Page 1February 2004

February, 2004Vol. 21, No. 2

R/C Soaring DigestPage 2

Copyright © 2004 R/C Soaring Digest.All rights reserved.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3 "Soaring Site" ......................................................... Judy SlatesEditorial ........................................ Midwest Slope Challenge Registration

4 "Jer's Workbench" .................................................. Jerry SlatesKit Review ..................................................................... Bird of Time ARF

5 Technical Analysis & Design ................................... Mark Drela................................................................................. DLG Camber Preset

6 "On The Wing..." ........................................ Bill & Bunny KuhlmanFlying Wing Design & Analysis .......................... Ken Ueyama's F5F 'wing

10 "Tech Topics" ...................................................... Dave RegisterTechnical Analysis & Design .............................. 2 Meter Design Analysis

13 "Have Sailplane Will Travel!" ................................... Tom NagelTravel Saga Travel Gear ....... Meade CaptureView Integrated Binoculars...............................................and Digital Camera - A New Sailplane Toy

16 Event Coverage .................................................... Phil Knowlton.............................................................. 2003 Tangerine Soaring Contest

Page 3February 2004

TheSoaring

Site

Airacobra

Dave Garwood’s Slope ScaleBell P-39 Airacobra, built

from a Cavazos Sailplane Designkit, flying over Wilson Lake,Russell County, Kansas duringMidwest Slope Challenge 2002.A Power Scale Soaring (PSS)glider, it has a molded fiberglassfuselage, balsa-sheeted foamcore wings, balsa tail parts, andis controlled by aileron andelevator servos. Span is 50inches, weight is 28 ounces. Builtaround an Oldsmobile 37mmcannon firing through thepropellor hub, nearly 5000Airacobra P-39s were sent toRussia under the WWII LendLease program, and the aircraftfilled a distinguished groundattack role.

Photo taken with Canon Eoscamera using Canon telephotozoom lens on Fujichrome 200film by Joe Chovan.

Back Cover

Ken Ueyama’s F3J ‘wing

This photo of Ken’s F3J Riskydemonstrates its large wing span

(3.56 meters). Mr. Youki, the moldbuilder, is holding the model.

Details on Ken's F5F tailless machineare covered this month by Bill &Bunny Kuhlman.

Happy Flying!Judy Slates

Midwest SlopeChallenge Registration

The following announcement regardingthe MWSC, held in Nebraska, is fromLoren Blinde, <mwsc@alltel.net>:

“The calendar has turned another yearand it’s time to start thinking aboutflying instead of shoveling snow. The2004 Midwest Slope Challenge will beheld May 13-16 at Wilson Lake,Kansas. Registration opens one weekfrom now on February 14; that wouldbe Valentine’s Day if you’re relation-ship-challenged and need a reminder...:-)

“Complete details and information canbe found at <http://home.alltel.net/mwsc>.

“The event will be pretty much thesame format we’ve done before, youprobably know the drill by now. Theonly rule change so far is that thefoamie warbird race is open to 60"planes. However, “soft” plane rulesstill apply to the class; in other words,no plastic spinners or hard stuff, scalelooks not withstanding.

“Just a reminder about the combatevents: the weight limit of 35 oz. willbe enforced. If your combat plane isheavier, you’re still welcome to watchor even chase downed planes thatweigh less than 35 oz.

“Race headquarters will not be at the“Lucas Inn” as in past years, and mayvery well be Alden Shipp’s garage. Ifyou’re registered, I’ll keep you up-dated.

“The City of Lucas airshow willhappen, IF one of you would like toorganize it. Any volunteers? The localChamber of Commerce has alreadycontacted me in anticipation of anothergreat show.

“The other change from last year isthat we now live in a world where thisnote, with 200 copies, will get bouncedby many well-meaning spam blockers.

I’ll do my best to keep everyoneinformed, but you might want tocirculate this note among your circle offlying friends, just in case.”

