Flying for Fun - 2004/04

April 2004 93
D.B. Mathews
F l y i n g f o r F u n
909 N. Maize Rd., Townhouse 734, Wichita KS 67212
SOURCES: One of the more worrisome
aspects of preparing material that others will
read is how accurate one’s sources of
information are. Traditionally, if the yellow
journalism and exposé press are avoided,
one can be relatively confident when quoting
from magazines, newspapers, and, to a
slightly lesser degree, radio and television.
As the Internet rapidly expands, we are
learning that not all information found there
is factual or complete. Traditional media is
challenged to be certain of their sources’
accuracy to avoid losing libel suits. Since
most E-mail is anonymous—that is, no one
puts his or her name on it—there is no one to
sue, and the “facts” it distributes must be
taken with some degree of caution.
Last month I wrote a little about the
history of the two Hughes racers using
material I gleaned from several Internet
postings. I mentioned that column’s subject
to a friend after the copy had been submitted,
to which he replied, “There is a really nice
article on the subject in the April/May 2003
issue of Air&Space.”
None of the Internet sites mentioned this
article. I certainly wish they had because
after reading the column I learned that
several pieces of Internet information were
misleading, or even in error. For instance, I
wrote that no drawings exist from the
Hughes project. A set of accurate threeviews
are available from Paul Matt (Volume
2 #16-107A and #16-108A).
The Jim Wright group sent a husbandand-
wife team to the Smithsonian to measure
and notate all measurements and record them
This Midwest (Ray Mathews’) Fubar 36 powered by a Wen-Mac first-series power plant
had a tricky dethermalizer limiter system. See text for details.
Lew Mahieu-designed Kiwi, kitted by K&B and later Guillow’s. Has K&B Torp .049.
on enlarged Paul Matt drawings. Upon their
return to Orchard Grove, Oregon, these
measurements were used to develop CAD
(computer-aided design) drawings of the
parts.
The Twin Wasp Jr. engine was found in
California (not Africa) on Jim Wright’s first
call, leading him to conclude that there must
have been a warehouse full of them. Nearly
100 subsequent calls failed to locate another.
The last point is not a correction; it’s an
addition worth reviewing in light of the fatal
crash of the replica. In July 2002, the first
test flight identified a problem. After
takeoff, Jim Wright was unable to advance
the propeller into high pitch. When the
aircraft leveled off, the propeller remained
stuck in low pitch, which gave him a paltry
120 mph at the engine’s 2,625 rpm redline.
As the engine temperature rose, Jim
quickly reviewed his options for an
emergency landing. The temperature
stabilized, and he was able to set the
airplane down in Corvallis, Oregon, as
planned.
The problem was an undersized
propeller counterweight, which, after
closely observing old photos, was
apparently also a problem for Howard
Hughes, since larger weights were
retrofitted in both instances. Nowhere in
the Air&Space copy or on the Internet can I
find any mention of engine inspection after
this overheating event or the following.
Additionally, in January 2003 the left
landing gear folded on landing, bending the
propeller, among other things. Repairs were
made, and the aircraft was back in service a
few months later.
Why Would I Do That? A local club held
an auction that I would like to have attended,
but I knew nothing about it. When I asked
one of the members why handbills about the
event had not been posted in the local hobby
shops, he replied, “We had it on our Internet
site.”
Why would I, or any other nonmember or
out-of-towner, be looking in that club’s site?
I realize that club newsletters are primarily
for passing information to the members, but
what about the new people in town and
nonmembers? It’s hard to beat a printed
newsletter in local hobby shops. After all,
not everyone is online or even has a
computer.
Where Did They Go? As we age, we might
find ourselves in moments of reminiscence.
Such may be the price of admission into the
“golden years”—whatever those might be—
but the result of such mental gymnastics is
often mild anger coupled with puzzlement.
What the heck happened to us, whose fault is
it, and what could we have done to prevent
it?
In the early years of my modeling
memory, beginning in the late 1930s and
extending well into the 1950s, I can’t for the
life of me recall much discussion in the
various model magazines, at club meetings,
or among modelers about a serious shortage
of flying sites. Modelers were flying in city
parks (often in areas specific to their use), on
grass-strip airports, on baseball and football
fields (no one played soccer then), and even
on permitted farm and ranch land.
