Electronic Second Wind 96-2 & 97-1
Second Wind 96-2 and 97-1
25 years and still here!
This is our special SILVER ANNIVERSARY Double Issue.
________________________________________________________________________________
In This Issue, Jump Directly To:
Presenting: The Windsong - Silver Edition: by Bob Dodgson.
A Godly V-gilante: by T. Barry Godly.
Orbiter-2 Stories. To(o) Light an Orbiter-2: by Bob Amico and the Orbiter-2 is always sloping the right way! by Steve Schupak.
Diary of an Orbiter-2: by Tim Purcell.
Lovesong Lauding: by Rafael Roure and Gordy Stahl.
Orbiter Ovations: by Peter Williams and Bob Dodgson.
V-gilante Virtuosity: by Adam R. Weston, Jim Deck and Charles French.
Nostalgia Class: by Gordy Stahl, Bob Dodgson, Don Edberg and Ron Quintana.
In Search of That Son of Obechi: by Lorenzo D'Ambros, Bob Dodgson and Bruce Lewis.
Hot Air Masters: by Al Sugar.
Mechanical Anthem: by Jim Barnes and Bob Dodgson.
The Big "O": by D. O. Darnell and Bob Dodgson.
Oh, the TangledWebb: by Kevin Webb and Bob Dodgson.
Video Tapes are available! The two construction tapes will be helpfull with the Windsong Silver building.
A Heart for Soaring: by John Rodenberg, Jim Thomas and Bob Dodgson.
You Can'tHide: by Jim Martin.
Mechanical Mixing: by Pat Bruce, Dean Morris and Bob Dodgson.
Pivotal First Flights: by Steve Shupak.
Orbiter-2 Kit Review: by Denny Darnell.
Proceed beyong this point at your own risk! The following articles are form the archives - for those of you who think that I have become too mellow!
Multichannel Design: (from 1977) by Bob Dodgson.
Inconsistent KitReviews: (from 1984) by Bob Dodgson.
TheBirth or Crow: (from 1984) by Jim Newman.
RSCD Challenge: (from 1989) by Bob Dodgson.
Press Blackout (from 1989) by Bob Dodgson.
________________________________________________________________________________
Presenting: The Windsong - Silver Edition!
Buddy Roos and his Windsong.
The best and most rewarding thermal glider that money can't buy you have to build it yourself!
In honor of Dodgson Designs' 25 years in the design and manufacture of high-performance multichannel sailplanes, we are offering an updated kit of one of the greatest model gliders of all time. Its scale-like appearance belies the fact that its light-air performance is second to non --yet the Windsong Silver's maximum L/D is one of the best in the hobby!
Have you ever asked yourself:
why do all of today's high-performance gliders look the same, from their arrow-thin fuselages to their pre-sheeted flying surfaces?
Why do they all need six $75 servos per glider?" "Why do they require an expensive computer radio? Where can a person go after building and flying a Gentle Lady and eventually working up to a Spirit?" Where are all the construction kits of high-performance gliders for the advancing builder/pilot to move up to --without having to trash the old 4-channel radio, buy a bunch of costly metal-geared micro servos and pay for an expensive ready-made winged-arrow, cookie-cutter looking glider?" If you have wondered some of theses same things, then maybe you are ready to look at the Windsong Silver! This is one of the highest performing thermal gliders ever. It has a scale feel and scale-like good looks, too. It can be flown just fine with a simple 4-channel radio. It even offers automatic mechanical elevator compensation when you deploy flaps --even if you are only using a simple 4-channel radio! It includes the HDL-2 flap linkage so that you can have a single, inexpensive, standard servo forward in the fuselage for flaps. So, you only need 2 micro servos --for ailerons. And they do not need to be metal geared. What is more, due to the well-designed, articulated spar system, you can install the sheeting with simple-to-use, lightweight, non-toxic and strong-bonding transfer tape! You do not need to use a complex and expensive vacuum bag system and mess around with trying to keep down the weight on the epoxy. But best of all, the Windsong Silver is a quality construction kit that can give you a place to expand your already accomplished construction skills while you produce a finished sailplane that will be like no other at the field and one that will bring you the joy of flying the best and most beautiful thermal machine that money can't buy! So, reward yourself with the pride of flying the all-time R/C sailplane classic and earn the added satisfaction of knowing that you built it yourself! The fuselage utilizes the same composite taco shell construction as is used on the Anthem. This fuselage requires less building time than building up an all-wood fuselage and yields one of the strongest, lightest and most elegant-looking fuselages in the industry. In fact, our fin structure is so lightweight that the Windsong is lighter in the tail than most V-tail designs! The open top of the turtle-deck during construction, allows the use of the light-weight, slop-free, and bind-free 1/16" diameter music wire pushrod system of the original Windsong. It is surprising how many "high performance" gliders use compromise cable elevator pushrod systems that yield double centering and sloppy and erratic handling. Not so with the Windsong Silver! Performance: There is nothing else like the Windsong available to the public! It brings back the unmatched performance of the Eppler 214 airfoil! Time has shown that none of the new airfoils can do what the E214 can do when used with the large Windsong planform! Most of the new open class glider designs are tripping over themselves going to ever faster airfoils --leaving you the choice of fast and faster (as in dumb and dumber). On the other hand, the Windsong gives you the best minimum sinking speed, the fastest thermal climb and one of the best maximum L/Ds available. It does it all while still being fun, challenging and relaxing to fly! And yes, the Windsong does have plenty of speed to maximize the long-range thermal search. It also has the best long range visibility allowing it to safely range hundreds of feet further from home than the winged arrow cookie-cutter competition. This much overlooked capability provides you with a devastating secret weapon. Radio Requirements & Specs: Another unique feature of the Windsong is thatit can be used with either a computer radio or a 4 or more channel non-computer radio. The fact that a computer radio is not needed, makes the Windsong Silver a cost effective way to achieve the pinnacle of performance for the cost conscious builder/flyer. Naturally, if you have a computer radio already, the Windsong can take full advantage of it with either a single standard flap servo forward in the fuselage or four micro servos in the wings. A simple radio can be used for now, yet the Windsong Silver can be instantly converted to a computer radio any time in the future and take full advantage of its features.
Wingspan: 132"
Wing Area: 1,075 in2
Aspect Ratio: 17 to 1
Total Flying Weight: 75 oz
Wing Loading: 10 oz/ft2
Wing Construction: pre-cut foam cores with the spar slots pre-cut. The 48" long spar utilizes .021 carbon fiber reinforcing top and bottom for the first 36". The sheeting is 1/16" thick contest-grade balsa
Stab and Rudder Construction: pre-cut foam cores. Sheeting is 1/32" contest grade balsa
Hardware: complete --including the HDL-2 flap linkage and the automatic elevator compensation linkage
Fuselage Construction: Super strong fiberglass (taco shell/wood composite) with a beautifully hand molded canopy.
Radio requirements: Will work well with just a simple 4 channel radio. A computer radio is even better.
Controls: Elevator, flaps, full TE camber change, crow and rudder.
________________________________________________________________________________
While our full kits come with complete wood and hardware and sell for a reasonable price of $250.00, you now also have the even more economical option of buying a semi-kit of either the Windsong Silver or the Anthem. The semi kits contain:
Documentation: complete plan set that is an original computer plot, 20 page bound set of building instructions.
Fuselage: pre-molded fiberglass taco-shell and canopy.
Wings: inner foam wing cores with pre-cut spar slots and foam tip cores, all .021 thick carbon fiber reinforcing strips.
Tail Feathers: foam stab cores with pre-cut slots for spar and alignment pin, foam rudder core
Price: $160.00.
________________________________________________________________________________
A Godly V-gilante
Dear Bob,
Again, thank you and my compliments for the V-gilante design. Mine is flying superbly, so I though some photos might interest you. The young lady is our exchange student from Berlin, Germany, Melanie Wieseler. She is 17 years old, doing her year 12 here in Medicine Hat, and living with us until the end of the school year.
Model - Melanie Wieseler V-gilante Linkage
(The V-gilante I hope to have with me a lot longer than that!) The photo doesn't show it very well, but the striping is shiny chrome. Whole orange is not my favorite color, the combination with the chrome really is quite eye-catching --and Melanie helps, too!
I have had about 15 flights on the "V" which had its maiden launch on Easter Sunday. Of the 15, one was 28 minutes, one was 21 minutes, and one was 18 minutes --and the rest were over 5 minutes (And I am still testing and trimming!)
My "V" has a few slight mods I shall mention: Some Carbon Fiber strands lightly epoxy-resined in the nose section from tip to LE of wing: epoxy was thinned and blotted for lightness. Wing-Tips are more shaped and rounded, adding about 4" to each wing panel yielding a 108" total wing span at trailing edge. Flap-Drive, using Robarts (I think!) ball-link at the servo (the one with the spring-loaded keeper) --makes set-up really easy --plus the Hobby Lobby gizmo for joining/adjusting the three flap rods. I find I don't need CROW at all --it comes down almost vertical on full flaps with no increase in speed --which never ceases to amaze me! As I mentioned on the phone, I built an extra V-tail, from a left-over set of stabs from a Windsong (I think!) --seems to match fairly closely in area and shape (see photo) --but is twice as thick (sheeted foam core) and has a symmetrical airfoil and is slightly heavier. It will be interesting to compare the flying characteristics of both "V's". Setting the incidence of the symmetrical may be trickier than with flat section "V". Hope you like the pictures --I sure like your Sailplane! Sincerely, Barry Godley ________________________________________________________________________________
To(o) Light an Orbiter-2
16 Dec 1996
Dear Bob, I recently completed the "Orbiter" one of the finest kits I've ever had the pleasure to build ! Although my repertoire is not too large! The plans were the best I've seen, producing them on the computer was great! They are accurate and easy to read. I did some hand tossing the other day, (the weather here has not been too cooperative) Dec. is not great for hand launch! She floats and floats!!! Came in at 11.4 oz.! Used FMA receiver, 2 HS80s, and Goldberg UltraCote lite, 110mah pk. (changing to a larger battery soon, it was all I had at the time) 1 piece wing. And this was my first hand launch build. I love it!
Please find attached my recent review of the "Mystery Ship", it will appear in Feb issue of MAN. I have proposed to Gerry Yarrish, that we do the "Orbiter"! I hope he accepts. If so, I'll be in touch as I'll need another kit! Thanks again! P.S. The only problem I had was the quality of the 1/32 contest grade balsa for the leading edge area of the wing. It's of such high quality that it cracks at the lightest touch! I've never seen balsa like it! I might even use a poorer grade next time and sacrifice a few grams, Have I missed a trick? --Bob Amico <CV2@msn.com> Mon, 16 Dec 1996 Bob, Thanks for the great email! It made my day. In striving to get the lightest and best grades of contest balsa that I could, I never thought that I could get it too light. I can see that in handling the wings, they may be a bit vulnerable with the very light balsa. I do not have any tricks. I guess that you just do not pick the plane up by the wings and when you are holding the wings --hold them along the spar-line. Sorry for the problem! That MAN thing sounds exciting! Good luck! Thanks again! --Bob Dodgson ________________________________________________________________________________
Flashback - 1984!
Windsong wins in its first major XC race!
Brain Agnew flew the winning Windsong.
Our Jan. 1985 Model Aviation ad reads: "The first time that a Windsong was flown in a major cross country race, it won --by 6-1/2 miles! There were 11 teams that flew, several Sagitta XCs a Merlin along with several other 14 foot monsters. The Windsong was the only ship that completed the course in the gusting to 20 MPH winds. The homeward leg (into the wind) brought the other teams, that even got as far as the turnaround point, to a standstill. The Windsong flew 3 miles of the homeward leg, in these headwinds, with the chase car holding a constant 65 MPH just to keep up with it! Brian Agnew was the winning pilot. He had tried to get his LSF "V" goal and return flight many times before on the same course with 3 different XC ships. With the Windsong, he did it on his first day out and won the contest to boot! Brian was assisted by a spotter for the plane (Rich Bonnell who built the Windsong and who is standing to Brian's left in the picture) in addition to the driver (Al Bonnell - not pictured). The modest size of the Windsong was no problem with a spotter on board. They said if they could see the stabs, they figured they were too low!"
The next year, Lee Montgomery won the 1985 Florida Cross Country Invitational with his Windsong! Then in 1987, Eric Jackson (the Orbiter designer) won the big NWSS cross county contest flying a Windsong. In fact, the top 3 teams were all flying Windsongs!
--The Cross-Country Invitational in the photo was written-up inSoaring News in March 1985MAN.
________________________________________________________________________________
Orbiter-2 is Always Sloping the Right Way!
21 May 1996
Bob, I saw Art fly his Orbiter II on Friday, 17 May, at Los Banos. There is no question that he was able to go up in lighter lift, stay up longer and fly more gracefully than any other ship on the slope that morning (Things changed a bit in the afternoon, when some of the 4 & 5 meter scale jobbies were winched up). I was particularly impressed when the Orbiter was flying at the same time as a Mosquito (WACO) and definitely doing much better. Some of this, perhaps, was due to the pilot, I'm sure, but in any event, the clear covering and esthetically pleasing wing planform certainly made it look better, in my opinion. --Dave Nasatir - nasatir@garnet.Berkeley.EDU
28 Aug 1996 Bob, I just wanted to let you know how well my Orbiter 2 has been working at my local slope. Although not widely publicized, the O2 is a terrific light lift slope ship. It will fly when no other plane can stay up. In fact is has caused several crashes among heavier planes who seeing a plane flying decided to try to fly in conditions that were too light for them. This is where the O2 really shines with extremely smooth flight and coordinated turns. When the wind comes up a bit the plane really starts to take off. Without much effort loops are accomplished. I have been working on some rolls and split s'. These seem to take a bit of concentration and will power relying on the ability of the Orbiter 2 to fly out of the deep part of the hill. The grace and handling characteristics and appearance have won many praises from fellow fliers. The Orbiter 2 is not just for hand launch anymore. --Steve Schupak <schupaks@mta.net> ________________________________________________________________________________
Diary of a lusty and lamented Obiter-2:
by Tim Purcell - tpurcell@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
Austin, TX
22 May 1996 Bob, I finally got to fly the O-2 yesterday! Work got extremely busy and the wind's been >20 for the last couple of weeks, so yesterday was the first opportunity I had. My brother Mike claimed this plane, but I had to "test" it before handing it over. I flew for only about 15 minutes and managed to thermal it out. This is especially noteworthy considering my extremely limited time on HLGs. I've flown a Skeeter (don't tell anybody), a Climax and a couple of Monarch's, but this is BY FAR the easiest HLG to thermal that I've flown!!! I've also had problems in the past w/ getting a straight launch (i.e. no "baseball" twist), but I was able to consistently get 30' launches. I'm about 1/2 way done w/ mine, and with the 3-day weekend coming up, I should be able to finish real soon. Mike's plane came out @ 12.2 oz. This is using an Airtronics 270mh battery, HS80 servos, and a Hitec 5 channel mini rx (w/ case on!). The plane balanced w/out any ballast fore or aft - another example of your awesome designs! If you can't tell, I love the plane - can't wait to get some long-term flying time on it! There will be some Corndoggers getting shit on in S. Texas this summer!!! Take care and keep up the good work! --Tim Working on a 11.5 oz O-2 3 June 1996 Bob, finished the second O-2 Saturday and got to fly it yesterday. After a couple of trim tosses I let it rip. Beautiful climbout, apply some down to round out the top, apply up as it stalls and heads down, apply more up as it is coming down faster, faster.... "Awe shit!!!" I then proceeded to teach my 8 year old a whole new vocabulary as my plane augured STRAIGHT IN from about 35'. Expecting the worse I ran over and picked up the remains. The only damage - the wing slid forward and ripped out the rear hold-down hole and the cause of the problem, a broken elevator clevis (I hate when that happens). 2 minutes, a dose of CA, and a new clevis later I was back in the air (for an 8 minute flight!). I dare ANYBODY out there to take a Climmax, Monarch, etc and try a stunt like this and still be able to fly within 2 minutes (or even 20 for that matter). Info on plane #2: weight: 12.2 oz (I'm consistent!)
radio gear: 2 HS-80's, 270mah battery, RCD micro 5 channel
covering: Goldberg UltraCote Light (HIGHLY RECOMMENDED)
Mike and I are getting together this coming weekend for the first family HLG contest. He's flown his a couple of times now and has managed to get several flights in the 3-4 minute range, so there's hope for him. Now all I have to do is get started on the "V"... Take care and keep designing GREAT planes!!! --Tim - hunting for Corndoggers in Austin, TX 4 June 1996 Bob, damnit, you've really done it now!! I left work early again today (university life in the summer is great) to go flying. Yesterday had mixed results. For the first 20 minutes I wasted time getting my elevator trim set again. Then suddenly, BOOM - up I went. My next three flights occupied the remaining 20 minutes that I flew. Today I went to our normal club thermal field. There were 5 club members there as well as Jeremy and a couple of his friends. Out of 6 tosses I thermaled out on 4!!! After specking out on each one I'd loop and roll my way down and then hand-catch (had to show off). The whole time I flew I kept hearing comments in the background, "God, I've never seen another Corndogger fly like that." or "I thought a Monarch had a "V" tail. That's the only plane I've heard of that'd fly like that." etc., etc. I made sure they all knew that it was an Orbiter-II that they were watching. Now for my bitchin - 1. I bought an O-2 to learn the fine art of low-level thermaling. I DON'T EVEN HAVE TO WORK AT THIS! 2. I'm getting more exercise sending this message than I did throwing the plane today. 3. I'm beginning to believe I will enter the realm of the "Thermal Gods". 4. Jeremy wants me to build him one. On the other hand - 1. I look like I know what I'm doing (what an illusion!) 2. I come home happy every time 3. I can kick the shit out of any Corndogger that shows up and last, but certainly not least: CHICKS DIG IT!!! SEE YA, --Tim - Hoping my batteries finish chargin' before sunset! 9 June 1996 Bob, here's the original posts to the thread on the O-2 on RCSE. I didn't include them in the msg back to Waid that I also sent to you. --Tim Sat, 8 June 1996 In a message to [RCSE] dated 96-06-05, Tim Purcell writes: If anybody's looking to get into HLG, or if anybody experienced with HLG'ers is looking for a GREAT flying HLG, this is it! I've tried several other planes that friends own w/ very little success. Kit is $75 plus $7 shipping. Bob Dodgson can be contacted at dodgsonb@eskimo.com if you're interested.
