Really? You think tissue covered No-cals with no minimum weight make
*sense*?
This is a good example of why most Free Flighters are not attracted to
indoor.
DD
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
On 6/7/2012 12:13 PM, Bob Clemens wrote:
or a
limit the fuselage length?
<
http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=16595136/grpspId=1705063512/msgI
d=12002/stime=1339085630/nc1=3848627/nc2=4025291/nc3=5522133>
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 its shoes
if needed.
Don S.
Received on Fri Jun 08 2012 - 10:56:01 CEST