Archive for April, 2013


Donna’s Dragonfly

In Uncategorized on April 25, 2013 by nicholasandrewray

Donna’s Dragonfly

By Yuan Kang Lee

Donnas Dragonfly Plan 2013 copy

Bottom Page DD copyClick here to download a copy of Kang’s plan.

I have tried to push the limits of flying very light EZB’s.  My two-time nationals winning EZB, “BS 6”, weighs 340 mg.  I tell people that that’s less than the weight of a Monarch Butterfly.   Larry Coslick, Jim Richmond, and Max Zaluska have all successfully flown lightweight EZB’s.  But this quest to further test the limits of the EZB was not finished — it had been on my mind for some time to take the weight down to yet another level.

The key to reducing significant weight is to take a lot of weight from a couple of key areas and a little bit of weight from a lot of different areas.  For this ultra light EZB, a lot of weight was reduced from the motor stick and the wing, and a little bit of weight was taken from everywhere else, including the boom, stab, prop, and wing posts.    The finished motor stick (with bearing, hook, and posts), at 61 mg, is extremely light.  So is the wing, at 67 mg.  I also made sure to use a minimum amount of glue throughout.

Building this light model required about 20 hours in total, with a lot of the time spent under magnification.  By comparison, a typical lightweight EZB takes me about 5 hours.  Much time was spent carefully cutting wood, all done free hand using a scalpel and straight edge.   All wing and stab spars, including the tips, were tapered to save weight.  Further adding to the build time was that many of the components took two or three iterations.  I was really tired when I finally finished the model after three days.  I felt the strain of working under magnification and handling very small components.

The finished model weighed 238 mg and was outfitted with a relatively beefy motor stick.   In my living room, I repeatedly launched the model under high torque, and it launched well every time.  I did not doubt that this model could reach the highest ceilings.

Fast forward to the 2012 Labor Day weekend at Lakehurst, New Jersey.  It was around 7:15 pm and getting dark inside Hangar 1.   The model launched without fuss and climbed steadily, reaching its peak in about 10 minutes.  My lucky charm, Rob Romash, was on the clock.  Brett Sanborn and John Kagan were also on hand to give moral support.  We took turns with the flashlight to keep the model in sight.   It was too dark to determine the peak height of the model, but I think it was 170’, 5’ below the ceiling.  It stayed at its peak for a very long time.   With a very slow descent, it broke the previous record of 35:01 at around 30 feet.  It finally landed at 37:48, after an uneventful, yet thrilling, no-touch, no-steer flight.

The motor was 7/99 (not 5/99) Tan II, 10.6” long, and weighed 0.275g.  The rubber width was approximately .022”.  It was gently wound to .085 in-oz and 2700 turns.  (Breaking torque and turns are estimated to be .115 in-oz and 3000 turns.)  I backed off 100 turns and launched the model at .045 in-oz.  140 turns remained at the end of the flight.  Average flight RPM was 65.1.

All the balsa on this model came from A2Z, with the exception of the prop wood from Jeff Hood.  The Y2K2 film used to keep the flying surfaces light was generously given by Mark Bennett.  Finally, the 7/99 Tan II rubber, although not super like 5/99, was good enough.  It was purchased from the estate of the late Fred Behrenberg, an indoor flier from the Philadelphia area.  Fred — thanks for keeping the rubber in good shape all those years.

I named this ultra light EZB “Donna’s Dragonfly”, or “DDF”, after my late sister-in-law, Donna.  She often admired how my EZB would fly in our living room and remarked that it looked like a big, floating dragonfly.

“Donna’s Dragonfly” EZB by Yuan Kang Lee

DD Table
















Editor’s Note: This plan was drawn by Nick Aikman who generously donated his time to the project. He worked closely with Kang to insure the accuracy of the plan.

