I think that you nailed it on the head... :)
Although, I would fall in the first category, as I built a Fike two
years ago, and had a huge blob of clay on it to get it to 6.2g... and
did almost 6 min (almost got to third past a Hosler...) but it was
pretty much maxed out... if I could have gotten rid of the extra
weight, I think that it could have done 6 1/2 or better (it was built
like a tank...) It would have been pretty simple to get it to 4g...
John is right that building and trimming a Hosler is -at least- as
hard as building a Pennyplane... probably more so... Now building a
WWII No-Cal to 6.2g isn't very hard, but you aren't going to be very
competitive with it... Which I really never understood the "logic" of
putting weight restrictions on classes like this anyway, since if you
can't build a typical No-Cal to 4g or so, then you -aren't- going to
be building a competitive Hosler anyway... so then just build what
you want and fly for fun... nothing wrong with that at all...
I like No-Cals, as they go together fairly quick, and are fun... but
I'm not going to build another Hosler just to have a chance to place
in an event...
I would suggest the following:
- 3g minimum weight
- Tissue or condenser paper covering, no film
- The other rules would stay the same...
I also think that it is ironic that all of the FAC No-Cal rules that I
could find had no weight limit, only on the USIC rules... go figure...
JH
--- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com, "John Kagan"
<john_kagan_at_...> wrote:
> I think the obvious reality is that weight rule did nothing to
> preclude the use of lightweight indoor building technique. Instead,
> it simply reduced the viable subjects down to a single plane (unless
> you choose to fly more for more fun than for competition which, of
> course, is perfectly fine).
>
> The current models are at least as challenging as a Pennyplane, so
> the rule didn't achieve that goal either. Leaving the community with
> a few options:
>
> - change the weight rule to allow other subjects to be competitive
> (and EZB-like)
> - change some other aspect of the rules to de-emphasize Hostler
> Fury's (maybe a length restriction?)
> - leave things alone and build a Fury
> - leave things alone and don't build a Fury
>
> Despite succumbing to the urge to respond, I probably fall into the
> last option :)
>
Received on Mon Jun 23 2008 - 11:50:06 CEST
This archive was generated by Yannick on Sat Dec 14 2019 - 19:13:45 CET