Honestly, I'm glad to see microfilm gone...working with it is a pain. Y2K2 was nice and I'd like to see it back.
Anyway, I do like seeing big slow airplanes with very big props, and I will not deny that mic is beautiful, though I always thought Y2K2 was, too.
-Joshua Finn
--- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com, "Yuan Kang Lee" <ykleetx@...> wrote:
>
> 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 - 13:39:23 CEST