Tim, I'm surprised that you would go so far out on a such a weak limb by recommending a Dodgson kit. We all know that Dodgson kits require skill, perseverance, and time to build. In this age of ARFs and instant gratification no one wants to actually have to BUILD a glider. Why, it might take some effort, and maybe even a little craftsmanship. Astonishingly, it would even require more than two evenings of time! Most of the younger generation of RC pilots thinks that assembling an ARF is what "building a model" is all about. Too bad. They really don't know what they're missing.
Seriously, though... Steve Cameron scratch built four Orbiter-2s (2 with RG-15, 2 with S4061) this past Winter. By carefully selecting the lightest contest balsa, Steve pared the weight down to just a little over 9 ounces per glider with 3 HS-60s. These things climb in our weak Northwest thermals like nothing else. It's going to be real interesting to see how well Steve does at the IHLG Festival. Watch out boys. --Waid Reynolds - Seattle, Washington, USA (Dodgson Country, in case you were wondering) 9 June 1996 Waid, as you pointed out, it's too bad more people don't fly Bob's kits. As you probably remember, my first glider was my Windsong. Still upsets me remembering the Mount Vernon contest that I folded it at :( It's always been one of the highlights of my life to see a box of balsa take shape and then fly so well. I've never had an ARF, and don't know if I ever will. As long as Bob keeps making contest-capable ships, I'll keep flying them. I built 2 Orbiters last month (1 for my brother and 1 for me). Both flew off the bench w/ only a couple of clicks of elevator trim. My brother has VERY LITTLE (i.e. < 10hrs) of glider time and thermaled it out several times this morning, the first day that he's really been able donate more than a few minutes of flying time with it. You talk about stoked! If his arm hadn't gotten tired he'd still be there! I was also able to repeatedly sky mine out, and I have minimal time w/ HLGs. I can't imagine what Steve can do w/ a 9 oz plane... Wurts and the boys better have their game on target if they plan on seeing any hardware! Gotta go - my V-gilante is in the box screaming to be BUILT (not assembled). --Tim enjoying hand-crafted sailplanes in Austin, TX 2 Sep 1996 Hey Bob! Thought I'd drop you a line since I hadn't talked to ya in a while. I just got back from 6 weeks of work in San Diego. Had a really good time flying the O-2 at the IHLG site in Poway. The wind took some getting used to, but once I figured it out I had a blast. I also sloped the O-2 at Torrey Pines on the lighter days. Today Mike and I took the O-2's out here at the home field. Within an hour I had a flight of 27 minutes and another one of 13 minutes. Mike also got a 13 minute one during the hour. There was a guy there who's been flying a Corndogger for a year or so and is now building an O-2 (sorry can't remember his name). He'd seen ours fly earlier in the year and was convinced it was the way to go. He launched his open class ship a few minutes after I tossed up and ended up landing SEVERAL minutes before I did. I ended up having to leave a thermal when the stabs disappeared!! I also accomplished something today that I'd NEVER seen happen. A couple of buzzards were thermaling just to the north of me when I hit a decent thermal. One of the buzzards came over and joined me, although about 50-75' above me. Within a minute I'd passed him up and was about 50' above him!!! Thank God I had witnesses to this one - nobody'd believe that... I've finally found time to work on the V. I've got the spars in and should be able to sheet the wings tomorrow night. I'd planned on working on it this weekend, but the brothers and I ended up flying all day every day. Sometimes you just have to have your priorities straight.... Hope you're doing well. --Tim 2 Oct 1996 Bob, this weekend produced a shitty day beyond all imagination - my O2 bought the farm at the hands of an incredible dumbass --ME... Mike and I had been in Midland, TX visiting the parents and attending the Confederate Air Force's annual airshow (w/ the Blue Angels this year). On the way home from the airshow we noticed HUMUNGOUS dust devils sprouting up everywhere, so hurried home to do some HLG'ing and impress the parents. I plugged in a fresh battery, checked that everything worked, put the wing on (tightening the front bolt down), then adjusted the ailerons, giving the sticks a "final" stir. I then tightened down the rear holddown bolt and proceeded to chuck the plane up for what I just knew was going to be a speck-out flight. At the top of the launch it nosed over, and despite me about bending the elevator stick around the back of the TX, it came straight down in a most impressive lawn dart emulation. The fuse survived, but the wing snapped in half just outside the right side sheeting, destroying both upper and lower spars. Post crash analysis (after a long series of "Shits, GDs, and MFs) showed that when I'd tightened the rear holddown I'd jammed the elevator pushrod. Told you I qualified for the dumbass of the month award. If you sell a replacement wing kit, please let me know. If not, I guess I'll have to get another one soon. I've had more fun w/ that plane than any other I've ever owned. The "V" is coming along slowly. The Navy has kept me on the road most of the summer and a few weeks this fall. I've got both wings sheeted and will be finishing them up hopefully next week, then on to the fuse. If all goes well I'll be able to get it done in time to do some thermaling this fall before the wind starts blowing. If not I'll just have to go slope it!! Hope you're doing well. I've had a couple of guys e-mail wanting info on the "V" and the O-2. I was totally honest with them: "Buy the damned kit --if you don't mind actually building a plane that will be the best aircraft in its class... " Take care, --Tim 06 Jan 1997 Bob, . . . My brother Mike has been flying his Orbiter and his Pivot quite a bit lately. He's getting pretty good at the thermal thing and if I don't get back into flying REAL soon he might actually beat me a few times this year! He's really been impressed w/ the way the Pivot thermals - he didn't think a wingeron would do that well. I keep telling him that I don't know of anything that you've designed that doesn't fly well. If you ever do, don't tell me - you'd blow my image of ya!! Take care and thanks again for the help --Tim ________________________________________________________________________________
Flashback - 1974!
Multichannel Todies and Maestros at a 1974 NWSS contest.
These Multichannel Todies and Maestros were flown at one 1974 Northwest Soaring Society Contest!
It would be 15 years or more before some areas of the country would recognize the advantages of multichannel gliders and give up the old polyhedral gas-bag dream.
________________________________________________________________________________
Lovesong Lauding:
Rafael Roure <rafr@ix.netcom.com>
19 Jan 1997
Bob, I purchased and built a Lovesong from you in the late 80's. I have had an eight year hiatus from flying. I built the plane exactly to your directions including the mechanical mixing and modifying a four channel radio. When I put the plane away it was flying great! The problem is that the radio was a wide band. The plane is still in great shape and am going to start flying it again. Since I have to replace the radio I wanted to get a computer radio Such as a Futaba 8UAF or a Stylus. My question is can I program these radios to do the crow configuration and to reflex the TE without having to modify anything in the plane or in the new radio. I am also going to forward a message about what they say about your designs in the RCSE. Thank you for your help. I am planing to purchase a Saber as soon as I get my "wings" back. Also any advice on the radios would be greatly appreciated. Raf Gordy Stahl's reply to Rafael's internet quest:
Your question about ease of programming is a non question. Until you spend a day setting up a ship they are all Greek. Easier is a silly concern. If one takes one minute more to set up who cares. No one produces a non user friendly TX, bad marketing.
The F and JR are awesome the Stylus is loaded and expensive. Value is getting a little more than you pay for........but don't pay for more than you will use. Which planes are you going to fly? The Windsong, or Sabre are still the winningest aircraft around and you can put the servos in the wing. It won't make any difference in flying but it will be more expensive. Don't think that just cuz the crowd isn't flying Dodgson that they still aren't superior aircraft. Post me back on your aircraft plans. Do you subscribe to RC Soaring Digest? --Gordy - GordySoars@aol.com 21 Jan 1997 Dear Rafael, I am sure that most computer radios can be set to fly the Mechanical Lovesong without changing anything in the plane. They should all have switches that you can set-up for two function presets. I know that my Vision has. Of course, you could stick two aileron servos in tandem, get rid of the aileron trim servo and add a small rudder servo sideways just behind the 4 servos --giving 5 servos forward in the fuse. This will allow you to use the full function of your computer radio. Many people have done this to their Windsongs and Lovesongs after getting a computer radio. By keeping the servos forward in the fuselage, you are saving many oz., like 6 or 8, over Lovesong with 4 servos in the wings! Anyway, the mechanical system works great and so will the 5 servo system I described. So, you have two good options. BTW, I am just now releasing the Windsong Silver Edition that uses the Anthem spar system, the E214 airfoil and it can be flown with either a computer radio or a conventional radio. It has the aileron servos in the wings and a single flap servo in the fuselage. You cannot get Crow with a simple radio but you can still get great performance. And if you ever get a computer radio, you will have instant Crow and full TE reflex. It does have mechanical flap-aileron compensation. I have had many requests for a builder version of the Windsong/Lovesong with the E214 that could use either type radio. It offers a place for builders to go after they have built a Spirit and want a high-performance ship that does not require a computer radio and expensive servos. It also offers a ship to those of us who love the grace and majesty of soaring, yet want more versatile performance than we can get from a scale ship. I am discontinuing the pre-sheeted Windsong Classic. There are already plenty of pre-sheeted kits on the market. I want my kits to offer something for the soaring craftsmen --the elite minority. I will leave the wam-bam-thank-you-mam soaring to others. Enough of the B.S. Thanks for forwarding on to me Gordy's kind words. I appreciate it. Good luck with your radio choice. I know the Lovesong will work well with any of them. --Bob Dodgson. ________________________________________________________________________________
Flashback - 1989!
Dave Banks and his Windsong.
At the 1989 Nationals, Dave Banks won the Hi-Johnson award for having the highest score in any class! He did this with his little 2-meter Pixy (this was the second time the Pixy had won the Nats)! He was only 1 point off a perfect score for the entire contest! Dave also placed 3rd with his Lovesong in open class --with just 4 points off perfect!. Before and after this, Dave has won the NWSS Season Championship several times, flying a Maestro, Windsongs, Lovesong and Saber along with providing many great soaring moments. He was one of the very best flyers in the country when he was actively flying!
In the 1970s, Dave Banks could even regularly thermal out his Maestro as well as later his Windsong and Saber from a handlaunch!
________________________________________________________________________________
Orbiter Ovations:
Spring In New Zealand!
By Peter Williams - peterw@mail.earthlight.co.nz
with Bob Dodgson
17 Aug 1996 Dear Bob, As promised here is the news of your Orbiter 2 kit as completed in the last few days. It came out at 11.2 ozs with a 180mah pack MicaFilm wing covering and dope and tissue for the tail feathers. The MicaFilm was a heavy covering but that is what everyone told me to use so it's too late now. Wing weighed about 92 gms (3.22 ozs) before covering and about 135 gms (4.7 ozs) minus pushrods wing bolts etc. I did put a couple of springs on the aileron cables as they exit the wings (at the aileron ends) to reduce the slop and ensure a good center for the ailerons. The springs are flat imagine a nappy pin ( I know you have children so will be brief so as not to awaken old nightmares about early morning feeds and nappy changes) style spring but from thinner wire, this works well. How does it fly? Well this is my first aileron model and so I don't have a very broad base for comparison but it launches as high as my Illusion and Skeeter if not higher and glides a little better than the Illusion (and a lot better than the Skeeter) seems to have plenty of penetration despite a thicker wing than the 7084 equipped Illusion and it's best handling trait seems to be the very soft and easy to read stall. It is so nice to have a model that goes positively where it's pointed rather than being blown around. I've already moved the CG around a little (mainly by swapping battery packs) with no really dramatic effects but more flying will enable me to be a better judge of the effects. I did increase the rudder throw after several flying sessions with the stock throw, mainly to try and stop the model tightening up in the turns, i.e. the model needs opposite aileron to stop the turn becoming a tight spiral, is this normal?? is there a fix?? I am really enjoying flying it so far but will need some serious stick time (on the radio) to really be able to use it but we are now coming into our summer so things can only get better. --Peter Williams - Dunedin, New Zealand 27 Aug 1996 Dear Bob, sorry for not replying sooner but here goes. I made two springs from very light piano wire, these have straight arms and a loop in the middle much like a nappy pin (safety pin) as you suggest. The straight arms both have small loops in their ends. The small loops in the ends are at 90 degrees to the "main " spring loop. The whole thing is about 3/4" long. One end is soldered to the aileron pushrod about a quarter of an inch from where it exits the sleeve and the other end is hooked under the pushrod sleeve where it exits the wing and glued there. The spring lies flat and pushes the aileron upwards. If both ailerons are pushed upwards then the net increase on the servo load is very small as the two springs "fight" each other. Anyway if you can make sense of this then good luck. Feel free to use this any way you can. --Peter Williams P.S. I did attempt a sort of ASCII drawing what a mess!! so it is not included here in the interests of sanity. Also a thought just hit me. If you send an air ticket I'll come and show you :) ( I can pay the cab fare from the airport though!!!) Anyway nice dealing with you Bob. --Peter Williams 27 Aug 1996 Peter, thanks for the verbal description of the "snappy pin" arrangement on the Orbiter-2 aileron installation. I am able to understand your installation now. I can see where it would keep the slop out of the cables. Fortunately, it is not necessary to fly you over to show me the scheme in person --since I now understand it! Tough luck! The spring tension is an interesting idea! I may print your idea in Second Wind. Thanks again. --Bob Dodgson
The Low Cost of Shipping Orbiters to Foreign Countries!
We have shipped Orbiters to many far-off countries, including Australia, New Zealand, Japan and Holland. In general, the cost for airmail shipping and insurance is about $35.00 per kit.
We are also able to combine the contents of up to 3 Orbiter kits in one box and ship the 3 kits in one box for about $45.00. When we do this, we try to keep each kit in its own layer with paper between layers so the kit parts packages do not get mixed up. However, with only about 5 parts packages per kit this is really no problem and sure saves money on shipping!
Which Orbiter --The 1 or 2-Piece Wing?
The basic Orbiter-2 kit and plans are the same for both the one-piece and two-piece wing. The two-piece wing version includes an extra parts package. However, you have to decide which version you are going to build before building the wing. The wing-root area is modified to accommodate the wing-rod receiver tube in the two-piece wing version.
The two-piece wing version adds a tiny amount of weight --less than 1/2 oz. The weight gain is so minimal because we use hollow carbon fiber wing receiver tubes (from an unused portion of the tail-boom) and a hollow carbon fiber wingrod.
As a total cop-out, if you can't make up your mind which version to get before ordering, you can order the two-piece wing version and then decide which version you want to build after looking over the kit and plans.
Orbiter Wing Kits? Yeah --Right!
28 Oct 1996
Hi Bob, do you sell the Orbiter 2 wing kit separately? If so, how much is it, and what is the shipping? I've been flying the Orbiter 2 for the last season, and its getting a bit tatty. Two mid-airs last Saturday didn't help. The second one was when another HLG was being launched directly into the good wing.
Thanks for kitting such a delightful plane. Look forward to building another. Regards. --Fritz Bien <fritz@spectral.com> This is one of many inquiries that I have received asking about replacement wing kits for the Orbiter-2. Nice try, guys! But, with the low cost of the Orbiter-2 kit of $75.00, I really can't afford to dink around with wing kits. Besides, the plans show full sized templates of all the ribs and everything that you need to scatch-build a wing --for those who won't fork over the measly $75.00, from your lofty incomes, to receive a quality, handmade replacement Orbiter-2 kit. ________________________________________________________________________________
Flashback - 1994!
Dave Johnson and his Maestro.
Dave Johnson won the 1994 Northwest Season Championship for the 7th time! This time he was flying his new Saber and his 7 year-old Windsong.