SCHEDULE OF SPECIALEVENTS

May 13-16, 2004Midwest Slope Challenge Wilson Lake, KSLoren Blinde, mwsc@alltel.net

August 21-22, 2004Christmas in August Cape Blanco, OR Fun Flyhttp://clubsos.itgo.com(541) 269-2423, slimefink@yahoo.com

Please send in yourscheduled 2004 events

as they become available!

R/C Soaring DigestPage 4

Jerry Slates556 Funston Drive

Santa Rosa, CA 95407RCSDigest@aol.com

Jer'sWorkbench

BIRD of Time

Manufacturer: DynafliteWing Span: 3mWing Area: 1050 sq. in.Weight: 60 oz.

(Mine is 57 oz.)Length: 49"Radio Used: JR 388Servos: 1 JR 507 (rudder)

1 JR 241 (elevator)

Completed Bird of Time.

Bird of Time by Dynaflite as itcomes out of the box.

Servo mounts, pushrod tube andantenna tube, all factory installed.

JR 241 elevator servo. Abit tricky to install.

Bird of Time ARF(aka, BOT)

Designed by Dave Thornburg some 30years ago, this classic model sailplanewas very competitive in the days of therudder, elevator only class, and still isto this day.

What comes with the Bird of Time,ARF?

Kit Contents

I asked myself that question as Iopened the box and found a beautifulset of wings, stabs, and rudder. Allwere pre-built and expertly covered,better than what I can do. The paintedfiberglass fuselage was beautifullydone, as well. The box also includedseveral bags of miscellaneous parts.

Kit Assembly

Putting together the BOT is pretty

easy, requiring only a fewhours. My BOT arrived onTuesday, and was flying thefollowing weekend!

For the expert builder, theassembly should be quiteeasy. However, for thebeginner, read the instructionmanual cover to cover,carefully. It’s a good instruc-tion manual, and someoneobviously spent a lot of timeputting it together.

I like it when everythingeasily comes together. All thepre-cut parts were the correctsize and shape; the pre-drilledholes were just right!

I followed the instructionmanual step by step, exceptfor one part. I didn’t use thekit supplied parts to installmy elevator servo. I prefer toinstall it using Marine Goop,because I’ve found it an easiermethod. However, there is aproblem using Marine Goop

Page 5February 2004

to install a servo. If it ever needs to berepaired, it will be a real bear remov-ing it from the inside of the fuselage!

Once completed, the BOT was bal-anced per the instruction manual.

Flying

Day one at the flying field called forthe usual radio range check, whichchecked out OK. I was ready for thefirst hand toss.

I hate this part of testing a new model,but knew it had to be done! With agood grip on the transmitter in my lefthand, and the BOT in my right, I heldthe model over my head, took tworunning steps, and threw the BOT intothe air. It went up about 30 feet. Beforeit had a chance to stall, I taped downelevator, watching it glide across thefield, hands off for almost 300 feet. Theglide was straight with no correctionrequired.

Next step, using a 250 foot high start,indicated that the BOT had no badhabits on launch. It tracked straight upthe line. Off tow, the glide was flatand, with its large rudder, the Birdturned when it should turn. It waseven easy to read the air as thermalsblew on the BOT wing tips.

Landing is different than landing a 6servo sailplane, however. Since theBOT does not have flaps or spoilers, itdoes not want to slow down onlanding. As it comes in on approach, 2to 3 foot off the ground, ground effecttakes over. Just like the EnergizerBunny, it wants to go and go and go.However, with just a bit of up elevator,but not so much that it stalls, it can belanded right on the spot.

Yup, I like my Bird of Time.

• • •

R/C Soaring DigestPage 6

bsquared@appleisp.nethttp://www.b2streamlines.com

KU2F5Fv.1 ready for some test flying.

Kenichi “Ken” Ueyama and hisKU2F5Fv.3 at the club flying field.

Ken Ueyama’s F5F ’wing

Kenichi “Ken” Ueyama resides inYokohama Japan and has been involved inF5B national and world competition forthe last 16 years. Ken will be the TeamJapan manager for this summer’s F5BWorld Championship in England. Fasci-nated by the flying wing concept, andknowing the design of conventional F5Bgliders had reached near perfection, Kendetermined to design, build and fly atailless F5F machine.

