Re: Re: Help requested by beginning A6 fliers
That should have read "There is no restriction on the stabilizer area."
Gary
-----Original Message-----
From: Warthodson <Warthodson_at_aol.com>
To: Indoor_Construction <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wed, Feb 8, 2012 8:25 am
Subject: Re: [Indoor_Construction] Re: Help requested by beginning A6 fliers
Don,
There you go again! Some revisionist history there.
Rule 26.3 reads, "There is not restriction on the stabilizer area." What part of that is vaguely written?
The indoor contest board, after careful consideration, selected our counter proposal for the A6 rules. The reasons have been thoroughly discussed on this forum.
Gary Hodson
-----Original Message-----
From: Don DeLoach <ddeloach_at_comcast.net>
To: Indoor_Construction <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tue, Feb 7, 2012 5:50 pm
Subject: RE: [Indoor_Construction] Re: Help requested by beginning A6 fliers
Gary is correct. Bill Gowen’s A-6 design is not illegal, nor has it ever been. The very vaguely written AMA A-6 rules say nothing about stab area.
Some background: The A-6 rules as originally presented to the Indoor Contest Board in 2010 were very carefully written to outlaw gadgets and set the stab limit at 50% based on some careful polling that I did seeing where flyers stood on the issue. The polling revealed that 71% percent preferred the 50% stab limit, so the mandate was clear and the proposal was submitted and voted on. After initially supporting this proposal the ICB changed their tune and contravened the wishes of the 71%, voting 10-1 in favor of the old, loopholed A-6 rules. So now we have an official AMA A-6 rules where:
--biplanes are legal
--tandems are legal
--VP props are legal
An interesting sidenote: the District V Indoor Contest Board Rep is none other than Bill Gowen! Bill was the only member of the board to stay consistent in his voting against tandems, so don’t blame him for this debacle. The blame rests with the other 10 members of the Contest Board who chickened out and went back to the old, loopholed A-6 rules
The A-6 rules need a major rewrite, or the event may go the way of Easy B. I hope I’m wrong.
Don DeLoach
From: Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com [mailto:Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Warthodson_at_aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 2:47 PM
To: Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Indoor_Construction] Re: Help requested by beginning A6 fliers
The A6 rules that were adopted by the AMA did not in any material way change the previously existing A6 rules as flown at the USIC for any years. Bill's plane was legal before & it is still legal. If you are referring to some local set of rules then that maybe a different story.
Gary
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Mccrory <brucemccrory_at_ymail.com>
To: Indoor_Construction <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tue, Feb 7, 2012 2:57 pm
Subject: [Indoor_Construction] Re: Help requested by beginning A6 fliers
Mike, to echo Gary, 5 minutes is a very good duration time for A6. And, as far as a 10-minutes goal is concerned, my goal is 11-minutes, and has been for several years. I know these little beasts can do that time.
I am not familiar with "Een Voudige Zes". However, the translation of A6 into the AMA 2011-2012 rules has changed the design and building potential of this model significantly.
You should try to look for plans created after 2007. Bill Gowen, and Gary both have competitive models. I want to say that their mastery of propeller/motor combinations is the defining difference in duration. However, from what I find, Bill has taken advantage of the new rules for A6 and has discussed his model on this and other forums. I have found good information (and added my own observations) on Hip Pocket Builder's Forum.
Good flying,
Bruce in Seattle
--- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com, "michaelguth" <michaelguth_at_...> wrote:
>
> My son and I fly with the DC Maxecuters. We built an A6 Eenvoudige Zes
> and have flown it at our contests at the National Building Museum in Washington D.C., Cole Field House at the University of Maryland, and under a 47 foot ceiling at a community college.
>
> We are getting flights in the 5 minute and 30 second range. We are using .048 rubber, about a 12 inch loop, carrying 2500 winds.
>
> We wondered what we should look at next to try to get to the seven minute mark. Our props are oval, and we have them centered on the spar. We have been set at 45 degrees. Would going to 60 degrees get us more efficiency and longer times?
