LAST MONTH'S column featured photos and a brief report on the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Design/Build/Fly electric cargo event held here in Wichita in May. As I mentioned, this event is for aeronautical-engineering students from around the world. The objective this year was to design and build a model capable of lifting 10-24 regulation softballs and flying a closed course. The softballs were an interesting design consideration in that they were not just for weight, but required large volume somewhere in the model aircraft for a cargo hold. The result was some intriguing fuselage shapes, as the photos illustrate. The course was 500 feet upwind followed by a pylon turn, a 360° turn in the center, a 500-foot downwind leg and turn, followed by landing and parking on a spot. The softballs were added and the course was repeated. The last flight was then conducted without the softballs. Elapsed time to complete all this on one charge plus the weight lifted was the basis for the flight score. Following are some important points about the event. The US Naval Academy's (Annapolis, Maryland) entry had twin engines and retracts, and it used an Eppler airfoil. 1) The models could be as lightly constructed as the builders dared. 2) The objective was to lift the most weight (softballs) and complete the flight schedule as quickly as possible. 3) Only Ni-Cd batteries were allowed—no Nickel Metal Hydride or Lithium cells. Brushless motors were not allowed. Maximum current draw was limited to 40 amps (fused). 4) Each team was required to complete an engineering study (aerodynamic and structural) and a cost analysis and submit it well in advance for judging by aeronautical engineers. 5) Pilots did not have to be enrolled students at the universities. 6) Each model had to have a removable fused safety plug onboard the model. The team could not touch the model once the fail-safe was activated. The cargo had to be loaded and unloaded with the model on the start/finish line. 7) If the model landed short, the team had to disarm then carry the model back. If the model landed long, the team had to taxi or carry it back. Several entries were equipped with brakes as a result. 8) Propellers had to be commercially available units with only balancing allowed. 9) Five attempts were allowed with the best three scores retained. Maximum elapsed time was 10 minutes per attempt. The rules for this challenging event were developed and administered by an AIAA committee. As I mentioned last month, the venue in Wichita was what used to be the Cessna single-engine delivery center, and in alternate years the event location is the Office of Naval Research in Maryland. There is a touch of the old Navy Nationals here, in that the host organization took care of all administrative functions and the entrants just flew and repaired their models. There was even the classic "hangar" for repairs and socializing. As those of you who have attended a model-airplane event in. or have just driven through, Kansas know, the wind can blow wildly one day and be nearly dead calm the next. That "wait 'til tomorrow" weather was certainly present at this event. Saturday started out cold, windy (at right angles to the runway), and rainy. Sunday was nearly perfect: it was calm, sunny, and what wind there was blew directly down the runway. Consequently. 14 attempts were made on Saturday, with only six successful scores. Sunday, on the other hand, saw 69 successful flights. We old guys have rarely seen more than a few ladies enter modeling events. That was not the case with this one! Many bright and enthusiastic young ladies were vital parts of many of these four-person university teams. Isn't that refreshing? When I reported on the AIAA event in 20(X), several readers wrote wanting to know who won. I left the results out of that column because if some team won, logically all the rest lost! That gives a negative impression. In my opinion, everyone involved in this activity came away a winner! The experience of preparing the design proposal, the fellowship of meeting and talking with other students from a diverse list of universities, the bonding between team members, meeting and learning from engineers already working in the industry, and, most importantly, the students' feelings of accomplishment are the real trophies they returned home with. Nonetheless, the competition went as follows. The team from La Spienza, Italy (in the photo last month) took the early lead because of its successful flights on Saturday. The team improved steadily, but it was eventually overtaken because of a low report score. (The group accidentally E-mailed a draft.) The University of Illinois team also showed steady improvement but was unable to complete a third high-score flight to challenge for third place. The University of West Virginia team started strong and was contending, but it had trouble on its fourth flight and ran out of time. The team from the University of Southern California struggled at the beginning but came on strong to finish with three very high-scoring (lights to pull into second place. In spite of one of the lowest RAC (cost projection) scores, the university of California. San Diego, was able to put three of the highest