I agree with Simon and disagree with Daryl . Briefly a " STABLE " CG would be appreciated . For the money these planes cost, are instructions or the CG location a cost problem to the manufacturer, or the distributor ? I thought the Flyers AND Manufacturers / Distributors were supposed to help, support and incourage ALL in this HOBBY ?
Dissapointed, Ron Adams. On Tue, 01 Jan 2002 18:29:18 -0800 Simon Van Leeuwen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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] > RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]