In the Speed CL /FAI F1C World there are machinists who 'fit'/Hone engines to
amazing capbilites. And pilots who 'tune' propellers to appropriate pitch to optimize output...
________________________________
From: Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> on behalf of William Gowen wdgowen_at_gmail.com [Indoor_Construction] <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2017 3:54 PM
To: Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Indoor_Construction] TAN II Rubber
John
I don't agree at all. I think that the flight rubber has always being produced to perform the best it possibly could. Why would they decide that a batch was "too good" and that they needed to dummy down the formula to make it more like lesser batches? Are you suggesting that all of the 5/99 and 3/02 should have been withdrawn from the market and thrown away? And then where would you draw the line? Would 10/97, 7/97, 2/99 and all the other high performing batches also be considered "too good" to sell?
I think my own success at indoor flying has largely been due to finding and using the best possible rubber. I even take the best rubber I have and test all the individual motors made from it before I decide which ones to use in competition. To me that is what competition is about - maximizing every aspect of the model and the energy source.
On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 10:40 AM, 'John Barker' john.barker783_at_ntlworld.com<mailto:john.barker783_at_ntlworld.com> [Indoor_Construction] <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com<mailto:Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com>> wrote:
My support is with Tim Stone on this matter. The Tan 5/99 business is a scandal (I chose the word carefully). The FAI should have taken action years ago when it was first realized that some batches of rubber had accidentally been produced with much higher energy content than usual. In most rubber model competition rules the maximum weight of rubber is stipulated and very carefully checked, one would assume with the intention that all competitors had similar energy available. When it was realized that that was not the case something should have been done.
John
From: Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com<mailto:Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> [mailto:Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com<mailto:Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com>]
Sent: 13 May 2017 18:14
To: Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com<mailto:Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Indoor_Construction] TAN II Rubber
This is an example of exactly what is wrong with indoor. There are scarce supplies of rubber & good indoor wood, snatched up
by wealthy insiders at ridiculous prices & hoarded for nobodys' good but them. Screw you, I GOT IT YOU DONT!
I for one am sick of seeing all these record postings listing "5/99" rubber. I am stuck with shit that is nowhere near as good, at best.
Yes I realize you need to know how to use it. Go ahead & tell me how todays' rubber is just as good & how you picked up 4# contest
wood at hobby lobby this weekend. BS!
On Saturday, May 13, 2017 11:43 AM, "lauren.rezac_at_yahoo.com [Indoor_Construction]<mailto:lauren.rezac_at_yahoo.com%20[Indoor_Construction]>" <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com<mailto:Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com>> wrote:
I have listed the 5/99 Tan II on eBay at slightly less than $1 per gram.
If anyone wants to make an offer on the other rubber, let me know.
Thanks,
Lauren
Received on Sun May 14 2017 - 17:00:27 CEST
This archive was generated by Yannick on Sat Dec 14 2019 - 19:13:48 CET