Re: Re: what is difficult in building indoor duration

From: Jake Palmer <82.jake_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 16:22:08 -0700

In my mind the Harlan bearing is about the limit of what should be allowed
under BOM rules. A Treger VP is much too complex to be considered legal in
my mind, but then I've already made my opinion very clear.

On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 4:14 PM, John Kagan <john_kagan_at_hotmail.com> wrote:

> **
>
>
> --- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com, Nick Ray <lasray_at_...> wrote:
> >
> > I think the ease of construction has a great deal to do with the
> materials
> > involved. A Brown / Kagan style hub is well within the range of average
> > indoorist. Most of the materials can ordered from A2Zcorp or even
> scavenged
> > locally. However, composite hubs like Treger, Tyson and Sandborn have
> built
> > require substantially more involved manufacturing processes.
> > All three use formed fiberglass tubes and carbon layup screw holders. The
> > vacuum bagging process alone is cost prohibitive for many people. One has
> > to make 6 or 7 composite hubs to break even when compared to the cost of
> > buying them from Treger. Maybe someone would like to produce V/P kits
> where
> > the base components are formed and then sent out with assembly
> > instructions.
> >
> > If F1D keeps moving in the direction of using more and more composite
> > technology we are going to be in the same situation as F1B within the
> next
> > ten years. I am for not placing materials restrictions on the models, but
> > at the same time I think that for many competitors, particularly juniors
> we
> > may have to decide how we would like to go forward with regard to the BOM
> > as the models become more intricate.
> >
>
> Hogwash.
>
> A) Composite construction is only difficult for people like you and me who
> don't know how to do it (yet). Talk to the people who know how to vacuum
> bag a sailplane wing, and they will look at you crazy if you suggest they
> make a built-up wing.
>
> B) Composite construction (really, "carbon/fiberglass/epoxy composite
> construction") has not proven itself superior, and thus required. Schramm's
> VP hub is not composite. Treger's prop blades and model are not composite.
> Gabriella's model is not composite. They are at the top of the heap.
>
> Let's keep the discussion on track, and not tangent off onto things that
> are not broken.
>
> The original question is which side of the BOM rule does a VP hub fall. Is
> anyone trying to claim that a VP is not complex enough to violate BOM? This
> question requires a rule interpretation.
>
> The morphed question is whether we should have the BOM rule at all for
> F1D. If F1D were a beginner event, or if it was inaccessible in some way,
> then maybe. But it is not either one. Eliminating BOM would require a rule
> change proposal.
>
>
>
Received on Wed Oct 17 2012 - 16:22:09 CEST