The 2nd and 3rd place finishers were flying a Lovesong and an Anthem. Dave won the championship the first time back in 1978 with a Maestro Mk lll and he even won it at least once flying a 2-meter modified K-minnow. Dave also has many national trophies to his name including a 3rd place at the 2-meter World Cup with his K-minnow.
________________________________________________________________________________
V-gilante Virtuosity:
17 Jun 1996
Hi Bob, well, I finally got that V-gilante done, and she's a real beauty! She came out 41.8 oz and with a 900 Mah pack required no additional nose weight. The Test flight was done in the late evening with zero wind, but lots of Skeeters (the biting kind). The hand launch was right on, she just lifted out of hand as I ran and the glided for 70-80 feet! The initial launches were off of a 2m high-start but I managed to only stall her on launch once. Boy what a difference from my gas bags, but that's to be expected.
As far as flying goes, she seems similar in turning characteristics to the Orbiter II. She tends to tighten up a bit in the turns. Is this a flat wing tendency or maybe I have too much Differential on the ailerons. I also did some coordinated turns and the results were pretty much the same. Do you set up for Butterfly (Crow) on the landings, or just the 90 deg flaps? I was just using the flaps, and with zero headwind, I needed very little elevator correction for a dead on landing. Now some kit questions, is it possible to get, a tow hook/threaded-brass wing hold-down piece, or should I just try to make my own, I ended up mangling mine a bit while getting it to fit correctly, but it still works. Also, where did you get the threaded 1/32 brass solder on connectors that came with the Orbiter, or those little tiny nylon control horns? I just want to thank you for producing a delightful flier that I'm sure I will enjoy greatly this summer. See you in the winners circle. Thermals, --RED (Adam R Weston) <aweston@ecn.purdue.edu>
Well Red
17 June 1996
Red, great to hear that the V-gilante is off and flying and right in there weight-wise! As far as the V steepening on turns, this is typical of my designs. They are set so that you do not have to hold in any turn control once the turn is set-up. So, most of the time during the turn, the turn controls are in neutral for optimum efficiency. Periodically, during the turn, it is normal to have to momentarily blip in opposite turn to keep the plane from steepening. The great thing is that most of the time there is no turn control deflection in the turn. You will soon get used to it.
This is not a sign of too much differential on your ailerons. I just use flaps for landing. Crow is not needed at all on the V. You can make your own V support post if you like. We sell them for $10.00 each plus shipping. I get the threaded inserts at Ernst. The 1/32" threaded inserts that came with the Orbiter are made by Sullivan and they normally come with the small cable goldenrod pushrod. I love them! I wish they were easier to find! The tiny nylon horns come as part of a 1/2A control-line crank assembly sold by Carl Goldberg. Thanks for the email! --Bob D
A Wee bit slow!
By Jim Deck DECK@INLAND.COM
With Bob Dodgson
26 Aug 1996 Bob, although it's been a year, other activities have kept me from starting my Wee-gilante. I will begin soon and have convinced myself that while I'm at it, I should make a larger set of wings as well. As I now have a complete Wee-gilante kit, what exactly do I need to order to make this possible. I am assuming that I can use the scheme of the flap servo in the fuselage with both wings therefore allowing me to use my four micro servos for the ailerons in both the 2 meter and 100" wings. Best regards, --Jim Deck 26 Aug 1996 Jim, and I thought that you had probably been flying your Wee-gilante all summer, already! A complete V-gilante wing kit ($105.00 plus shipping) will give you everything you need to build the 100" wings and use them on your fuselage. It even includes the larger wing-rod and of course plans etc. Yes, the V-gilante wings use the same control set-up as the Wee and so you will only need the two micro servos in each set of wings for ailerons. In order to get the flaps adjusted perfectly for each wing set, some people make a separate flap "Y" linkage for each wing set. This is easy to change when changing wings so it is no big deal if you need to do this. --Bob Dodgson 26 Aug 1996 Bob, thanks for the prompt response, you'll see an order for the 100" wing soon. BTW, I started flying at another field some distance from my home (It's a sod farm and worth the drive) and encountered another flier flying Dodgson products. He claims to have visited you. Sorry but all I have is his nickname, Tiz. He's an older gentleman (even older than I am) who is a retired charter pilot. He's strongly encouraging me to get on with building the Wee-gilante. --Jim Deck 04 Sep 1996 Jim, thanks for the order. I plan on shipping it out tomorrow. In answer to your questions: 1) I have never used CF to reinforce the TE. However, if you use it , I would apply it at the same time you apply the sheeting so you can use the same epoxy to saturate it that you use for the sheeting. I think you could keep it lighter that way. I would guess that you would not want to use a piece wider than 1/2". 2) Yes, the cloth for servo well reinforcing can be applied under the sheeting during the sheeting process with no problems. 3) You can manually get the trims and adjustments the same on the Wee and V so that you could use the same program for both. This, of course, is more tedious than having a separate program for each. 4) The Sprite tail feathers would work fine if you build larger stabs that would work for both the V and the Wee. However, the tail will be a bit heavier than it is with the V configuration. Thanks again for the order. I hope that you do get the Wee flying for next year's contest season. I know that you will find it an outstanding performer! --Bob Dodgson
Shocking double standard!
18 Jan 97
Mr. Dodgson, I am mostly an electric sailplane flyer. I was looking at getting into sailplanes with the Idea of having two fuselages, one electric and one pure sailplane. I am considering making an electric version of your V-gilante. I have been looking for a 100" electric sailplane with a complete set of control surfaces. With the V-gilante's generous wing area and light weight It seems like a good candidate. I figure another 15 to 17 ounces for the power pack. That would bring the wing loading up to a little over 11 ounces, very respectable for an 100" electric sailplane. One of my concerns is the area within the fuselage. I haven't seen a V-gilante, do you think there would be enough room to even consider such a project? [My answer is yes.] Maybe I should order a set of you plans.
Thank you for any information you can give me. Sincerely, --Charles French C.French5@Genie.Geis.com
What To Do --For Incidence?
26 Aug 1996
Bob, before actually starting construction [on the V-gilante], I have read through the instructions and studied the plans. I have a question about the V-tail incidence. I read the instructions and understood them. Then I laid the fuselage over the plans and found an anomaly. When I line up the nose and wing saddle over the plans, the tail boom is about 1 inch above the outline on the plans. My question is, will this affect the incidence if I build according to the instructions? Will I have to make an allowance when setting the tail incidence?
--Ctlamnek@aol.com 27 Aug 1996 Hi, the anomaly you found between the V-gilante fuse and the plans is typical of the our MonoSeam production fuselages. The means of setting the stab incidence, as described in the building instructions, is taken from production fuselages and so is not affected by the discrepancy between the actual tailboom height and the drawings. So, you should have no problem. --Bob Dodgson ________________________________________________________________________________
Flashback 1978!
Havard Stensby and his Maestro. A Todi is on the right. Havard Stensby won the Norwegian Championships flying his Maestro. The other leading pilot, pictured on the right, is flying the Todi.
Interestingly, Rafin Thorarensen won the Icelandic Nationals three times in a row with his multichannel Todi between 1977 and 1980. In the 1970s, Todies and Maestros were the rage in Europe and Australia, etc. About half of our kits were shipped overseas. One Todi order alone, to England, was for 40 kits. When the Camano and Windsong came along, with the one-piece fuselage and foam wings, the boxes were too large to be inexpensively shipped internationally via the Post Office. So, our international sales dropped way off.
________________________________________________________________________________
Nostalgia Class:
Maestro mayhem:
Gordy Stahl - GordySoars@aol.com
12 Jan 1997
Hi Bob, I have just been through your Web site and read just about everything. I spoke with you on the phone a week or so ago and talked about the Maestro Megan I got. The original owner was Ray Dills here in Louisville. I found the plan and found I had the CG way too far forward on my test flight. I can't wait for the weather to get better. I want to kick some bent wing butt in the classic class. I can already here the little piggys squealing that I have an unfair advantage due to the flaps and ailerons. Can you tell me the approximate date the kit was released? I am thankful to have had your time you are truly one of the great pioneers of our hobby. --Gordy 12 Jan 1997 Gordy, thanks for the email. I looked through my old ads and discovered this sequence for the Maestro line introductions: Maestro Mark III - 1974 - 1982 (132") was the most popular Maestro. It had an original airfoil that I designed to be thin but have considerable thickness near the TE to give maximum rigidity to the flapperons. It required 3 or 4 channels and had flapperons and spoilers. I sold hundreds of these. It originally weighed 48 oz. and had a 7 oz/ft2 wing loading. It had 990 sq. in. of wing area. Later, beefed up ones weighed 54 oz.
Maestro Mark I - 1974 (132") was for 2 or 3 channel radios. It had optional spoilers and no flapperons. I may have sold one of these.
Maestro Mark II - 1974 (132") was for 3 channels. It had spoilers and flaps but no aileron function. I sold a few of these.
Maestro Caliente - 1976 (100" standard class version but with the basic wing planform later used on the Megan.) It had the control system used on the Mark III.
Maestro Talisman - 1977 (132" like the Mark III but with the Eppler 193 airfoil used on the Megan.)
Maestro Megan - 1978 - 1982 (128" and 140" span options) The kit sold for $129.95. The basic wing was 128" and the tips were plug-in extensions. The advertised flying weight was 68oz.
Let me know how she flies for you with the proper C.G. I think that you will have the ship to beat in nostalgia! --Bob D
Proof of Separate Flaps/Ailerons on Maestros before 1980
To document that the Maestro's were flying with separate flaps and ailerons and servos in the wings, prior to 1980, I supply the following quote from our 1979 catalog: "As always, 1979 was a banner year for Dwight Holly flying his modified Megan to contest win after win. Dwight employed electronic mixing of his flaperons this year rather than the standard Mechanical mixing. Meyer Gutman also has done very well with his Megan on the East Coast circuit. It is understood that Meyer is flying his Megan with separate flaps and ailerons, a concept that is also becoming very popular on the West Coast thanks to Dave Johnson and Tom Neilson. [Both were flying Maestros]"
Todi titillation:
Don Edberg - edberg@netsun.mdc.com
20 Jan 1997
Hello, Bob! I am writing to ask a favor of you. I recently picked up a used Todi which came with two sets of wings, but no wing joiner(s). I was wondering if you might have a spare set around, and if you do whether you'd consider parting with them. If you do not, would you be so kind as to provide me with their dimensions so that I can make a set for myself? thanks in advance, --don edberg 21 Jan 1997 [Bob,] I was really looking for a Maestro, but they seem pretty rare too. This Todi came with both wing sets and a Kraft receiver and four servos, all for $90. seemed like a good deal...except for the missing joiners. [You are] correct, the holes are rectangular. Do you have a recommended dihedral angle? OK, so you're saying that each wing had two "stub" joiners that met near the fuse center, I think. something like: -------------- ----------------
----------------- -------------
Is there any reason not to make a one-piece joiner that spans both wings and is not broken at the center? [Regarding the old 6 volt winches] Yes, but those 6V winches had lots of torque, as I recall. 32 oz, that's impressively light. I haven't weighed the one I have now. I remember one very well at one of the Soar Nats I attended. I always was impressed by the model's appearance and its performance. Now, I finally get my wish to own one! Plus, I can't wait to stroll up to a nostalgia event with a modern-looking model! I most certainly will [let you know how it goes.] I am looking forward to it. --don 21 Jan 1997 Don, you sure did get a great price on it! I cannot lay my hands a set of Todi plans right now. My filing system for the pre-computer plans is not that great. But, it seems to me that the Todi had 3 to 4 degrees of dihedral per panel. If I find the plans, I will let you know what it really was. The TODI had only one wing tongue set that was used for both sets of wings but the tongue was in 4 pieces. It was like you had a tongue made of two pieces of aluminum (with the dihedral bends) stacked together side-by-side to form one tongue and then they were cut in half at the center of the fuselage. However, each of the two blades was cut a little off center and the blades were reversed so the offset was off-center to the left for front blade and off-center to the right for the back blade. And when the tongue was taken out of the fuselage, it was in 4 blades. Sometimes, it is hard to explain simple concepts verbally in a clear manner. Sorry. But, it looks like you had it right in the drawing except that the blades were not attached to the wings. They slid in and out of the wings and fuse. The only reason I split them in the fuse was so that I could slide them in and out of the fuse box with the dihedral bends in them --otherwise, you have to have a tongue that is a bit lower than the box so you can slide it in and out. This works fine if you then shim the box to take out the slop. In fact, if I recall, I did make some slightly undersized double tongues that I did not break in the center. To take up the slop, I had a bit less dihedral on one leg than on the other and had them reversed --so that I had to spring then together to slide each wing on. It made a good friction fit and worked fine. Good luck. I hope that you really enjoy flying it. Regards, --Bob Dodgson 07 Aug 1996 Bob, I still have a "Todi" which I built in about 1973 and recently brought it out of retirement with a different radio system. Though I still have some of the original plans, I was unable to make certain my CG is still in the correct location (probably not!). Could you provide the location of the proper CG in relation to some fixed location such as the wing connectors, wing pins or other? Would greatly appreciate. By the way the Todi was perhaps the best flying and most versatile sailplane I have ever owned, even after 23 years. Thanks again. --Ron Quintana <rwq@deltanet.com> ________________________________________________________________________________
Web Site Soliloquies:
Tue, 25 Jun 1996
Bob, I like your page a lot. Lots of content and light on the photos. I will add a link to yours from mine today.
I'm just getting serious into sailplanes/gliders. I fly with Grand Valley Radio Control in Muskegon MI. You may know Jim Bensen. He seems to be a big fan of your designs and is also in our club. I may have to get one of those Orbiter 2's real soon. Thanks for a good page with some substance. --Jim Martin http://members.gnn.com/jimmartin/hobbie.htm 13 Oct 1996 Bob, great web page-I like the humor so generously sprinkled throughout. Your self-aggrandizing comments are perfect. I, too, am tired of all the so called experts and their slavish following of European trends. If the 'Songs aren't the prettiest things in the air, I'll be darned --and as we all know, if it looks right, it flies right! I'm not much of a sailplane flier, although I am fascinated by the skill involved. Flew an Oly II for a year or two, but never could get the hang of tight thermal circling. And landing the beast was a chore--no spoilers, so I needed 40 acres to get the bloody thing down on the ground. Haven't flown in about four years, but am aching to get back into the swing of things --will no doubt be contacting you later for one of your kits. Is it possible to pick up the kit locally, and save postage? I live in Everett. Keep up the great job, telling it like it is, and keep the humor in your newsletter --political correctness is a drag. --John ________________________________________________________________________________
Flashback 1995!
Steve Cameron launching his Orbiter-2
Steve Cameron won the handlaunch event at the 1995 US Nationals, flying his Orbiter-2!
That same year, Jon Weyl achieved the highest Season Points Championship Score for the Florida SS flying his Windsong Classic. And, Carl Bice finished 2nd in Expert class with his Windsong Classic.
________________________________________________________________________________
In Search of That Son of Obechi!
By Lorenzo D'Ambrosi <edi@iafrica.com>
with Bob Dodgson
video tape kick start! 01 Sep 1996 Hi Bob, I just finished watching the "Old Vintage Video Tape". I can't tell you how much I've learnt from this tape. To say the least a picture (video) is worth a thousand words. F3B is big in S.A. and this video has really helped me see more into the world of where I want to be, the thermaling world. The few thermal clubs that are around in the Cape area mostly fly conventional polyhedral floaters. I hope this tape results in more Dodgson Designs being purchased / built down here in S.A. once people see what your kits are all about. Bob if you have a few minutes here are a few questions I'd like to ask : Is it possible for me to get hold of a copy of the video of Dave Banks building a Windsong ? Often here and there I hear you mention the taco-shell and mono-seam fuse, these fuses obviously have some good characteristics due to their construction methods. Bob, how exactly are these fuses different from conventional ones ? I'm in the process of building a V-gilante. Assuming I have no problems properly applying & getting hold of, the following materials, would you advise that I sheet the wings with obechi or balsa, and adhere the sheeting with epoxy or double sided adhesive tape ? Hope to hear from you soon. Kind Regards, --Lorenzo D'Ambrosi <edi@iafrica.com> 02 Sep 1996 Lorenzo, thanks for your email. We did not end up making a single building tape --but two tapes. What we have is Dave Banks and a wing-building tape and then a separate taco-shell fuselage-building tape with Dave Banks and Jake Watkins --both made in about 1987. We can still supply these two tapes for $15 each plus shipping.