Donna's Dragonfly at Lakehurst, NJ

Donna’s Dragonfly at Lakehurst, NJ

DDF Lakehurst 2

Donna’s Dragonfly at Lakehurst, NJ

DDF Lakehurst 3

Donna’s Dragonfly at Lakehurst, NJ


UpSweep 25

In Uncategorized on April 16, 2013 by nicholasandrewray

UpSweep 25

K. Krempetz  4/15/2013

The UpSweep25 was the model I flew at the Indoor Nationals at Johnson City, Tn in 2012.  The design was based on Stan Buddenbohm Sweep-Two-Four.  I wanted to try a slightly larger model than the Sweep-Two-Four for the Johnson City dome so I increased the wingspan and chord.  In this design I incorporated some ideas fellow competitors have shown me over my years of flying.  The wing has a wing spar which is an idea that Bob Warmann showed me many years ago.  The wing spar is placed at the highpoint of the wing for added strength.  It also helps as a guide for sanding when shaping the airfoil.  The design also has the forward launch hook something that Stan Buddenbohm and Ralph Ray developed over the last couple of years.  I have proven to myself that with this hook design you are able to launch the model higher. Also incorporated in the design is the adjustable incidence screw something that my Dad (Ken Krempetz) and I developed many years ago.  So many thanks to all that have shared their ideas.

UpSweep 25

UpSweep 25

Click here to download a PDF of Kurt’s plan.


Round Valley Dome Indoor Contest Report

In Uncategorized on April 11, 2013 by nicholasandrewray

Round Valley Dome Indoor Contest Report

April 6th & 7th 2013

Wednesday and Thursday PMAC members Elmer Nelson, Tom Gaylor, Bruce Grawberg, Bill Sewell, Richard Wood, and Mike Keller put on a Delta Dart building and flying session for the science class students of the Round Valley Middle School. The students each built and flew their own plane, all did very good and had a great time.

Thursday evening we had a mini seminar on tools and techniques used in building and flying indoor free flight models. Lots of good ideas were exchanged.

Friday was a practice day followed by the Saturday and Sunday contest days.

There were a lot of “rookie” indoor flyers from our club. Mike Keller who is an accomplished outdoor flyer finished ahead of Rob Romash in Catapult glider.

Rob is no rookie and darned hard to beat at indoor. Good show Mike!  Rob rallied by besting Mike in Unlimited Catapult Glider.

All the guys from Colorado had a great time and set some new site records.

Bill Leppard now holds the F1D record by a few seconds over John Kagan’s flights from last year.  No Cal Scale Mass Launch was great fun with some very nice flights by all 4 contestants.  Dick Wood, who has been doing indoor flying only since last June, is showing some real promise as are Elmer Nelson, Bruce Grawberg, Mike Keller, and Bill Sewell.

The hospitality extended to us by the dome staff and the community as a whole was outstanding. Everyone we dealt with went out of their way to see that we had a good time.

There was not a very big crowd but those who did attend all left with big smiles on their faces.

Next year the contest will be on the first weekend of April 2014 with Friday as an open practice day.

Steve Riley C.D.

Bill Leppard's F1D

Bill Leppard’s F1D

Delta Dart Flyers

Delta Dart Flyers


Carbon Prop Outlines – Brett Sanborn

In Uncategorized on April 5, 2013 by nicholasandrewray

Carbon Prop Outlines – Brett Sanborn


Plastic peel ply (non perforated) or nylon bagging film

Double Stick Tape

Toray M60J fiber, 3k or 6k

3.1 oz glass cloth

Pro-Set 145-224 epoxy system

Partall mold release wax

Selection of Epoxy

Selection of the proper epoxy for carbon outlines and molds must be carefully considered. When I first started down the path of making carbon outlines I found out that Lutz Schramm used MGS L285 epoxy and waits a full two weeks for a single outline to cure at room temperature. Instead of waiting such a long time for each individual blade, I decided to find an epoxy that could be post-cured at an elevated temperature for faster results.

After doing some searching and reading of specification sheets, I found that Pro-Set epoxy system 145-224 would give the highest possible flexural modulus of other epoxies available when post cured to a temperature of 120˚ F. While the stiffness of the epoxy resin isn’t as important as the stiffness of the carbon fiber in the prop outline, higher is better. Since the 145-224 resin used for the outline must be cured at a temperature of 120˚ F for maximum stiffness, the epoxy used to make the mold must be able to withstand higher temperatures so that the mold will not deform during post-curing of the outline. The 145-224 resin is versatile in the fact that it can be post cured to a temperature of 180 ˚ F and give us the properties we need. The specification for 145-224 shows that when the epoxy is cured at 180 ˚ F the cured resin has a heat deflection temperature of 211 ˚ F, meaning that the cured part will not deform until it reaches this temperature, which is well above the temperature needed for curing the carbon outline. After the mold is made, the outline can be cured in about two days—usually 12 hours of room temperature cure and 8 hours curing at 120 ˚ F—which is much faster than the method used by Schramm.

