Just to follow up on my earlier comment, in another thread, about A-6
rules and film, I would think that an increase of the minimum weight
to 1.5 grams is not an unreasonable rule change. This would allow a
plane to be built to the current dimensional restrictions using 6#
wood. Wood of this density can be found in a local hobby shop or on
order and 6# wood is usually strong and stiff enough for a reliable
and consistent flying plane. I agree with Jeff that the experts will
still do well and will use light wood and ballast. However, the
beginners will have a way to build to minimum weight early in their
progress. Building to minimum weight is the first step to
competitive times and this will do much to decrease the frustration
that many beginners feel when flying against the experts.
Just a slightly progressed from beginner's two cents,
Leo Pilachowski
Bloomington IN
--- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com, "jeffrey.hood"
<jhood_at_...> wrote:
>
> I'm going to jump in here, since I jumped in on the discussion of A-
6
> rules years ago... I have always found that in coming to a
consensus
> to an issue, all parties have to at least agree on the primary
> objective... And I think that it is universally agreed that the
Prime
> Objective for A-6 was for it to be a beginner's class... So the
rest
> will follow from that point...
>
> First, a beginner's class should have dimensions and structure that
> will allow a new indoor participant to progress without too much
> difficulty... the original A-6 "rules" that were proposed decades
ago
> by Mather seemed to have held the test of time, and I don't think
that
> the dimensional rules should be modified...
>
> However, the size of the required strips for construction -should-
be
> modified, in my opinion... I cut my own wood, and have dozens of 4#
> blocks sitting around... So I can cut 4# wood for an A-6 and have
> what I need... However, a "beginner", (who is what we are
> targeting...) would have to buy expensive indoor sheets to get to
> weight since the limits are for 1/16" square structure wood... I
> would rather see a limit of 1/32", if any, for all components, which
> means that you could go to almost any hobby shop and get a decent
> sheet of 1/32" or 1/20" and build from that... or surely you could
> order a few sheets from National Balsa in contest grade and get one
> that would be good... This change would make it easier to find
decent
> wood for the class, and really what is the difference (in handling)
> between a 1/16" square spar and a 1/20 x 1/16" spar of heavier
> wood...? Is one "harder" to handle for a beginner...? I really
don't
> think so...
>
> Also, I would (for the same reasons...) be in favor of allowing film
> for covering... You could then have a heavier structure, which
makes
> it more durable (good for beginners...) and film in my opinion is no
> harder to handle than condenser paper... if not easier... I have
> worked with a few "newbie" indoor fliers, that have built ministicks
> and SO with film, and like Bill, haven't seen any major obstructions
> on the use of film...
>
> Those two changes would make it easier and more affordable for
someone
> to build and fly in this event, and like I said earlier, isn't that
> the purpose, if this is -really- a "beginner's" event...?
>
> I also don't think that these changes would make a bit of difference
> for the "expert" fliers in the event... Like mentioned in other
> posts, the biggest problem is with motor bunching, at least from my
> experience and watching the winners at USIC...
>
> My few cents worth... Curious to see if anyone else agrees...
>
> JH
>
> > I have always agreed with the argument about the difficulty of
> finding good
> > wood in local hobby stores. We don't have any local sources of
good
> balsa.
>
Received on Sat Nov 22 2008 - 12:03:17 CET
This archive was generated by Yannick on Sat Dec 14 2019 - 19:13:45 CET