Sounds like a processing headache - and, keep in mind, the top guys will
still win no matter what the rules are set to be and 1 or 2 designs will
eventually dominate.
LeRoy Cordes
AMA 16974
Chicago, IL
In God We Trust
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 23:41:58 -0600 "Don DeLoach " <ddeloach_at_comcast.net>
writes:
> 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!
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> What do you guys think?
>
> --Don D.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> jeffrey.hood
> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 7:47 PM
> To: Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Indoor_Construction] Re: No-Cal Rules for USIC
>
> --- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com, "Don DeLoach "
> <ddeloach_at_...> wrote:
> > The problem with all this is that No-Cal scale is an FAC event!
> To
> do any
> > official rule changes to No-Cal FAC GHQ would need to be involved.
>
>
> Other than a lower weight limit, what would a "wing loading rule"
> look
> like...??? I would -not- think that something more complicated than
> a
> minimum weight would be good for the event... (maybe I'm missing
> something here that I should know...)
>
> And since we wouldn't be changing the FAC rules for No-Cal, just
> the
> USIC rules, why would we have to get them involved...?
>
> I actually think that everything is fine as is, other than the
> 6.2g...
> And it seems that others also think that 3g (nice round number...)
> would work... (Personally, I would allow condenser paper covering,
> but I can live with tissue...)
>
> Does anyone know -for sure- what the procedure is for proposing and
> passing a USIC rule change is...? These are non-AMA events, so
> they
> don't fall under that procedure, but there must be something...
>
> JH
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.4.1/1516 - Release Date:
> 6/24/2008
> 7:53 AM
>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.4.1/1516 - Release Date:
> 6/24/2008
> 7:53 AM
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
LeRoy Cordes
AMA 16974
Chicago, IL
In God We Trust
____________________________________________________________
Learn how to save time and money. Click to find what tools your business needs now.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3m7tDzjFGD1dNnUc1QlKKUIYLshvDl95hSOnswYhU4VipxU3/
Received on Wed Jun 25 2008 - 08:42:09 CEST