Ken’s decision was based on fairlyextensive research. He initially

believed there were large advantagesto be derived from a tailless planform,but as he investigated further he foundthe actual performance differences tobe relatively small.

Still, he remained interested in the

tailless concept because of its uniqueappearance. Based on previous experi-ence, he knew he would not be able toimmediately have a record beating F5Fglider, but he was reasonably certainhe could come up with a competitiveF5F flying wing. Three prototypes andtwelve months later, Ken reached thatgoal with a molded ’wing he callsKU2F5F.

What is F5F?

FAI F5F competition is essentially theF3B format translated to electricpowered sailplanes with a minimumweight and wing area, ten cell maxi-mum, and a maximum motor weight.See Table 1.

The FAI changed the rules for F5B andF5F last year so use of NiMH battery isnow approved. The 2004 worldchampionship, to be held this fall, willbe the first to allow use of NiMhbatteries. All the current F5B & F5Fcompetitors are testing and flying withNiMh batteries.

The trend seems to be to use ten GP3300 cells for F5F and 17 GP3000 cellsfor F5B. The current draw for thesemachines is running near 150 amp/hin both categories.

Page 7February 2004

R/C Soaring DigestPage 8

Close-up of the LE flapsystem on KU2F5Fv.1.

The very streamlined Risky fuselage pod.

Mr. Okada, a member of Ken’s club,holds KU2F5Fv.3.

KU2F5F design motivation

We asked Ken why he had chosen apusher rather than a tractor configura-tion. He explained current F5F glidersuse a 16x16 to 18x17 folding prop. Toclear the leading edge in the foldedposition, the nose must be at least aslong as half the propeller span. Theaircraft is tremendously nose heavywith the motor so far forward. Thespinner is 18 inches in front of the CG!Placing the receiver battery, receiver,power battery, controller, motor andprop in order from nose to tail makesfor an almost perfect balance. Ken alsonotes the aircraft is prettier this way,particularly when it’s gliding and thetrailing props look like long skinnybird legs.

F5F is like F3B in that it is a multi taskcompetition. Similar to F3B, the speedtask points usually decide the winner.Almost everyone gets the maximumpoints for the thermal duration task.Efficient high speed cruise is the mostimportant design criteria, thereforesome low speed performance must besacrificed.

KU2F5Fv.1 and v.2

The design coefficient of lift for thespeed task is 0.05 (40m/sec), thedesign coefficient of lift for the thermalduration task is 1.25 (8m/sec). Plug-ging these numbers into the Pankninformula, we find the twist required is -2.2mm (0.7 degrees) for the speed taskand -27mm (8.6 degrees) for thethermal task. If you use the twist valuefor the speed task, a lot of up trim willbe required. Additionally, there is thematter of up aileron deflection duringroll. Twist affects the entire wingchord, whereas an elevon uses only therear 25% or so.

Taking a cue from Hans-JürgenUnverferth’s Joined One, Ken believed aleading edge flap would alleviate someof the elevon surface deflection,making it more akin to wing twist. Atthermal setting the leading edge isslightly down and the elevon is up.The flight speed decreases roughly10~20% compared to the case withoutLE flap deflection. Stall characteristicsare also slightly better, but there’s notmuch difference in that area.

Ken was disappointed, as he wasexpecting a big difference in the effect

of the LE flap. He had thoughtthis flying wing, with superthin airfoil and high wingloading and almost no twist,must have a LE flap or someother similar device in orderto float at low speed. Surpris-ingly, it flew very wellwithout LE flap deflection.

KU2F5Fv.1 used a three pieceblue foam wing, and about 15flights were put on thisairframe. From the start, theaircraft was very prone toflutter. The problem resultedfrom the wing chord beingeffectively halved by theleading edge flap and elevoncutouts. Putting servos in thearea did not help matters, especially inlight of the wing thickness at thatpoint, which is just 11.7mm. Flutter athigh speed lead to this model’s de-mise.

