering on the little Cub started going quickest.

To CG:

I only have the Giles done now, and I am thinking of doing the ACRO 50 You have input for me what to watch out for ??

I had a small Chinese made Cub a long time ago, and it was onl possible to take that thing off while holding the tail, giving ful throttle and then letting go of it. Any other way, it would just mak ground loops (doughnuts)

-- indoruwe

----------------------------------------------------------------------- indoruwet's Profile:

this thread:

Impossible! I have seen all kinds of ARFs from China, not just junks. Not sure if anyone even kits junks let alone makes em in ARFs. Thought this was an air group besides... Shouldnt this thread be on a boat group? I must have missed something.

Welcome to the world of Piper Cubs! :-)

Yea, even the 1/4 scale Sig Cub Ibuilt had that tendency! I think it was the narrow wheel track coupled with the high CG.