The advantages of the taco-shell fuselage are:
1) that it allows you to have the tail-boom open while you install the pushrods and linkages. 2) It combines the fiberglass shell with wood reinforcing to provide a composite fuselage that is more temperature stable than is an all fiberglass fuse. 3) The taco-shell fuse also has an excellent strength to weight ratio. 4) The taco-shell fuse is less expensive to manufacture and so you can get a great kit for less money since it can be laid up in one piece and requires no seaming. Yet it still offers a very curvaceous, molded fuselage that is much easier to build than an all wood fuselage. The MonoSeam fuselage with the nose job offers a completely pre-formed fuselage that is light and strong and is less expensive to fabricate than a conventional fiberglass fuse --especially without the nose job. It can be laid up in one piece like the taco-shell can and then the turtle deck sides are pulled together and seamed along the top. I would use .040" [I was wrong --I should have said 1/40"] thick obechi to cover the V-gilante wings because to get the same strength from balsa would require 1/16" thick balsa. The 1/16" balsa would be fine if you cut the foam cores for the thicker sheeting, however.
Either transfer tape or epoxy can work well to apply the sheeting. The transfer tape is not double-sided tape. It is an adhesive film on a waxed paper carrier. The disadvantage of epoxy is that it is trickier to get it as lightweight as the tape without getting it so thin that you could have delamination and structural problems. Transfer tape is easy to
apply and it always comes out lightweight and strong. And, you do not need to mess around with vacuum bagging! The TE is not as stiff, though, as it is with epoxy. However, this is not a serious problem on wings the size of the V-gilante. Besides, you can always use a 1/2" line of epoxy right at the TE. --Bob Dodgson 03 Sep 1996 Thanks for the info. Bob. I appreciate you helping me out. I am placing an order for the wing-building and fuselage-building video tapes. I was speaking to one of the local veneer manufacturers asking them if anyone could supply 0.04" obechi sheeting in S.A. They said no one they know of does obechi sheeting, but offered Anegrey or Cyprus sheeting as alternatives. Have you any ideas on these two alternatives ? If not, I'll have to import obechi sheeting which could land up costing a small fortune. Any info. / suggestions that you might have will be appreciated. Kind Regards, --L. D'Ambrosi 03 Sep 1996 Lorenzo, thanks for the construction video tapes order. I do not know anything about Anegrey or Cyprus veneer. I know that most veneers that people here have tried are heavier than obechi. I guess that if you cannot find obechi, I would use 1/16" balsa and just cut the foam cores a bit thinner to accommodate the thicker sheeting. The funny thing about obechi is that I understand it comes from Africa and is big in England where most of it goes for furniture. It would be funny if you had to import it back to Africa. I wonder if it is called something else in Africa? I will enclose a piece of it with the video tapes so you can compare it to other veneers. Good Luck, --Bob Dodgson 04 Sep 1996 Hi Bob, I'm posting this for a friend of mine who doesn't have E-Mail. Can you let me know the dimensions of the CF boom used in the Orbiter-2. It seems the outer diameter is 0.278" according to the parts list however what is the approx. wall thickness or inner dia. ? Thanks, --L.D. 03 Sep 1996 Lorenzo, whoops, I goofed! I forgot to put the obechi sample in your video tape order --which I shipped out today. Air shipping was $10.00. The carbon fiber Orbiter-2 tailboom is a very expensive professional quality kite spar. The outside diameter is .278 inch. I do not know the wall thickness but it appears to be about 1/40th of an inch. The quality of the boom makes it the stiffest that I have seen for the weight. A 32" length of boom weighs about 14 grams and is very stiff. It is lighter and stiffer than lower-grade kite spars. --Bob Dodgson 04 Sep 1996 Bob, I appreciate you including a sample. At least I get to see the real thing. You're right about obechi coming from Africa. The problem down here is that we've pretty much got everything i.t.o. diamonds, gold, wood ... ie. raw materials. All that these guys do is ship it out to be processed into the finished form and then they but it back at 10x the price. Yip, a bit crazy if you ask me. I'll do some research in the university library and see how exactly Anegrey, Cyprus ... compares to the strength / mass ratio of obechi, maybe I'll come out right. Regards, --Lorenzo 05 Sept 1996 Hi Bob, just thought I'd drop you a line since I've had a bit of luck with my sheeting dilemma. I've included some of the responses that I got. I think I'm going to chance it and go with the Anegrey. Let me know if you think that's a bad choice. I haven't got any firm prices yet, but the stuff appears to be very cheap from the local manufactures. Imagine if people in the US imported it, it would probably cost very little due to the strong Dollar vs. the weak Rand exchange rate. Please let me know if you have any comments. Regards, --Lorenzo I'm situated in Cape Town, South Africa and I'm really battling to get hold of obechi sheeting. One of the local veneer manufacturers suggested that I use Anegrey or Cyprus sheeting as a substitute. Has anyone any ideas on alternative forms of sheeting that would be just as good as obechi ?
Go with the Anegrey!!!!I have seen a couple of planes done with this and it is excellent. Actually it is much preferred over obechi here in the states but it is difficult to get and costs too much. It is as light and as strong as obechi but does not have nearly the open grain we are always trying to fill. It also provides a beautiful looking wing with it's grain.
If you can find the May 92 and August 92 issue of Model Aviation. In these issues is a article by Asher Charmichael who has done a lot of work with Anegrey. Asher analyzed all the available veneers for strength weight and grain. His final analysis was the Anegrey was the best. I know Asher personally (I think he is on the mailing list) and he is a perfectionist. He builds some of the most beautiful and best performing planes I have seen.
I wish I had your problem of only being able to get Anegrey. I am extremely jealous. If you can't find the issues of Model Aviation please let me know and I will send you a copy. --Bruce Lewis B'Ham, AL USA It's good to hear that Anegrey will do. I was a bit confused since I received a number of postings telling me that the model would turn out a bit on the heavy side with Anegrey.
One of the planes Asher used the Anegrey on was a Dodgson "Windsong" as well as an "Anthem"
Actually I think it would be the same or lighter. Because Anegrey has a closer grain it will not soak up epoxy as obechi will so the finished surface should be a lot lighter because you are not filling the grain. Do you think I could substitute the thickness (0.04") that I would have used in obechi with the same thickness in Anegrey ? The manufacturers offer various thicknesses of obechi so I can afford to choose.
Here we usually use .027 to .031. You might send a message to the list asking for Asher Charmichael's E-Mail address. He could be more specific.
If possible I'd like to get hold of a copy of the article you mentioned in model aviation, please let me know if you can send me a copy.
Send me a mailing address. I will be happy to. Regards, --Bruce Lewis
05 Sep 1996 Lorenzo, great responses from your internet inquiry on woods for sheeting. I too, have known Asher Charmichael for many years over the phone. I remember that he tried many different veneers and most were heavy. I did not hear from him as to his final conclusions --but it sounds like he put it all in an article! Asher has flown several of my gliders through the years. The email address I have for him is: <ACarmic985@aol.com>. Tell him "hi" for me from South Africa! The obechi I use is actually about 1/40" not .040" thick [I goofed in my earlier email]. So, it would be about .027" thick. It sounds like you are in great shape! I wonder why we are not using more Anegrey over here if it is as good as it sounds! Congratulations on your good work! --Bob Dodgson ________________________________________________________________________________
Flashback - 1976
Maestro Mk lll that won the 1976 Finland Nationals.
This Maestro Mk III won the Soaring Nationals in Finland - flown by Timo Jalastera while the Todi pictured, placed 5th - flown by Matti Sarro.
________________________________________________________________________________
Hot Air Masters:
Hi There,
Are you aware of the HOT Air Masters Low-Launch R/C Sailplane Postal Event scheduled for 1997? The Event (HAM-II) will be divided into 3 Meets. Each of the four month Meets will be graded and each Entrant's low-scored Meet will be thrown out. (This will compensate for seasonal climate changes, during the year-long International Meet.) The remaining scores will provide
all Entrants with statistical base-lines for evaluating their performance and will determine the 1997 Grand Masters of HAM Low-Launch R/C Sailplane Thermal Duration. The 1996 (HAM-I) Grand Masters were Eddie Smith of Adelaide, South Australia, Al Sugar of Carrollton, Texas, and Herk Stokley of Virginia Beach, Virginia. The HOT Air Masters and HAM Events were created (primarily) to offer the R/C Sailplane Thermal community an additional way to enjoy the advancement of their skills. Other benefits include the development of improved thermal sailplane designs, building and flying techniques, the promotion of our hobby with others and the formation of strong international relationships. The entry fee for HAM-II is US $10.00 and includes complete statistical analysis of each Entrant's performance, awards for Improved Performance - as well as for High Scores - and a newsletter which is distributed following the analysis of each Meet's statistics. The Newsletter, "HamBones", reports the results of each HAM Meet and includes a variety of articles which are `Reader-Written'. For more Info/reports/articles about the HOT Air Masters and HAM-II, contact me at: Al Sugar P.O. Box 113315 Carrollton, TX 75011-3315 USA Phone: (972/323-5074 e-Mail: sugar@dallas.net or Mike Davis at: abilitec@iglobal.net ________________________________________________________________________________
Mechanical Anthem?
04 Jan 1997
Bob, I have looked over the list of kits which you describe on your web page. Based on my interests, I think that the Anthem might represent a good bet but I also want to discuss it before I order one. FYI, I live in the SF Bay area, and am able to fly a number of sites, many of which are combination slope/thermal sites where one launches into slope lift and then flies thermal lift as the site often overlooks a large valley. In any case this is often big air and I enjoy flying sailplanes up high and far away for fairly long periods of time in variable conditions. I also use a high start occasionally and can drag out a few lead sleds if the wind gets up but my first love is big planes working thermal lift. I have been flying about five years and consider myself a competent builder. The Anthem seems like a good choice but thought I would check before ordering one. --Jim - JMBarnes@ix.netcom.com
04 Jan 1997 Dear Jim, thanks for considering our Anthem kit. From the description of your type of flying and your love of big birds that you can range far off with, I would think that the Anthem would be an excellent choice. It is very efficient in light lift --so when the slope lift is marginal, you can still fly it safely and hook your thermals. Yet, it has one of the best maximum L/Ds of any model glider --about 27 to 1 according to the Frazer glider design computer program --utilizing the Selig wind-tunnel results on the airfoil. So, you can really range out and not have to worry about getting home. With your flying experience, you should have no trouble flying it well. It has good, predicable and solid handling characteristics. Best of all, it has a real scale look and feel about it! The building of the Anthem is well documented, with good and extensive CAD drawn and plotted plans --accompanied by a 20 page building instruction booklet. The fuselage does require a bit of working with polyester resin --which is easy to work with if you are not scared off by the thought. Anthems have been constructed in as little time as 52 hours by a builder who had built several before. So, about 100 hours would be plenty of time to allow for building your first one of my kits. Let me know if you have any other questions. --Bob Dodgson 05 Jan 1997 Jim, thanks for the order and for the second email. If you want to set the Anthem up for 4 channel mechanical operation, you will need the Lovesong plans and instructions --which show the entire mechanical set-up. The plans and instructions cost $20.00. However if you want them in conjunction with your Anthem order, I will only charge you 50% of the retail price. The HDL-2 flap linkage costs $8.00 and the aileron Mixer and bellcranks, etc. are another $8.00. So, if you really want the 4 channel set-up it will cost extra as follows (with the 50% off: Lovesong plans/instructions $10.00 All extra linkages $8.00 So, the total extra cost would be $18.00 for the true 4 servo set-up. If you only want to put the flap servo in the fuselage and keep the aileron servos in the wings, you could get by with the just the flap linkage for $4.00. However, it would still be helpful to have the Lovesong plans/instructions, for another $10.00, to show how to install the flap linkage and how to make the wing flap root to receive the flap linkage connector pin. Let me know what you want to do. Thanks again, --Bob Dodgson ________________________________________________________________________________
Flashback - 1980
Bob Baugher with his winning T-tail Maestro.
Among many other major wins, Bob Baugher won the 1980 U.S. Nationals flying in open class with his T-tail Maestro.
Bob (along with several other Prominent East Coast Maestro flyers like Dwight Holley, Dick Pike and Fritz Bien) had his servos in the wings and did most of the mixing electronically.
Some flyers, like Dave Johnson, were even using separate flaps and ailerons in their Maestros, prior to 1980. This makes the Maestroa legal to have all modern TE controls when used in Nostalgia Class!
Tom Jones - won the 1981 A.M.A. soaring Nats in open class with his Maestro Megan. ________________________________________________________________________________
The "Big O"!
by Denny O. Darnell <doz@ionet.net>
with Bob Dodgson
09 Jan 1997 Hi Bob, I was reading RCSE when I came upon this chap's entry about the shortcomings of the Skeeter kit (parts didn't fit, etc.) It's humor was, I'm sure "appreciated" by some of those folks who built em but to me was otherwise irrelevant but for a tiny tidbit which started me thinking again....... THE TIDBIT ..... "Kit" Price: $9.95, plus $5.00 shipping for the 8.5 x 11 page. Add $3.00 for the 2-meter version (same plan enlarged for 11 x 17 paper...). Hmmmmmm. I love my Orbiter and had thought earlier this fall that if it were scaled up to 2M that it would really be a neat kit and one that would be tremendously popular (?) with those of us who are getting back around to the "keep it simple" way of thinking. What we have come to over the years is that to seriously contest, you gotta have a six-servo, computer controlled glass/foam bird ($1,000) and launch with an electric winch $300-$500 @ 100lbs. (Yeah, my 2M SuperV will launch on a high start but not very high when there is no wind). Then there is the retriever... and batteries and the trailer you have to tow all this stuff around in. Ah, for the simpler times when you carried your winch in a Folgers coffee can and could stuff everything in the back-seat of a VW! Yes. This past summer, I found myself taking my towhook-equipped HLGs and light hi-start out each evening, setting up in 5 minutes, and getting in 20-30 flights before dark. Take down, another 5 and was home in time for dinner! Cool! But, as always, I wanted something just a little better. How neat it would be if you scaled up the Orbiter to 2M! This would be the perfect ship for those late summer days when there is no wind or those days which some guys refer to as 'perfect OLY II' days. I'm talking about a ship you could launch with 50' light rubber with 100' 25# mono line for this 20-24oz "Big O". Or whatever you want to call it. I am aware of your architectural qualifications and, obviously, having purchased the Orbiter, have the computer generated (via ACAD) plans. How hard would it be to generate an enlarged set for a 2M Orbiter? While you are thinking about it, Please also consider (I, for one would like to hear your thoughts) using the SD7080 instead of the S4061. (I had a 2m "Mariah" a few years ago that I thought flew pretty good. It used the SD4061 too.) Otherwise, keep everything else the same with the possible exception of using one servo in each wing. I think that a 4-servo class would be a good alternative to some of the otherwise stupid limits some folks have dreamed up! Anyway, Whadda ya think? Regards, "D. --O. Darnell" <doz@ionet.net> 09 Jan 1997 D.O., thanks for the good and thought-provoking email. I have received comments from a few other people asking for a scaled up version of the Orbiter to 2-meter size. But none were as persuasive as you. I will surely think about it. I like your idea of a 4 servo class! I could pull out the old Lovesong again or a newer version of it with the 4-servo mechanical linkage set-up! Somehow, I don't think that is what you had in mind! Seriously, do you think that a 2-meter Orbiter would be enough more capable than the 60" Orbiter with a tow-hook? I know that weight would not be as critical and I could make it a bit sturdier with 1/6" balsa sheeting instead of 1/32". The same tail boom may even work. Why do you think that the SD7080 would be the best airfoil for the 2M Orbiter? Why not the SD7037? It shows good graph lines for that size of plane. Would the S6041 be too slow for what you had in mind? I really appreciate your suggestions and thoughts. Do you mind if I put your letter in Second Wind --along with any follow-up if you care to make it? 10 Jan 1997 Hi, Bob; well, lets see: First, I think that a 2M version would be beefier. Since HLGs are built as lightly as possible I think a 2M version (with 1/16 sheet) would take more wear and tear and thus be more suitable for day-to-day sport flying. While the 60" version does just fine with a towhook, a 2m version would launch higher thus providing longer flights and a greater margin of safety for the newbie. I feel that the proposed ship would certainly be attractive to entry-level flyers (as well as the back-to-the-simple-lifers) and it could also be perfect for settling all this beginners class nonsense. As far as the four servo idea, this gives the option of using y-connected ailerons with rudder and elevator using a simple radio, or flaperons for those using high-end transmitters and thus provide something for everyone. Or, a single servo for ailerons, spoiler, elevator and rudder. As I see it, there shouldn't be any limit to the number of functions; only the number of servos. That way, clever ideas like AFART, etc. emerge and thus advance the state of the art. I don't see how anyone could object to a 4-servo class as it's self regulating and needs no other rules! (jumping off soap box) Owning Vision radios, I would go for the one-servo-per-aileron with flap mix. I think it will work pretty well on a low aspect ratio planform and be a blast to fly. I think that you probably might want to use lite ply fuse sides and a beefier?? boom (a stock arrow shaft should suffice) and, of course, 1/16 sheeting as you mentioned. otherwise, leave it alone! I'm not so much concerned about (apparent) speed as I am penetration (which is, of course the same thing.) Although I am well satisfied with the performance of the S4061 on the 60" version, I just thought that maybe we could get better penetration by using one of the other foils mentioned. This would make the ship easier to fly in the wind for the beginners, too. I know that the SD7080 is enjoying "good press" but have no personal experience with it. I am flying a Standard and a 2M Super Vs which both use the SD7037, and I like the SD7037 just fine. However, I usually have to ballast up (6-8 oz) to penetrate satisfactorily when it gets much over 12-15mph. So, maybe something besides the SD7037 would do better and maybe not require any ballast. (better=simpler) I'm also thinking that this is going to be a very light ship (24-30oz) so the more efficient we can make it, the better. Back to the original idea which is a simple (and rugged) sport aircraft with impeccable performance on those light-summer-afternoon-with-no-wind type days..... I've already got contest ships: I WANNA HAVE FUN without all the hassle!!! If I can kick some butt in competition on those "OLY II days", so much the better. WE NEED THIS SHIP! In my opinion, GL's and Spirits are butt ugly, long in the tooth, and provide marginal performance. We need something new and better! The "Big O" may be it! (( Yes, feel free to publish this in your newsletter, and thanks!)) P.S. You draw it, I'll build the prototype! Best Regards --D. O. Darnell 10 Jan 1997 Denny, thanks for the added perspective. You make a good case. I will seriously think about doing it. For the next month or so, I will getting out the Windsong Silver (the 25th year in business edition of the Windsong). It will have the Anthem spar with the 214 airfoil. It will also be able to be rigged easier for simple radios than the Anthem. I am surprised, but there are still a lot of folks who do not have computer radios. I expected everyone would have a computer radio years ago! Boy, was I wrong! If I go ahead with the big-O, I will be delighted to send you the prototype to build. I will keep in touch on it. Thanks again and I am most pleased to use your cogent thoughts in Second Wind (I am way behind in getting 96-2 out! Where does the time go?) Thanks again, --Bob Dodgson 13 Jan 1997 OK! Well, best wishes for success this year. I'm sure the Windsong Silver will be very well received knowing the large number of guys who not only flew your Windsong and Lovesong designs, but also those of us who were caught off guard by the paradigm shift you 'laid on us' back in 87... I personally experienced it at the Nats in Lincoln... and also those of us who stole other ideas of yours and went on to the current level of designs which utilize flaps and crow mode, multicamber, etc. I still have hopes that someone will have the good sense to put out a cheap microprocesson-encoded set but who knows.... all that greed out there! Anyway, regards and Let's stay in touch! --D.O. ________________________________________________________________________________
Flashback - 1987!