The second version, KU2F5Fv.2, used atwo piece wing of blue foam and hadno leading edge flap. It was destroyedon its maiden outing when it hit thebungee post on the first launch.

KU2F5Fv.3

KU2F5Fv.3 employs different airfoilsfor root and tip than the previousversions. The portion of the span usedfor each section is different as well. SeeTable 2. Again, there are no leadingedge flaps.

In its first competition, Ken’s KU2F5Fflew 28 laps in distance and climbedout and thermalled better than anyother entry. It handles beautifully,with no adverse tendencies. At thedesign top speed (40m/sec) it needs noreflex. It flies fast and flat. Ken is surewith further fine tuning he can get it tobe even more competitive.

The KU2F5Fv.3 uses a two piecemolded wing with carbon skin andspar structure. Construction consists ofa blue foam core, Kevlar and carbonskin and spar system, vacuum bagged.

As you can see in the photos, Ken hasproduced a beautiful aircraft. He isextremely pleased with its perfor-mance, and is looking forward toentering it in future competitions.

Because of its popularity and provi-

Page 9February 2004

sional status, the organizers of eachF5F “world championship” event havealways promoted the internationalcontests as World Games. Team Japanwill enter Ken’s KU2F5F in thissummer’s F5F World Games. This willmark the first time a flying wing willcompete in either F5B or F5F at theWorld level. Ken says his KU2F5F maynot win, but Team Japan is certain tostir up a lot of curiosity and interestamong the other competitors.

Risky

In addition to his KU2F5F, Ken alsohas an F3J wing, Risky, in the works.The molds for the airframe were madeby Ken’s friend Mr. Youki, a worldclass F3B flyer. Risky has a huge wingspan — 3.56 meters — and an ex-tremely high aspect ratio.

Initial test flights in mid-December2003 were completed using a “shockcord” bungee to get the CG and trimadjusted before winch launching. Withtwo tow hooks and a Y-cable, Risky

went up like a kite, very steady andeasy to control. It has an extremelyhigh glide ratio, but still needs someadjustments of flap settings and elevondifferential; it is therefore currentlyundergoing further flight testing.

There is hope Risky will be soon beavailable for sale. Information concern-ing availability can be found at on Mr.Youki’s web site <http://homepage3.nifty.com/t-youki/risky/newpage1.htm>.

We look forward to providing furtherupdates to Mr. Ueyama’s taillessprojects, including contest records._____

We’re always looking forward tohearing about RCSD reader projects.Information, photos, and ideas forfuture columns can always be sent tous at either <bsquared@appleisp.net>or P.O. Box 975, Olalla WA 98359-0975.

• • •

R/C Soaring DigestPage 10

Dave RegisterBartlesville, Oklahoma

regdave@aol.com

TECH TOPICS

2 METER DESIGN ANALYSIS

Designing a 2 Meter sailplane for thermalduration performance can be challenging.The trade-off in wing loading, aspect ratioand airfoil is much more constrained thanfor an open class design.

People have many opinions on thistopic, but for me Mark LeVoe’s

Super-V (2 Meter) is still the best ofthis class. The combination of airfoil,planform and generous V-stab surfacesmake a pleasing appearance and avery stable, high performance design.

Although you can find 2M Super-Vsout there, Mark stopped production ofthis ship several years ago. The planesthat Mark designed, from the Alba-tross to the Super-V, are excellentflying machines.

Everyone has his or her favorite planeor design trend, so I won’t try anddefend everything we’re going todiscuss. The approach I’ll use is justone of several ways to look at thewhole problem.

There are a number of good 2 Meterships out there. Three that appear tohave promise are the Starling Pro(assuming the spar quality improves),the Mini-Graphite from KennedyComposites and the Laser 2M from NESailplane Products (sorry, Sal but V-tails are just sexier). The Organic is abeautifully crafted airplane but toofragile for the way I hammer myplanes. And so on.

