I would think that in the midst of it all there is little difference
between minimum weight and maximum requirements in free flight
competition. For a long time there was no maximum rubber weight in
indoor events (I remember Herb Robbins said you can use a ton of
rubber LOL). But there was a minimum weight. So a guide for minimum
weight would be the total flying model weight minus the weight of the
rubber motor. I think this would make sense.
For maximum requirement the complement analogy would be the basis.
The weight of the motor and ONLY the rubber motor without any hardware
would be the rule.
Now gadgets and gizmoes are another topic but should be treated as
another subject. (Maybe to penalize innovators (?) LOL). My 2 1/2
cents.
Ding Zarate
On 12/13/11, Yuan Kang Lee <ykleetx_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> I was just playing the devil's advocate -- and interpreting 19.2.11 in this
> manner. I think this exercise shows that the rules are gray in some areas.
> It's good to have an open discussion.
>
> -Kang
>
> --- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com, Warthodson@... wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Personally, If I were the CD, I would not interpret the EZB rule (19.2.11)
>> to prohibit sleeves. I believe the key word is "rate" of energy release.
>> We both agree that the sleeves are intended to prevent knotting. That is
>> not (pun knot intended) the same as a gadget that controls the rate of
>> energy release, IMHO. The problem with the rules is that they are not
>> especially clear.
>> Gary
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Yuan Kang Lee <ykleetx_at_...>
>> To: Indoor_Construction <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Mon, Dec 12, 2011 8:23 pm
>> Subject: [Indoor_Construction] Re: model weight calculation
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Regarding whether "sleeves" are legal. Here are the AMA rules regarding
>> "gadgets" for the three classes: LPP, EZB, and Ministick:
>>
>> EZB
>>
>> 19.2.11. 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.
>>
>> LPP
>>
>> 21.3.6. No gadgets of any kind are permitted on the model (i.e., variable
>> pitch props, automatic incidence changing mechanisms, etc.).
>>
>> Ministick
>>
>> 24.8. The maximum diameter of the propeller shall be seven (7) inches. The
>> propeller shall be constructed of wood. Wire shafts are permitted. Hubs
>> that allow blade replacement and/or manual pitch adjustment are allowed.
>> Mechanisms that cause variable pitch and/or variable diameter of
>> propellers while in flight shall not be allowed. (Natural flexing and
>> flaring of wooden blades is allowed.)
>>
>> -----
>>
>> The first thing to notice that the rules governing "gadgets" are written
>> separately for each of these classes. There is no consistency in the
>> language.
>>
>> 19.2.11 may be interpreted to outlaw the use of sleeves for EZB, since a
>> sleeve functions to prevent rubber knots, which specifically "affects the
>> rate of energy from the rubber motor..."
>>
>> We could also interpret that a torque burner is not allowed in the EZB and
>> LPP. But a torque burner is allowed in the Ministick, since its rules do
>> not rule out "gadgets" and only specifically say that VP's are not
>> allowed.
>>
>> --- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com, Warthodson@ wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Nick,
>> > I use tubes for the same reason. Typically, the tube is relatively short
>> > compared to the total motor length. Also, the ID of the tube will affect
>> > how loosely or tightly it fits around the wound rubber. I doubt that it
>> > is an effective torque burner. To be effective it would need to somehow
>> > regulate the release of torque to a lower level that a fully wound motor
>> > without tubes. I think all they really do is help to prevent the knots
>> > from forming near the hooks & they are sometimes not very reliable at
>> > doing that!
>> > Gary
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Nick Ray <lasray_at_>
>> > To: Indoor_Construction <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com>
>> > Sent: Mon, Dec 12, 2011 9:10 am
>> > Subject: Re: [Indoor_Construction] model weight calculation
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I use tubes on my Ministicks for high ceiling flights, but this thread
>> > got me thinking about what is really happening to the rubber when the
>> > tubes are used. When the motor is fully wound, the tubes are slid up the
>> > motor to the hoods on the model. The role of the tubes is to keep the
>> > knots from bunching on the hooks and wasting turns or stoping the prop.
>> > The tubes constrict the rubber so that it can not bunch on the hooks. I
>> > thinking that by constricting the rubber at the ends the tubes may be
>> > functioning as an unintentional torque burner. I think more testing is
>> > needed to know what is really going on.Then depending on what is
>> > happening we would need to clarify the rules to specifically allow or
>> > disallow tubing.
>> >
>> >
>> > Nick
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 8:34 AM, <Warthodson_at_> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Nick,
>> > There is nothing in the A6 rules that would prohibit the use of tubing
>> > sleeves (or O rings). I don't think there is anything in the Ministick
>> > rules that would prohibit them either since the tubes are not used to
>> > restrict torque. LLP rules state " no gadgets of any kind are allowed on
>> > the airplane". I don't think a tube meets the definition of a gadget,
>> > but if it does then so would an "O" ring. Someone might argue that it is
>> > not on the airplane it is on the motor.
>> > Gary Hodson
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Nick Ray <lasray_at_>
>> > To: Indoor_Construction <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com>
>> > Sent: Sun, Dec 11, 2011 9:27 pm
>> > Subject: Re: [Indoor_Construction] model weight calculation
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Wire spacers, when used on a F1D are considered to be part of the model
>> > weight. As for O-rings, they are normally counted towards the rubber
>> > weight. However, they can be cut off the motor as needed after the
>> > flight to meet a maximum motor weight.
>> >
>> >
>> > I would personally define anything that stays affixed to the model as
>> > part of the model weight and anything that is not left on the model when
>> > the rubber is removed as part of the rubber weight. I would think the
>> > tubbing sleeves would fall into the same category as o-rings because
>> > they help handle the rubber. However, I could see an argument for
>> > calling them a structural element since they are a mechanism for
>> > preventing the rubber from bunching at the hooks.
>> >
>> >
>> > It will be interesting to hear what the list has to say because if
>> > tubing sleeves are ruled a rubber control mechanism then they would be
>> > illegal for Ministick, A-6 and LPP.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Nicholas Ray
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New
>> > Topic
>> > Messages in this topic (3)
>> >
>> > Recent Activity:
>> > New Members 2
>> >
>> > Visit Your Group
>> >
>> > MARKETPLACE
>> >
>> > Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on -
>> > Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest ⢠Unsubscribe ⢠Terms of
>> > Use
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > .
>> >
>>
>
>
>
--
*Long live Free Flight!*
*
*
*Ding Zarate*
Received on Wed Dec 14 2011 - 03:41:24 CET