flight scores on the board to pull away with first place. An Instructor's Guide: The following piece written by (I think) Tom Solinski is condensed from the Torks Talk newsletter of the Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, TORKS club. It's well put and a good read for all those involved in training newcomers. Although I am convinced that the wave of future training will be with FMA Direct's Co-Pilot, there is still much training to be done with buddy boxes. "You are about to embark on one of the most rewarding aspects of our hobby, sharing it with someone! The most important thing for you to do right now is sit down and remember the absolute worst teacher or instructor you ever had in any learning situation (school, job, etc.). Now make a mental note to be exactly the opposite of that individual and be the teacher you would want to be with. "Always be positive! Make a positive comment when the student does something right, like 'that was great!,' 'smooth turn,' A scene from the hangar. There was much repairing, preparing, and visiting going on, reminiscent of the old Navy Nats. 'good correction,' 'see, you can do it.' Think of a positive way to correct a negative habit. "Preview each lesson with the student. Tell them what you two are going to practice. Fly the model and show them what looks right and what can be done wrong. Let the student make, and learn from, mistakes. "Do your best to talk the student out of trouble. Resist taking control through the buddy box until it is clear the student cannot recover. We humans really do learn from our mistakes. If you are underhandedly 'helping' by flying the model for them, then they really aren't learning anything but dependency. "After the model has landed, go over what was flown again to reinforce the learning. Relax and have fun. If you feel yourself getting tired and possibly cranky, land and take a break before you break someone's airplane and trust. "Never: Be negative. "Never: Talk down to a student. "Never: Yell at a student. "Never: Curse or use foul language. "Never: Assume the student knows what you are talking about. Ask if they understand, then have them explain the points back to you. "Never: Take your eyes off the model when it is flying. "Never: Fix the airplane for the student. If it comes to the field with things disconnected or reversed, coach them through the fix, but let them do the work. This is the only way for them to learn to do things right. "Never: Be afraid to send an ///(airworthy new airplane home. The students will become discouraged and give up much more quickly if the brand new airplane ends up a pile of wreckage at the end of the runway, without even getting to fly it. There should be a club trainer (or your own) on standby in this case so they can go home with some enthusiasm to fix or finish their new airplane. "The sole purpose of all this is to get the new Radio Control pilot in the air as quickly as possible and then to get them soloed soon after that. The lessons assume ten to fifteen minute flying sessions. "It's the instructor's responsibility to keep the lessons interesting. If the student appears to be bored then challenge them by moving up to the next more complex lesson, remembering the goal is to get the student soloed as quickly as possible. Typical times needed here in Oklahoma City to accomplish the training program are about 16 hours (64 flights) of flying time." From my experience in the last few months, I'd be remiss not to point out that the 64-flight number could be greatly reduced by using a Co-Pilot. I've been "sharing the box" while the student learns to make controlled turns, control altitude, fly straight lines, and lower the model to landing position. Once those goals are reached, it is necessary only to stand beside the student and quietly say "return the sticks to neutral" on occasion, and, of course, give positive input. The following is an urgent safety message better suited to Gary Shaw's safety column. However, it happened to me and scared me badly. I've been covering with iron-on film since Sid Axelrod introduced MonoKote® more than 40 years ago. I've replaced a bunch of covering irons during that time, usually because of their inability to maintain steady temperatures or heat at all. But I just replaced an iron because of a different and most serious failure. Like probably most of you who have been covering with these materials for a while, I occasionally drop my iron on the floor—usually with little damage. However, I recently dropped an iron (brand name likely doesn't matter), placed it back on the work surface, went to another table to cut some more material, and noticed a strange odor. Returning to the covering table, I learned that the covering iron had wildly overheated and had ignited the layers of newspapers I use to protect things when covering. Not only that, but the iron was scorching the hollow-core door and was about to set it on fire. The thing that frightens me so much is that I might well have been out of the shop for a potty break or something when all this occurred. Although 1 always keep a fire extinguisher in the shop, it wouldn't have been of any use had I not been there. Never leave a covering iron on when leaving the shop!
