A-6: what might have been
For the record, here follows the exact text of my final A-6 rules set that
was voted down in favor of the "informal" A-6 rules cross proposal.
I stand by my assertion that the ICB screwed up royally by voting these down
in favor of the sloppy and loopholed "informal" rules.
I hope I'm wrong but I forsee A-6 biplanes with VP and hollow motor sticks
built with 3.2# wood. At that moment another entry-level event will bite the
dust.
DD
General. Except for the specific rules which apply directly to A-6, the
rules for Free Flight Indoor Rubber, Hand-Launched Stick Model, shall apply.
A-6 Characteristics.
1. The A-6 model shall be a rubber-powered monoplane covered with paper
(tissue paper, Gampi, or condenser paper) only.
2. The maximum projected wing area is 30 square inches. For ease of
processing, burden of proof (in the form of an accurate, dimensioned
drawing) lies with the contestant.
3. Stabilizer area shall not exceed 50 percent of the projected wing area.
For ease of processing, burden of proof (in the form of an accurate,
dimensioned drawing) lies with the contestant.
4. All wing and stabilizer outlines shall be constructed entirely from 1/16"
square wood with corners left square/unsanded.
5. Cambered ribs are acceptable but must be cut from sheet balsa no thinner
than 1/32". Minimum rib depth is 1/16".
6. The motor stick shall be made from solid wood only (no rolled tubes). It
shall be 6" long maximum (measured from the front thrust bearing face to the
front of the rear hook).
7. The tail boom shall me made from solid wood only (no rolled tubes). It
shall either be an extension of the motor stick or a separate piece of solid
wood. It is permissible to use splints of wood less than 3/8-inch (0.953
centimeters) long, attached directly to the original wood, to repair
structural damage to the tail boom and/or motor stick.
8. There are no restrictions on model length.
9. Minimum weight of model without rubber: 1.2 grams.
10. Wing posts 1/16" square minimum solid wood (ends may be rounded for
inserting into paper tubes).
11. There shall be no bracing on the model except that which consists
entirely of solid wood. The use of any material except wood for bracing on
A-6 models shall not be acceptable. The intent of the A-6 rules is that all
structures shall be constructed entirely from wood, using adhesives solely
to assemble the structure.
12. Propeller shall be 6" maximum diameter. Maximum of two (2) blades, which
shall be flat 1/32" sheet wood with no camber. All blade edges must be left
square and no part of either blade shall be thinner than 1/32". No gadgets
of any kind (such as variable-pitch or variable diameter mechanisms) are
permitted as part of the propeller. Propeller hubs which permit blade
replacement and manual pitch adjustment are acceptable.
13. Reinforcement utilizing fiberglass, boron, carbon fiber, Kevlar, or any
other non-wood substance is not allowed on any part of an A-6 model. Tissue
or thread wrapping at the thrust bearing and rear hook is acceptable.
14. It is prohibited to use any scheme, device, or mechanism which affects
the rate of energy release from the rubber motor, except for propeller blade
flare or deformation. Rubber or plastic sleeves may be used at the front and
rear hooks to prevent bunching of the rubber motor.
_____
From: Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com
[mailto:Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Don Slusarczyk
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 9:39 PM
To: Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Indoor_Construction] Re: Attack messages
Here was my response:
Sounds like they did better campaigning. If the cross proposal was
dismissed then either the consequences of the simpler rules needed to be
campaigned on the ICB members and explained in detail as what will
happen if the corrections were not made, such as biplanes, VPs, etc
since the rules would be now under AMA guidelines. If they would not
accept them you withdraw the basic proposal (which is allowed before the
final vote) because what will be adopted would not be what was intended
or how A-6 has been flown. Better to hold off
reorganized/rewritten/recampaign and submitted the next rules cycle.
My issue with Deloach blaming the ICB is that the current rules are in
essence exactly what he originally wrote in his original proposal that
was submitted (with all loopholes in place). So if it passed as he
proposed we would be in the same situation we are in now. So his
criticism of the current rules is invalid as his rules would have had
the same loopholes under the AMA. He wanted to make A-6 an AMA event
and he starting the whole process in motion. Yes the ICB messed up BUT
to simply point the finger at them while washing his hands of it all is
not right. If he never initiated the AMA conversion of A-6 then the ICB
would not have had anything to vote on.
Don
Received on Wed May 18 2011 - 21:42:45 CEST
This archive was generated by Yannick on Sat Dec 14 2019 - 19:13:46 CET