ANNOUNCING NARAM-46

hey mark what is the link to get on that register mail list you mentioned at naram ?

In which direction?

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

I didn't realize that huge hunk of foam weighed less than 1.5# Never mind.

BTW, where do you get structural foam with such low densities? I'd roughly estimated 5 ft^3 of foam in Grrr. For all that foam to only weigh 1.5#, it must be only 0.3#/ft^3 I've never seen foam that light.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

why, top to bottom of course! Everybody knows *that*...

sheesh!

Bob Kaplow wrote:

It only takes one trucker 50 miles away running an illegal rig to shoot you down. These days most RC fields BAN the use of 27 MHz for aircraft for this reason.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

I thought you posted that the biggest test flight you'd made was on a D12.

Well, safe in the sense that it never went fast or high enough to seriously hurt any one, yes, I'll give you that.

6-7#? And airfoiling it will only save you .5#? You sure don't airfoil much, do you. When I build BGs I sand away at least 50% of the initial balsa mass. IMHO removing 3# of foam from Grrr would make a LOT of difference in the boost.

BTW, when I build gliders, I weigh EVERY PIECE from the time it's cut from the raw sheet, through the construction process up to final assembly. From the weight of the raw materials before I ever start sanding, I can tell you the finished glide weight of one of my models within a few percent. It's why keeping detailed records of models is so important. Ask George. I'd be he can do the same thing.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

IIRC, Chris mentioned a F20ish version that shredded. This may or may not count....

Goooooolly, thats gotta be a buttload o' work!

I think getting it down to like 10lbs would be great, and I still think that 1" foam with some reinforcing would work.

You know, I got to thinking about Chris' challenge. It seems that if I double scaled an EconoGlider, it would be right about the same as Grrr, sans canards. Econos tend to come in at 2lbs, and this could be lightened a bit (and only a bit). You figure doubling the wing/body areas ends up at 4x wt, if you use the same stuff to make it. So, its kinda possible to do 11ft tall/6ft span at 8 lbs...*IF* I dont add RC or much reinforcing.

Im thinking this *may* be doable on an I161, not a high flight but perhaps not enough to shred/flutter it up.

Id have to make this thing modular, like Chris' idea is, to transport. No promises, but I may actually attempt to do this my way. Im not gonna reveal exactly what Im intending to build this out of, but rest assured the vehicle will NOT cost more than $25 or so.

I do this too on larger gliders, especially for D12 models. It is way too easy to overdo it and end up at 10z, which a D12 sucks on.

Probably the other half of your basement storage.....

AstronMike

"Chris Taylor Jr" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@newshost02.voicenet.com:

I agree. My point was you need a bigger motor.

len.

kaplow snipped-for-privacy@encompasserve.org.TRABoD (Bob Kaplow) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@eisner.encompasserve.org:

From the inside out.

len.

If you sand the tube enough, the spirals go away.

Quite possibly - if it had been less than a second, and he'd been expecting, say, two or three seconds before he needed to get it into a horizontal glide to maintain airspeed, it could well have "seemed to stop instantly" for practical purposes. (It's one of those perception things, y'know...)

Do your sims show coast times of less than a second or so, for any plausible values of effective drag area?

-dave w

We agree!

I did not say it weighed 1.5 pounds. I said it weighed about 5-6 pounds (maybe 7 at the most)

since I would have to ADD mass to reinforce I figured when all was said and done your method would save me maybe half a pound.

I would LOVE to see you do this. the more the better.

although I can not possibly see you doing it at 2 pounds. the monokote alone for that much area would weigh more than 2 pounds.

if you do NO electronics and you design a naturally balanced model that would not require much nose weight (canard or delta design) I can see you maybe doing it at 5 or 6 pounds. but 2 pounds. I am having trouble seeing how you could do that. and then you need a mechanism to transition to glide. I figure that is a quarter pound alone.

Chris Taylor

once again bob YOU and ONLY YOU placed a time limit on things.

I placed NO such thing. My only condition is that I WILL cert level 1 on a GRR design that is dimensionally similar to my Grr 1 (IE I will not make it smaller to succeed)

those are the conditions I accepted anything else is YOUR creation alone.

I was going to try and finish for this naram by losing your job has a nasty tendency to curb those kinds of plans :-)

Please show me ONE TIME where I stated zero coast time or altitude as a statement of fact (DO NOT eliminate that last criteria)

I never once said that.

the model like a saucer is SO draggy that coast time is essentially ZERO and can be ignored.

the altitude gained from time of burn out to apogee is statistically irrelevant and can be ignored so burn time equals altitude for all relevant calculations of this gliders performance.

I have said this so many times I am getting sick of saying it and sick of you TWISTING it.

their is NO SUCH THING as zero coast time. it is a physical impossibility if you have any thrusting and motion at all (obviously an object NOT moving relativly speaking as zero coast time) it takes a finite time togo from x speed to zero speed so their is ALWAYS coast time. you KNOW THIS so stop screwing with words.

but coast time can be so TINY and INSIGNIFICANT that it can be effectively ignored. It becomes IRRELEVANT.

it is SO irrelevant that I need to start my glide transition BEFORE motor burn out since after motor burn out it is too late.

