WestFAC III

Another fine meet for Western FAC modelers and possibly a few from not-so-far West. Attendance was somewhat reduced from 2009. There were 15 max flights by scale models and 49 by non-scale. Not a bad showing for the 144 models (100 scale, 44 non-scale) and 23 flyers who participated in spite of soaring temperatures, economic adversity and sky-high gas prices. Don DeLoach was declared Grand Champ of the meet with 46 points while Herb Kothe was second (32 points), Chris Starleaf third (26), Mike Isermann fourth (23) and Robert Hodes fifth (17).

This compares with 2009's WestFAC II results: 35 flyers, 146 models (118 scale, 28 non-scale), 10 max scale flights and 28 non-scale maxes. Herb Kothe was Grand Champion.

Note that the non-scale models numbered 44 this year compared with 28 in 2009, an increase of 57%, while the number of scale models decreased from 118 in 2009 to 100 now, a decrease of 15%. Is this statistic telling us something? From here it looks like further confirmation of the trend from scale modeling to Gollywock, Korda, Sparky, Miss Canada, etc. types. Sure, we know that we should look for FUN in friendly competition, whether we win or not, but the bald truth is that it's a lot more fun to WIN occasionally! Is the trend beneficial or harmful? It doesn't take long for those who plan on making the trip to conclude it's better to trust a fickle thermal than to compete with the art that produces those high Scale points and marvels of flight. Debatable, but if we want to see more scale activity in the FAC, we need to recognize that the top places in competition are going to super-modelers, those who are far beyond the simple lifestyle of the Flying Aces Club that was envisioned by its founders. A good thing or a bad thing? Debatable, but if we want modelers to show up in greater numbers and with more scale models, we do need to separate the prize bulls from the rest of the herd. Why not introduce four skill levels at these regional meets: Captain Class (those with 8 kanones or less), Colonel Class (20 or less), and General Class (41 or less), and Air Marshall Class (more than 41 kanones). Your editor has heard the arguments against the idea: (1) make everyone work harder to improve, (2) don't complicate things, (3) general principles. Generally speaking, the Air Marshall guys would still face the same competition, but the guys on the low end of the totem poles would have some hope of bringing home some of the bacon. Think about it.

IRON MIKE REPORTS FROM DENVER by Mike Midkiff

"Most of us arrived late Tuesday so that we could reacquaint and visit before scale judging started. As it turned out, most of us non-judges adjourned to the nearest watering hole. Each year it becomes more and more obvious that the reason we attend is to share model stories with model friends we have made through the years and may not have seen in at least a year, sometimes longer. For me it was seeing Fernando Ramos, Bob Hodes, Pat Murray, Lee Campbell, Tom Arnold, and many more.

"All day Wednesday was consumed in setting up models for judging, planning strategies, and loading motors. As it turned out all three days were great as to the air and wind conditions. Warm thermals were present most of the time. The field, east of Denver, is huge; however, the grass is sparse and the ground very hard. (Tell us about it, Mike! Desert conditions here in S.A. for the past five months...Joe) Ask me how I know? Now mind you, at a mile high the air is thinner. This translates into higher prop rpm's and generally faster-flying models, especially the heavier-wing-loaded ones. Some of us were not able to make trimming changes fast enough to avoid flight-ending damage.

"Some of the memorable flights I observed: Watching Bob Hodes' E-powered Sopwith float plane fly for over six minutes. Bob had walkie-talkies with us, and without these and binoculars, we would never have found the model after it landed at a far hillside. Chris Starleaf put in a great flight with his B-24. I watched it from the side, upwind, and it looked for real against the distant mountains. My own B-25 put in a nice official flight that was my highlight of the trip, watching all those guns circle overhead. Don DeLoach's extreme-dihedral Corsair maxed in the warm air. Tom Arnold's all-red target drone Hellcat flew nicely, placing second in the Grumman event. Chris Starleaf's Italian Breda flew nicely with actual counter-rotating props; it copped first in Rubber Scale.

"Don DeLoach won the coveted Best All-around Flyer award. Mike Isernann won the Best Peanut award, a trophy made especially for the honoring of Walt Mooney by Keith Sterner from Pennsylvania.

"The downer was the awareness of all of us in attendance that a lot of our modeling friends were not in attendance. Imagine: only three of us from all of Texas were there - sad. I'm sure that gas prices, the general malaise of us older flyers, affected by this economy and the crappy trimming weather over the last six months has also been a deterrent."

Noting that Mike flew a B-25 at Denver, I asked him if it was the same model, 30" span, that he (and I) flew a number of years ago. Mine is still flyable but I thought he had eliminated his from active flying duty; i.e. it had been "perfected to the point of total destruction." (as Tom Arnold puts it). His reply:

"Well it turns out that I did a larger B-25 (42" span) originally as an electric-powered RC model but I got bored with it (Serves you right!...Joe) so I converted it back to a rubber ship with 3-bladed counter-rotating props. It's flown occasionally here and at Geneseo. Since I had room traveling to Denver, I decided to take it along and enter in Jumbo. It flew real well but had some damage in landing. Therefore I have torn her apart, and I am rebuilding it with plug-in wings as we speak. Tissue was s-o-o-o brittle that all of it shattered under the least stress.

"I am looking forward to doing the "Bat outa Hell" 49th Squadron Air Apaches, New Guinea with a lot of fun detail added.

"I flew two power ships (Besson and DH-2) in Power Scale, one using NiCad batteries and the other using a LiPoly, with an Outrunner motor that Charlie Hill made up for me. Both models flew nicely. Have been working on a Beaufighter using electric power but am having trouble with the battery charging so I may have to get Charlie involved again."

