Sketchyness

User avatar
rigor_boi
Member
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: February 19th, 2016, 10:45 am
Division: C
State: MA
Location: Scrub City

Sketchyness

Postby rigor_boi » March 11th, 2016, 8:17 pm

I live in Scrub City, and our state last year had the following rule clarfications about Wright Stuff:
1) No rubber band power, free flight without any aid. It doesn't have to be a mono-plane!! Still going for max time aloft AND minimum displacement.
3) a. No commercial kits. b. Allowed materials: paper, any wieght; drinking straws, styrofoam plates/trays; duct tape. c. Weight requirement TBD. d. Any wing configurations OK, but dimensions still in force. e.&f. null and void.
4) c. 1. & 2. not applicable. f. n/a g. motor materials n/a l. Competitors may not provide additional lift or other air currents, either.
5) Base scoring will include displacement from starting point, measured in cm. a.-c. null and void.
This pretty clearly went against the spirit of the event (unless there was something in the 2015 rules that I didn't get), and Massachusetts ended up with a lot of 20-second flights from sketchy planes made out of paper straws and duct tape. As a result, such a sketchy plane is what I have to work with for this time around. Furthermore, this year's rule clarifications are similar, but without the most sketchy parts:
"1) It doesn't have to be a mono-plane!! Still going for max time aloft AND minimum displacement. Max time aloft is more important than displacement, but I want to encourage teams to think flying in circles, so we don't run out of room.
3) a. No commercial kits.
b. As stated in the rules, but preferred materials are: paper, any wieght; drinking straws, styrofoam plates/trays, cling wrap, plastic bottles, food containers, etc; balsa wood and other traditional plane materials (not Boron filaments!) allowed but not from kits; duct tape.
c. Weight requirement: as stated in the rules.
d. Any wing configurations OK, but dimensions still in force for each wing.
e. As stated; limited use of 3D printers for propellors or hubs OK
f. As stated.
4) c. As stated.
f. As stated
g. As stated
l. As stated. Competitors may not provide additional lift or other air currents, either.
5) As stated, but displacement from starting point, measured in cm. will break ties.
a.-c. As stated.
Is there any way that using a plane made out of straws could support a rubber motor and a prop?

bernard
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 2000
Joined: January 5th, 2014, 3:12 pm
Division: Grad
State: WA
Location: Seattle, WA
Contact:

Re: Sketchyness

Postby bernard » March 12th, 2016, 1:43 am

"No rubber band power"--so the event was hand-launched glider?

I'm sure using straws could work. Rolled motor tubes made from balsa are common for planes that need to be light-weight and handle somewhat low torques; Wright Stuff is not so light that rolled motor tubes are necessary. I would prefer to use balsa sticks because it bonds to other balsa much stronger.
"One of the ways that I believe people express their appreciation to the rest of humanity is to make something wonderful and put it out there."

jander14indoor
Member
Member
Posts: 1559
Joined: April 30th, 2007, 7:54 am

Re: Sketchyness

Postby jander14indoor » March 12th, 2016, 6:19 am

Arrgghhhhh, why is the event supervisor doing this!!! This is a proven event, why does ES feel they need to customize. Not enough successful teams? Then set up some clinics and help teams become successful!!!!!!!

OK, sorry, venting under control.

Since the materials now allow balsa, and don't seem to score its use down, why not stick with it as a proven material?
And since it doesn't say you can't use rubber this year, it sounds to me like a plane to the normal rules will work FINE.
In other words, just make a nationals plane and learn to fly it well. With only a little effort you should be able to get to 1:30 and make that tiebreaker meaningless. And 2:30 is not out of reach.

If you want to build a plane that you couldn't use at nationals and blow everyone else away, build a bi-plane. They used to be common 10 years back when we allowed them. They aren't twice as good, but built to minimum weight (not hard to do) they are worth at least 50 percent time. 4 minute plus capability. Again, making that silly tiebreaker about distance from start point meaningless.

OK, time to see if I can get my daughter (who has run regionals and state events and assisted at nationals) involved with Massachusetts as well as RI where she lives now. And she's moving up to MA next year when her husband goes back to school there.

PS, I hope the ES doesn't make you all launch from the same place? Picking your launch spot is one of the intended tasks in this event!! Its how I got started 15 years ago with WS when my daughter had to launch her plane, fully capable of 3 minutes and designed to fly in circles, from the corner of the gym with perfectly predictable results!!

PPS, as usual, NONE of the above comments are official and they cannot be used in an appeal or dispute with the ES at your event!!!

Jeff Anderson
Livonia, MI

User avatar
rigor_boi
Member
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: February 19th, 2016, 10:45 am
Division: C
State: MA
Location: Scrub City

Re: Sketchyness

Postby rigor_boi » March 12th, 2016, 1:10 pm

How would I mount the second wing onto a biplane? Should I still use a dihedral wing design or keep both of them straight? It isn't as easy to find scioly biplane designs on the internet since MA seems to be pretty unique in its sketchyness.

bjt4888
Member
Member
Posts: 551
Joined: June 16th, 2013, 12:35 pm
Division: C
State: MI

Re: Sketchyness

Postby bjt4888 » March 12th, 2016, 2:28 pm

Attached is a very good biplane plan. Should you decide to build a monoplane, you can't go wrong by modifying Bill Gowen's Finny 09 for this year's rules.
Attachments
finny09.pdf
Excellent design from 2009
(155.64 KiB) Downloaded 94 times
DoubleTroubleSO.pdf
(132.09 KiB) Downloaded 73 times


Return to “Wright Stuff C”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest