[RCSE] Branson Soaring

[Garland]

My family had the choice of vacationing at Parker Mountain or 
Branson, MO.  They didn't go for Parker...
 
OK, so I'm looking for slope soaring spots in or around the 
Branson, MO area.  For lack of sloping, I'll be forced to play evil 
golf.  I'll go to the Bass Pro headquarters in Springfield, MO one day so 
anything in between Branson and Springfield will work.  
 
Suggestions?
Garland

[RCSE] Columbus OH soaring

[Timothy Cone]

Hello People,
 
I've got a trip to Columbus next month, specifically Aug 4th through 8th.  The boss is nice enough to let me bring toys on the jet, so I'll have gliders with me.  What should I bring?  F3F, TD or HLG?
 
I know I want to visit the Air Force museum in Dayton.  What else should I plan on doing or seeing?
 
Thanks,
 
Timothy E. Cone
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[RCSE] Fiberglass Cutoff Wheels

[George Voss]

I finally found a decent price on 1.5" fiberglass reinforced
cutoff wheels.  I checked Tower and their prices range from
$2.99 , to $4.79 for 2 wheels.  Their best price is $1.50
each.

I have these disks for HALF of Tower's price, 75 cents
each!  Shipping is extra.

I also have #11 scalpal blade 50 for $20.  These are
SERIOUSLY sharp!  I have the scars to prove it! ;-)

RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send "subscribe" and 
"unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[RCSE] Planes For Sale

[George Voss]

Grand Esteem, RTF with  Airtronics and JR servos.  Very good
condition.  $475 + shipping.

RnR Synergy, Rich Spicers old plane.  Has some repaired
damage to one wing tip and the outboard end of the center
panel.  Structurally sound, but could use some TLC to look
nice.  Excellent unlimited slope race.  $350 + shipping.

George Voss
(405) 692-1122

RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send "subscribe" and 
"unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [RCSE] beefing up an airfoil

[Chuck Anderson]

At 10:27 PM 7/15/2001 -0400, you wrote:
>Mark,
>I read long time ago that a good way to make the TE thicker and easier
>to build is to plot the airfoil for a larger chord and chop off the last
>3-6% of the airfoil. This supposedly -almost- does not change the flow
>and drag of the airfoil, so the general behavior of the wing will be
>very close to the intended. The author claimed that blunt trailing edges
>(up to 1% or more thickness at the TE) behave much better then say
>rounded ones, so if you MUST have a thick trailing edge, do NOT round
>it, leave it square.
>Can you comment on this hypothesis, please?
>Oleg.
>

Horner, in his book Fluid Dynamic Drag, reports that simply cutting off
the aft end of an airfoil to achieve a finite thickness gives the lowest
increase in drag.  I am quoting from memory since I had to give back the
copy I used for years when I retired so the above may not be exactly
correct but I have used this method for the last 25 years.  I do remember
that some wind tunnel tests on increasing trailing edge thickenss gave a
much larger drag increase than reported by Horner.  Makes me wonder how the
increased thickness was achieved on the wind tunnel models.  I would also
like to see some modern wind tunnel data on the effects of various methods
of increasing trailing edge thickness on airfoil performance.  

Theory is nice and modern CFD methods are wonderful but I still prefer to
rely on good wind tunnel data.  I conducted several wind tunnel tests to
verify  various CFD predictions between 1970 and the time I retired in 1994
and all tests had one thing in common.  When the first data was printed
out, the researcher responsible for the program always ask "What's wrong
with your wind tunnel data?"  :-)

Chuck Anderson
RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send "subscribe" and 
"unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [RCSE] Re: beefing up an airfoil

[Harley Michaelis]

In the interest of simplicity and practicality for most of us, an approach
is to simply plot the chord at some slightly increased amount. That is, if
the finished chord is to be 10", plot the chord at say 10-5/16". When the
wing is built and the extra 5/16" is trimmed off, square or otherwise, you
have about 1/32"  thickness remaining at the TE. If this edge is then
treated with thin CA glue, a little resistance to getting dinged up is
imparted.
>

RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send "subscribe" and 
"unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [RCSE] Composite wingrods

[Walba, Rick]

I don't know what you're trying to accomplish but: Competition arrow shafts
are carbon over aluminum tubing. This produces the greatest stiffness per
pound and also some added toughness over conventional carbon shafts, as I
understand it. 

Rick


--- Bonfiglio Tullio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 > wrote:
> Hi, guys,
> 
> Has any of you ever tried to build and use a composite wingrod ?
By
> "composite" I mean a rod made by a carbon tube with a steel bar
> (closest
> diameter) epoxied inside, sorta of "case hardened steel".
> Is the reverse (steel tube outside and carbon rod glued inside)
also
> convenient ?
RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send "subscribe" and 
"unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[RCSE] name that plane

[David J. Schat]

George,

Satellite was used on a 1/2A free flight design in the early seventies. It 
was a very successful design. I built and flew many of them. Your design 
would be in good company if you named it "satellite".
 -Spud Boy

One good thing about being wrong is the joy it brings to others.





RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send "subscribe" and 
"unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [RCSE] Re: beefing up an airfoil

[Bill Harris]

This makes sense.  The standard recommendation on power planes is to leave 
the TEs square and NOT round them off; rounding them is said to produce 
flutter (the TE being an aileron).