To address the 2 Meter design chal-lenge, there are several issues to bereviewed:

1) Wing loading and airfoilselection,

2) Wing planform – whichdepends a great deal on #1,

3) Pitch and yaw stability analy-sis, and

4) Fuselage/stabilizer design,which depends a great deal on#3.

To look at trade-offs with the wing

loading, airfoil and planform selection,we’ll use (you guessed it) a polaranalysis. We’ll first evaluate theestimated flight profile for the thingswe can conveniently change and thensee how that plays into the choice ofthe airfoil and wing planform.

To provide input to the polar program,we need estimates for scaling theweight of our designs. To do that, I’llwork from measured values for planesI’ve been flying that use compositeconstruction techniques. After measur-ing everything I’ve got in the shop, Icome up with the following averagenumbers:

Wing ~ 4.75 oz./sq.ft.Stabs ~ 2.50 oz./sq.ft.Fuselage ~ 1.77 oz./ft.

These are all ‘dry’ weights - as receivedin the box. Note that the fuselagescaling is based on the overall length ofthe fuselage and not its wetted area.This is a reasonably consistent numberfor the 2 Meter and Open class shipsused to come up with these averages.

Weights for other components can bemeasured directly. I’m assuming a six-servo design with a 500maH NiCdpack. The additional weight from the

Page 11February 2004

flight gear comes to about 17-19 oz.:

6 Servos: 1 oz. eachReceiver: 1.5 oz.Battery/Harness: 3.0 oz.Wing Wiring Harnesses: 1.0 oz.Wing Rod: 3.5 oz.Misc.: 5.0 oz.

(Servo Mount/switch/plugs/linkage/control horns/tow hook/skid/skeg/etc.)

Total ~ 20.0 oz.

There are lighter weight componentsavailable but these values are typical ofequipment normally used to run a 6-servo ship. You can use a NiMhbattery and save some weight butyou’ll probably add it back as lead inthe nose. If you have numbers thatrepresent your equipment better, gofor it.

Right away I think you can see theproblem. The weight of the ancillaryequipment is proportionally higher fora 2 Meter ship than for open class. That20 oz. number is real. It includes thewing rod, skid, skeg, linkage, wingwiring harness and then ALL of thecomponents of your radio gear. If youdon’t come up with at least 18 oz. for atypical setup, I’ll be surprised.

A 2M ship typically weighs ~ 44 oz.while an open class comes in ~ 76 oz.Using the above numbers we find thatyour hardware contributes about 45%of the flying weight of a 2 Meter planewhereas that same value is about 30%of the weight of an open class ship.This really affects the wing loadingand the subsequent performanceenvelope of the 2 Meter class.

Assuming values for the stabilizervolume coefficients (RVC ~ 0.045 andTVC ~ 0.50) and the fuselage momentarm (distance from 25% wing averagechord to 25% horizontal stabilizerchord), we can come up with esti-mated wing loadings as a function ofwing aspect ratio. Table 1 provides thescaling information to be used for ourfirst cut at a 2 Meter design.

Aspect ratio is an important criterion.High aspect ratio is good for lowinduced drag but bad for wing load-ing. One can compensate with a highlift airfoil but then profile drag be-comes a problem at higher speeds.

Plugging this all into a polar analysishelps sort out the trade-offs.

First, let’s zero in on the aspect ratio/wing loading trade-off using data forthe SA7035. What I’m looking for is aminimum sink velocity ~ 1 ft/sec, amax L/D of ~ 18. Based on my per-sonal preferences, I’d also like a flyingspeed of ~ 25 ft/sec in the min sink tomax L/D part of the flight profile. Anadded bonus would be a fairly broadpolar at higher speeds to allow goodcruising efficiency when you have tobring it back in a modest breeze.

Figure 1 shows the result of thisanalysis for the aspect ratios and wingloadings summarized in Table 1. Oneof the first things we see is that thewing loading for a 2-meter designmakes it difficult to make that 1 ft/secminimum sink velocity.

