Re: Re: New event at USIC

From: Carl Bakay <carl.bakay_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 15:21:19 -0800 (PST)

I would go with rounded front and back, not airfoil.

Carl




________________________________
From: jabiruchick <jabiruchick_at_yahoo.com>
To: Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, February 28, 2011 1:19:07 PM
Subject: [Indoor_Construction] Re: New event at USIC

   
The Wally Miller plans state "All Stab Wood" must be .062 sq. Does that include
the rudder as a "vertical stab"? Is the horizontal stab allowed to have an
airfoil, or does it have to be flat?

Thanks!
Katie

--- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com, Tom Iacobellis <tiacobellis_at_...>
wrote:
>
>
> 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_...
> 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 Mar 01 2011 - 15:21:26 CET