Re: RE: Survey of U.S. F1D fliers before 55 cm rules change

From: Jake Palmer <82.jake_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 17:18:11 -0800

Unlimited rubber wouldn't lead to 18" motor sticks. Most 65cm models had
sticks between 14" and 15". People were even experimenting with 13" sticks
before the rule change.


On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 4:58 PM, <joshuawfinn_at_gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> I personally think .6 g motors were a good idea, though I certainly
> understand the pain of them. There's definitely the rightful desire to put
> more rubber on the plane, but to do that, you would have to make a longer
> motorstick and the model gets more fragile and then the prop gets bigger
> and so on. As such, 55 cm would be a much more challenging event on
> unlimited rubber. As it is, the .6 g motors have allowed me to develop
> motorsticks which have withstood literally hundreds of flights on launch
> torques in the .5-.6 in-oz range in the past year. I probably made over
> 1000 flights last year and only had two motorstick failures, one from a
> motor which slipped off my old hook design, and one from a hub which came
> apart at full torque.
>
>
>
> I really have to think that if you spread a 300-350 mg motorstick out to
> 18" (and yes, I really think they would get that long), there would be a
> lot more motorstick failures.
>
>
>
> Reducing the motor weight is bad because it is guaranteed to lead to even
> shorter nosed models to keep the balance correct, and there would be lot
> more propeller hangups and probably more carnage (so says someone who has
> had a prop hang on the wing during first climb). There would be other
> issues, too...probably a drive toward 200 mg props to get the CG further
> aft.
>
>
>
> -Joshua Finn
>
>
>
>
>
> Good flying,
>
> Joshua Finn
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Fri Feb 07 2014 - 17:18:12 CET