Indoor flying

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

"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

"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?

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.