Preparation of Prop Block

Before laying up the glass cloth on the prop block, it’s necessary to cover the prop block in plastic. To get the plastic uniformly to the prop block, I use double stick tape and carefully press a layer of peel ply or nylon bagging plastic and smooth it out so that there are no wrinkles or bubbles. The double stick tape must cover every inch of the prop block surface. I use several strips applied perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the helix. The strips of tape are butted against each other so that the entire surface of the block is covered. The tape tends to shrink after heating the block and layup multiple times which creates small pits on the surface of the plastic. I replace the tape and plastic after every two post-cure cycles at 180˚ F to ensure a smooth surface is achieved. The prop block covered in plastic is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 - Propeller block covered in plastic before applying glass

Figure 1 – Propeller block covered in plastic before applying glass

Layup of Mold Layers

I do the layup of the mold layers individually. Vacuum bagging really isn’t necessary for this step as the weight of the finished product is not critical. Plus avoiding the added hassle of making a vacuum bag and having to pump it down for several hours is an advantage. Achieving smooth upper and lower surfaces of the mold layer is possible through doing a simple hand layup.

First, cut out pieces of 3.1 oz glass cloth a little bigger than the final blade outline. I like to make the pieces for an F1D mold about 10 x 3.5 inches. Rotary cutting tools made for quilting work well for cutting glass cloth. I generally use 6 or 7 layers of 3.1 oz glass for the top and bottom mold pieces and 4 pieces for the middle layer. After laying out a piece of nylon bagging film on a table as a work surface as shown in Figure 2, lay the glass cloth pieces out and wet with epoxy as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 2 - Glass cloth layers on plastic wetted with epoxy

Figure 2 – Glass cloth layers on plastic wetted with epoxy

Figure 3 - Wet out layers

Figure 3 – Wet out layers

After the layers are individually wet, stack all layers and squeegee as much epoxy out as possible. Pick up the stack and place on the plastic covered prop block as shown in Figure 4. Smooth out the glass as much as possible. It may be possible to see any bubbles by holding the block up to a light. Massage the glass and push as many bubbles as possible to the side. Allow the epoxy to cure at room temperature for at least 2 hours and post cure at the required temperature for 8 hours. It may be necessary to build a small hot box to precisely control the temperature for an extended period of time; a household oven will probably not be useful at such low temperatures.

Figure 4 - Apply glass layers on prop block and smooth out as much as possible

Figure 4 – Apply glass layers on prop block and smooth out as much as possible

Trimming and Sanding of Mold Layers

After curing a mold layer and before removing the cured layup from the block, I draw the propeller outline on the mold layer—it is easiest to do this before the mold layer is removed from the block. Because the three piece mold has a recessed middle layer where the carbon fiber is cured, the top and bottom mold layers must be larger than the finished prop outline. I increase the size of the top and bottom layers by 0.15 inches larger than the finished outline in each direction. First draw the centerline of the blade on the cured mold layer. Then, use double stick tape to attach the trimmed-out outline printed on paper to the surface of the mold layer and trace around the outline with a Sharpie.  After this is completed, remove the cured mold layer from the block.

Trim out the outline from the cured epoxy-glass laminate using a Dremel tool with a diamond cutting wheel as shown in Figures 5 and 6.

Figure 5 - Cured glass layer with outline drawn on surface before trimming

Figure 5 – Cured glass layer with outline drawn on surface before trimming

Figure 6 – Trimmed mold layer

Figure 6 – Trimmed mold layer

When cutting with the Dremel do not get too close to the Sharpie line. Instead, leave about 1/8” around the perimeter. Sand mold layer up to the Sharpie line around the perimeter as shown in Figure 7.  I have had luck using overturned orbital sander and changing the paper frequently, as shown in Figure 7. Sand smooth the upper surface of the lower mold and the lower surface of the upper mold smooth. I use the orbital sander for this step by twisting the mold along an edge of the sander as shown in Figure 8. I remove as much as necessary so that a perimeter of ½” around the form is smooth and uniform. Try to keep the edges of the mold as square as possible. Sanding glass can be quite dusty. Using a shop vacuum and wearing a respirator while cutting and sanding is a good idea.