Tom Neilson and his Windsong.
Among many other sterling performances through the years, Tom Neilson not only won the 1987 Nats, flying his Windsong in open class, he won the Hi-Johnson trophy for the highest score and he won the Dan Pruss trophy for being on the winning team.
Dave Johnson and Tom Brightbill completed the winning team and all were flying Dodgson Designs gliders! Oh yes, the Craig Robinson Built Windsong Tom Neilson was flying won in 3 categories in the static judging, too --including best sailplane! Interestingly, Ed Berton and his Windsong placed 2nd at the 1987 Nats --so Windsongs were 1st and 2nd! Ed also won the big 1988 Tangerine meet! ________________________________________________________________________________
Oh, The Tangled Webb!
By Kevin Webb - kswebb@neworld.net
with Bob Dodgson
13 Jan 1997 Bob, I hope you and your family have made it back to the arctic safely. . . Your company is the longest lasting manufacturing company specific to sailplanes in the country and maybe in the world. Do you see any trends, notwithstanding the demise of your competition, i.e. Ron Vann, the manufactures of the Magic, Maco, and God only knows who else is getting out of this high profit industry? Are you resting on your current line of kits or is there any research and development going on to keep up the high standards of the Dodgson sailplane family? In comparing your current line of V-tail sailplanes to the SV100 series by DeVoe and company, which seem to be popular in Southern California and have gone through an evolution from composite (foam & obechi) to (foam and glass) to (hollow-core) construction, do you have any plans on changing your design? Maybe your design (considering price) is where it should be. I do not know of too many composite kits on the market for under $175.00. This to me is your major marketing component, providing the flying characteristics are in line with the competition. I've never seen one fly or talked to anyone that has one. Which leads me to my last questions on your line of V-tail gliders. If you were to compare the V-gilante with SV100, notwithstanding the price, what are the major selling points. Bob, I am serious, I not just asking for your opinion to abstract information and waste you time. In addition to the above referenced questions, where do you see HLG going. It appears it has picked up a lot of momentum. Has your HLG kits increased in sales since the craze on HLG has taken place. Your advertisement continues to boast about its winning capabilities since its winning performance at the Nationals, but has the market passed up the present kit specifications? I will, someday, buy one. I bought a Monarch, built it and sold it. I didn't like it. . . . This brings me to my last point. Your years of service! I must say you have made it in an environment that has seen many changes. But most important, notwithstanding your compassion to boast your product, you have done it with integrity. You deliver! Cheers my friend (I think) keep up the good work. Write when time permits. --Kevin Webb 15 Jan 1997 Kevin, I really enjoyed your email! I was going to answer it when I got home. Well, when I got home, I was so swamped with orders that I have not been able to do diddly! It really is interesting to watch all the manufacturers come and go. Obviously, the answer is that people come into the business full of enthusiasm. They are rewarded by the thrill of seeing others fly their creations. However, after a couple of years or so, they realize that they are working their butts off and not making much money --eventually the joy is not enough reward in itself. The ever-new competition is such that the hand-labor-intensive business of kit manufacturing pays way below what that sort of skilled craftsmanship can garner in other fields. Eventually, most manufacturers figure that out. I guess that I am the longest running glider kit manufacturer because I am the only one who can't get a job anywhere else! I am resting on my "true builder kit" laurels. I figure that there is plenty of competition in the "pre-built" market. However, I am the only manufacturer who is still making high-performance gliders in kit form. It is becoming a nice niche market! I am even coming out with the "Windsong - Silver as a 25 year celebration. There are a lot of people who are asking for an updated Windsong kit with the 214 airfoil that is not pre-sheeted. I am ending production of the pre-sheeted Windsong Classic and replacing it with the Silver. My gliders may give up a bit in tow height to the winged arrows, but they can out-thermal the new breed in about any situation --barring 30 MPH winds. Since competitions in many areas of the country (especially CA) have become launch-height and landings, my plane's thermaling abilities are not needed. However, in places like the East Coast, where long flights and thermaling ability are valued commodities, my Anthems, Windsongs etc. are experiencing a rebirth. In the D.C. area, I just heard that an old Lovesong is cleaning up! In comparing the V-gilante with a composite bird, the V is lighter, more agile, can be thermaled tighter, can catch thermals right off the deck easier and it has a marvelously light and buoyant feel. It is much more portable for taking on trips. Even the removable V can made in hinged form so you can carry it flat. So, the whole glider can be carried in a small box 50" long x 9" x 5". However, you have to do a floating launch and zoom with it, you cannot do a full-peddle bullet-launch. With the sales of the Orbiter-2, I think that there is a longing out there for the art of building to continue. I have sold several hundred of them in the past couple of years and they are still going strong. The beauty of the Orbiter-2 is how easy it is to climb out with --even from wimpy launches! Anyone can have great success with it --and a lot of fun. For my opinions on the importance of building in the over-all enjoyment of soaring, you should see my article in the new NE Sailplane Products Catalog --Volume 6, page #105: "Enhancing your soaring experience with fore-play!"
Take care my friend, --Bob D
15 Jan 1997 Bob, . . . I agree with your analogy of where, what, and why other manufacturers are dying a slow or sometimes fast death. After the ego wears off and there is a need for a profit there is nothing left. On-the-other-hand, you, over the years have had to take a lot of ribbing, both constructive and destructive. You have been able to handle it without letting your feelings get in the way of what you were trying to accomplish. Most kit builders today can't handle "adverse" publicity. They take it personally. You can't do it in this industry. It also takes tremendous support from family and an understanding where a person wants to be financially. The underlying criteria is; 1) is it fun, do I enjoy my job, and; 2) does what I do support my needs or, in your case, your family. This is not a get rich quick industry. Conversely, there are a few manufacturers out there making a good living. Those manufactures have a clear understanding of what they want. Take for example, the CA Associates who only make slope planes. They have found a niche, but they also live in a community that has lots of slope sites - LA. I agree with you, at this time, you are filling a void between the all balsa kits and the almost ready to fly kits. There needs to be middle ground, an alternative for someone to be able to be competitive at an affordable price. There is however, a lot of discussion regarding the right airfoil on today's glider, most of it non-academic, but there for matter-of-debate anyway. There is some considerable debate between this weeks hot airfoils the 7037 over the 7080 versus the RG15 with most kits vowing for the 7037. Having used the RG15 (couldn't keep it in the air at low altitude under light lift conditions) and comparing it to the 7037 (I could keep it in the air under light lift conditions) I had to opt for the 7037 for my flying ability. As a corporate real estate administrator, I work a lot with ergonomics. And unfortunately, not all people are built the same. There are small butts, big butts, short legs, long legs (yes), short bodies, long bodies, fat people, petite people which all have different needs ergonomically. In flying sailplanes, I feel as we get older, our reflexes are slower, we do not see as well as we used too (I wear glasses now) and the airfoil we use should be centered around our skills. Unfortunately, my skills are not the same as they were at the '89 Nats. I feel, like when fitting people ergonomically, we should not go with the norm. we should find a sailplane and airfoil that works with our skill levels and not let our egos determine what we fly. I cannot fly what Joe Wurts flies and be competitive. I can, however, search for and find something in the middle so I can still enjoy the hobby and maybe finish in the top five now and then. This is another reason I am asking so many question about your V-gilante. It may be time for me to step down a notch to get back on top. As I mentioned some time ago, I have a glass fuselage which I retrofitted your Camano wings, stab, and rudder on. This will be my ship for '97. Hope it works. I know I will be giving up the ability to penetrate, but I am also gaining the ability to fly in light lift and land at a slower pace, something I need to do. The RG15 and I did not get along in the arena. It appears, due to the wing loading on your V-gilante, that it too has some of the characteristics I am hoping to gain by the 214 Camano Hybrid. Email soon, --Kevin Webb Jan 1997 Kevin, I am sorry to be so tardy once again. I am feverishly trying to get the new Windsong - Silver Edition out by next week --along with keeping up with orders and trying to get Second Wind 96-2/97-1 out! So, I have been writing short emails lately! Your airfoil choice by flyer body type, condition and age is an interesting concept. The truth is, even if you have the skills and reflexes to fly gliders with RG15 airfoils, is that what you want to do long-term in soaring? Is zipping around, like a streak, where the satisfaction is? For some --maybe. But many people want to gracefully soar with the eagles while they inhale nature --and if they have an efficient glider that can work light lift, that has a good L/D for ranging around and one that looks good and is fun to fly, then they will have long-term soaring satisfaction. I hope that competition will change too. It is dying out the way it is going. Look at all the interest in the nostalgia class! Anyway, it is for the soul that is yearning for true soaring satisfaction that I am targeting the new Windsong - Silver. Your Camano on the glass fuse, sounds like it will be a good ship for you. Let me know how you like it. --Well, back to work for me! --Bob Dodgson ________________________________________________________________________________
Video Tapes Available:
Due to popular demand, we still offer our 1986 video tape #1 (before the computer radio) promotional Video Tape #1 for sale. The price is $15.00 plus shipping. The tape shows some of the most beautiful R/C glider flying footage ever offered. It was shot between 1982 and 1986 --much of it before they had camcorders so you had to lug around a 20 lb recorder and a 12 lb camera! It shows the Windsong, Camano, Pixy and Pivot in action. Dave Banks' spectacular thermaling out of both the Windsong and the Pivot from hand-launches is highlighted as is other great thermal and slope footage. This vintage video is a slice of soaring history during its "Golden Age" when our kits were the only kits available with the present day control system that they pioneered. This tape documents the birth of modern soaring performance."
With the introduction of the Windsong Silver, our old 1987 construction video tapes are once again relevant and useful. Video Tape #2 is the wing-building tape and Video Tape #3 is the fuselage building tape. Both tapes are still available and each tape sells for $15.00 plus shipping.
________________________________________________________________________________
A Heart for Soaring!
28 Jan 1997
Dear Bob,
My name is John Rodenberg. I am deaf. I bought a Windsong, Camano, and Pixy kit a long time ago. I hired Eric [Jackson] who built the three gliders. My Camano is no more --having crashed by error. Last summer my favorite glider, the old Windsong, hit the ground hard and bent the brass tube in one wing. I can't fix the wing, myself. So, I am asking you if you know of anyone who can fix the wing --from your club or at Dodgson Designs. I am willing to hire a repairman. I don't want to throw the plane away because it is still in good condition, except for the wing. I have been ill for four months due to a heart problem that I have had since I was boy, when I had open heart surgery. I am not working now but the Dr is letting me fly my gliders. I very much love my old Windsong with the Eppler 214 wing. I have a Genesis full fiberglass glider but the Windsong is still best. Let me know soon if you can find someone who is willing to fix my glider and I will pay them. Thank you. May your lift be up, John Rodenberg <johnjrr@airmail.net> 28 Jan 1997 John, Hi, old friend! It is good hearing from you again. I remember you well --from many years ago. So, Eric Jackson [the designer of the original Orbiter] built your Windsong, Camano and Pixy. He was a good builder. I got a call from him a couple of months ago. He is thinking of seriously getting back into flying again --now that he has a son getting old enough to start flying! I do not personally know of anyone who still does building and repair --unless it is Jim Thomas. He is an excellent builder and a true friend of the hobby. His email address is: THOMAS_JAMES@aphub.aerojetpd.com Drop him a note and see what he says. I will also forward a copy of your email on to him. Thank you for writing and for flying my gliders. I am glad to hear that you are able to get back to flying. --Bob Dodgson 29 Jan 97 Bob, good to hear from you, you crusty relic of soaring's roots. If your brain hasn't mildewed past any comprehension, you will note the return address. This gypsy has moved on, now in Sacramento. ProCyte just didn't look like it was going to be a long term proposition, so when an old acquaintance came along last November and asked me to come see Aerojet and talk to them, I did. Here I am. Tricia and the kids are still in Seattle, but we will all likely be relocated by mid-March. As for helping out the fellow with the busted wing, I'd be happy to after I have a home and shop again. You didn't include his e-mail address or any way to get hold of him though. Silly you. Either you can let him know what is going on, or have him e-mail me direct. If he can wait until April-May I would be happy to help him out. Stay dry old friend. Jim - THOMAS_JAMES@aphub.aerojetpd.com 29 Jan 1997 Jim, Sorry to hear that we have lost you to Sacramento! Too bad about ProCyte going into the dumper --soon after you arrived on the scene! How do you like leaving your loving family to their own sorrows while you are off and living the bachelor's life of wild debauchery again --just like the old days? Thank you for considering helping John, when you get settled. Sorry about failing to include his email address! Here it is: John Rodenberg - johnjrr@airmail.net Congratulations on your new job at Aerojet! Do they know what you did to ProCyte? Good luck! I won't tell! Don't dry up, down there, like the old prune you were meant to be. I already miss not knowing that you are in the area --even if I hardly ever saw you! Who will give me quality shit when I drag my sorry ass out to the flying field for my bi-annual flying ritual? --Bob 29 Jan 97 Bob, was that "drag your ass out for your bi-anal flying ritual"? Maybe I just misread it. I'm sure there will be other shit-shovelers (who rival your own abilities) to take up the challenge. I too will miss those rare opportunities to see what happens to old flyers. Maybe I missed something else, cuz I'm still looking for that bachelor's debauchery stuff. Just seems too lonely and quiet without Tricia and the kids around all the time. See ya. Jim ________________________________________________________________________________
Flashback - 1983
Tom Brightbill and the winning glider trio. The NW winning Dodgson Design flyers - L to R: Tom Neilson, Dave Johnson, Tom Brightbill and Bob Dodgson.
Tom Brightbill won the 1983 Hi-Johnson trophy for the highest accumulative score at the Nats! Bob Dodgson placed 2nd in open class with his Windsong.
Tom Brightbill (I call him "Shiny Beak") flew his Windsong in open class, his Camano in standard and his K-minnow in 2-meter. Then in 1985 Tom won 2-meter class with his Pixy and placed 2nd in 1987 and was on the Nats winning Dan Pruss award team. Another year at the Nats, Tom tied for 1st in Open Class with his Windsong and lost on a coin toss --so he got 2nd with a smile! Tom won the NWSS Season Championship with his Saber in 1992.
________________________________________________________________________________
You Can't Hide!
