Indoor flying

[bizguy]

Hi Group,

As long as we are discussing merits of toy airplanes - have you seen
this one? If you have I apologize in advance.

This video was shot in a gymnasium with some really bad background
music, but the flying is something else for a model airplane. If you
are on dial-up this will take a while, but it is worth it. Click on
the link below and enjoy.

http://airtoimedia.nl/web/upload/JurgenHeilig/F3P-AM_Benoit.wmv

Have a great day!

Harold Hoffmann

[david]

Strictly speaking, and as a afronted modeller (;o)), they aren't "toy"
planes but models the difference being significant.

The capabilities of models these days is really quite astonishing, thanks to
the use of advanced technology in both construction and power. I wish we
could use some of these technologies more easily in our full size aero
world...we could have some serious fun, save serious cash and time into the
bargain. Still, while we use tractor engines and circular slide rules are
guess we are at least safe. ;o(

Nice vid though, thanks.

David
"bizguy" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Hi Group,
>
> As long as we are discussing merits of toy airplanes - have you seen
> this one? If you have I apologize in advance.
>
> This video was shot in a gymnasium with some really bad background
> music, but the flying is something else for a model airplane. If you
> are on dial-up this will take a while, but it is worth it. Click on
> the link below and enjoy.
>
> http://airtoimedia.nl/web/upload/JurgenHeilig/F3P-AM_Benoit.wmv
>
> Have a great day!
>
> Harold Hoffmann
>

[Dave]

"david" > wrote in message
...
> Strictly speaking, and as a afronted modeller (;o)), they aren't "toy"
> planes but models the difference being significant.
>
> The capabilities of models these days is really quite astonishing, thanks
> to

You can be as afronted as you'd like, these toys are not a model of anything
in existance. Look up the definition of "model" and that of "toy" and tell
me which is closer. Perhaps "miniature aircraft" would suit you. I think
they're toys, that doesn't diminish my respect for the talent exhibited.
Silly arguement, reminds me of the fellow in the basement with the very long
and fancy title, he still empties the wastebaskets.

[Richard Lamb]

Dave wrote:
>
> "david" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Strictly speaking, and as a afronted modeller (;o)), they aren't "toy"
> > planes but models the difference being significant.
> >
> > The capabilities of models these days is really quite astonishing, thanks
> > to
>
> You can be as afronted as you'd like, these toys are not a model of anything
> in existance. Look up the definition of "model" and that of "toy" and tell
> me which is closer. Perhaps "miniature aircraft" would suit you. I think
> they're toys, that doesn't diminish my respect for the talent exhibited.
> Silly arguement, reminds me of the fellow in the basement with the very long
> and fancy title, he still empties the wastebaskets.


"A toy airplane is one that you wind up and it rolls across the floor"
Flight of the Pheonix

[david]

I'd have thought..

Model =

"A small object, usually built to scale, that represents in detail another,
often larger object." rather fits the bill.

Proportionally in scale with other 'full size' (whatever that means)
planes?Check.
Wings? Check.
Prop? Check
Fuselage? Check.
Tail empenage? Check
Four forces acting on it? Check
Control surfaces? Check.
Does it fly? Check
Does it stall? Check
Affected by normal laws and principals? Check.


Versus:

Toy =
1.. An object for children to play with.
2.. Something of little importance; a trifle.
3.. An amusement; a pastime: thought of the business as a toy.

Hmm, that could be aeroplanes of ANY size and scale to some folk.

David

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
>
> "david" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Strictly speaking, and as a afronted modeller (;o)), they aren't "toy"
>> planes but models the difference being significant.
>>
>> The capabilities of models these days is really quite astonishing, thanks
>> to
>
> You can be as afronted as you'd like, these toys are not a model of
> anything in existance. Look up the definition of "model" and that of "toy"
> and tell me which is closer. Perhaps "miniature aircraft" would suit you.
> I think they're toys, that doesn't diminish my respect for the talent
> exhibited. Silly arguement, reminds me of the fellow in the basement with
> the very long and fancy title, he still empties the wastebaskets.
>

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, david says...
>
>I'd have thought..
>
>Model =
>
>"A small object, usually built to scale, that represents in detail another,
>often larger object." rather fits the bill.
>
>Proportionally in scale with other 'full size' (whatever that means)
>planes?Check.
>Wings? Check.
>Prop? Check
>Fuselage? Check.
>Tail empenage? Check
>Four forces acting on it? Check
>Control surfaces? Check.
>Does it fly? Check
>Does it stall? Check
>Affected by normal laws and principals? Check.
>
>
>Versus:
>
>Toy =
> 1.. An object for children to play with.
> 2.. Something of little importance; a trifle.
> 3.. An amusement; a pastime: thought of the business as a toy.
>
>Hmm, that could be aeroplanes of ANY size and scale to some folk.
>
>David