Figure 7 - Sand the edge of the mold up to the Sharpie line

Figure 7 – Sand the edge of the mold up to the Sharpie line

Figure 8 - Sand the thickness of the mold down and achieve a smooth surface

Figure 8 – Sand the thickness of the mold down and achieve a smooth surface

Sanding of the middle mold section must be done more carefully than the upper and lower mold surfaces. It’s ok to get the center section roughly sanded using the orbital sander, but doing so excessively may lead to thin spots. I generally sand the center section until about 50% of the desired thickness is reached, then finish the rest by hand and checking frequently using a micrometer. You can get away with sanding only the outer ½” around the border of the inner mold layer. Hold a small piece of 220 grit sand paper as shown in Figure 9. This helps make the thickness more uniform around the perimeter. I taper the center section from about .018” at the root to about .007” at the tip for an F1D prop.

Figure 9 - Sanding the middle mold layer

Figure 9 – Sanding the middle mold layer

After all the layers are sanded to the desired thickness, attach the layers together using double stick tape as shown in Figure 10. It helps to hold the layers up to a light to see if all the centerlines line up.

Sandborn 10

Figure 10 – Three layers double stick taped together. Note the recessed middle layer

Now drill about 20-30 holes around the perimeter spaced about 3/8-3/4” apart as shown in Figures 11-13. The diameter of the holes should be chosen base on the type of fastener used to hold the layers together. I used 6-32 screws with wing nuts as fasteners, so 0.138 holes were drilled in the outline. It’s important to drill the holes leaving about 1/16-3/32” of distance from the edge of the hole to the edge of the center mold layer. Sometimes holding the three layer stack up to a light can help you see the edge before choosing where to place the hole. Drilling all holes in this final step through all three layers at once will ensure proper hole alignment when bolting the form together. It may be necessary to bevel the edges of the upper and lower mold pieces as shown in Figure 14 so that the carbon can reach the center mold section.

Figure 11 - Drill holes for fasteners

Figure 11 – Drill holes for fasteners

Figure 12 - Holes are drilled through all layers at once

Figure 12 – Holes are drilled through all layers at once

Figure 13  - Separated layers of the mold

Figure 13 – Separated layers of the mold

Figure 14 - Bevel top and bottom of the mold layers

Figure 14 – Bevel top and bottom of the mold layers

Carbon Fiber

There are many varieties of carbon fiber available on the market that are suitable for different applications. The main properties that need to be examined when choosing a fiber for a particular application are the ultimate strength, modulus (or stiffness), and failure strain. The Boeing 787 is made up of over 50% composite materials. Because the designers of the 787 needed to make a structure that is very strong at a reduced weight, they selected carbon fiber that has a high ultimate strength, but low stiffness—just watch any video of the 787 take off; the wings flex upward to large deflections under aerodynamic loads. The type of fiber used for primarily load-bearing structures in the 787 is the strongest available on the market, Toray T-1000, so-named because the fiber has an ultimate strength of about 1000 ksi, or 100,000 psi. Though the strength of T-1000 fiber is quite high, the stiffness is relatively low; hence, we see large deflections when the 787 takes off.

The carbon selection for indoor carbon propeller blades is on the opposite end of the spectrum. The loads on the propeller blades are much lower than the loads on the wings of the 787. If we wanted to have a strong (but not necessarily stiff) propeller, we could use T-1000 fiber but the weight of the blade would increase to a point where the overall F1D would weigh too much.  Since the loads on the propeller are lower and all we care about is stiffness and weight, we want to select a fiber that has the highest possible stiffness so that we can reduce the weight as much as possible. I found that Toray M60J fiber was the stiffest fiber available to the modeling community. The Toray M60J fiber can be found at

