2016 rules

[0ddrenaline]

I agree about decreasing the mass requirement. I felt pretty limited with 8 grams, considering the slightly small wing chord. Although this might have been intentional, I think a lower mass would allow for a more optimized plane. I had no problem getting down to 8 grams, and I didn't really get to use my best building skills to get the plane how I wanted it. The best builders which could highly optimize the plane would benefit from a lower mass requirement.

[bernard]

I agree about decreasing the mass requirement. I felt pretty limited with 8 grams, considering the slightly small wing chord. Although this might have been intentional, I think a lower mass would allow for a more optimized plane. I had no problem getting down to 8 grams, and I didn't really get to use my best building skills to get the plane how I wanted it. The best builders which could highly optimize the plane would benefit from a lower mass requirement.

I agree that a lower mass requirement would be a fun challenge, of course with the appropriate other adjustments so that the plane does not fly for longer than the allowed testing period. Building to be above the 8 gram minimum was very simple this year for us. And as bjt4888 mentioned, a lower minimum mass works like a bonus because it doesn't punish teams that are several grams over the limit. An untrimmed plane that is the minimum mass might not do as well as a well trimmed plane that is several grams over.

[chalker7]

Get crazy with your ideas. I like this conversation and am always interested in how far we can push things. One item to consider is that we write rules for the whole country, with a particular focus on the teams who have never participated before. You all are suggesting interesting ideas, but they seem to skew towards the experienced teams who have some clue of what they're doing.
As a note, we're down to debating specific differences among a small handful of rules options and I think everyone will be intrigued by the rules next year. Capacitors will not be part of the rules, using those would constitute a completely different event (much like balloon launch glider vs. elastic launch.)

[retired1]

OK, why not ministicks.
Beginners could build acceptable models that with lots of flight time would be fairly competitive.

It would take a lot less balsa and regionals like mine that do not hold the event could fly in low ceiling rooms. This would be fantastic as it is difficult for most to have frequent access to gyms.

Open it wide open and only limit min weight and rubber weight.

The more I think about it, the more I like it.

[bjt4888]

I like the idea of rules that encourage teams that have never participated to join in and i like quite a few of the ideas proposed in this thread. With all due respect to the SO organizers, I am not a big fan of the "payload" bonus concept. As a coach to fourteen students at four local high schools this year (three schools last year and one the year before) in mid-Michigan, the element of this event that I observe that creates excitement is the long graceful flight. Although, those of us that fly indoor AMA/FAI competition (students and coaches) know that 3:00 - 4:00 is not really a long flight, it is long enough to get big positive reactions from the students and spectators. This year my "sciencey" kids got ad-hoc spectator cheering during practice from groups including: the lacrosse team, the track team, the lacrosse coach, the basketball coach, the basketball cheerleading squad, and many others. I could see the pride in the kids faces and demeanor as these people and groups showed genuine attention and interest in their airplanes. I was sure to tell the spectators that the SO kids were reigning regional champs, state medalists, or something of the sort. The long flight is a big deal to the kids.

If a payload bonus concept is used, and if the payload increases the overall airframe weight significantly, it is possible that the best scoring flights will be of shorter duration (if there is a moderately high payload). While this is an interesting aerospace engineering and physics problem, I think that it would lessen one of the best "interest generators" of the event, the long graceful flight.

I am of the belief that it is not necessary to make large changes in the event each year. The event is very challenging to perfect even with the most basic set of rules. The students that i coached this year all got a big charge out of the event and all had good success stories (due to their dedicated effort), but I reminded them that, as good as their results were, this is such a great science problem that they are only about 1/3 of the way to an optimal solution. I like simple rules that result in a number of variables to test.

I'm sure that SO officials already have great ideas on how to encourage more participation and my ideas are probably not really needed, but (here they come anyway) I would recommend that connections be made with top science teachers (or school administrations, boards, education foundations, etc.) in the locations with low participation. Once connections with groups like this are successful, demos (by students from a successful school) of the construction events (along with brief presentations of data gathering and analysis) would be a great way to build interest. Hopefully, a demo in front of school admins, teachers, parents and students would get interest going on a number of fronts all at once. Possibly a demo could happen a previously scheduled event to ensure attendance (like a school board meeting or another school-wide science event).

Thanks to the SO officials for a great year!

Brian T.

[chalker]

.... I would recommend that connections be made with top science teachers (or school administrations, boards, education foundations, etc.) in the locations with low participation. Once connections with groups like this are successful, demos (by students from a successful school) of the construction events (along with brief presentations of data gathering and analysis) would be a great way to build interest. Hopefully, a demo in front of school admins, teachers, parents and students would get interest going on a number of fronts all at once. Possibly a demo could happen a previously scheduled event to ensure attendance (like a school board meeting or another school-wide science event)......

This is a pretty good idea. But you left out who would coordinate / execute upon it. Note that there are only a handful of us at the National level that are helping to create the rules, so we can't really handle this all across the country. I'd propose it falls upon active and engaged SO participants like yourself!

[calgoddard]

I hope this short video will spur interest in a bonus for a pusher configuration:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBJawSgZ-f8

I'd like to hear your comments.

Thanks.

[retired1]

Any idea of its performance? weight, rubber weight and time.
Looks like an inverted version of a 1934 model.

[calgoddard]

retired1 -

Thanks for asking about the WS pusher in the video I posted.

The 2008 WS rules set a 50 cm max wing span and a max wing chord of 7 cm. Those rules also set a max stab span of 30 cm and a max stab chord of 4.5 cm. Minimum weight for the airplane was 7 grams. Max rubber weight was 2 grams. Max prop diameter was 24 cm.

A pusher configuration received a 20% bonus at State. At Nationals a canard configuration received a 30% bonus.

The WS pusher in the video weighed very near the minimum weight, i.e. maybe a couple of hundredths of a gram over 7 grams for a safety margin. The airframe dimensions were very near the maxes.

The best times for this pusher as I recall were slightly over three minutes in a 24 foot flying site. Many of the top WS teams flew a pusher at the 2008 SoCal WS finals as they determined that, with a 20% time bonus, it had a clear advantage over a conventional tractor configuration with no time bonus.

In the video, the WS pusher is being flown in one of the Tustin blimp hangars which has a flyable height of 135' so of course it flew much longer in that site. As I recall we could only get it up to 60 or 70 feet at that location using the original prop. Some of the LPP's were getting close to 100' in altitude.

[retired1]

Based on some very old plans that I found, I think that the pusher would probably come close to good times from this year. The perfect trim of either tractor or pusher should be close. The bonus would make the pusher favorable for competition. (Based on what little I know now)

The canard is actually flyable for the few teams that can fly enough to get near the perfect wing and stab locations and trim.

Not many teams mastered the canard for gliders if I remember correctly. I saw one that flew beautifully, but refused to turn.

Still would like to see mini or micro sticks as it would allow all teams to get reasonable practice in.