Well I guess I fly Indoor rubber powered duration airplanes. Airplanes that
weigh about a gram and fly in a blimp hangar for 30 -40 minutes or more under
rubber power and NO radio control.If it's a toy a lot of us are real serious
about our "toys" during the National competitions which are coming up :-)

I never considered a model that weighs a gram and is built with select balsa
that has the weight per cubic foot ,grain direction , Young's modulous
calculated and dimensions within .001" , where glue joints are weighed and a 18"
diameter variable pitch prop that weighs half a gram and changes pitch during
flight a toy. Maybe to some it is a toy but I bet my rubber band powered toy
will beat your rubber band powered toy. LOL!! So I guess it's what ever floats
your boat .

Chuck(2500 turns ,1.8" oz Torque on march 02 Tan rubber) S


--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

[Richard Lamb]

ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
>
> In article >, david says...
> >
> >I'd have thought..
> >
> >Model =
> >
> >"A small object, usually built to scale, that represents in detail another,
> >often larger object." rather fits the bill.
> >
> >Proportionally in scale with other 'full size' (whatever that means)
> >planes?Check.
> >Wings? Check.
> >Prop? Check
> >Fuselage? Check.
> >Tail empenage? Check
> >Four forces acting on it? Check
> >Control surfaces? Check.
> >Does it fly? Check
> >Does it stall? Check
> >Affected by normal laws and principals? Check.
> >
> >
> >Versus:
> >
> >Toy =
> > 1.. An object for children to play with.
> > 2.. Something of little importance; a trifle.
> > 3.. An amusement; a pastime: thought of the business as a toy.
> >
> >Hmm, that could be aeroplanes of ANY size and scale to some folk.
> >
> >David
>
> Well I guess I fly Indoor rubber powered duration airplanes. Airplanes that
> weigh about a gram and fly in a blimp hangar for 30 -40 minutes or more under
> rubber power and NO radio control.If it's a toy a lot of us are real serious
> about our "toys" during the National competitions which are coming up :-)
>
> I never considered a model that weighs a gram and is built with select balsa
> that has the weight per cubic foot ,grain direction , Young's modulous
> calculated and dimensions within .001" , where glue joints are weighed and a 18"
> diameter variable pitch prop that weighs half a gram and changes pitch during
> flight a toy. Maybe to some it is a toy but I bet my rubber band powered toy
> will beat your rubber band powered toy. LOL!! So I guess it's what ever floats
> your boat .
>
> Chuck(2500 turns ,1.8" oz Torque on march 02 Tan rubber) S
>
> --
> NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

I've seen some of those things.
Pretty awesome machines.

I've built lots of rubber band powered balsa airplanes.

The toughest by far is the helicopter.
Fully articulated Hiller style setup -- 15" rotor span.
Powered Tail Rotor.
All balsa, too!

It's only trick is once around the pattern
with a high rate decent to landing.
(It doesn't autorotate :(
And I've never seen it really hover stationary.

To the great unwashed masses it look like a toy.

To those in the know, it's damned near a miracle.

Eye of the beholder, I guess.

Richard

[Dave]

"Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
...
>
> Eye of the beholder, I guess.
> Richard

and

ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
>"A small object, usually built to scale, that represents in detail another,
> >often larger object." rather fits the bill.

I disagree about that.

1.. An object for children to play with

Barring the notion of children, This looks good to me.

As I said to the indignant OP, it's a silly arguement. I think they're toys,
and I don't think they are models of anything except perhaps in the most
general terms. I think they are an interesting curiousity, entertaining. The
operator is clearly talented. I offered up "miniature aircraft" as
appropriate. So, as soon as I see a full size aircraft that is a copy of.
I'll change my opinion.

It does remind me of the paroxysms of rage that came from the character of
the German engineer in the original "Flight of the Pheonix" and that image
came immediately to mind whan I read the original complaint.

[Peter Dohm]

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Eye of the beholder, I guess.
> > Richard
>
> and
>
> ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
> >"A small object, usually built to scale, that represents in detail
another,
> > >often larger object." rather fits the bill.
>
> I disagree about that.
>
> 1.. An object for children to play with
>
> Barring the notion of children, This looks good to me.
>
> As I said to the indignant OP, it's a silly arguement. I think they're
toys,
> and I don't think they are models of anything except perhaps in the most
> general terms. I think they are an interesting curiousity, entertaining.
The
> operator is clearly talented. I offered up "miniature aircraft" as
> appropriate. So, as soon as I see a full size aircraft that is a copy of.
> I'll change my opinion.
>
> It does remind me of the paroxysms of rage that came from the character of
> the German engineer in the original "Flight of the Pheonix" and that image
> came immediately to mind whan I read the original complaint.
>
>
When I was a kid, our U-control models were called "models", and the
precision replicas that people of all ages bought or built were also called
models. And it seemed that all of them miraculously became toys when you
were yelled at.

