Re: Bostonians and No-Cals

From: <Warthodson_at_aol.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 13:27:09 -0400 (EDT)

I would suggest using the FAC No-Cal rules as they are written rather than trying to modify the USIC No-Cal rules which have become a one event, one design competition. The no minimum weigh rule does not seem to have become a problem at outdoor FAC events. So why not try it at the USIC? I'll bet the participation would pick up. In a high site like the Mini Dome the lightest model might not be the best choice for the longest duration. The length of the rubber motor would be very important so a longer fuselage (heavier) model might beat a lighter shorter fuselage model. A variety of entries would be interesting to see. If the rules need changing (perhaps separate indoor & outdoor specifications) that should be done at the FAC level, not for the USIC only. I would be in favor of strict enforcement of the dimensional requirements & conformance to the original airplanes proportions. I have seen numerous No-Cal plans where the wing outline is not close to the original. The worst violation (in my opinion) is when the wing is scaled to a 16" span & the root cord is measured from the fuselage leading edge fairing to the trailing edge fairing & then extended to the wing tip. In other words the leading & trailing edge of the wing are redrawn much farther apart than simply scaling the wing. Does that make any sense?
Gary Hodson

  





On6/7/2012 12:13 PM, Bob Clemens wrote:

  or a


limit thefuselage length?



Bob,

If you just limit the length then just another model will become the new"Hosler". There are a few one of a kind homebuilts that can fill itsshoes if needed.

Don S.




    
             

  
 
Received on Fri Jun 08 2012 - 10:27:23 CEST