--Bill


>From: Oleg Golovidov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Oleg Golovidov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [RCSE] Re: beefing up an airfoil
>Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 09:51:37 -0400 (EDT)
>
>Forwarding Mark Drela's reply to everybody. Mark forgot to CC the list when
>replying.
>
>Thanks a lot, Mark.
>One more comment/question. If the chop-off method is acceptable, it is much
>easier to implement. Just plot the same airfoil for a larger chord.
>The method with opening the arches requires doing some preprocessing of the
>airfoil coordinates, right? Do you just use a spreadsheet to multiply the
>y-coord by the fraction of the x-coord (distance from LE)? Actually, one 
>would
>need to add/subtract the correction factor of say 0.005*x, correct?
>Did you try to imply that if one chops off a good bit of the airfoil's tail 
>it's
>no longer close to the original flow?
>Oleg.
>
>
>- Begin Forwarded Message -
>From: Mark Drela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>Oleg,
>
>The "chop-off" method is usually OK, but on airfoils with
>very thin rear ends like most of the new HLG stuff you'd
>have to chop off quite a bit to get 1% thickness.  I like
>the other way better.
>
> >if you MUST have a thick trailing edge, do NOT round
> >it, leave it square.
>
>Yes, absolutely.  On a lifting airfoil, the bottom-surface
>corner in particular should be sharp, otherwise the BL
>might stick partway around the curve and turn the flow
>upward and reduce lift.  Of course if you -want- a
>lower CL this might help, but reducing camber is
>a far better way to do this.
>
>The rounding is deleterious only when the radius is
>a significant fraction of the bottom BL thickness,
>so this is less of a problem at smallish Re's.
>Still, I don't see a good reason to round off the edge
>in any case.
>
>- Mark
>
>- End Forwarded Message -
>
>
>__
>
>   Oleg Golovidov
>   Engineous Software Inc.
>   www.engineous.com
>   (919)677-6700 x107
>
>RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send "subscribe" and 
>"unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send "subscribe" and 
"unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [RCSE] Re: beefing up an airfoil

[Bill Conkling]

I used Profili to generate the points for an airfoil recently, and it had
a zero thick te.  I tgransfered the points to my
CAD system and drew a spline from te across the upper surface, around the
le to the te.  Then separated the spline at the upper surface max thick
point.  I then made a point ofset above the te the required amount and
calculated the angle between the max thick pt on upper surface and the two
te points.  I then rotated the rear upper surface about the max thick
point through the angle just found and it looks real good.  After cutting
out templates and smoothing with sandpaper, airfoil is real fair.  This
takes longer to say then to do, try it.

.bc([EMAIL PROTECTED])
 also: ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
   http://www.widomaker.com/~conk
Williamsburg, VA 23185


On Mon, 16 Jul 2001, Oleg Golovidov wrote:

> Forwarding Mark Drela's reply to everybody. Mark forgot to CC the list when
> replying.
>
> Thanks a lot, Mark.
> One more comment/question. If the chop-off method is acceptable, it is much
> easier to implement. Just plot the same airfoil for a larger chord.
> The method with opening the arches requires doing some preprocessing of the
> airfoil coordinates, right? Do you just use a spreadsheet to multiply the
> y-coord by the fraction of the x-coord (distance from LE)? Actually, one would
> need to add/subtract the correction factor of say 0.005*x, correct?
> Did you try to imply that if one chops off a good bit of the airfoil's tail it's
> no longer close to the original flow?
> Oleg.
>
>
> - Begin Forwarded Message -
> From: Mark Drela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> Oleg,
>
> The "chop-off" method is usually OK, but on airfoils with
> very thin rear ends like most of the new HLG stuff you'd
> have to chop off quite a bit to get 1% thickness.  I like
> the other way better.
>
> >if you MUST have a thick trailing edge, do NOT round
> >it, leave it square.
>
> Yes, absolutely.  On a lifting airfoil, the bottom-surface
> corner in particular should be sharp, otherwise the BL
> might stick partway around the curve and turn the flow
> upward and reduce lift.  Of course if you -want- a
> lower CL this might help, but reducing camber is
> a far better way to do this.
>
> The rounding is deleterious only when the radius is
> a significant fraction of the bottom BL thickness,
> so this is less of a problem at smallish Re's.
> Still, I don't see a good reason to round off the edge
> in any case.
>
> - Mark
>
> - End Forwarded Message -
>
>
> __
>
>   Oleg Golovidov
>   Engineous Software Inc.
>   www.engineous.com
>   (919)677-6700 x107
>
> RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send "subscribe" and 
>"unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>

RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send "subscribe" and 
"unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [RCSE] Composite wingrods

[tony estep]

--- Bonfiglio Tullio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, guys,
> 
> Has any of you ever tried to build and use a composite wingrod ? By
> "composite" I mean a rod made by a carbon tube with a steel bar
> (closest
> diameter) epoxied inside, sorta of "case hardened steel".
> Is the reverse (steel tube outside and carbon rod glued inside) also
> convenient ?
> 
I made a wingrod by filling a stainless tube with carbon filaments +
epoxy. It was not as good as a carbon rod, in the sense that a bending
moment that would not have broken a carbon rod did bend the composite rod.

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send "subscribe" and 
"unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]