Re: Re: Help requested by beginning A6 fliers
Don, you are screwing with my new canard design...aarrgghh...
Rick Pangell
Editor of "The Max-Out" Newsletter of
The Magnificent Mountain Men FF Club of Colorado
In a message dated 2/8/2012 11:32:48 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
ddeloach_at_comcast.net writes:
Gary I'm not sure what you are trying to argue. That the current AMA A-6
rules allow unlimited sized stabs? I agree, they do.
Can you make a rational argument for the current rules in light of the
poll results where 71% of respondents preferred a 50% stab limit?
You werent around back in the early 80s when Easy B started out this way,
with loopholed rules, and quickly morphed into the most difficult event in
indoor.
Don DeLoach
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 8, 2012, at 7:25 AM, _Warthodson_at_aol.com_
(mailto:Warthodson_at_aol.com) wrote:
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_ (mailto:ddeloach_at_comcast.net) >
To: Indoor_Construction <_Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com_
(mailto: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) [mailto:_Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com_
(mailto:Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com) ] On Behalf Of _Warthodson_at_aol.com_
(mailto:Warthodson_at_aol.com)
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 2:47 PM
To: _Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com_
(mailto: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_
(mailto:brucemccrory_at_ymail.com) >
To: Indoor_Construction <_Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com_
(mailto: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_
(mailto: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 - 10:50:32 CET
This archive was generated by Yannick on Sat Dec 14 2019 - 19:13:46 CET