Yes, those are nice. But smaller, sleeker, and OS Film are nice, too.
Yet, the 55 cm F1D is tough yet gentle ....
--- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com, Jake Palmer <82.jake@...> wrote:
>
> Bigger, braced, and covered with microfilm. Those are the reasons I prefer
> 65cm models.
>
>
> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Yuan Kang Lee <ykleetx_at_...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Using Steve Brown's 65 cm F1D as a reference, with a motor weight of 1.6g,
> > the 65 cm F1D flies at 1.77 ft/s.
> >
> > The current 55 cm F1D, with the light 0.6g motor specified by the rules,
> > flies at 1.70 ft/s.
> >
> > So the 55 cm F1D flies slower, but the 65 cm F1D is more beautiful?
> >
> >
> > --- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com, joshuawfinn@ wrote:
> > >
> > > This popped up on Youtube recently, straight from 1985. While I love the
> > current F1D specs and wouldn't change them for anything, this has to be the
> > most beautiful form of flying ever invented:
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udK336tWekg
> > >
> > > Anybody know those folks?
> > >
> > > -Joshua Finn
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
Received on Tue May 07 2013 - 13:16:43 CEST