It’s tough getting down to the cruisingrange I’d like with the SA7035. How-ever, we do see a reasonable optimiza-tion of things around an AR of 8 - 10.

The velocity near minimum sink is ~25 ft/sec but the sink rate is a littlehigh and I’d like to bring that down abit if possible.

Before looking at airfoil responses, it’suseful to compare this same analysis toan open class ship. Table 2 contains thesame type of estimates but using a 124inch span (~ 3 meter). As a realitycheck, my Laser 3MC has an AR ~ 15and weighs in at 74 oz.

Figure 2 presents the polar calculationfor the data in Table 2. Note that theminimum sink, max L/D and velocityin the min sink range are all morefavorable than the 2-meter case. So‘yes’ is the quick answer to ‘doesbigger fly better’?

If we take a close look at Reynoldsnumber (Re) for these two configura-tions we find Re has very little to dowith the performance difference. It’salmost exclusively aspect ratio andwing loading. Since the radio, servoand ancillary equipment weight is

R/C Soaring DigestPage 12

about the same for both sailplaneclasses, we can add more wing area ata higher aspect ratio in open class andstill come out ahead on wing loading.

The next variable we can push aroundis airfoil selection. Since we’re flying attypically higher wing loadings in 2-meter class, we should probably lookat higher lift sections. The SA7038 andS3021 are worth a look. I had excellentperformance with the S3021 on astandard Duck a few years ago. Othergood airfoils are certainly available butthese three give a reasonable look atthe responses.

Using an aspect ratio of 10 (2 Metercase), Figure 3 compares these fourairfoils using the same planformconsiderations. The SA7038 appears togive the best benefit for the selectedAR and wing loading.

Finally, in Figure 4, we compare thesuggested 2-meter configuration(SA7038 airfoil, AR ~ 10) with anoptimized open class ship (AR ~ 14)using the SA7035. Although the Openclass ship is still the better overallperformer, we’ve closed the gap quitea bit.

To summarize what we’velearned so far:

Bigger does fly better,Re is not the dominant effect in the 2

meter and larger classes,Wing loading and aspect ratio flexibil-

ity favors the open class design,and

To approach open class performance, a2-meter design will need to use alower aspect ratio wing and ahigher lift airfoil section.

Clearly, if we can change the construc-tion and equipment weight parametersto the low side, you’ll also come outahead. But the numbers used aretypical of the planes out there inproduction. When you start usingexotic materials and constructiontechniques to lighten the load, the costusually goes up and the durabilitygoes down – at least for a ham-handedguy like me.

In the next several installments, we’lldo the same calculations for some twometer designs with which I havepersonal experience. Then we’ll look in

more detail at optimizing the wingplanform for lift distribution andwash-out. Finally, we’ll wrap up bytaking a look at some stability criteriawhich will help properly size thehorizontal and vertical stabilizers.

• • •

Page 13February 2004

HAVE SAILPLANE, WILL TRAVEL!

By Tom H. Nagel904 Neil Ave.

Columbus, OH 43215tomnagel@iwaynet.net

Weasel sloper atLinnville, Ohio,

Jan 1, 2004.

MEADE CaptureViewIntegrated Binocularsand Digital Camera

A New Sailplane Toy

Every once in a while some newgadget comes along, usually

intended for a purpose totally re-moved from RC sailplanes, and itsuddenly becomes a “gotta have”addition to the RC pilot’s toy box.Some examples that I recall are theCasio altimeter watch, the Radio Shack

talking timer, and cell phonebattery technology in general.For awhile, Triad brandcombination sun screen/bugrepellant/desert topping wasa hot item, but for the fact thatthe manufacturer seems tohave gone out of business forsome reason. Here’s whatmay be the next big thing.

This Christmas my mother-in-law, who has a talent forfinding the right gift for theright person, found the MeadCaptureView at Radio Shackand got one for me. I don’tknow what she thought I

much what you see through thebinoculars on a 640x480 pixel chip.There is no display device on theCaptureView. You have to wait untilyou get home to download the imagesonto your computer and see whatviews you captured. A USB patchchord and Ulead Photo Expresssoftware on a CD-ROM are includedwith the purchase.