There are stiffer fibers on the market. Carbon fiber comes from two processes. Fibers can be derived from Polyacrylonitrile (PAN) or from mesophase pitch. For this discussion, the important thing to note is that PAN fibers tend to have high tensile strength whereas pitch-based fibers have high stiffness.  T-1000 and M60J are both PAN fibers, though M60J is on the high end of all PAN fibers as far as stiffness is concerned. M60J fiber is about twice as stiff as T-1000, while T-1000 is twice as strong. To give a rough comparison to other fiber types that might be used for carbon props, M60J fiber about 34% stiffer than Toray M46 fiber, 56% stiffer than Toray M40 Fiber, and 156% stiffer than Toray T300, which is typically found in most carbon fabrics. Pitch fibers can go be as much a 50% stiffer than the M60J fiber, however pitch fibers are notoriously brittle; as the stiffness of pitch fibers increases, the failure strain, or elongation to breaking decreases dramatically. T-1000 fiber has a failure strain of 2.2%, compared to M60J fiber which has a failure strain of 0.7%. Many types of ultrahigh modulus pitch based fibers have failure strains as low as 0.2%. Handling of fiber this brittle would be difficult; subsequent sanding to make an outline useable may result in fractures. Trying to fly a prop made of ultrahigh modulus pitch based fiber could be catastrophic if the plane were to midair, bump the rafters, or get hung up. Another downside of pitch based fibers is that as the stiffness increases, the density increases. The highest stiffness carbon fiber is about 10% more dense than M60J fiber, so even if we were able to acquire ultrahigh modulus pitch based fibers, a propeller outline would need to be even more delicate to attain the same weight as an outline made from M60J or similar fiber. For these reasons, M60J fiber offers the best tradeoffs in terms of stiffness, ultimate strength, and failure strain.

Layup of Carbon Fiber

Layup of the carbon fiber for the prop outline is simple. Before bolting all the mold layers together as shown in Figure 15, coat the edge of the middle mold layer and adjacent surfaces of the upper and lower mold layers with Partall Teflon mold release wax. This will help prevent the carbon from sticking to the upper and lower mold surfaces and will make the carbon come off the middle mold layer easier. Mix the epoxy and wet out the carbon fiber according to the epoxy instructions. Sometimes it may help to remove some of the excess epoxy from the carbon with a paper towel. This is one parameter that can be varied for different results. After the carbon is wet with epoxy, hold the fiber at one end on the mold and draw the carbon around the outline into the groove around the mold. The ends of the carbon are overlapped near the root of the hub to make one continuous piece of carbon once the epoxy has cured. The extra thickness at the root is removed in later sanding steps. Cure the epoxy for the required temperature and time.

Figure 15 - Bolt all layers of the mold together

Figure 15 – Bolt all layers of the mold together

After curing the epoxy, separate the mold layers. The cured carbon should be stuck to the middle mold layer. Next go around the outline with a thin razorblade (such as a Candidius) and separate the carbon from the mold. Do not remove the carbon from the mold completely. Instead, tape the carbon back down to the outline using small pieces of masking tape as shown in Figure 16. The outline will not be tapered perfectly from 0.018 to 0.007” at the tip. The taper will be fairly close, but final sanding is required. Sand the carbon in both directions around the entire outline to dimensions given in Figure 17. The dimensions shown in Figure 17 are in thousandths of an inch, i.e. “15 x 15” is 0.015 x 0.015. This taper has worked in the past but the propellers might have been a bit floppy. Increasing the dimensions shown in Figure 17 may be required for stiffer blades.

Figure 16 - Cured carbon taped to middle mold section

Figure 16 – Cured carbon taped to middle mold section

Figure 17 - Suggested taper.

Figure 17 – Suggested taper.

Note the 6 x 6 section tapers to 9 x 9 up to the green vertical line and so on for the other sections. The 13 x 13 section tapers beginning at the blue vertical line along the red lines. The 15 x 15 section is a constant cross section over the entire yellow area.

The fully sanded outline is shown in Figure 18. The outline with ribs and propeller spar are shown in Figure 19 and the fully covered outline is shown in Figure 20.  The outlines that I flew in the season of the 2012 world championships weighed about 60-62 mg, but heavier outlines may be needed to increase stiffness. The balsa prop spar is made from 8# wood and tapers from about .080 to .030 over about 2.5-3” and weigh between 15-20 mg. The balsa ribs have boron laminated on the surface and are made from 4# C grain of dimensions .013 x .040. Four ribs typically weigh about .013. All attachment between balsa and carbon is done with CA glue. The total weight of a blade is [0.062 g (outline) +0.013 g (ribs) +0.015 g (spar) +0.01 g (film) = 0.1 g]. Depending on the weight of the outline and VP hub the finished prop weighs 0.285 – 0.3 g. Lutz Schramm purportedly uses an outline that weighs more than 70 mg, but with less composite materials in the hub Lutz’s overall props weigh about 0.27 g.

