Wright Stuff B

[calgoddard]

Dear Jeff:

I hope the WS rules committee will consider re-instituting the 20% bonus for a pusher configuration for 2010. This encourages experimentation and learning and makes WS competitions more interesting and exciting.

Any experiennced WS coach or mentor understood immediately that the bonuses in the 2009 rules for small wing chords were self-defeating, i.e. a well-built and well-trimmed WS airplane with a larger wing chord, e.g 13 cm, would almost certainly win most competitions. My point was proven by the results at the 2009 Nationals.

If you want to give bonuses for smaller wing chords, they are going to have to be much higher than the percentages specified in the 2009 rules for the chord limits indicated in order to even make it worthwhile to experiment with the same.

[wlsguy]

I agree with calgoard about pusher planes and the bonus being too small for the wing cord.

I also wondered if a bonus could be given to those who use less than the maximum amount of rubber.
i.e. 1.5g ~ 1.35g = no bonus, 1.35g ~ 1.2g = 10% (or some amount), 1.2g ~ 1.05g = 20%, etc

This has the obvious disadvantage to scoring because the event officials would need to know the weight of each rubber motor and know which was used.

Anyway, any bonus needs to be something to help encourage innovation and experimentation.
Thanks,

[jacdad]

I also agree with calgoddard about the wing cord and pusher plane introducing more of a challenge. I was not experienced enough (as most of you are) to reject the idea of the 6.5 cm wing without trying it. At the time, the biggest problem we were having was keeping the planes out of the ceiling. My son made a very nice 6.5 cm wing, and the best we could get it to do was just under 2 min. in a 22 ft. gym. Compared to his 13 cm wing, it would have ended up needing almost a 50% bonus. The pusher plane idea is cool. My oldest son was beaten by at States last year with a pusher plane, but I have to admit, it was an awesome plane, and flew very well.

[WrightStuffMonster]

I think that several things were wrong with the pusher bonus as it was written in the Div C wright stuff rules in 08. First of all think that the bonus be only for canards and not just pushers in general. Building/trimming a successful pusher is alot the same as building/trimming a normal plane; whereas, canards are totally different and require much more work. One of the major reasons I think there were not more canards at the 08nats is that the bonus at state was for pushers in general and as pushers can be more efficient than canards so that the competitive teams would have needed to fly a standard configuration pusher at states and a canard at nations which is not reasonable. I think the bonus should be the same across all competition levels. Another thing i noticed about canards is even though they fly only 10-15% less than a good normal plane they dont take ceiling hits well at all so even if the bonus is 20% most teams would fly a normal plane and count on a couple of good ceiling hits. Finally canards fly totally differently than normal planes and as such they take quite a bit of trial an error to get them working right so the bonus better be really good to make it worth your while. Taking all of this into account I would recommend the following:

25-30% bonus for Canards only
bonus the same at all competition levels
no larger prop size than 18.5 cm as balancing canard with a 24cm prop (which is heavier) required me to make a 4.2 gram airplane that was 3 feet long...


I dont know if this is practical but i think it would be cool to have 10% bonus for no touch flights as that would take some of the randomness out of the flights.

[BUCMAN]

Instead of leaving the wing chord up to the builder and specifying the wingspan, I think it would be a really cool idea to offer a total area specification for the wing.
So a longer wingspan would have a smaller chord, vice versa.

[carneyf1d]

i think the idea of no touch bonus would be great. some people seriously need to learn to turn down their torque and stop making rocket ships.

[blue cobra]

Instead of leaving the wing chord up to the builder and specifying the wingspan, I think it would be a really cool idea to offer a total area specification for the wing.
So a longer wingspan would have a smaller chord, vice versa.

That sounds like a great idea! It could really allow for much more creative designs. A no touch bonus seems great as well, though at Nats next year I think the gym is going to be huge, so many planes probably won't touch.

[StampingKid]

I think touching itself is a penalty and there is reason enough to try for a no touch. Touching also depends pretty much on the site and in that regard not touching can be just plain luck. Luck should not be reason for a bonus.

[carneyf1d]

the height that a plane rises is totally dependent on the torque. It's not luck, its torque. People should be able to control the height of their plane.

[jander14indoor]

Actually, bumping can be good or bad, which does depend a little on luck.
If your plane bumps and doesn't recover, its very bad, saw a couple of those at the national contest this past weekend. Generally a sign of insufficient stability margin.
If your plane bumps and recovers quickly, bumps can be good. If you bump while still climbing strongly, drop a few feet and climb back to the ceiling its like flying in a taller site, extra time. Of course the danger is not bumping, climbing into the rafters and getting snagged, bad. Another danger is bumping when all your climb is gone. You immediately lose several feet, and never climb back up, losing valuable descent time.

While overall risky, the longest flights almost depend on 'good' bumps.

Here's where strategy comes in. Do you fly no touch both flights, slightly less than max time for the site, but hope no one gets lucky. Might work at regionals, not competitive states and certainly not at nationals. Do you fly one no touch flight to ensure at least one solid time and placing followed by risky bumping flight to move to first? Probably better choice. Or do you push it on both with risk of bad bumps on both? Risky, not my preferred choice, but you?

Jeff Anderson
Livonia, MI