The digital camera needs bright lightto take a decent picture and is in focusfor anything beyond 50 feet. While thismakes is useless for home snapshotsaround a birthday cake (unless you areREALLY old, with a big cake and lot ofcandles), it makes the unit just about

would do with it, but it quicklybecame apparent to me that thecombination compact binocular anddigital camera was just about ideal fortaking pictures of flying sailplanes andslope sites. Using the CaptureViewunit takes some practice, but the “film”is virtually free, so I have been practic-ing and I am pleased with the results.

The Meade CaptureView is a pair ofcompact 8-power roof prism binocu-lars, with a little digital camera slungbetween the binocular barrels. Thedigital camera is a fixed focus auto-matic exposure device with a lensequivalent to a 35mm camera’s 400mm lens. The camera records pretty

R/C Soaring DigestPage 14

Running deer, captured on film,demonstrate about how fast you can takesuccessive pictures with the CaptureView!

CaptureView photo fromNew Year’s Day - Skye

Malcolm’s 60" Chrysalis.

ideal for taking flying slope andthermal sailplane pictures. TheCaptureView is discounted to around$50 now, so even though you can findmore versatile or high resolutiondigital cameras on the market, this onegives a lot of bang for the buck.

Controls are simple: two buttons, onefor each index finger, right whereyou’d put them if you had a firm twohand grip on the binoculars. The leftbutton turns on the camera and allowsyou to scroll through some options.(The camera defaults to high resolu-tion, so you don’t need to worry aboutthe option settings if you are trying tocatch a quick picture. The camera alsoturns itself off automatically in about20 seconds, so you don’t need to worryabout turning it off.)

The right hand button is the shutter.The camera bleeps at you when youturn it on, when you shoot a picture,and when it turns itself off, so it isrelatively easy to keep track of thebleeping thing without having to lookat the controls.

Recovery time between shots seems tobe about as fast as you can work theshutter. The “shutter” releases whenyou take your finger off the button, notwhen you press it down. Therefore,holding the shutter button down doesNOT give you successive rapid fireshots. If you hold the button down toolong, waiting for your shot to set up,the camera will turn itself off.

Most of us know how to use binocularsso there are only a couple of tricks youneed to master to take pictures withthe CaptureView:

1. Don’t worry about focusing thebinoculars – the camera is fixedfocus. Concentrate on framing, notfocus.

2. Hold the CaptureView steady. Usetwo hands, and squeeze yourelbows down against your ribs.Brace yourself if you can. Press theshutter button as soon as a you seea shot coming.

3. Pan your CaptureView to capture aflyby, and follow through.

4. Remember, the “shutter” releaseswhen you release the shutterbutton.

5. Timing is everything. TheCaptureView will bleep itself into“off” mode in only twenty seconds,so watch your subject through thebinoculars and don’t turn on thecamera (left button) until you are“fixin’ to shoot a pitcher” as theysay in Texas. Or at the WhiteHouse nowadays.

6. Don’t look at the sun. Looking atthe sun through binoculars is whatoptometrists refer to as a “badthing.” I get the impression that RC

Page 15February 2004

flyers generally keep track ofwhere the sun is almost by reflexafter flying for a few years. Thisshould stand you in good steadwhile using the CaptureView.

7. Take lots of pictures and throwaway most of them.

One final note: the instructions adviseyou to remove the batteries if you arenot going to be using the camera for awhile. Apparently there is a small butsignificant battery drain even when theunit is turned off. There is a lowbattery indicator on the camera, and itis a good idea to check it before goingto take pictures. If the batteries die, anystored pictures are lost.

Now, here’s a project for the inveteratetinkerers among us. The streamlinedlittle digital camera pod (less thebinoculars) would make a niftyairborne digital camera, slung under awing or on top of a fuselage. One servowith a dual output arm could be set upto push both buttons, and both turn onthe camera and take pictures. Takingthe CaptureView apart would certainlyvoid the warranty, but so does the restof the stuff we usually do with ourequipment. Plus, you would have aperfectly good set of binoculars leftover. Drop me a note if you try this. Iwant to make sure to keep my equip-ment locked up when you are around.