Figure 18 - Sanded outline and middle mold layer

Figure 18 – Sanded outline and middle mold layer


Figure 19 - Blade prior to covering. Note the finished spar is shorter than the one shown

Figure 19 – Blade prior to covering. Note the finished spar is shorter than the one shown

Figure 20 - Finished prop blade

Figure 20 – Finished prop blade



National Building Museum – January 6, 2013 Contest Report

In Uncategorized on April 4, 2013 by nicholasandrewray

National Building Museum – January 6, 2013 Contest Report

Brett Sanborn

The DC Maxecuters’ biannual flying contest in the Great Hall of the National Building Museum in Washington D.C. was held on January 6, 2013. Built in 1887, the National Building Museum housed the former US Pension Bureau and was later expanded into the structure that stands today.  Towering Corinthian columns serve as dividers between the center section of the atrium and the end sections where free flight and RC models are flown separately throughout the day. Standing at 75 feet, the massive columns have entrapped several free flight models over the years including one particularly well trimmed Parlor Fly belonging to Steve Fujikawa lost during the final fly-off at the April event in 2012. The maximum height of the center section of the atrium is about 120 feet while the end sections are about 10 to 20 feet shorter.

Unfortunately the HVAC in the building is not turned off for the flying events, so the entire height of the building is not flyable for light models. It is possible to fly a pennyplane up to about 40 to 50 feet without having to steer. Many of the heavier scale models and NoCals can blast through to the top. Since the HVAC is on, light models typically are blown toward one of the walls, and end up resting on balcony levels surrounding the atrium.  Luckily, several staircases allow fliers access to upper levels to retrieve lost models. The primary challenge in this case is reaching your airplane before one of the numerous child spectators is gracious enough to pick it up for you and run it over. Tattered models aside, the Maxecuter event at the National Building Museum might the best exposure event in the nation for modeling. Countless families attend the NBM contests as spectators and get a chance to see the models in action and talk to the Maxecuters. Additionally, stray high school students participating in Science Olympiad and TSA turn up to the National Building Museum for help with their models.

The contest was a bit more sparsely attended than in the past. Fewer modelers did not subtract from the numerous exciting mass launches. Glen Simpers yelled himself hoarse over the course of the day repeating “THREE, TWO, ONE…LAUNCH.” The Maxecuter contest also features a Grand Champion award that uses a new system to calculate the winner based on the number of other entrants in an event. This system awards more points in an event to the flier who beats a greater number of competitors. Another new rule that came into effect states that a model that has won more than three Maxecuter contests must be retired. This rule prevents perennial winners and keeps the spirit of competition alive. The Grand Champion for the January 6th contest was actually a tie between Doug Griggs and Henry Guth. Timothy Thompson also had a notable performance in Phantom Flash as the highest ranking flier who had never won the event previously. Tony Pavel’s win in the WWII NoCal mass launch was also quite exciting. Tony’s NoCal version of a Heinkel He-100 is pulled through the air using prop blades constructed from a blue Solo cup, which carried his plane frighteningly close to the top of one of the columns in the second round.

The full results are shown below. Thanks to Glen Simpers, Paul Spreriengen and all of the Maxecuters for making the event happen. Come join us at the next NBM meet on April 7, 2013.


IMG_0874 IMG_0849 IMG_0870 IMG_0851


DC Maxecuter NBM Flying contest Jan 6 2013
14g. Bostonian ML  (4 entrants)


Henry Guth Boatstonian


John Murphy Pup


Paul Spreigen
Peanut Scale ML  (4 entrants)


Doug Griggs Piper Colt


Mike Escalante Taube


Henry Guth Fike
Phantom Flash ML  (8 entrants)


Mike Escalante


Timothy Thompson


Henry Guth
WW II No-Cal ML  (7 entrants)


Tony Pavel He-100


John Appling FW-190


John Murphy P-39
Parlor Fly ML  (8 entrants)


Erich Schlitzkus


Doug Griggs


John Murphy
ZAIC Z-15 ML  (5 entrants)


Erich Schlitzkus (proxy for Randy Kleinert)


Al De Renzis


John Appling
Limited Pennyplane (3 entrants)


Brett Sanborn



Tony Pavel



Paul Spreiregen


Helicopter  (1 entrant)


Jim Coffin


A-6  (2 entrants)


Brett Sanborn



Paul Buck


Tortoise and Hare Scale RC (entrants)


Al DeRenzis



Walt Farrell



Sharon Appling


Tortoise and Hare RC (8 entrants)


Rob Clark Vapor
Most Unique/Creative RC (5 entrants)


Paul Stamison Can Opener
Most Beautifully Crafted RC  (6 entrants)


Chuck Duncan Taube