I’m not referring to Radio Control, since
it really didn’t exist then. What’s more, most
of the sites were close enough to the fliers’
homes that they could use bicycles or even
streetcars to get to them.
Readers who are older than 65 might
remember those nearby flying sites. Those
who are younger may find such a thing hard
to believe. In spite of AMA’s considerable
efforts in helping local groups retain and/or
find flying sites, the total number and the
convenience continues to decline.
The problem is multifaceted; therefore, it
requires a multitude of answers and
solutions. I’m going to toss out some
John Humphrey built this Ollie featured in the October 1951 Air Trails. It has an OK Cub
.049X for power. This model is rarely seen but attractive.
Denny Davis designed this Berkeley Mini Hogan 34. Power is provided by a first-edition
Wen-Mac engine. Notice the position of the stabilizer.
simplistic but pertinent factors involved in
this erosion of flyable sites that I haven’t
seen mentioned before. This is my opinion,
and it’s rather controversial: There are too
darn many people!
When I graduated from high school in
1950, the correct answer to “What is the
population of the United States?” was 150
million. Today the correct answer is 288
million (plus uncounted illegals); that’s
almost double in roughly 50 years.
Not only has that number exploded, but
the way we live has used up far more than
twice the available open space. Consider
where your grandparents lived. If citydwellers,
they likely lived in multistory
apartment buildings or in single-family
homes with tiny yards. They rode to work or
pleasure on the bus, streetcar, or subway, so
there was no need for a monstrous freeway
system.
Today we live in the suburbs, on acres,
necessitating a power or even riding lawn
mower (which your grandparents might have
associated with golf courses), far away from
our work, and we drive many miles to work
or play on freeways that cover huge tracts of
land.
Not only that, but unlike the earlier years,
most suburban developments have no public
parks, or the ones that exist in them are
postage stamp-sized scraps of land with a
few children’s playground items on them.
All of the preceding defines “urban sprawl.”
Have you ever noticed that housing in
Europe is multistoried, around the edges of
scenic areas and parks? In the US we build
single-family housing in the park and pave
over the whole thing.
Retail stores used to be in the city center
and many stories tall. Now the same firms
have a dozen or more smaller but identical
stores scattered miles and miles away from
downtown. Most of these housing and
shopping areas are built on top of what was
farm or ranch land and the places where we
used to fly.
Additional results of this burgeoning
population are the huge sports complexes
that are necessary to accommodate all those
people, ever-growing university campuses,
more school buildings, marginal land being
farmed to meet the food and fiber needs of
an exploding population as more of the good
land has houses built on it, and a general
attitude of, “Get away from here with your
silly toy airplanes.”
So the “what happened?” and “whose
fault is it?” questions have an answer, but
what do we do about it? Short of following
the advice of the demented anchor man in the
movie Network and opening our windows
and shouting, “I’m darn mad and I’m not
going to take it anymore,” some possible
solutions do exist.
Next month I will look at several novel
and nontraditional approaches to finding
flying sites. I hope to prove that there are
solutions to the flying-site dilemma.
Free Flight Competition: When 1⁄2A
94 MODEL AVIATION
98 MODEL AVIATION
engines came along in the early 1950s, we
learned that we could fly sport-type Free
Flight designs in areas where we had been
flying small rubber-powered models.
Many parks, baseball diamonds, school
playgrounds, and industrial tracts were
suitable and close to home.
That group of designs was intended to
climb in tight arcs and rather slow, then
glide down the same way. They would
thermal in monster boomers, but flight
times were normally only a minute or so
with little drift in the breeze.
Then the improved version of the
engines was introduced, and competition
designs began to appear. They climbed to
considerable altitudes, glided well, and
could hook a thermal and be recovered
only by using a dethermalizer. They would
drift over a large area if any breeze was
blowing at all, and were therefore
unsuitable for the facilities we were using
for the sport Free Flight designs.
There were still suitable facilities for
these sorts of models (1⁄2A and larger) but
on the peripheral edges of town. Looking
back, it is difficult to believe that we flew
20-second motor runs and five-minute
maxes back then. In this more modern day,
only Lost Hills in California is large
enough to allow five-minute maxes
without worrying that the model will end
up in someone’s front yard or on top of a
building.
