RE: Re: New event at USIC

From: Tom Iacobellis <tiacobellis_at_hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 22:49:00 +0100

Bye the way, my plane came in at 1.5 gr with OS film. I used light punky wood because I though that would be an advantage. It still is. Now I can add weight where I want. It pays to pick good wood and/or be able to find it amongst the stock you have. The other wood sizes that are not given should be up to the builder. The length is provided though.
 
Tom
 


To: Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com
From: leop_at_lyradev.com
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 21:21:19 +0000
Subject: [Indoor_Construction] Re: New event at USIC


  





I do not think Tom will be ballasting up much. Given the wing weight of 0.494 grams and the specified wood sizes, I figure that it will take sub 5# wood to make that wing weight even using OS film. I wonder if there should be dimensions given for the motor stick (only the length is given). Also, although the stab wood size is specified at 0.062: sqaure, no similar wood size is specified for the rudder. Finally, the prop spar is also undimenisioned in the plans as is the wing post size. Given the degree of specifications for the other parts, should not all the wood dimensions be given, if only to prevent any arguments later on?

Leo
Bloomington IN

--- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com, "Mark F1diddler" <f1diddler_at_...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com, Thomas Iacobellis <iacobellisthomas_at_> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 7:38 AM, Thomas <iacobellisthomas_at_> wrote:
> >
> > After speaking with Abram,I've cleared up a few points that were misleading
> > and/or left out of his message.
> > >
> > >First was the wording of the type of covering allowed.It turns out that
> > >microfilm is not permitted,any Mylar is.
> > >
> > >Second there is a minimum weight, 1.970 grams.I guess I'm balasting up!
> > >
> > >Next was the prop. The blades must maintain a constant thickness of.032 in.
> > >However of course they are to be warped with a helix of your favorite method.
>
> > >All dimensions and specs must be followed, including use of a single thrust
> > >bearing.
> > >
> > >Imagine a mass launch of this at USIC....Wacky
>
> Thanks for the research, Tom I. I can respect the degree of exactness required in doing it "like it was"--with the exception of no microfilm rule--why? Not much advantage to be had there with a 1.97 g minimum weight. BTW, Wally Miller's recounted history (INAV 125) proves that the spirit of EZB was very early on "how low ya wanna go?" considering that the second EZB (Wally's first) shaved 1 full gram off his son's 1.97 g prototype. Therefore, EZB is not a corrupted-by-the-experts event, and seems neither is microfilm (historically) outside of the spirit of EZB.
> MB
>



                                               
Received on Tue Sep 28 2010 - 14:49:56 CEST