Clearly, however, if a "full size" copy of one of the smaller aircraft was
built, then the larger craft must be the "model"...

Just my 2¢

Peter

[bizguy]

Gentlemen,
Your POLITICAL CORRECTNESS is getting in the way of appreciating the
core message of the post.

The man did a fantastic job of building his plane and demonstrated
skills in flying it.

Note also the address of the website:

AIR TOI MEDIA.

Harold Hoffmann

[Richard Lamb]

Peter Dohm wrote:
>
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Eye of the beholder, I guess.
> > > Richard
> >
> > and
> >
> > ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
> > >"A small object, usually built to scale, that represents in detail
> another,
> > > >often larger object." rather fits the bill.
> >
> > I disagree about that.
> >
> > 1.. An object for children to play with
> >
> > Barring the notion of children, This looks good to me.
> >
> > As I said to the indignant OP, it's a silly arguement. I think they're
> toys,
> > and I don't think they are models of anything except perhaps in the most
> > general terms. I think they are an interesting curiousity, entertaining.
> The
> > operator is clearly talented. I offered up "miniature aircraft" as
> > appropriate. So, as soon as I see a full size aircraft that is a copy of.
> > I'll change my opinion.
> >
> > It does remind me of the paroxysms of rage that came from the character of
> > the German engineer in the original "Flight of the Pheonix" and that image
> > came immediately to mind whan I read the original complaint.
> >
> >
> When I was a kid, our U-control models were called "models", and the
> precision replicas that people of all ages bought or built were also called
> models. And it seemed that all of them miraculously became toys when you
> were yelled at.
>
> Clearly, however, if a "full size" copy of one of the smaller aircraft was
> built, then the larger craft must be the "model"...
>
> Just my 2¢
>
> Peter

Interesting perspective, Peter.

There is an RC model (!) called Lazy Bee.

It's so ugly it's actually cute, flies so slow you can easily
circle in the back yard.
The big on has about 4 foot wing span.

But for my models (!), I prefer rubber band powered Peanut scale.

I built a 1/4 scale "Peanut" version (13 inch wingspan).
I've had flights over a minute with it, but haven't
entered it in competition yet.

I would enter it as a scale model(!) of a radio controlled
model(!) (with full documentation - it might work(?).
an clean up on scale points!

But also, this thing could scale UP nicely too.

Single seat with 503 at about 400-500 pounds?
The "original" is powered by a a Cox .049, so an exposed
503 would be perfectly in order on the "scale model"(?).

That would make the "full sized" one (to my mind a toy!)
a model(?)
of a model(!)
of a model(!)???

All I would need then is a troop of midget clowns to secretly
meet me at the end of the runway when I land.


That ought to give the rubes something to talk about after the
airshows...



Richard ;)

[Morgans]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote
>
> Clearly, however, if a "full size" copy of one of the smaller aircraft was
> built, then the larger craft must be the "model"...

I remember reading about an instance of that being done. Unfortunately, I
don't remember the model, or the maker.

Damn neurons just don't work like they once did! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Vaughn Simon]

"david" > wrote in message
...
>
> Proportionally in scale with other 'full size' (whatever that means)
> planes?Check.
> Wings? Check.
> Prop? Check
> Fuselage? Check.
> Tail empenage? Check
> Four forces acting on it? Check
> Control surfaces? Check.
> Does it fly? Check
> Does it stall? Check
> Affected by normal laws and principals? Check.

Power to weight ratio?

[Smitty Two]

In article >,
"Peter Dohm" > wrote:

>
> Clearly, however, if a "full size" copy of one of the smaller aircraft was
> built, then the larger craft must be the "model"...
>
> Just my 2¢
>
> Peter

Joshua Lionel Cowen, of Lionel Trains fame, was a master of marketing
euphemisms. Shortly after the turn of the century (uh, not *this*
century) when all toy train makers used their own track sizes, he named
his "Standard Gauge." It became a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Still, I think the most audacious thing he did was to refer to the 1:1
scale engines (real trains) as "prototypes" for his models. Uh, toys.

Nevertheless, in that hobby, "model railroaders" take great pains to
distinguish themselves and their equipment from the "toy trains" that
Lionel and others manufactured. Lionel did put out some semi-scale stuff
of exceptional quality before the second big war, but most of his stuff
was always just a rough approximation, proportionally speaking. And then
that damn third rail just never did look right, although it sure makes
sense from an engineering standpoint.

This *is* RAH, right? SInce we're flying our butts around in big TOYS,
my ego isn't compromised by the idea of calling the little ones TOYS
either, regardless of their sophistication.