Edition: Model Aviation - 2002/10
Page Numbers: 62, 63, 64
Edition: Model Aviation - 2002/10
Page Numbers: 62, 63, 64
LAST MONTH'S column featured photos and a brief report on the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Design/Build/Fly electric cargo event held here in Wichita in May. As I mentioned, this event is for aeronautical-engineering students from around the world. The objective this year was to design and build a model capable of lifting 10-24 regulation softballs and flying a closed course. The softballs were an interesting design consideration in that they were not just for weight, but required large volume somewhere in the model aircraft for a cargo hold. The result was some intriguing fuselage shapes, as the photos illustrate. The course was 500 feet upwind followed by a pylon turn, a 360° turn in the center, a 500-foot downwind leg and turn, followed by landing and parking on a spot. The softballs were added and the course was repeated. The last flight was then conducted without the softballs. Elapsed time to complete all this on one charge plus the weight lifted was the basis for the flight score. Following are some important points about the event. The US Naval Academy's (Annapolis, Maryland) entry had twin engines and retracts, and it used an Eppler airfoil. 1) The models could be as lightly constructed as the builders dared. 2) The objective was to lift the most weight (softballs) and complete the flight schedule as quickly as possible. 3) Only Ni-Cd batteries were allowed—no Nickel Metal Hydride or Lithium cells. Brushless motors were not allowed. Maximum current draw was limited to 40 amps (fused). 4) Each team was required to complete an engineering study (aerodynamic and structural) and a cost analysis and submit it well in advance for judging by aeronautical engineers. 5) Pilots did not have to be enrolled students at the universities. 6) Each model had to have a removable fused safety plug onboard the model. The team could not touch the model once the fail-safe was activated. The cargo had to be loaded and unloaded with the model on the start/finish line. 7) If the model landed short, the team had to disarm then carry the model back. If the model landed long, the team had to taxi or carry it back. Several entries were equipped with brakes as a result. 8) Propellers had to be commercially available units with only balancing allowed. 9) Five attempts were allowed with the best three scores retained. Maximum elapsed time was 10 minutes per attempt. The rules for this challenging event were developed and administered by an AIAA committee. As I mentioned last month, the venue in Wichita was what used to be the Cessna single-engine delivery center, and in alternate years the event location is the Office of Naval Research in Maryland. There is a touch of the old Navy Nationals here, in that the host organization took care of all administrative functions and the entrants just flew and repaired their models. There was even the classic "hangar" for repairs and socializing. As those of you who have attended a model-airplane event in. or have just driven through, Kansas know, the wind can blow wildly one day and be nearly dead calm the next. That "wait 'til tomorrow" weather was certainly present at this event. Saturday started out cold, windy (at right angles to the runway), and rainy. Sunday was nearly perfect: it was calm, sunny, and what wind there was blew directly down the runway. Consequently. 14 attempts were made on Saturday, with only six successful scores. Sunday, on the other hand, saw 69 successful flights. We old guys have rarely seen more than a few ladies enter modeling events. That was not the case with this one! Many bright and enthusiastic young ladies were vital parts of many of these four-person university teams. Isn't that refreshing? When I reported on the AIAA event in 20(X), several readers wrote wanting to know who won. I left the results out of that column because if some team won, logically all the rest lost! That gives a negative impression. In my opinion, everyone involved in this activity came away a winner! The experience of preparing the design proposal, the fellowship of meeting and talking with other students from a diverse list of universities, the bonding between team members, meeting and learning from engineers already working in the industry, and, most importantly, the students' feelings of accomplishment are the real trophies they returned home with. Nonetheless, the competition went as follows. The team from La Spienza, Italy (in the photo last month) took the early lead because of its successful flights on Saturday. The team improved steadily, but it was eventually overtaken because of a low report score. (The group accidentally E-mailed a draft.) The University of Illinois team also showed steady improvement but was unable to complete a third high-score flight to challenge for third place. The University of West Virginia team started strong and was contending, but it had trouble on its fourth flight and ran out of time. The team from the University of Southern California struggled at the beginning but came on strong to finish with three very high-scoring (lights to pull into second place. In spite of one of the lowest RAC (cost projection) scores, the university of