Thanks Carl!
--- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com, Carl Bakay <carl.bakay@...> wrote:
>
> I would go with rounded front and back, not airfoil.
> 
> Carl
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: jabiruchick <jabiruchick_at_...>
> 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@> 
> 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@> 
> >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 - 15:32:00 CET
This archive was generated by Yannick on Sat Dec 14 2019 - 19:13:46 CET