167 seems high but close. 103 is low. we figure I got 130-140

167 is probably prettly close to what I got on the second flight (we figure about 175 feet)

and on this model YES mass IS fixed. I can MAYBE sahve 1 or 2 pounds off it but NO MORE without compromising survivability, reasonable cost, and reliability.

if we take those last three criteria as ESSENTIAL then YES mass is FIXED since going BELOW x mass (what I am guessing to be roughly 10 pounds) would result in LOSS of one of the 3 criteria which is UNACCEPTABLE so YES mass can be fixed.

clearly you are NOT doing a lot of thinking or you would have realized this.

ESPECIALLY considering how many freaking times I have stated it.

Chris Taylor

yes .8

I also expected less than 1 seconds of coast (ignorable) but I did expect twice the altitude on the burn.

the model "appeared" to suddenly stop at 150 feet because I was EXPECTING it to get closer to 300ft according to (now know inaccurate) simulations.

I was figuring to start my push after passing 200ft so I was clearly surprised when it simply appeared to STOP at 150ft catching me off guard and out of time to attempt any kind of maneuver (too low an airspeed when stopped :-)

I tried to influence a hammerhead style stall, to bring the nose down and maybe get enough speed to pull out before impact, but it was too damned light and would not snap the nose down and just gently entered into a spin. Light for its size. it was like a feather. I just could not get any momentum going with the fin being shadowed it stayed flat and light until it rolled over exposing the fin the the airstream. by this time I was too low to be able to pick up speed and pull out (I tried to land upside down but again to low and too slow)

I needed another 25 feet and I might have been about to land it inverted. Rolling over was not an option to much intertia and drag to EVER roll this model short of being under power.

People keep complaining how heavy this thing is. base on a ration of size to weight it is one of the LIGHTEST damned gliders I have ever built in my life !!!

Do the math on the wing loading guys. this thing was LIGHT. I just used the wrong motors for it.

I challenge anyone else to build a RG High Power model with this wing area at under 10 pounds (R/C)

it is not easy. I went to great lengths to keep the mass down and to keep the cost reasonable.

Chris Taylor

Chris, you really should spend some time at rcgroups.com in the parkflyer section. There's so much info there on covering material that's it's just sick. There's this stuff that's called, I think, Solite that weighs a fraction of Monokote. IIRC something like 1/20th of Monokote or close to it. They use the stuff on sub micro indoor r/c. Some of the planes weigh less than 28 grams AND the have 3 channel r/c! I was totally amazed what simple color packing tape does to a plane for covering.....strength, weight savings and best of all, cheap. Loads of good ideas that I would think would get you brainstorming.

Ted Novak TRA#5512

Chris Taylor Jr wrote:

Care to do what I just did, review this thread from the beginning, and see who first brought up Grrr from a year ago? Can you guess who it was?

Hint: It wasn't me. [post #21 according to GOOGLE] And even then, my reply was polite.

Care to guess who the first person to turn this thread into personal attacks on someone else was? In his first post to the thread! And again in his second post! Hint: It wasn't me. But, just like OJ, if you want to search for the guilty person, you won't have far to look... [post #33 and #38 according to GOOGLE, go look yourself]

After Chris called me an asshole and a moron [post #72 according to GOOGLE] I will admit to making a negative remark towards Chris in this thread [post #92 according to GOOGLE], if he figured out what it actually meant. That's the first thing in this thread that I probably shouldn't have posted. It's the only thing I've said in this thread I shoudl retract, which I'll gladly do as soon as the comments that generated it are retracted by the person who posted them.

Unlike you, who even attacked me for complimenting you. What can I say about you, George? Your brain must be as smooth as the covering on your S8E models.

Then you go bitch at me in the recent pink book thread for what you imagine I might have said at a meeting you didn't even bother to show up at. You don't have a clue as to who said what in that meeting. Because YOU DIDN"T WASTE YOUR PRECIOUS TIME TO EVEN SHOW UP TO DISCUSS SOMETHING THAT IS IMPORTANT TO YOU.

And of all the people in the NAR today, the one who has the LEAST justification to complain about ANYTHING in the Pink Book is GEORGE GASSAWAY. Or have you forgotten already how you volunteered for a project, and then left it dangling for almost a year. And then helped your buddies screw me for bailing you out and finishing the job you botched.

Thanks to you and your buddies, I learned an important lesson that I've tried to pass on to any one who will listen: NEVER volunteer to do a project for the NAR. At least not as long as folks like GEORGE GASSAWAY and his buddies are around to stab you in the back after you bail them out.

I think it's time the NAR have its own recall election. Remove George Gassaway from the NAR board. I'd rather have Jerry Irvine in his place.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!