California. San Diego, was able to put three of the highest flight scores on the board to pull away with first place. An Instructor's Guide: The following piece written by (I think) Tom Solinski is condensed from the Torks Talk newsletter of the Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, TORKS club. It's well put and a good read for all those involved in training newcomers. Although I am convinced that the wave of future training will be with FMA Direct's Co-Pilot, there is still much training to be done with buddy boxes. "You are about to embark on one of the most rewarding aspects of our hobby, sharing it with someone! The most important thing for you to do right now is sit down and remember the absolute worst teacher or instructor you ever had in any learning situation (school, job, etc.). Now make a mental note to be exactly the opposite of that individual and be the teacher you would want to be with. "Always be positive! Make a positive comment when the student does something right, like 'that was great!,' 'smooth turn,' A scene from the hangar. There was much repairing, preparing, and visiting going on, reminiscent of the old Navy Nats. 'good correction,' 'see, you can do it.' Think of a positive way to correct a negative habit. "Preview each lesson with the student. Tell them what you two are going to practice. Fly the model and show them what looks right and what can be done wrong. Let the student make, and learn from, mistakes. "Do your best to talk the student out of trouble. Resist taking control through the buddy box until it is clear the student cannot recover. We humans really do learn from our mistakes. If you are underhandedly 'helping' by flying the model for them, then they really aren't learning anything but dependency. "After the model has landed, go over what was flown again to reinforce the learning. Relax and have fun. If you feel yourself getting tired and possibly cranky, land and take a break before you break someone's airplane and trust. "Never: Be negative. "Never: Talk down to a student. "Never: Yell at a student. "Never: Curse or use foul language. "Never: Assume the student knows what you are talking about. Ask if they understand, then have them explain the points back to you. "Never: Take your eyes off the model when it is flying. "Never: Fix the airplane for the student. If it comes to the field with things disconnected or reversed, coach them through the fix, but let them do the work. This is the only way for them to learn to do things right. "Never: Be afraid to send an ///(airworthy new airplane home. The students will become discouraged and give up much more quickly if the brand new airplane ends up a pile of wreckage at the end of the runway, without even getting to fly it. There should be a club trainer (or your own) on standby in this case so they can go home with some enthusiasm to fix or finish their new airplane. "The sole purpose of all this is to get the new Radio Control pilot in the air as quickly as possible and then to get them soloed soon after that. The lessons assume ten to fifteen minute flying sessions. "It's the instructor's responsibility to keep the lessons interesting. If the student appears to be bored then challenge them by moving up to the next more complex lesson, remembering the goal is to get the student soloed as quickly as possible. Typical times needed here in Oklahoma City to accomplish the training program are about 16 hours (64 flights) of flying time." From my experience in the last few months, I'd be remiss not to point out that the 64-flight number could be greatly reduced by using a Co-Pilot. I've been "sharing the box" while the student learns to make controlled turns, control altitude, fly straight lines, and lower the model to landing position. Once those goals are reached, it is necessary only to stand beside the student and quietly say "return the sticks to neutral" on occasion, and, of course, give positive input. The following is an urgent safety message better suited to Gary Shaw's safety column. However, it happened to me and scared me badly. I've been covering with iron-on film since Sid Axelrod introduced MonoKote® more than 40 years ago. I've replaced a bunch of covering irons during that time, usually because of their inability to maintain steady temperatures or heat at all. But I just replaced an iron because of a different and most serious failure. Like probably most of you who have been covering with these materials for a while, I occasionally drop my iron on the floor—usually with little damage. However, I recently dropped an iron (brand name likely doesn't matter), placed it back on the work surface, went to another table to cut some more material, and noticed a strange odor. Returning to the covering table, I learned that the covering iron had wildly overheated and had ignited the layers of newspapers I use to protect things when covering. Not only that, but the iron was scorching the hollow-core door and was about to set it on fire. The thing that frightens me so much is that I might well have been out of the shop for a potty break or something when all this occurred. Although 1 always keep a fire extinguisher in the shop, it wouldn't have been of any use had I not been there. Never leave a covering iron on when leaving the shop!