• • •

This column is dedicated tosoaring vacations. If you have a

favorite sailplane saga, considerwriting it down for RCSD. If youare planning a vacation thatincludes your plane and transmit-ter, consider making notes as yougo, and working up an article later.Take photos. Collect maps. Andsend your story to Tom Nagel attomnagel@iwaynet.net for gentleediting and suggestions.

Tom

R/C Soaring DigestPage 16

© 2003, Copywrited by ThornbirdAV.

© 2003, Copywrited by ThornbirdAV.

The 30th Annual Tangerine SoaringContest of Orlando, Florida was

held on Thanksgiving weekend, 2003.Over 40 RC soaring enthusiastsparticipated in the two-day event,which was sponsored by the OrlandoBuzzards Soaring Club and officiallysanctioned by AMA. The Tangerine isone of the premier thermal soaringcontests held every year in CentralFlorida. Contestants came to Orlandofrom as far away as New York, Penn-sylvania, Illinois, and Arizona.

The weather in Orlando proved to bechallenging with unusually coldtemperatures (cool by our northernbrethren standards) and gusty windsproduced by the passing of a cold frontthe night before the contest. Those whohad extra hot coffee in the morningsproved to be very popular witheveryone. While temperatures dippedinto the high forties in the mornings,requiring jackets (and for some of usnative central Floridians, long under-wear), the spirits of everyone remainedhigh.

All participants received a memento ofthe contest. T-shirts were available forpurchase. An informal swap meet washeld (as usual when multiple RCenthusiasts are in the same place)which included the exchange ofplanes, parts, supplies and equipmentfor American currency. Food wasavailable during the lunch breaks inthe competition, and the Buzzards helda raffle on the last day giving awayover $700 in prizes including severalplanes donated by sponsors.

The Tangerine is a thermal durationwith landing task competition. Withfinding lift difficult this year becauseof the weather, the landing taskbecame key. This placed additionalemphasis on lower altitude flyingskills. The gusty winds also played arole in clearing the trees along three ofthe field’s boundaries. This, of course,is very important for those of us thathave limited tree-climbing abilities.These same flying skills were alsoessential in everyone’s attempts toseverely limit the “jettisoning” of planeparts upon landing.

2003 Tangerine Soaring Contestby Phil Knowlton

Page 17February 2004

This year’s contest consisted of contes-tants in three skill levels: Sportsman,Expert, and Master with 2 meter,Rudder Elevator Spoiler (RES), andUnlimited planes. Seven rounds of 2meter and Unlimited competition ineach skill level were held on Saturdayand five rounds of Unlimited and RESin each skill level on Sunday. This

year’s official results are shown in thetables.

The Grand Champion is Brian Agnew– Fort Myers, Florida!

As usual there were a few planemishaps including some hard land-ings, structural failures, etc., which

were attributed to pilot or buildererrors (often these were the samepeople). Safety is always paramount inan event this size, particularly usingpowered winches for launch. I’mpleased to report that no safety inci-dents were reported.

I think everyone would agree that the

R/C Soaring DigestPage 18

30th Annual Tangerine ThermalSoaring Contest was a rousing successand enjoyed by all. The OrlandoBuzzards participate in the FloridaSoaring Society (FSS) and hold addi-tional associated contests each year.The next big one for the club is theGentle Lady Contest held in thespring. For more information on thisand other contests as well as theOrlando Buzzards RC Soaring Club,

please see www.Orlandobuzzards.comon the Internet.

Orlando is one of the country’s besttourist destinations for adults andfamilies, so plan on dropping off thesignificant other and the kids at Disneyand coming out to the 31st Tangerinenext year. Or even better… Bring themwith you. See you next year. “Y’allcome.”

• • •

Page 19February 2004