28 Jan 1997
Jim, how are you coming on your V-gilante and Orbiter-2 kits? Just checking. --Bob Dodgson
30 Jan 1997 Bob, funny you should ask! I just finished putting the last piece of obechi sheeting on about 5 minutes ago. The transfer tape works real slick. The first wing panel came out better than I expected. The trailing edge is perfectly straight. I'm sure the 2nd one will come out just as nice. The epoxy on the trailing edge is drying right now. This is the first time I've sheeted a foam wing so I was worried about it. Turns out there was nothing to worry about. :) The Orbiter is still in the box. I'll start it the day after the V-gilante is done. --Jim Martin - jmartin@novagate.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Mechanical Mixing:
14 Sep 1996
Bob, I recently picked up a Lovesong kit which has been cannibalized. I was wondering if you could supply me with essentially everything except the fuselage, foam wing cores and tail cores, and wing spars. If I don't hear back from you I'll assume that this would be too much trouble. In that case I may still purchase one of your gliders. I've done a fair bit of research and I am having difficulty choosing between the Anthem and the Windsong Classic, although I suppose I am leaning toward the latter as a result of discussions with folks who have flown them both. These discussions have led me to believe that the Windsong is a bit easier to thermal but is not overly responsive. Also, it seems that once you have flown one, and gotten used to it, nothing else will do-not even an Anthem. Any light you could shed on this would be appreciated. regards. --Pat Bruce - brucep@cadvision.com
15 Sep 1996 Pat, thanks for the email note. I can still supply the HDL-2 flap linkage for the Lovesong ($8) and the AFART assembly ($8). The rest of the parts are standard fare that you should be able to find at most hobby shops. I do not sell that stuff separately. It is a close call between the Windsong Classic and Anthem. They are both outstanding. However, I am down to one or two Windsong Classic kits and do not plan to continue carrying them. So, if you want a pre-sheeted WC time is running out. I may, however, revise the Lovesong and offer it in kit form with an Anthem-type spar to replace the Windsong Classic. [The new Windsong Silver is now out!] Sincerely, Bob Dodgson 27 Jan 1997 Hey Bob! Hope things are well. A message on the i-net reminded me that I wanted to purchase your promotional tape. I was also wondering if plans were available for the Lovesong? I would like to learn more about the mechanical linkages used in the Wind/Lovesongs (yeah, I know wing servos are easier, but I'm still curious). If the plans are available, please e-mail me the price for the them and the video, and I will send you a check. Thermals. --Dean Morris 28 Jan 1997 Dean, thanks for the email. Yes, plans are still available for the Lovesong --showing all the linkages. The plans are $15. The Video tape is $15 and shipping for either or both is $4. Unfortunately, there is also an 8.2% WA sales tax on all but the shipping. There are a lot of people still flying the full or partial mechanical linkage set-up on the Windsong/Lovesongs around the country. Having 4 cheap servos forward in the fuselage saves many dollars and about 6 oz in over-all weight. In flight, you can't tell the difference --once you get the mechanical system balanced out. I am just now releasing the Windsong Silver [now available]. It is an updated Lovesong using an Anthem spar system. It has the mechanical one servo flap linkage-elevator compensation but it has the two aileron servos in the wings. So, it can be flown very well with a simple radio and yet it is ready for a computer system too. I think the sport needs a good high-performance builder's kit. Where do people go after they build a Spirit? Regards,Bob Dodgson
Tips-Up Tremors:
28 Jan 1997
Bob,
Bob Dodgson wrote: Dean, I am just now releasing the Windsong Silver...Where do people go after they build a Spirit?
You make a good point. The Alcyone I currently fly on the rare days I get "out" is probably one of the very few which (may) fill that void. I cannot say that it necessarily performs better than an aileron equipped Spirit however. I have NO desire, however, to "step up" to one of the many look-a-like models I saw on my trip to Visalia last October (spectating only). I do enjoy building, partly for the actual process, partly of the pride one gets by seeing HIS creation soaring high!
This brings up the question (from this "intermediate level" pilot) of just what can I expect if I should make the jump from the dreaded "tips up" configuration to the scary (but neat looking) "flat wing". Right now, I enjoy flying a model which is reasonably forgiving, and thermals very well. It seems that "moving up" to a more advanced design would require me to give up this forgiving characteristic, but for what gain? And does this gain merit the increased blood pressure and/or frayed nerves of trying to keep my $600+ sailplane (thermaling high above as a small speck) from spiraling in?? Or are these fears unfounded? Of all these "advanced" models, I DO find YOUR designs the most desirable from an esthetic point of view (for lack of any other means of comparison) and are at the top of my "list" should I decide to supplant/abandon the "security blanket" I currently fly.
Now, A Few More Questions from the Dean:
at: deanm@nwlink.com
I assume the new Windsong features a wing built by the modeler, yes? Price? Are the (individual) stab halves of the V-gilante removable for easy transport? Is a conventional tail option available? Does the lighter wing loading of the "V" make it reasonably competitive with a Windsong? Are the mechanical linkages of the older 'Song's prone to poor surface centering compared to a "direct-to-surface" wing servo setup? Is there any possibility of a fully composite (no wood) 'Song, Saber, "V" KIT in the future? From what I know, there isn't more than a couple kits "out there" which offer this type of construction (WACO designs, Harley's Genie). I am very impressed with the "bagged painted" wings I've seen and from what I can see it isn't that much more difficult to build. Besides, since I seem to have to replace most of the wood in all of the kits I've built to date, I'd just as soon eliminate it altogether! Consistently light 'glass HAS to be easier to find than light contest balsa! BTW, my un-built Orbiter 2's wood looks very nice, however! Hope I can get to building it by mid-February! The check (for $32.46) is in the mail [for your video tape and Lovesong plans]! I'm thinking that perhaps the video may answer some of the above questions and I know I'll learn some valuable info just by studying the Lovesong plans! Thanks for your prompt response to my previous questions and your patience reading this short novel! --Dean Morris
A Few Answers:
29 Jan 1997
Dean, Thanks for the thoughtful email. I have just put up information on the Windsong Silver on my web site, if you want more info on it.
Now for the questions:
I assume the new Windsong features a wing built by the modeler, yes? Price?
The wing is built by the modeler using simple tools. Since it has an articulated spar, it does not need to be vacuum bagged. You can put the contest-grade balsa sheeting on the cores with the quick, safe, odorless and simple-to-use transfer tape method. The price is $250.00 for the complete kit.
Are the (individual) stab halves of the V-gilante removable for easy transport?
The "V" is held on to the fuselage with two nylon screws and comes off easily. There is even an option for making the "V" joint hinged so that when the tail comes off, it can be stored flat.
Is a conventional tail option available?
A conventional tail can be put on. I can include the Sprite fuselage plans that show a conventional fin and tail on the fuselage.
Does the lighter wing loading of the "V" make it reasonably competitive with a Windsong?
Yes in most respects, however:
The V is a wonderful performing plane for its size and it is nimble and quick. However, the Windsong is easier to fly and more forgiving and you can fly farther away and still magically make it back home. The Windsong is a stable ship that performs amazingly well even when it is not being flown well! However, it is not self-neutralizing like some poly-ships are. Are the mechanical linkages of the older 'Song's prone to poor surface centering compared to a "direct-to-surface" wing servo setup?
The ailerons do not center quite as tightly but they center well enough so that you can't tell the difference in the air. The all steel pushrod and bellcrank system accumulates very little slop --so the centering is quite tight.
Is there any possibility of a fully composite (no wood) 'Song, Saber, "V" KIT in the future? From what I know, there isn't more than a couple kits "out there" which offer this type of construction ...
Right now, I don't see any all-composite kits in my future. There are many others than the ones you mentioned if the companies are still in business --like the entire R&R line that includes the Genesis.
Since no one is making balsa kits anymore, I find that it is easier for us to get good light-weight balsa than at any time since the early 70s! I do not see myself going for all the chemicals and dangerous fibers to offer what everyone else is offering. I think there is a huge hole right now in high-quality and top-performing builder kits and I am hoping to take care of that! Let me know how your Orbiter-2 construction and flying goes. BTW thanks for the video and plan order. Still keeping it up with hot air! --Bob Dodgson ________________________________________________________________________________
Flashback - 1985!
Shawn Lenci with some of his 1985 trophies.
Shawn Lenci flying in senior class with his Pixy, Camano and Windsong placed 1st in 2-meter and 2nd in both standard and open classes at the 1985 Nats! Shawn built all 3 planes himself!
In 1986 he and his Maestro were on the winning team at the Visalia Fall Soaring Festival and he placed 3rd, himself! He also won the Season Points Championship for the Modesto R/C club and finished 2nd for the season in the Northern California Soaring League! Not bad for a kid!
Eric Eiche - won the 1986 Canadian Nationals and the 1992 NWSS Championship Contest with his Windsong and Lovesong.
Ed Byrns - won the 1989 Canadian Nationals with his Windsong. ________________________________________________________________________________
Pivotal First Flights:
by Steve Schupak - <schupaks@mta.net>
13 Jun 1996
Bob, I just wanted to let you know that I flew my new Pivot successfully for the first time last night. I had a fair amount of trepidation before I launched the plane standing at the edge of the slope and looking out but that quickly faded when the Pivot climbed away from the hill and I completed the first pass across the hill. The flight was truly amazing. Currently I have the 72" configuration with computer coupled rudder and I am very impressed with the way it would gain altitude by simply pulling back on the stick. Point the nose down and it picked up speed like a train. Landing was the smoothest I have ever had. This is always a scary time for me when I fly. Mainly because the planes I have had up to now were very finicky. They would fly ok but would tip stall as soon as I made my approach off the hill. The Pivot tracked exceptionally well and then would glide back rock steady. The only problem I encountered was the Pivot would not fall out of the sky. The 7037 wing just kept on floating. After a second pass and a much farther downwind pass the Pivot glided down soft as a feather. Your advertisement is true as stated. I even like the way the Pivot turned with rudder mixed in with the big wing on the slope. This is something totally new for me, all my other ships (except for a scratch built Orbiter 2) have only elevator and ailerons. Some observations I have that you can pass on to current or potential owners of Pivots are: 1. The three servo configuration with computer radio is terrific. Being able to turn the rudder on and off at will is great, plus the ability to use only rudder for slight yaw corrections is really helpful. I have a Hitec Prism 7x with spectra module. This radio has the ability to dial in frequencies at the field plus every sort of mixing you can imagine, all at a very affordable price. Plus you can just buy the transmitter separately. 2. Transfer tape is the way to go for sheeting the wings, though make sure you get at least 3/4" wide tape. I only found 1/2" and got tired of laying strip after strip across the wing. Otherwise it is fabulous, I had both wings sheeted after dinner one evening in under an hour. 3. The helpful hints in the instructions all work. From the tape on wing skins to straightening out the glass fuse after construction with heat. These are all tried and true techniques. 4. Consider using more throw in the wings than + or - 5/8" I am using non differential wings with about 3/4" or more and this seems to be working out fine so far on the slope. One last thing. Can you recommend the amount or percentage of rudder throw I should shoot for, also the amount of elevator throw, I didn't see anything in the instructions to use as guidelines. Otherwise thanks for the great plane. --Steve Schupak ________________________________________________________________________________
Flashback 1976!
Dwight Holley with his Modified Maestro.
Dwight Holley placed 2nd at the S.O.A.R. Nats with his Modified Maestro. Dwight and his Maestros won the Eastern Soaring League Season Championship many times --even as late as 1979!
Dwight was one of the first to use servos in the wings of his Maestros. At least by 1979, he used electronic mixing for the flaperon servos in the wing. And, by 1979, Meyer Gutman, Dave Johnson, Tom Neilson and others were already using separate flaps and ailerons on their Maestros.
Dwight went on to become the World F3B Champion in 1981 flying his own smaller design that utilized the same control system as his Maestro.
In the 1980s Josh Glaab carried on the ESL Season Championship winning tradition by winning it 3 times with his Windsong. Julius Topf - flew a Maestro Mk lll on a mid 1980s Canadian F3b team. Carl "The Kid" Blake - won the 1978 NWSS Championship Contest (amoung many others) with his Maestro Mk lll and went on to win the USA F3b team selection finals in 1980 with his own FMF glider In 1990, Al White won the Capitol Area SS Season Championship with his 7-year-old Windsong. In fact, 4 of the top 6 finishers were flying Windsong/Lovesongs! ________________________________________________________________________________
Orbiter Kit Review:
by Denny Darnell
September 23, 1996
I just finished building an Orbiter II kit. To start with, the documentation is excellent. The cad-generated, full-sized plans came folded, not rolled, on continuous-form computer stock paper and all die cut or machined parts matched the plans, perfectly. The wood and other materials were as good as I've ever seen. I have a drawer full of premium balsa which I have obtained, several pieces at a time, over the years for the purpose of replacing some of the crap you find in kits. Fortunately, I didn't have to use any with the Orbiter II kit. All balsa in the kit was as good as is available and of the correct density for each piece. I used Jet CA (thin) for most all of the structure except for ply parts which required *positoning*, in which case thick UFO was used. I always buy CA in small bottles, keep them in the fridge until I need them and then transfer an entire small bottle into an empty larger container when I need it. I don't put CA back into the fridge after it is opened but do keep it in a cabinet where it is in the dark when not in use. I use these two brands specifically because I've found that the more popular house brands (whose name I will not mention but those you see in hobby shops, usually with the shop name on them) don't have a very good shelve life. So... Jet, thin and UFO thick are the only CA's I'll use, with the possible substitution of ZAP for the thin. As far as covering, for various reasons I don't favor the thin-films like MicaFilm or Solarfilm, etc. mostly cause I find them hard to use. Oracover lite is probably OK and If I could get some I would probably use it, but I was in a hurry to get the bird finished and used a roll of dark red transparent MonoKote I already had. Yeah, I know it's not the lightest and it still bubbles like MonoKote always has (MonoKote has not been improved in the last twenty years, in my opinion) but I used it anyway, and it looks OK. I do like the color very much. (I still prefer Oracover though, especially over solid surfaces like sheeted wings). But I digress.. The fuse was covered with Parson's glass cloth using CA as the adhesive. The cloth drapes well around compound curves like the bottom and nose areas and is easily attached wicking on CA and smoothing out with a finger. The smoothing finger soon gets a layer of CA which fresh CA won't stick to and is easily removed at cleanup time with a debonder. I used one piece of cloth on the bottom, one on each side and one on the top of the nose and canopy. This added only a gram or two. The fuse was then sprayed with several light coats of 21st Century white primer (the lightest canned spray paint I know of) and sanded with 320 grit wet/dry paper, then buffed with fine steel wool. The glass and primer added less than 5 grams to the total weight of the ship which came to 12 1/2 oz. (I built the two-pieced wing option.) Since I'm an old geezer, I'm using a zip start in addition to actually hand-tossing the bird. The first time out, with relatively easy tosses by hand, I got several flights in excess of a minute. I really wasn't trying too hard, these were just trim flights. The Orbiter II, in *stock* configuration, is buoyant and highly maneuverable using only two servos with aileron and coupled rudder on one and elevator on the other. (I used Futaba 33's cause I had them around but will use HS 60s (lighter and smaller) the next time. I have 60's in another ship and just love em. I am very happy with the Orbiter II and compliment Bob Dodgson for the kit as well as the excellent service (I ordered it via Email and received it 4 days.. Washington to Oklahoma) I highly recommend it and will probably buy another one! ________________________________________________________________________________
Proceed at your own risk!
The reprinting of the archival material that follows is for the benefit all of those who find me too mellow these days. Also it may help to better historically frame a few of the obstacles I have faced in my 25+ year-long multichannel journey.
________________________________________________________________________________
Flashback 1973!
Russ Young with his Todi and Maestro Mk lll.
Russ Young Placed 3rd at the 1973 S.O.A.R. Nats flying his Todi. This was the first major US National placing for a Dodgson Designs' kit.
Other than myself, Russ was the first successful US competition pilot with the Todi. He went on to win the NWSS Season Championship many times and he helped get Dave Banks fired up on my designs.
