Discussion Great Model Aviation Article!

[Mode One]

I found the article "Crashing is NOT an Option" by Don Apostolico in this month (November 2009) to be a great article full of useful information. Although expressly for the Giant Scale modeler, much of the information is pertinent to all model aviation enthusiasts. Lately, I think R/Cers in particular, seem to have a somewhat cavalier approach to flying, especially with the predominance of ARFS and RTF types of models. There is little sweat equity involved in these airplanes; so, the attitude seems: "If I crash this one, I'll just go out and buy another!" He points some very good points! In particular His Keys to model longevity are very good:

Carefully choose the correct Equipment
Set the equipment up properly.
Learn to fly with proficiency.
Regularly maintain the aircraft.

He also points out people who may be considered experts could be teaching bad habits to the new folks entering the hobby thereby perpetuating miss information and information gleaned form the Internet forums can also be totally incorrect, yet unchallenged by people who don’t know what they don’t know!

It’s my understanding this is the first of two articles on this topic! Thank you AMA, Model Aviation and Mr. Apostolico for this great information!

[Mulciber126]

I also did enjoy this read....loved it

[SA716]

Great article by a GREAT magazine. Read cover to cover every month.

[Murocflyer]

I'm looking forward to it. I'm still trying to catch up on this summer's issues.

Frank

[Doctor Who]

Thank you for your comments. We try our best to bring you a great magazine each month.

Jay Smith
Model Aviation Magazine

[Dr. Sandy Frank]

With such a GREAT STAFF how could you do OTHERWISE ???

Hope 2 C U all a Columbus Indoor soon !!!

[Magician]

While I agree that the article being discussed is very well done, I'm still trying to purge my brain of the info I read in last months MA regarding the "Anti-Torque Device". I think the information regarding adding wing tip weight to counteract propeller torque and slipstream was way off base and a disservice to the community. The fact that a "formula" was given for how much weight to add based on engine displacement made the article laughable.

I enjoy reading MA from cover to cover and learning from all aspects of the hobby, but the John Hunton "Anti-torque Device" article should never have been published in a respected model magazine.

Chris
AMA 30747

[dag214]

Originally Posted by Magician

While I agree that the article being discussed is very well done, I'm still trying to purge my brain of the info I read in last months MA regarding the "Anti-Torque Device". I think the information regarding adding wing tip weight to counteract propeller torque and slipstream was way off base and a disservice to the community. The fact that a "formula" was given for how much weight to add based on engine displacement made the article laughable.

I enjoy reading MA from cover to cover and learning from all aspects of the hobby, but the John Hunton "Anti-torque Device" article should never have been published in a respected model magazine.

Chris
AMA 30747

Chris,
I am with you 100%. I have design plenty of airframes, and had never heard of that. In fact it can only help lead to a stall of the heavier wing. P-factor and torque should be flown by stick and rudder and good piloting. It is a joke to think that the weight will make a all around better flying plane. In the vertical axis it would create a problem. But it is no surprise MA printed it, I have seen in the past things printed that I don't think MA really did any research on verifying the accuracy of what was being explained. I had a instructor when I was learning to fly once say "if you are dead stick and need to extend your glide you can pull a notch of flaps a greatly extend your glide ratio", that is a PS statement. If the wing were more efficient with the flaps down a notch then the wing would be designed with that in it. In basic aerodynamics flaps create lift and DRAG. This instructor was just out of her mind with how to really fly a plane, she also told me when doing a power-off stall that I should never use the rudder on recovery, just let the plane fly it's self out. Once I had my tail dragger endorsement I asked her if she wanted to go up with me in a 180hp Decathlon, and I would show her what the rudder was for, she declined. I would also tell the torque guy to try fly a full scale plane with just 20 gallons more in one wing than the other, you will have to trim the plane for cruise flight, and speed change will require a re-trimming, and if you get really slow the wing will want to take more aileron just to hold it up, which is very unsafe at slow speeds, like approach to landing speeds.

Thanks, DAG

[Mode One]

I have no real opinions on the torque article as when I started reading it, it seemed nonsense to me. I did get the feeling the author felt his opinions to be valid. I've never felt torque to be that big of a problem that correcting with the control surfaces couldn't overcome!

Although I only fly with my rudder and ailerons separated, I think the author of the article I referanced seemed to go on and on about coupled ailerons! So, my guess is we all will take acceptions to specific items in every article written. Still, I think the 4 key items he mentioned to be very sound advice!

[dag214]

Originally Posted by Mode One

I have no real opinions on the torque article as when I started reading it, it seemed nonsense to me. I did get the feeling the author felt his opinions to be valid. I've never felt torque to be that big of a problem that correcting with the control surfaces couldn't overcome!

Although I only fly with my rudder and ailerons separated, I think the author of the article I referanced seemed to go on and on about coupled ailerons! So, my guess is we all will take acceptions to specific items in every article written. Still, I think the 4 key items he mentioned to be very sound advice!

Agreed!
Everything was great, but the adding weight part.
Just makes me nervous when stuff gets written that is posted to the public to read, and believed even if it is 100% wrong. I read once where a guy stated that if you sealed the hinge line on a flying surface it could not ever flutter, which is 100% wrong, it can help prevent flutter, but if the surface has sloppy linkages or is statically way out of balance (to heavy) then it can still flutter.
Thanks, DAG

[Mode One]

Dag214, Can you clairify what you mean by the "weight part". The torque article was in the issue a month previous to the Crashing is NOT an Option article, which is in the current month.

An interesting side light to both these articles. I feel it is safe to assume that every article, design element; or, post written has some information in it that may be totally incorrect, partially incorrect, sketchy to say the least; and/or, un-provable! To take this even further, some of this incorrect information may even work!

[dag214]

Originally Posted by Mode One

Dag214, Can you clairify what you mean by the "weight part". The torque article was in the issue a month previous to the Crashing is NOT an Option article, which is in the current month.

An interesting side light to both these articles. I feel it is safe to assume that every article, design element; or, post written has some information in it that may be totally incorrect, partially incorrect, sketchy to say the least; and/or, un-provable! To take this even further, some of this incorrect information may even work!

I am speaking of both, not as one, sorry if I screwed up what i was trying to say. The weight part was part of the torque part, not the other about not crashing.
Thanks, DAG