Edition: Model Aviation - 2002/10
Page Numbers: 62, 63, 64
LAST MONTH'S column featured photos and a brief report on the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Design/Build/Fly electric cargo event held here in Wichita in May. As I mentioned, this event is for aeronautical-engineering students from around the world. The objective this year was to design and build a model capable of lifting 10-24 regulation softballs and flying a closed course. The softballs were an interesting design consideration in that they were not just for weight, but required large volume somewhere in the model aircraft for a cargo hold. The result was some intriguing fuselage shapes, as the photos illustrate. The course was 500 feet upwind followed by a pylon turn, a 360° turn in the center, a 500-foot downwind leg and turn, followed by landing and parking on a spot. The softballs were added and the course was repeated. The last flight was then conducted without the softballs. Elapsed time to complete all this on one charge plus the weight lifted was the basis for the flight score. Following are some important points about the event. The US Naval Academy's (Annapolis, Maryland) entry had twin engines and retracts, and it used an Eppler airfoil. 1) The models could be as lightly constructed as the builders dared. 2) The objective was to lift the most weight (softballs) and complete the flight schedule as quickly as possible. 3) Only Ni-Cd batteries were allowed—no Nickel Metal Hydride or Lithium cells. Brushless motors were not allowed. Maximum current draw was limited to 40 amps (fused). 4) Each team was required to complete an engineering study (aerodynamic and structural) and a cost analysis and submit it well in advance for judging by aeronautical engineers. 5) Pilots did not have to be enrolled students at the universities. 6) Each model had to have a removable fused safety plug onboard the model. The team could not touch the model once the fail-safe was activated. The cargo had to be loaded and unloaded with the model on the start/finish line. 7) If the model landed short, the team had to disarm then carry the model back. If the model landed long, the team had to taxi or carry it back. Several entries were equipped with brakes as a result. 8) Propellers had to be commercially available units with only balancing allowed. 9) Five attempts were allowed with the best three scores retained. Maximum elapsed time was 10 minutes per attempt. The rules for this challenging event were developed and administered by an AIAA committee. As I mentioned last month, the venue in Wichita was what used to be the Cessna single-engine delivery center, and in alternate years the event location is the Office of Naval Research in Maryland. There is a touch of the old Navy Nationals here, in that the host organization took care of all administrative functions and the entrants just flew and repaired their models. There was even the classic "hangar" for repairs and socializing. As those of you who have attended a model-airplane event in. or have just driven through, Kansas know, the wind can blow wildly one day and be nearly dead calm the next. That "wait 'til tomorrow" weather was certainly present at this event. Saturday started out cold, windy (at right angles to the runway), and rainy. Sunday was nearly perfect: it was calm, sunny, and what wind there was blew directly down the runway. Consequently. 14 attempts were made on Saturday, with only six successful scores. Sunday, on the other hand, saw 69 successful flights. We old guys have rarely seen more than a few ladies enter modeling events. That was not the case with this one! Many bright and enthusiastic young ladies were vital parts of many of these four-person university teams. Isn't that refreshing? When I reported on the AIAA event in 20(X), several readers wrote wanting to know who won. I left the results out of that column because if some team won, logically all the rest lost! That gives a negative impression. In my opinion, everyone involved in this activity came away a winner! The experience of preparing the design proposal, the fellowship of meeting and talking with other students from a diverse list of universities, the bonding between team members, meeting and learning from engineers already working in the industry, and, most importantly, the students' feelings of accomplishment are the real trophies they returned home with. Nonetheless, the competition went as follows. The team from La Spienza, Italy (in the photo last month) took the early lead because of its successful flights on Saturday. The team improved steadily, but it was eventually overtaken because of a low report score. (The group accidentally E-mailed a draft.) The University of Illinois team also showed steady improvement but was unable to complete a third high-score flight to challenge for third place. The University of West Virginia team started strong and was contending, but it had trouble on its fourth flight and ran out of time. The team from the University of Southern California struggled at the beginning but came on strong to finish with three very high-scoring (lights to pull into second place. In spite of one of the lowest RAC (cost projection) scores, the university of California. San Diego, was