________________________________________________________________________________
Where It Stands Today--- Multi-Channel Design:
From the archives:
SAILPLANE Magazine - July 1977
by Robert G. Dodgson
Is it really true that two-channel (rudder & elevator) gliders are as good or better than gliders with multi-channel control, as has been claimed by the model press and by "experts" with dedication and fervor since the conception of RC soaring in the U.S.? As in most fields, accepted ideas are slow to change especially if the new ideas come sneaking in the back door with a low profile rather than through the accepted oracles of the day. So it has been with multi-channel control of sailplanes. Good flyers have long sneered at the complicated creations of enthused dreamers who have spent endless hours building gliders with retracting landing gear, freon-activated spoilers, variable-camber airfoils, ailerons, etc. With predictable regularity these planes have been totally impractical for either general sport flying or competition flying and usually have performed poorly and have had serious structural of mechanical design flaws. Unfortunately it has been this kind of flash-in-the-pan multi-channel glider designing that has blinded many RC soaring enthusiasts to the true value of control sophistication and to the mechanical and aerodynamic design breakthroughs that have made possible the recent successes of multi-channel glider designs. For the purpose of this article, when I refer to multi-channel gliders I am referring to gliders with flaperon control and usually spoilers as these control functions are now proven very practical to build and maintain in a glider. This type of glider would have coupled rudder and aileron control on one channel, elevator on another, flap control on a third channel and spoiler control on a fourth channel. The Maestro MK III and Maestro Caliente are practical examples of this control set-up. As current kits have shown, it is now totally feasible to have a thermal glider, with a variable camber airfoil and aileron control combined (flaperons) with a wing loading of from 7 to 9 oz. per sq. ft. or less, indicating that wing loadings need not be higher than for conventional gliders. At the same time, these multi-channel gliders can approximate the same ease of field assembly and the same degree of reliability and trouble-free operation as a simple two or three-channel glider. Also interesting is that the hinging of the flaperon control surface does not necessarily cause a performance penalty by increasing drag. Recent windtunnel tests on a stock Maestro MK III glider (built by Brian Welander) at the University of Washington confirmed at airspeeds from 0 to 110 MPH what had been seen in actual flying situations, that as long as the flaperon hingeline is sealed (with tape, etc.) the "V" -shaped gap on top of the wing at the flaperon hingeline has no adverse effect on flight performance. The airflow is already separated from the wing before it reaches the point of the hingeline on this airfoil. In other words, a performance penalty is not necessarily being paid by the use of flaperons on a properly designed glider wing. It should Be noted, however, that smooth, gentle and minimal control input should be used for maximum flight time with flaperons in calm air as the continuous deflection of the control surfaces increases drag and the sinking speed. Thus, a nervous type flyer who is always moving the sticks in calm air will experience disappointing air times while a cool flyer can match calm air times with even the specialized floaters. It is interesting to note that it is no longer necessary to pay a weight penalty, a reliability or maintenance penalty and, most of all, it is not necessary to pay a performance penalty to achieve the benefits of multi-channel control. Since the Todi arrived on the scene and introduced the world to practical multi-channel RC soaring in 1972, much has been learned and many refinements have taken place that have benefited the kits now available. One thing in particular that is evident is the fact that multi-channel flying is not for everyone but only for those capable flyers with growth potential. Unfortunately, many novices or unqualified flyers are attracted to multi-channel ships and as a result of poor construction and/or poor radio installation combined with an eagerness to try all the controls on the first flight and a minimal level of flying expertise, they are met with the usual disaster at the local flying field. Naturally, the local "experts" sum it all up as yet further proof that gliders were never meant to be multi-channel. Even flyers skilled at flying conventional gliders are surprised at the lack of instant success they experience flying multi-channel ships. As a result, many never spend the time and effort required for them and their glider to become a soaring, feeling, integrated unit that enables the flyer greater soaring fulfillment than ever possible before. One benefit I, as a designer-flyer, sought from multi-channel control was to find a vehicle for increasing the unballasted performance range beyond that possible for conventional gliders. For example, on the Maestro MK III we were able to use a thin, penetrating airfoil which cruises efficiently with a flat glide at speeds of over 30 MPH with no ballast. (Naturally with ballast added to the wing the speed range is even much higher.) This same airfoil with a little flap deployed has a stall speed of 7 MPH according to the aforementioned windtunnel tests of an actual Maestro MK III glider. This means that one airplane can hover with the slowest floaters when needed or it can cover ground with the fastest gliders all in the same flight without having to land and add ballast, etc. (Competition doesn't allow such a luxury as a second chance anyway.) In practical terms, we have a plane that can fly fast like a Hobie Hawk, but with precise control, and which can land as slowly and as gently as any floater. Aileron control is a free bonus when you build a ship with flaperons since you are using the same control surface and linkages to perform two tasks. This feature allows the amount of dihedral required in the wing to be reduced and eliminates any reason for polyhedral. Naturally this gives the glider a more scale-like appearance and more scale-like flying, but more than this it allows for cleaner, more responsive turn control. With less dihedral the glider is better able to hold a thermal turn bank without requiring as much control deflection to keep the glider from automatically returning to level flight. Ailerons also nearly eliminate the inefficient yawing turn so common among gliders and they provide added turning ability to stay with thermals that would throw regular gliders right out. No more is the pilot content to doze off as his plane sits parked in the sky. He has been given a new sense by his machine; he can feel more input from it and he is able to do more with the input he receives. Together they can grow outside the walls of limitation that would threaten to stifle the flyer once he had mastered the conventional "park it in the sky" free-flight inspired glider. One of the very best glider flyers I have ever seen (I have seen most of the top competition flyers in the U.S.), Dave Banks, has progressed with multi-channel control to the point where he has developed a high-speed, low-altitude circling technique for his 11 ft. span glider (Maestro MK III) that enables him to hand launch into light bubbles (not boomer thermals or dust devils, etc.) and climb out for 30 minutes plus flights with astounding regularity. The amazing thing is that the plane is in a 60 degree bank making 10 ft. diameter circles and moving so fast it is singing while it is climbing. How many 11 ft. span rudder and elevator gliders have the control capability to do this? Still other benefits are offered by the use of flaperon control especially if spoiler control is available. For example, when flaps and spoilers are fully deployed on multi-channel planes they can be safely dethermalized by pointing the nose straight down at the ground. They will reach a maximum speed of 30 to 40 MPH in this configuration with no stress on the airframe and will lose altitude fast in complete safety. At the end of the dive they can be leveled off and landed slowly in only about 20 or 30 horizontal feet. How many conventional gliders capable of high speeds (or even floater types) can match this performance? The flyer who masters flaperon control also can use the flaps and spoilers to control his time and position for spot landing consistency, while the aileron function gives control power to hold the ship on course. Since the aileron function loses much of its effectiveness when positive flap is used, the flaps should usually be near neutral when approaching the landing circle, however, to maintain maximum turn control. The spoilers can be used effectively at this point for altitude control. Most good multi-channel flyers do not use the flap function very much in normal flight such as when thermaling, etc., but flaps are there when they need some negative flap for covering the sky or positive flap for slow hovering flight or for dethermalizing and landing. Variable camber is of great benefit if used wisely and well. Used unwisely, however, flaps only offer one more thing for the flyer to misjudge. In light of this, the general consensus among top multi-channel flyers seems to be that flyers new to flaperon control should leave the flaps in the neutral position for the first hundred flights of so until they get to thoroughly know their airplane. This not only allows the pilot time to develop proficiency with the new high-performance glider with minimum risk to the plane, it also eases the transition to the use of aileron control and yields a standard of comparison for later experiments with flaps. Yes, practical multi-channel control is here now and more of the good flyers are becoming proficient with its use. The 1976 contest results attest to its effectiveness and its bright future. For example, Dwight Holly placed 2nd Overall at the 1976 Soar Nationals out of about 200 contestants not to mention his endless East Coast wins. Randy Vermulm entered "floater heaven" (the 1976 LSF contest in Santa Rosa, Ca.) that featured man-on-man competition in calm, light, floater air. After he misjudged his 2 minute precision and received only 825 points, he climbed out to within 50 points of First Place, placing 7th Overall by finishing the man-on-man duration events with the highest score of any competitor. Then in the final round of the contest which was speed-distance he showed what multi-channel was all about. With no lift on the course at the time he easily passed all the other planes in his group by being able to turn more quickly with less altitude loss and by being able to fly faster with less altitude loss on the straight legs. One of the flyers Randy beat on the course was in First Place at that time which was the final flight of the contest. Due to Randy and his Maestro's performance, that flyer dropped to 6th Overall. Randy had out-floated the floaters in ideal floater air with the same ship with which he can cruise at 30 to 40 MPH unballasted! Here in the northwest which is the cradle of practical multi-channel design in the U.S., the season Grand Champions for the past four years have all flown multi-channel gliders exclusively. Multi-channel gliders here, although far outnumbered by conventional gliders, have won more major contests than all the other gliders combined in recent years. Competition flyers here have seen first hand, over and over again, the devastating results that a well tuned multi-channel glider and pilot combination can have on contest scores in all phases--spot landing, duration, speed, distance, combination events, etc. I believe this is just the beginning for multi-channel soaring not only because of the benefits I have mentioned here but because it is more fun to fly a well designed ship with flaperons than to fly one without them. You not only can thermal and perform the usual maneuvers but you can do them with style, control and flare and yet you can move around the sky fast, do rolls, outside loops, thermal inverted, etc. More than this, however, you can continue to grow and grow with the plane well beyond the normal limits provided by conventional gliders. I have heard it said by more than one top flyer who had grown into multi-channel flying and who had become proficient with its use, that they could never find self-actualization and total satisfaction again in soaring if they could not fly multi-channel. In fact they would give up soaring altogether rather than face such a mundane prospect. In light of the foregoing information the obvious question to me is not "Why fly a multi-channel glider?", but rather, "Why are so many good flyers still content with mastering the symbolic tricycle with its safe ease, stability and predictable limitations when with the use of multi-channel control combined with multi-channel experience and proficiency they can achieve the added versatility, challenge, growth and aesthetic fulfillment of a bicycle which can come only when a pilot becomes one with his well-designed multi-channel glider?" ________________________________________________________________________________
Flashback 1987!
Steve Clasen and his Windsong.
Steve Clasen won the big Visalia Fall Soaring Festival flying a Camano that he built himself. He was only 15 years old!
Steve also placed first in senior standard class and first in senior open class at the 1987 Nationals flying his Camano!
Brad Clasen, Steve's Dad, placed 4th that same year at Visalia flying his Windsong. Brad and Shawn Lenci were on the winning team at Visalia in 1986 with their Windsongs.
________________________________________________________________________________
Inconsistent Kit Reviews!
A Letter from the archives:
R/C Soaring Digest
Jim Gray - Editor
3/31/84 Dear Jim, I just talked to Rich Bonnell today and he said that you were printing my note to you. Well, that hasty memo is not worthy of being my position paper on the subject of the way kits are presented to the soaring public in the trade magazines. I therefore am offering the following article which you may use if you wish. Let me clearly state that I have no complaints against anyone writing anything they want about any glider design. Everyone has a right to express their views any way they wish. It was not the kit review on the Windsong that Bob Sealy did for his local newsletter that got me excited. It was the fact that this review is being presented as a legitimate critique of the Windsong kit in a national publication that distresses me. I believe that the model press has a responsibility to their public to critique kits fairly. The first prerequisite should be that the kits are constructed stock and that they are tested as such. The next point is that the kits should be judged against a known standard. As a case in point, in the March Soaring Digest you as editor state, "Antares is strong, designed to carry full ballast and to withstand heavy duty winch launches at maximum gross weight . . . to 19.55 ounces per square foot". On the other hand, you represent the Windsong with a kit review saying that the Windsong can't be built stock and still be flown in serious competition, on the slope or do aerobatics because the wings need to be beefed up beyond the end of the standard 32" spar. Well, I don't know what your experience has been with these two gliders but I can tell you what I saw at the 1983 Nationals. I saw 2 Antares entered in this thermal duration contest, both of which were built by the man who builds the factory show models for Top Flight (so they must have been built to factory specifications). One of these two Antares folded a wing (on tow as I recall). I also saw an FAI born Gobbler fold a wing along with many other highly taunted kit gliders. On the other hand, I saw 6 Windsongs entered in the same contest with four of them winning trophies. There were no structural failures among the Windsongs. All four of the Winning Windsongs had no spar mods. In fact my Windsong (2nd place in Open Class) still has the original 24" spar rather than the now standard (since early 1983) 32" spar. I believe that the same standards of determining the structural integrity of the Antares kit should have been applied to the Windsong kit when you offered a review of it. How is the soaring public served when you give a kit that had a 50% failure rate at the Nationals, flying simple thermal duration tasks, your personal glowing structural endorsement, while on the other hand you cast a cloud on the structural integrity of a ship that to my knowledge has never had an in-flight wing failure, beyond the spar end, with the 32" stock spar system? I have only heard of two failures with the old 24" spar out of the hundreds of kits sold, and these failures occurred under tow in unusual circumstances, i.e.. the tow was so hard that the winch box was sliding down the field distracting the person running the winch pedal, getting his eyes off the plane, while another person was flying the glider. No failures have ever occurred in the Northwestern U.S. where more Windsong flight hours have been logged than anywhere else in the Country. In fact, people in the NW are mad at me because I stopped selling the 24" spar in the Windsong and they feel that I have a performance advantage because I am still using the lighter spar system myself. Indeed, there is a serious question whether even the 32" spar is not a case of overdesign. If you were to contact the people who are winning the big contests with Windsongs, such as Josh Glaab, Tom Brightbill, Jake Watkins, Tom Neilson, John Gunsalus, Jim Thomas, Bernie Coleman, etc., you would find that these people are not the ones making senseless weight increasing modifications. Jim, if you are going to serve the soaring public, you must select meaningful information to present. You can't give some kits structural raves that claim to be stressed for FAI and heavy ballasting while the fact is they are known to fold on tow in simple thermal duration competition, while on the other hand you cast a cloud of doubt over the structural integrity of a kit, advertised for thermal duration work which fact has shown is actually stronger than many ships advertised for FAI work. What is more, I just heard that Rich Bonnell, flying FAI for the first time in his life, last weekend in Florida) won 2nd place with a stock Windsong over German imports, Gemini's etc. that are advertised as FAI ships. This does not sound like a thermal duration glider that has a wing structural problem to me. After 14 years in the design of high performance multichannel gliders, I feel that the Windsong is the current pinnacle of performance in thermal duration competition. One reason why our Windsong is the best performing thermal duration glider in the world is because the Windsong has been designed to have each part very strong with no part wastefully overdesigned. This is why our gliders are the only solid-core wing gliders that have ever proven successful as floaters. In fact, the Windsong can even out-float the best of the floaters. As you may recall, our Todi kit that was available in 1972 and sold for $50, introduced practical multichannel soaring to the world for the first time. Our Maestro in 1974 offered multichannel performance and features that have not been equaled by any other U.S. kit manufacturer to date (including the Antares). This was seen once again last Saturday in the Vancouver, Canada, contest where a nine-year-old Maestro proudly out-flew everything but the two best flown Windsongs, and it did this with ease and style. The Maestro sold for $65 in 1974 and it and the Todi won National FAI competitions in Finland and Norway, and won major regional contests in England, Germany, Sweden, Australia, South Africa, etc., not to mention at least two U.S. National wins while dominating the East Coast and Northwest competition scene for a decade. These planes were truly breaking ground world-wide whereas the Antares that you state, "was designed expressly to offer new levels of soaring capabilities" appears to be merely a hastily reworked Sagitta with flaps and ailerons added in an attempt to capture the performance and handling of our innovative solid-core wing Camano 100 with its unequaled Eppler 214 airfoil. Our original Camano was introduced in 1980 to replace the legendary and still sought-after Todi kit. Unfortunately instant reprints usually pale when compared to the real thing. From what I have seen, the Antares is no exception to the rule. (I am pleased to report that we have just started shipping our all-new Camano 100, which in effect looks like a 100" Windsong and which features a Windsong-like fiberglass fuselage and fiberglass canopy. See our new catalog for details.) Now, back to the Windsong. My 4 years of structural engineering along with 5 years of design, drafting and presentation drawing in getting my architectural degree combined with 14 years of doing nothing but designing, flying and producing world class multichannel glider kits have been all focused into and utilized in the evolution of the Windsong design. It therefore disturbs me when structural modifications are recommended in a national publication with no checking out of their validity or need, and when I know that these mods. are going to hurt the performance of the Windsongs built by the eager souls who have faith in your publication, the very people who you are trying to serve. Erroneous information especially on a national scale) is worse than no information at all! I am sending our new video tape, for your information, which shows many Windsongs with standard spars in action. Take special note of the slope aerobatic sequences which were flown with my Windsong that still has the short 24" long spars. Does this look like a plane that is not strong enough to be flown on the slope? To help put a little historical perspective on the subject of multichannel design, I am also enclosing a reprint of an article that I wrote for the July issue of Sailplane in 1977. Bob Bougher (one of the Nationals winners with a Maestro) was the editor of Sailplane then and no doubt had his neck on the line in permitting such heresy to be printed at that time. Sincerely, --Bob Dodgson ________________________________________________________________________________
The Birth of Crow:
From the archives:
Dodgson Integrated Control System.
by Jim Newman From April 1984Model Airplane News
[Note that the Windsong had this control system since 1982! The Lovesong later used an improved system over the Du-Bro mixer talked about here. It used the 4 servo version of the Automatic Flap-Aileron Reflex Trim system or A.F.A.R.T. that was the brain-child of Windsong flyer, Gary Brokaw]
SEVERAL MONTHS ago, while browsing through one of my magazines from overseas, I came across a brief reference to experiments being carried out with spoilers on full-size sailplanes. The part that stopped me in my tracks was the fact that these spoilers--or "spoilerons" as they were termed-are actually the ailerons which are arranged to tilt up about 45 degrees. Seeing the ailerons at this unfamiliar angle prompted recollection of an account by well-known British test pilot, Harold Penrose, for many years chief test pilot to the Westland Aircraft Company. While testing the Whirlwind fighter/bomber, an aileron pushrod parted and the aileron went up 90 degrees. Naturally the aircraft exhibited a marked wing heaviness on that side, requiring the stick to be held fully across the cockpit, along with opposite rudder to combat the condition --a demonstration of the remarkable effectiveness of the impromptu spoiler. One noted R/C designer who has obviously been following these trends is Bob Dodgson of Dodgson Designs* In addition to flying anything and everything, model or full-size, I do like to fly R/C sailplanes so it was natural that I should dally at the Dodgson booth during Toledo 1983. [That is the only year that I have had a booth at Toledo. It was manned by Jim Benson and Alden Ship. The Photo below shows the 1983 booth with (L to R) Alden Ship, Walt Good and Jim Benson presenting the "Mighty Windsong".]