Supplementing the above: Mike's B-25 did 49 seconds in Jumbo/Giant Scale, taking second place to Starleaf's B-24. His Besson maxed in Power Scale, and his DH-2 did 86 seconds in that event. Mike did not come up with a kanone at Denver but I'm sure his models were downright thrilling to watch, the reward that serious scale modeling provides to its adherents, with or without kanones.

FROM FLORENT BAECKE

Ain't it the truth? But actually, most adults can't separate the two and consider us grown-ups acting like kids, stigmas on the common vision (mirage?) of what adults should be. And it's probably a big factor in keeping good modelers out of our hobby. Your editor was flying one of his Dime Scales one day when a couple of fourth graders came up, amazed. "Mister, who built that airplane?" I answered, "I did." "But did you build it a long time ago, or just lately?" "Just a few days ago," I answered. Bewildered, they looked on for a few minutes then left, still wondering, probably, about my mentality and not the least bit interested in my example.

TRIMMING GOSPEL FROM JOSHUA

In response to our request for his advice on trimming, Joshua Finn responded with the following:

"A recent FAC News article on tricky models, later quoted in Windy Sock, has me more than a little concerned. The article leads us to believe that when we come up against a model that's a little unusual or that resists the conventionally accepted trimming methods, we can just relegate it to being flown conservatively on calm days without any exceptions.. It would appear that some of my models didn't get that memo, and the same with many of the other truly unique models we see out there. I really dislike seeing advice along the line of ‘well, we don't know what to do with it, so let's just fly it conservatively and hope for the best'. People who do that end up with a lot of hangar queens. It frustrates the life out of me since a lot of good models fall prey to that advice because they require trimming techniques that go against the grain of the traditionalists. If I'd taken that sort of advice, I'd never have gotten my Corsair to produce majestic, competitive flights on 15% motors or even th fabulously flat glide of Whistling Death. Perseverance pays off. It might involve a lot of cracked balsa, but it's worth it to finally get a really odd model to fly. We first have to remember that the traditional advice isn't always right (half of it doesn't work for me even on ‘normal' models) - for example, washing out tapered wings, in my experience , has far less effect than the use of correct dihedral), and we also have to take into account that model airplanes are bits of fine engineering. We have to come at this task from an engineering mindset that there is a special problem to solve (getting an airplane to fly) that requires an outside-the-box methodical process. Let me give you an example: I was recently trimming a brand-new catapult glider. I had hand-launched it a lot and had it going really well. The glide was superb, and it would flop into the glide flawlessly every time on hand launch, going much, much higher than most of my others. So I decided it was time for catapult launching. I followed Curt Stevens' excellent level-launching process to get the launch trimmed on conservative power settings and gave it some low-powered catapult launches. Soon all was great, and I was ready to see if I had an 80-plus seconds catapult glider. I pulled waaaay back, and the glider sizzled up there, rolling violently to the left and losing half of that precious altitude before pulling out, Perplexed, I decided to take out some of the left rudder I had trimmed in from the earlier tests (the wing was biased for a right roll as per the norm) and tried again. Same problem. I cranked out more rudder, and things got very strange - the model rolled left, then swung right as the speed bled off and the rudder took over. And of course it went nuts in the glide because of a stalled transition. At this point, I was beginning to catch on. The model should not have done that, you see; it had washin in the left inner panel, light washout in the left outer panel, and heavier washout in the right outer panel, so you have a strong right roll bias. Problem s that the wings were just flexible enough that at high speeds, the left wing was twisting toward washout and the right wing was twisting toward washin, producing the exact opposite effect of what was needed. Now the solution to this problem is still in process and may involve a new airplane, but the point of this whole story is that we can find out what's wrong with a plane if we're willing to take the time to talk its language, and means we never learn anything about flying airplanes, we never get better, and our modeling stagnates. We contribute nothing to the advancement of the hobby, and so on.

"I will say that the above story is yet another reminder that scale modeling technology has largely stagnated - we still build a lot of wimpy structures. I don't mean we build too light - most of us build waaay too heavy, but we don't build smart - the amount of wood in our airplanes is not justified by the amount of strength it produces because we use out dated structural designs that warp easily and depend on tissue to provide rigidity. Contrary to popular belief and as shown by my own builds, geodetic construction, trusses, and so on, are not particularly difficult and usually double the stiffness of wing structures, eliminating most warps and providing stable structures that don't lose their trim in humid conditions. There's a lot to be said for that!......Good flying, Joshua Finn"

Joshua has made some very interesting comments in correspondence previous to the above, again, in response to our questions:

"I don't generally aim for a particular wingloading in outdoor flying.. By the time they're fully loaded, most of my models push the 0.5 grams per square inch boundary, and that includes Embryo, where my Supermax II is currently sitting at 25 grams take-off weight with a 10-gram motor. Yes, I do fly them with lots of rubber. As a general rule, I like to see scale jobs in the 18" - 22" span range, sitting at a span (wing) loading just over 1 gram per square inch without rubber......the 30" Corsair at 90 grams empty and my 30" Junkers J.1 at 34 grams (yes, you did read that correctly - it builds extremely light). So in general, you aim to build each model as light as possible.......for large, stable models, wing loading is a non-issue.....I currently have a 150-square-inch endurance ship that weighs 175 grams ready to fly. It has a motor run of 90 seconds and climbs all the way to deadstick. But it has a 43" projected span, 20" prop and is very, very stable. That of course is the difference between large endurance ships and Peanuts.....weight is much more important an issue in Peanut, and you need to go as light as you can possibly go there with no beef added ever. I have been to contests where I've seen Peanuts capable of two minutes in dead air. I have never been able to build such a thing, but I've sure had fun trying......Good flying, Joshua."

A BAND OF VOLUNTEERS BUILDS A P-26

LEWIS GUNS