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]
