Hello Ren,
My Bostonian was in the March 1990 Model Builder as a full size plan, be
aware it not very competitive anymore. The modern trend toward wider bodies
and huge lifting stabs made my model obsolete quickly.
The INAV archive has several competitive choices by Coslick, Aronstein,
Miller and Thomas.
Don DeLoach
Editor, NFFS Free Flight Digest
_____
From: Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com
[mailto:Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of N. A. Monllor
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 6:43 AM
To: Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Indoor_Construction] To both Don's Re:Bostonians and No-Cals
Don. S.,
You have now opened my eyes to something that has impressed the hell out of
me!!
You wrote "
By the way I find the 1/10 scale speed comment interesting, and yes I know
it was tongue in cheek, but for a quick exercise, a Fike or Lacey built to 3
grams will need about 2 grams of rubber to fly so 5 gram in weight, that
calcs out to about 3.42 mph flying speed and the models would be about
~1/20th scale at 16" span so 20*3.42mph ~75 mph which is a reasonable cruise
speed for a homebuilt. My 2 gram Cessna Cardinal with its smaller wing flies
faster at 5.08mph and is 1:26.6 scale so it is flying at 135mph scale speed
and the full size one cruises at 143 mph. So not as far off as one would
think :-) ".
Does the scaling of speed workout on its own or, do we build to that?
Don D.,
In the book Indoor Flying Models, I see a Bostonian Celtic designed by you.
Could you email me privately the measurements of this model and any specific
information you might deem necessary for me to successfully replicate this
model. Please keep in mind it will be my first Bostonian ever.
Thank you,
Ren
From: Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com
[mailto:Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Don Slusarczyk
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 11:44 PM
To: Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Indoor_Construction] Bostonians and No-Cals
You summarized my thesis as "the validity of ones hobby is based purely on
paid memberships". I did not say that.
Not directly but here is how I inferred it. You originally posted:
"With due respect if you and Don can't see the absurdity of a 12" prop on a
16" span scale model then I don't know what to say.
FAC ain't for everyone, and it's not perfect either. But around 1800 paid
members seem to agree it's a pretty good thing.
How many of those 1800 are inspired by watching 2 gram no cals flop around
the gym at one-tenth scale speed?"
It is then implied that the 1800 paid members in FAC outweigh the two of us,
so you have 1800 on your side, we are only two. Then you comment on how a 2
gram nocal is essentially unimpressive in the last sentence. So therefore
what were are doing is "wrong" as it is not what the 1800 others are doing.
So I then concluded that you placed paid memberships of 1800 people in
higher regard than what we are doing. They are right we are wrong. I then
took that to the next step which was to compare "free flight" as a whole to
RC as whole.
By the way I find the 1/10 scale speed comment interesting, and yes I know
it was tongue in cheek, but for a quick exercise, a Fike or Lacey built to 3
grams will need about 2 grams of rubber to fly so 5 gram in weight, that
calcs out to about 3.42 mph flying speed and the models would be about
~1/20th scale at 16" span so 20*3.42mph ~75 mph which is a reasonable cruise
speed for a homebuilt. My 2 gram Cessna Cardinal with its smaller wing flies
faster at 5.08mph and is 1:26.6 scale so it is flying at 135mph scale speed
and the full size one cruises at 143 mph. So not as far off as one would
think :-)
Obviously there are other factors involved. But membership numbers do tell
an interesting story, don't you think?
All it tells me is how many people participate in the activity. It says
nothing about the validity of the activity. Lots of people play golf but
that does not mean it is a better activity than say a guy with a metal
detector walking a beach.
But let's not make this a contrast between FAC and indoor duration, because
that's a horrible mismatch.
But that is the whole debate isn't it? You treat FAC events flown indoors as
if they are still outdoor events. They are not, when flown inside they are
now indoor duration events. You say a 12" prop on an indoor Nocal is absurd
but at an indoor contest 7" span ministicks have 7" props, OPP has 18" span
and 17" props and that is the norm for indoor. So to an indoor guy that is
normal, we have no thermals to speak of. So when an FAC event that is scored
purely on duration is flown indoors the indoor duration modelers who fly
this event will apply indoor techniques and practices to the event. If you
want nocal to have plastic props and solid motorsticks then get the FAC to
change the rules so the indoor guys will have to fly the same style models
as the outdoor guys do. I have been waiting for that change for years
actually and have been surprised that it has not happened yet as was
recently done to Phantom Flash. (the one piece plastic prop rule reduced
indoor flight times from 4 minutes to about 3 minutes) and if that happens
to nocal, expect contest grade motorsticks and scraped down plastic props
and then he complains will start up all over again :-)
Don S.
Received on Wed Jun 13 2012 - 13:37:37 CEST
This archive was generated by Yannick on Sat Dec 14 2019 - 19:13:47 CET