What an ego-driven bunch of drivel! Pilots, no matter what level of
flying experience, deserve enough information to properly set up a model
to perform reasonably well. Based on what has traditonally become
acceptable in the way of instructions includes C of G recommendations.
Whether the customer chooses to read and abide by them or not is
immaterial.
Someone a looong time ago during this ridiculous thread let it be known
he was unhappy about the fact that no instructions came with a kit, and
were not forthcoming when a request was made. He should have had to go
looking them in the fist place, they should be there along with the rest
of the items in the kit! How difficult can this be for a
manufacturer/retailer to comprehend and follow through on?
Anything less, especially when compared to ALL the rest of the
manufacturers and retailers who DO understand this brutally simple
concept, is unacceptable. Who knows the real reason, could simply be
laziness on the manufacturer/retailers' part.
Those manufacturers and retailers, who on their OWN recognizance made a
decision to publically enter the market to supply product/service either
understand the art of supply and service (those whom we hardly ever hear
about because there are few if any problems/complaints), or actively
choose to fall short of what the majority would consider minimal
acceptable standards.
This is such an extraordinarily simple issue...I have to ask why
supplying such a simple and inexpensive device such as instructions can
be soooo hard to accomplish, especially when 99.9% of the rest of the
world inside and outside the hobby do precisely that.
p.s. the suggestion that the poor customer should be so "lucky" as to
somehow manage to accomodate a manufacturer/retailer by doing THEIR job
by performing whatever is required to finish the model, and then supply
the instructions BACK to same manufacturer/retailer...needs to have his
head examined.
On the other hand, given the diligence demonstrated by a precious(?) few
who continue to defend to the point of stupidity of said
manufacturer/retailers' for unacceptable product and/or service, my hat
is off to you. Your unique abilities remain unsurpassed by a vast
majority I assure you.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> This thread has seriously run its course. But of course, I would like to
> add a couple of items ;-) :
>
> If you reread my posts, you'll notice I am in agreement that some form
> of instructions should be included. But I was mostly asking a question:
> What is it you guys are REALLY looking for? The answer came back almost
> exclusively as - CG . Not instructions, not control throws, not set-up,
> but CG.
>
> My point all along was a manufacturer's recommended CG was basically a
> worthless piece of information. Just like us, manufacturer's skill
> levels vary from beginner to seriously advanced. Their understanding of
> CG and stability is no better or maybe greatly better than yours.
> Without knowing THEIR skill level, or without their knowing YOUR skill
> level, their recommendations don't really mean much. Would any of you
> fly MY CG recommendation? No, you're afraid of it, and you push it
> forward by 1/2" or so. So why would you blindly trust any of the
> manufacturer's recommendations?
>
> I learned a long time ago to push the CG back for efficiency. It's made
> the difference for me in numerous slope races, numerous TD comps,
> numerous F3B contests, numerous HL comps..... The point is I don't stop
> at the manufacturer's recommendations like most of you, but I optimize.
> I remember years ago, when Mark Allen first came out with the Falcon
> 880, he almost killed the perception of the SD 3021. How? His
> recommended CG was about 1 1/2" farther forward than where the plane
> really needed to be. The plane, as recommended, flew like a PIG. Nobody
> blamed the plane, the CG, the recommendations, they blamed the section.
> After a little optimization and a quick change to the included plans, it
> eventually went on to become one of the most popular TD ships of its
> era.
>
> Now, about this instructions thing - let's just say, my new
> fusiopsykodictionwhatsit is now ready to fly. Am I going to call the
> manufacturer and try to obtain plans and a recommended CG location? Wait
> weeks, months, years, days, decades for him to get back to me? No, I'm
> going to look at where my last plane CG'd, look at the planform, look at
> the moments, look at the stabsize, and hold my model up by my two
> fingers, and say, yip, that looks about right. A quick handtoss will
> tell me if it's at all flyable. What's the big damn deal here?
>
> I've received hollow models designed by some of Europe's top pilots, and
> I assumed the CG and incidence would be close. Only to have them be way
> off, and almost so stable I couldn't fly them. Did I leave it there
> because those guys were better pilots than me? And that's where they
> said it should fly? I think we all know the answer to that.
>
> There ARE numbers that should be included with every kit sold - but that
> number is NOT a recommended CG, it's based on too many unknowns. What
> should be supplied? MAC numbers along the root (for reference - 40% MAC,
> 35% MAC, etc...), and a tail volume coefficient number for each design.
> These are numbers that you, as a pilot, can translate from plane to
> plane to plane.
>
> For example - if your current plane has a Tail Volume Coefficient of
> "x", and you're flying it at 35% MAC, and your new plane in the box has
> the same TVC of "x", you know you're safe to start with your CG at 35%
> MAC. Pretty simple, huh?
>
> And, to keep beating a dead horse, there are those of you who view the
> companies who supply us with our toys in the same light as some of this
> country's huge corporations. Give them a break. They're all overworked,
> and greatly underpaid. I applaud any supplier who is able to make a
> living at this, keep sending us our toys (and guys, they are toys - keep
> it in perspective), and is willing to put up with threads like this
> badmouthing them.
>
> I've got news for you guys, if all manufacturers/or distributors didn't
> send out any kits without test flying them, optimizing them, drawing up
> plans for them, or determining a CG - we'd never get any airframes. We
> push them for delivery, and then bitchslap them publicly for not having
> testflown and optimized our new 75 dollar POS, that they made all of
> $17.68 profit, before overhead, salaries, etc.... ;-)
>
> I'm a single guy, and as such, never seem to have enough toilet paper.
> Why does it seem I am always running to the store? If you suppliers of
> toy airplanes would please start to include some instructions with every
> kit, maybe I can put off that trip to the store an extra day or two
> every so often... ;-)
>
> I'm done - optimize guys, optimize.
>
> Daryl
>
> RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and
>"unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Simon Van Leeuwen, Calgary, Alberta
RADIUS SYSTEMS
Cogito-Ergo-Zoom
IAC25233*MAAC12835*IMAC1756*LSF5953*IMAA20209
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and
"unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