>
> Any help would be appreciated. We dream of the 10 minute flight.
>
> Mike Guth
>
Don,
There you go again! Some revisionist history there.
Rule 26.3 reads, "There is not restriction on the stabilizer area." What part of that is vaguely written?
The indoor contest board, after careful consideration, selected our counter proposal for the A6 rules. The reasons have been thoroughly discussed on this forum.
Gary Hodson
-----Original Message-----
From: Don DeLoach <ddeloach_at_comcast.net>
To: Indoor_Construction <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tue, Feb 7, 2012 5:50 pm
Subject: RE: [Indoor_Construction] Re: Help requested by beginning A6 fliers
Gary is correct. Bill Gowen’s A-6 design is not illegal, nor has it ever been. The very vaguely written AMA A-6 rules say nothing about stab area.
Some background: The A-6 rules as originally presented to the Indoor Contest Board in 2010 were very carefully written to outlaw gadgets and set the stab limit at 50% based on some careful polling that I did seeing where flyers stood on the issue. The polling revealed that 71% percent preferred the 50% stab limit, so the mandate was clear and the proposal was submitted and voted on. After initially supporting this proposal the ICB changed their tune and contravened the wishes of the 71%, voting 10-1 in favor of the old, loopholed A-6 rules. So now we have an official AMA A-6 rules where:
--biplanes are legal
--tandems are legal
--VP props are legal
An interesting sidenote: the District V Indoor Contest Board Rep is none other than Bill Gowen! Bill was the only member of the board to stay consistent in his voting against tandems, so don’t blame him for this debacle. The blame rests with the other 10 members of the Contest Board who chickened out and went back to the old, loopholed A-6 rules
The A-6 rules need a major rewrite, or the event may go the way of Easy B. I hope I’m wrong.
Don DeLoach
From: Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com [mailto:Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Warthodson_at_aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 2:47 PM
To: Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Indoor_Construction] Re: Help requested by beginning A6 fliers
The A6 rules that were adopted by the AMA did not in any material way change the previously existing A6 rules as flown at the USIC for any years. Bill's plane was legal before & it is still legal. If you are referring to some local set of rules then that maybe a different story.
Gary
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Mccrory <brucemccrory_at_ymail.com>
To: Indoor_Construction <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tue, Feb 7, 2012 2:57 pm
Subject: [Indoor_Construction] Re: Help requested by beginning A6 fliers
Mike, to echo Gary, 5 minutes is a very good duration time for A6. And, as far as a 10-minutes goal is concerned, my goal is 11-minutes, and has been for several years. I know these little beasts can do that time.
I am not familiar with "Een Voudige Zes". However, the translation of A6 into the AMA 2011-2012 rules has changed the design and building potential of this model significantly.
You should try to look for plans created after 2007. Bill Gowen, and Gary both have competitive models. I want to say that their mastery of propeller/motor combinations is the defining difference in duration. However, from what I find, Bill has taken advantage of the new rules for A6 and has discussed his model on this and other forums. I have found good information (and added my own observations) on Hip Pocket Builder's Forum.
Good flying,
Bruce in Seattle
--- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com, "michaelguth" <michaelguth_at_...> wrote:
>
> My son and I fly with the DC Maxecuters. We built an A6 Eenvoudige Zes
> and have flown it at our contests at the National Building Museum in Washington D.C., Cole Field House at the University of Maryland, and under a 47 foot ceiling at a community college.
>
> We are getting flights in the 5 minute and 30 second range. We are using .048 rubber, about a 12 inch loop, carrying 2500 winds.
>
> We wondered what we should look at next to try to get to the seven minute mark. Our props are oval, and we have them centered on the spar. We have been set at 45 degrees. Would going to 60 degrees get us more efficiency and longer times?
>
> Any help would be appreciated. We dream of the 10 minute flight.
>
> Mike Guth
>
Received on Wed Feb 08 2012 - 06:32:21 CET
This archive was generated by Yannick on Sat Dec 14 2019 - 19:13:46 CET