able to put three of the highest flight scores on the board to pull away with first place. An Instructor's Guide: The following piece written by (I think) Tom Solinski is condensed from the Torks Talk newsletter of the Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, TORKS club. It's well put and a good read for all those involved in training newcomers. Although I am convinced that the wave of future training will be with FMA Direct's Co-Pilot, there is still much training to be done with buddy boxes. "You are about to embark on one of the most rewarding aspects of our hobby, sharing it with someone! The most important thing for you to do right now is sit down and remember the absolute worst teacher or instructor you ever had in any learning situation (school, job, etc.). Now make a mental note to be exactly the opposite of that individual and be the teacher you would want to be with. "Always be positive! Make a positive comment when the student does something right, like 'that was great!,' 'smooth turn,' A scene from the hangar. There was much repairing, preparing, and visiting going on, reminiscent of the old Navy Nats. 'good correction,' 'see, you can do it.' Think of a positive way to correct a negative habit. "Preview each lesson with the student. Tell them what you two are going to practice. Fly the model and show them what looks right and what can be done wrong. Let the student make, and learn from, mistakes. "Do your best to talk the student out of trouble. Resist taking control through the buddy box until it is clear the student cannot recover. We humans really do learn from our mistakes. If you are underhandedly 'helping' by flying the model for them, then they really aren't learning anything but dependency. "After the model has landed, go over what was flown again to reinforce the learning. Relax and have fun. If you feel yourself getting tired and possibly cranky, land and take a break before you break someone's airplane and trust. "Never: Be negative. "Never: Talk down to a student. "Never: Yell at a student. "Never: Curse or use foul language. "Never: Assume the student knows what you are talking about. Ask if they understand, then have them explain the points back to you. "Never: Take your eyes off the model when it is flying. "Never: Fix the airplane for the student. If it comes to the field with things disconnected or reversed, coach them through the fix, but let them do the work. This is the only way for them to learn to do things right. "Never: Be afraid to send an ///(airworthy new airplane home. The students will become discouraged and give up much more quickly if the brand new airplane ends up a pile of wreckage at the end of the runway, without even getting to fly it. There should be a club trainer (or your own) on standby in this case so they can go home with some enthusiasm to fix or finish their new airplane. "The sole purpose of all this is to get the new Radio Control pilot in the air as quickly as possible and then to get them soloed soon after that. The lessons assume ten to fifteen minute flying sessions. "It's the instructor's responsibility to keep the lessons interesting. If the student appears to be bored then challenge them by moving up to the next more complex lesson, remembering the goal is to get the student soloed as quickly as possible. Typical times needed here in Oklahoma City to accomplish the training program are about 16 hours (64 flights) of flying time." From my experience in the last few months, I'd be remiss not to point out that the 64-flight number could be greatly reduced by using a Co-Pilot. I've been "sharing the box" while the student learns to make controlled turns, control altitude, fly straight lines, and lower the model to landing position. Once those goals are reached, it is necessary only to stand beside the student and quietly say "return the sticks to neutral" on occasion, and, of course, give positive input. The following is an urgent safety message better suited to Gary Shaw's safety column. However, it happened to me and scared me badly. I've been covering with iron-on film since Sid Axelrod introduced MonoKote® more than 40 years ago. I've replaced a bunch of covering irons during that time, usually because of their inability to maintain steady temperatures or heat at all. But I just replaced an iron because of a different and most serious failure. Like probably most of you who have been covering with these materials for a while, I occasionally drop my iron on the floor—usually with little damage. However, I recently dropped an iron (brand name likely doesn't matter), placed it back on the work surface, went to another table to cut some more material, and noticed a strange odor. Returning to the covering table, I learned that the covering iron had wildly overheated and had ignited the layers of newspapers I use to protect things when covering. Not only that, but the iron was scorching the hollow-core door and was about to set it on fire. The thing that frightens me so much is that I might well have been out of the shop for a potty break or something when all this occurred. Although 1 always keep a fire extinguisher in the shop, it wouldn't have been of any use had I not been there. Never leave a covering iron on when leaving the shop!
