Re: Re: No-Cal Rules for USIC

From: Chuck Slusarczyk <chucks2000_at_adelphia.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:36:25 -0400

Don D said:
Subject: RE: [Indoor_Construction] Re: No-Cal Rules for USIC


> While a lower minimum weight sounds good on the surface, I believe it
> would
> only make matters worse. People would just build 3-gram Hosler Furies!

I agree
>
> The problem with No-cal is the 16" wingspan limit. The experts found that
> giant-chord wings flew the longest--and the largest-chord design in
> aviation
> history is the Hosler Fury, so it became dominant quickly. Since then
> No-cal
> interest at USIC has declined steadily. No diversity of subjects equals a
> stale, dying event.


I guess the first question is do we really need a rule change in No -Cal ?
From what I understand entrys were way down this year in all events. So is a
rule change needed in every event that has low participation? Is the drop in
participation a result of bad rules? One model dominence? Lack of interest?
I don't know . For example Limited Penny plane is basically a single design
event .Wing area controlled by span and chord limitations,prop dia,and
weight.etc. yet it always seems to have good participation . So I'm not so
sure that single design dominence is a factor. The fact is I don't know the
reason,maybe the thing to do is to contact the guys that used to fly the
event and ask why they quit flying NO Cal. Might be a place to start rather
then starting to change rules in order to try and boost entrys .Just a
thought. Seems we should first understand the nature of the problem before
trying to fix it.


>
> A simple solution to the Hosler dilemma is to institute a maximum wing
> area
> in addition to the 16" wing span limit. That way a 16" span Hosler would
> not
> be legal but perhaps a scaled-down 12" span one would. Then you would have
> other designs with wingspans closer to 16" (but the same wing area) flying
> against the 12" span Hoslers. Of course a reasonable minimum weight would
> still be in effect for all models so all would be flying at the same wing
> loading.

Possible but a bear to process due to wing planforms. EZB is easy since it's
a chord /span relationship.If the span and chord are within limits it's OK
regardless of configuration.. Tapered wings ,elipitical wings etc will all
add to the complexity of processing.IMOH...I like simple :-)
>
> What is the wing area of a 16" Hosler? Looks like about 16" x 8.75" chord,
> according to the three view I have. This is around 140 sq. inches
> (sheesh!).
> A 12" Hosler would be around 78 sq. inches. For comparison I just did some
> rough caluculations:
>
> a 16" Cassutt is about 93 sq inches, a Boo-Ray is 75 sq. in., and P-51D is
> 47 sq. inches.

Your right on the areas so the use of a heavier weight means more wing area
is desired ,lighter weight means smaller models. So I would imagine that
light weight No -Cal would also result in single model dominence at some
point. A high wing strutless design with a big tail ,long nose and retracts
is out there :-)

>
> What do you guys think?

I think since I build full size airplanes for a living I could design a one
of a kind full size plane that looks like the ideal No Cal LOL!!

Chuck S
Received on Wed Jun 25 2008 - 06:36:23 CEST