Re: Bostonians and No-Cals

From: <Warthodson_at_aol.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 08:46:47 -0400 (EDT)

Don,
I was asking if my explanation of the way wing outlines are exaggerated made sense, not the no minimum weight rule. FAC No-Cal is already a no minimum weight event! Why hasn't that ruined outdoor free flight?
I am only suggesting that we should adopt the existing FAC rules (not make up one event rules) & see what happens to the popularity of the event. As it stands now I don't think it is a very interesting event. If we adopt the FAC rules, I think the interest will improve and as I said it might not be the lightest model that is the best approach at the USIC because of the ceiling height.
Gary


Original Message-----
From: Don DeLoach <ddeloach_at_comcast.net>
To: Indoor_Construction <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Jun 8, 2012 12:56 pm
Subject: RE: [Indoor_Construction] Bostonians and No-Cals



  
    
                  

Really? You think tissue covered No-calswith no minimum weight make *sense*?
 
This is a good example of why most FreeFlighters are not attracted to indoor.
 
DD
 
 
  


I would suggest using the FAC No-Calrules as they are written rather than trying to modify the USIC No-Calrules which have become a one event, one design competition. The nominimum weigh rule does not seem to have become a problem at outdoor FACevents. So why not try it at the USIC? I'll bet the participation would pickup.
 In a high site like the Mini Dome thelightest model might not be the best choice for the longest duration. Thelength of the rubber motor would be very important so a longer fuselage(heavier) model might beat a lighter shorter fuselage model. A variety ofentries would be interesting to see. If the rules need changing (perhapsseparate indoor & outdoor specifications) that should be done at the FAClevel, not for the USIC only. I would be in favor of strictenforcement of the dimensional requirements & conformance to theoriginal airplanes proportions. I have seen numerous No-Cal plans where thewing outline is not close to the original. The worst violation (in myopinion) is when the wing is scaled to a 16" span & the root cord ismeasured from the fuselage leading edge fairing to the trailingedge fairing& then extended to the wing tip. In other words the leading &trailing edge of the wing are redrawn much farther apart than simply scalingthe wing. Does that make any sense?

Gary Hodson

  






On 6/7/2012 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 Sat Jun 09 2012 - 05:51:56 CEST