The Booth
It was there that Jim Benson demonstrated for me the Integrated Trailing Edge Wing Control System (ITEWCS in NASA-ese!) fitted to the new Dodgson Saratoga Windsong. The system was so fascinating that 1 asked to be allowed to illustrate it for M.A.N. readers and 1 am indebted to Bob Dodgson for his cooperation.
ITEWCS (would you pronounce that "Eye-tewks, "I wonder?) actually integrates the trailing edge flaps, which are 60 degrees of the panel trailing edge, with the ailerons to give control of the cruise or descent by trimming the flaps and ailerons up or down independently or together as required. Here it should be stressed that Windsong employs the Eppler 214 airfoil with the downward reflexed trailing edge, which is designed for use with flaps. In the "fast cruise" situation between thermals or while beating back upwind, ailerons and flaps are reflexed upward by up to 8 degrees, although Bob calls for only 6 degrees. When thermaling or "scratching" for lift at low altitude or in dead air, the flaps can be lowered up to 20 degrees but it is, in my opinion, advisable to droop the ailerons only 15 degrees or so, otherwise you might be in for a stall/spin. [Note that I have never advised using any positive TE camber on my Eppler 214 gliders for thermaling. And at most, I would never suggest over 2 to 3 degrees!] Drooping the ailerons by a lesser amount maintains some washout. For a rapid descent the flaps can be lowered 60 degrees for all drag braking action which very effectively limits airspeed. Simultaneously the spoilerons can be raised up to 40 degrees for glide path control.
In my illustration, in order to keep the presentation simple, 1 have not shown the flap system because it is perfectly conventional in operation and certainly familiar to anyone with experience in R/C. The heart of the spoileron system is the mechanical mixer, DuBro* or similar, integral with the aileron servo. The important part of setting up the mixer is to see that it is tilted forward in the neutral position. When thus set, it imparts differential to the normal aileron movement which is advantageous. The servo which normally actuates the spoilers is now used as an aileron trimmer and as such alters the position of the ailerons from 40 degrees negative to about 20 degrees positive and an infinite number of positions in between. Even :In the 40 degree spoiler mode, the ailerons still retain their crisp effectiveness, because in that position calling for left turn raises the left aileron only a little but at the same time it lowers the right aileron a lot, due to the reversed differential caused by the mixer being tilted back. What you are in fact doing is steering with spoilers, which is a very efficient way of going about the business of turning and banking.
In case the reader has not realized it by now, the Dodgson integrated Trailing Edge Wing Control System allows the wing to be constructed with a smooth, unbroken upper surface not marred by efficiency-robbing slots or pockets for spoilers--which never seem to fit tight and flush anyway. An important point to remember when assembling such a system is that the hinge lines should be well sealed using adhesive film strip. While we talk of "killing lift" with spoilers, it does not seem to be generally recognized that what the pilot actually achieves when he "cracks the boards" is a sudden and definite increase in wing loading. In destroying the lift over that part of the wing behind the spoiler, you might just as well have sawed out that part of the wing and dropped it overboard. The weight of the airplane remains the same but the effective wing area has been reduced so the wing loading increases -and it would now require a healthy increase in airspeed to maintain level flight. Since the only way to increase airspeed in a glider is to lower the nose, you must come down either way! Earlier in this article I mentioned spoilers as a means of glide path control. Ninety-nine percent of all R/C' glider pilots I have watched merely hold the spoilers wide open when in fact they have at their fingertips a highly accurate and fine-tunable control of their descent path. In the full-size machine I fly, the spoilers are rarely open all the way on finals. Once aligned with the runway, I set my approach speed to the "book figure" of 59 mph by raising the nose of the aircraft and slowing it down. Then, by gently "playing" the Fournier's spoilers 1 can align a convenient squashed bug on the windshield with a point on the runway until the two remain aligned, at which point the spoilers are held at that setting. The end result is a smooth, steady descent, which allows me to concentrate on wind correction and stray dogs on the runway..
________________________________________________________________________________
RCSD Challenge:
A letter From the Archives:
May 28, 1989
R C SOARING DIGEST
James H. Gray, Editor
Dear Jim, thank you for your letter. I am herein submitting the Camano to be considered in your RCSD challenge. I had not submitted it before because the kit costs more than your arbitrary $150.00 cutoff point. It costs $169.95. Uniquely, however, it can save the builder up to $600.00 on the purchase of a radio. The Camano can fly, full featured, with just a standard, inexpensive, three or four channel radio! All the hardware and mixers are part of the kit, including: the flap-elevator compensator and the automatic aileron reflex with flap reflex mixer. The Camano is a full kit. It is not a stripped kit. It is also a kit that is now in production and so will definitely be available on the market. It is not a dream that could instantly vaporize when the harsh realities of production economics hit home to the would-be-kit producer. The Camano is also a proven kit design that first came out 10 years ago and which has been evolving and improving ever since. Our last major update to the kit, occurred within the past year.
In short, the Camano is a plane that for $169.95 can save the builder money on his radio requirements, it is a proven and constantly updated design, and it is available now and will be available into the foreseeable future. It is not, as they call it in the computer software industry, "vaporware" that never reaches market as promised. Naturally, due to the size of the Camano, I would rather see the maximum ballasted weight of the RCSD Challenge glider at 70 oz, rather than the arbitrary 80 oz.
As you know from Second Wind, I am not in favor of forcing F3B down the throat of the soaring world. This has been going on much too long already. The following paragraphs are my further thoughts on the matter, as originally sent to Byron Blakeslee. As you know, I do not share your enthusiasm for a sportsman F3B class. In fact, I see nothing new in any of the proposals. They have all been tried before and have been dismal failures. I wonder how many people promoting this concept have ever seriously flown in or CDed F3B type contests? I'll bet that most of them never have. If they had, I would venture that they would lose their enthusiasm real fast. I have flown in many local "low key" F3B type contests almost identical to what you call S3B and I even CDed one. I also flew in the team selection finals in Colorado in the mid 70s (I only ended up 13th but I had the second fastest time [the fastest for a kit airplane] in the speed run with my Maestro Caliente). Before we started having F3B events in the NWSS and before the Colorado Team selection finals, we had about 30 active contest flyers in the Seattle area. After the carnage of F3B, we had 1 or 2 active contest flyers left. It took a good 5 years for soaring in the Seattle area to even partially recover from the debacle. F3B has not failed in the US because it has not been given many chances, It has failed because it is a failed concept as far as the enjoyment of our sport goes.
People talk about the "Two Meter World Cup" as an example of how S3B could succeed. I say, why did it last only 3 years? The answer is that it nearly ruined the club that put it on. F3B has consistently killed the best in US soaring wherever it has been crammed down people's throats.
Some people say that they are bored with thermal duration type contests. I say that there are three reasons for this reaction.
1) The "bored" flyer is not very good at thermaling so he is looking for a new arena where he hopes to do better. Unfortunately for him, the good flyers will whip his behind in S3B also.
2) The duration contests the "bored" flyer participates in are not well run. Either the duration tasks are too simple or sandbagging is permitted so that too many people get max times turning it into a landing contest. In a properly run duration contest, people are not allowed to control when they fly. Each flyer must make the best out of the conditions he is dealt. With enough rounds pushed through, the most skillful flyers will amass the most flight time and in most good contests, no flyer is able to max every flight. This keeps the major battle in the air and rewards the skillful flyers with the advanced ships that can explore and work the largest area of sky. Many "bored" flyers are still flying polyhedral bags and sandbagging until a thermal is over the field! No wonder they are bored!
3) There are a handful of truly advanced flyers in the US, such as Joe Wurtz, Dave Banks etc. who possibly have a right to say they are "bored" with thermal duration competition. These few people have gone as far as anyone has ever gone in perfecting thermal competition flying and yet even they continue to grow. Strangely, these truly jpgted flyers are not the ones knocking on the doors to compete in F3B. They are more attracted to Cross Country flying, which utilizes all the skills of thermaling, distance and speed in a more sensible and productive format than F3B or S3B.
In the past, many thermal duration contests have incorporated a speed event or a distance event. One such flight per day, does not necessarily totally bog down a contest (but it can) and it can give would-be S3B flyers a taste of what is involved in S3B before they leap in full bore and end up another carcass on the dung heap of F3B, disillusioned and out of the hobby.
I agree with Al Doig that F3B is a "dead horse" in the US. He says that it is because the US flyers are too lazy to put in all the support effort that F3B requires. I say it is because they are too smart to be sucked into the Black Hole that is F3B, sucking the energy, the vitality and the heart right out of those beguiled flyers who pursue its endless demands and minimal rewards. Once again, we had to show Europe the way. Even many European countries are finally figuring it out! Beginning with Dan Pruss, the F3B promoters, in this country, have been myopic fantasizers, not serious flyers. Dan was so unaware of what was happening in this country that when he saw the Camanos flying in the 1984 Nats he thought it was a brand new design. He was not even aware that Camanos had been available for several (about 4) years.
Placing limits on glider designs used in S3B, will not enhance its popularity. When F3B first started in this country, everyone was flying stock kits, not exotic ships, and yet it was not fun then. The one design idea is the dumbest idea to come along yet. Sailplane flyers are, by nature, innovators and modifiers. If they must all buy a special plane and fly it, there is no room for hope for any but the top flyers. The top flyers will always win because lesser flyers cannot hope to win through perfecting a better plane and soon they will all quit.
Jim Gray's enthusiasm for his often repeated example of the success of the 1-26 class in full size soaring has no bearing on what we are talking about. In full size soaring, the people already had the popular 1-26 gliders, they did not buy them specifically to compete in the 1-26 class. They competed in the 1-26 class because that was what they already had. If they were buying a glider specifically to compete with, I am sure that most of them would not choose the highly limited performance of the 1-26. If you were to apply the principals of the 1-26 class to R/C soaring, the S3B ship would be the Gentle Lady. It is by far the most popular and readily available design.
I hear nothing new in S3B that has not been tried many times before. It is a bank corrupt concept being perpetrated by a few people with access to the media. If S3B were fun, why would people need to cry in soaring columns about its "virtues"? People would be flying it in local contests and it would catch on like wild fire in one contest season! Hell! It would have taken over, 15 years ago! Why keep wailing and breast beating over the natural death. Lets move on to topics that are of real value and interest to the soaring public. Those who are now enamored with S3B can hold a couple local contests and purge their systems of the false dream real fast.
Jim, since you are still speaking to me after my Second Wind article, I trust that you will not be offended by the above. Nothing personal is intended, and I do enjoy your work in RCSD. On the down side, RCSD gives a forum to many people who would be better off if they flew more and talked less. Don Wienecki, a prime example, finally figured out what was causing his ballasting problems with his Camano. Just as I told him, when he called me, it was not caused by the airframe at all. It was caused by radio interference at the particular field that he flew in at the time he had the problem. Most people would have considered radio problems the prime suspect immediately, checked the radio and tried a different field. Even after I had eliminated all other possible causes for him such C.G. etc. he still talked about it (and called me endlessly) for a month or so before even trying to fly the plane again with ballast. Surprise, at the new field it flew great and handled the same with ballast as it had without. Oh, the joys of selling glider kits!
Enclosed is the required 3 view drawing of the Camano. I have also enclosed a copy of our catalog which gives full specifications and info on the ship. The sales of the Camano have really been on the upswing, since our last revision incorporating much of the Lovesong technology. Many people prefer it as there primary competition glider. Sincerely, Bob Dodgson ________________________________________________________________________________
Flashback - 1972!
Early 1973 ad.
The Todi --the first successful multichannel thermal competition glider was released in 1972! That same year, it won a major contest in Germany at Rheinland-Pfalz, flown by Byron Grover. The soaring world has not been the same since the advent of the Todi!
________________________________________________________________________________
Press Black-Out!
A Letter From the Archives:
June 23, 1989
R C SOARING DIGEST
James H. Gray, Editor
Dear Jim, thank you for your kind mention of Second Wind in RCSD. The mention has precipitated quite a response.
I have always conceived of my kits as being "multitask" gliders. However, I never narrowly defined multitask as being limited to F3B tasks. I view multitask as including thermal duration performance that includes speed and distance in the search and optimization of marginal conditions. I also include aerobatic performance, slope capability etc. My planes were always as good at aerobatics and on the slope as they were at thermal duration.
I was surprised when someone said recently, and I believe it was you, that Ed Slobod was the first to use the term Multitask relative to glider design. I did not coin the term, but it was widely used long before Ed Slobod started using it and narrowing its meaning to just F3B events. Enclosed is an ad that I used in 1976 in which I used the term. I may have used it in earlier catalogs but I did not have time to go through them. 1976 predated any multitask ship design by Ed Slobod, by many years. Many contests had multitasks long before F3B. In fact, as early as 1972, there was a contest in Portland, OR. that combined thermal duration events and slope events for an overall score. That contest provided my first big win with the TODI and I won a Kraft radio. The early LSF contest incorporated a timed run through a fixed course. Multitask did not suddenly appear with the rigid F3B environment. It was here from the beginning of my soaring days and all of my designs have incorporated the versatility to excel under extremely diverse requirements. Jim about my ad copy being "self serving", isn't that the purpose of advertising? I have many testimonials on file where skeptics have written and told me that they found my claims to be true. I am flattered if you find them "flamboyant". I think that it is interesting, how little legitimate press my planes have received through the years, relative to their impact on the hobby. As an example, the Windsong/Lovesong is probably the best American glider design of the decade and it has had no real articles done on it. One article finally appeared in R/C Report last year. The Gentle Lady, Sagitta, Aquilia, Prodigy, Gemini etc. have been featured in color layouts all over the hobby magazines even though there is nothing remarkable, innovative, or unique about them in construction, concept or performance. Lee Reanuad, made good quality kits, utilizing simple and unremarkable concepts and the rest of them just followed along using his techniques. The "major breakthrough" differences were the utilization of different airfoils. I have had the Herculean task of getting people to give my ships a chance, in spite of a general press black-out. Fortunately, enough good flyers have flown my ships, from Russ Young, Dwight Holley, Carl Blake, Dave Johnson, Tom Brightbill, Tom Neilson, Josh Glaab, Bob Baugher, Dave Banks etc. that they have succeeded against the odds. As you know from former correspondence, I disagree with your comments that I finally "have seen fit to make some of the changes in Lovesong (and now Camano) that your loyal builders and fliers have suggested (in the face of much opposition from you) over the years." While I realize that you threw this in just to bait me (I believe that you have about as weird a sense of humor as I do) I cannot resist commenting once again on the subject. Anyone who is in the kit designing/building business hears thousands of ideas every year. In my case, most of the ideas are ideas that I have either thought of before, myself, or that I have heard many times from many sources. If any of these ideas ever appears in one of my kits, there are a thousand fathers taking the bows, each person is sure that the idea originated with him. Most ideas that I hear, however, are steps backwards that I have rejected long before. Most of the modification ideas to the Windsong, fell in the latter category. They were knee-jerk reactions that did not solve any real-life design problems. For instance, people would add great weight, beefing up the wing while not going to a heavier wing rod, not stiffening the surfaces torsionally, and not making heftier flap linkages. To increase the performance envelope, all of these problems had to be addressed as well as increasing the strength of the stab. Modifiers were doing piecemeal modifications and leaving weak links in the chain. As such, they were increasing weight and not improving performance and in may cases they were impairing performance. I was planning on doing a major overhaul to the complete chain. As soon as I had the time I did it and I did it very effectively. Aside from the major upgrade from the Windsong to the Lovesong, I had constantly been incorporating improvements to the Windsong design. One thing that sets a good designer apart from the hackers, is his being able to judge what is good and what is not, thereby keeping the good and discarding the faulty ideas. I may not think of everything myself, although I think of a lot of it myself, but I am really great at seeing possibilities in good ideas and I am also good at being able to quickly see the flaws in bad ideas. At any rate, to my knowledge, no one that had modified the Windsong, had increased the envelope of the total design chain and so had accomplished little. The Original Windsong was a well balanced structural system. The Lovesong is also a well balanced structural system that is designed as a total system to be 30% stronger than the Windsong and it is designed to be flutter free at speeds the Windsong was never meant to see. Enough of this bullshit. You sucked me in again. If you're at the Nats, I'll get you for it. Sincerely, --Bob Dodgson ________________________________________________________________________________
Email comments, questions or orders to dodgsonb@eskimo.com
Back to Dodgson Designs Home Page.
This page was created by Bob Dodgson of:
Dodgson Designs
21230 Damson Road Bothell, WA 98021
________________________________________________________________________________