To survive, the Free Flight community
has adjusted events to better fit the
available fields and most often flies
Category III, which allows nine-second
motor runs and two-minute maxes. To
further stimulate participation, the
National Free Flight Society (NFFS) has
introduced several events to appeal to
those who left competitive Free Flight
when it “progressed” to highly complex
variable-incidence surfaces, high-tech
materials, circle tow, complex machined
parts, etc. Competitive Free Flight is
recognizing some participants’ desire for
simplicity.
As an example, newly introduced to
NFFS activities are A-1 and A-2 Towline
Glider rules that are identical to those used
in the 1970s, specifically outlawing circle
tow and bunt launch, so it is no longer
necessary to purchase complex machined
hardware from Eastern Europe. Perhaps
this will reattract modelers (such as
myself) who were put off by the
complication of what was once a
wonderfully simple event.
How simple? My youngest son beat
seven other Junior contestants to win A-2
Nordic (Towline) at the 1972 Nationals.
At a modern Nats, there are usually
roughly eight entries for all three
combined age classes.
This return to simpler times and models
more suited to small fields has filtered into
other NFFS events, such as 1⁄2A Nostalgia
and Early 1⁄2A Nostalgia. Both have
design, publish, and kit cutoff dates. The
Early 1⁄2A Nostalgia period is from the
beginning to 1957 and cannot be scaled,
and regular 1⁄2A Nostalgia can be scaled
from the same group of designs.
Engines are cut off at a list that
includes OK, early Wen-Mac with
standard glow plug, 1⁄2A Spitfire, Torp
.049, and Wasp. Regular 1⁄2A Nostalgia
goes up to but does not include Cox Tee
Dees and such. The most popular seem to
be Holland Hornets and reed-valve Coxes.
To mentally separate these two events,
the Early 1⁄2A Nostalgia models are
approximately 170 square inches in area,
and the regular 1⁄2A Nostalgia designs are
usually scaled to roughly 300 square
inches. In both instances, the size is best
matched to the power plant.
These two events are proving to be
popular with Free Flight competition
fliers for many reasons. Most notably,
there is no need for expensive or complex
hardware. Only a timer and dethermalizer
fuse are needed, and the required engines
are not too difficult to locate at reasonable
prices.
Bill Schmidt has an inquisitive mind
and has learned that the Wen-Mac, which
most of us associated with cheap, plastic
Ready-to-Fly Control Line models of that
era, is a strong performer. According to
Bill, the only thing really required are
good gasket seals to make the Wen-Mac
competitive with any of the other early
Nostalgia engines.
Bill has resurrected many of the model
designs that are legal for early Nostalgia
1⁄2A, cleaned up the original drawings,
improved any glaring structural
weaknesses, and converted some wood
sizes to those available today.
I’ve included photos of Bill’s work
with this column. All models are covered
with Polyspan (a synthetic, lightweight,
heat-shrink fabric that is similar to
silkspan but much stronger) finished with
clear butyrate dope, and in some instances
trimmed with Japanese tissue.
Bill has a long list of Free Flight and
Control Line plans for sale. Contact him
at 4647 Krueger, Wichita KS 67220; Tel.:
(316) 744-0378, for a list or specific
plans. For rules and more information
about these new small-field, simple-model
events, contact NFFS Membership at 22
Pine St., Homosassa FL 34446.
Do you remember how much fun you
had with 1⁄2A Fubars and Hogans? If
you’re too young to remember, give the
concept a try. Most of them can easily be
flown from a Radio Control site with a
short fuse.
Early on when Bill Schmidt first
became interested in the Free Flight
designs of my youth, he asked how the
heck we worked the dethermalizer on
those designs with the stabilizer on the
bottom of the fuselage—particularly the
Fubar.
As drawn on the plans, the Fubar (a
personal favorite) used a Rube
Goldberg-like wire frame of
considerable complexity and
questionable reliability that allowed the
stabilizer to drop down at the trailing
edge, then it limited its drop. A day or so
of remembering revealed my solution:
the fuse burned through the rubber band
and the stabilizer fell off. That was
effective and simple since it was easier
for me to build stabilizers than to bend
that darn wire. MA