Page 2 of 89

Re: Wright Stuff C

Posted: September 3rd, 2019, 5:30 pm
by builderguy135
This sounds stupid and it probably is but wood you be able to make the entire airfoil out of wood?

Re: Wright Stuff C

Posted: September 3rd, 2019, 5:32 pm
by klastyioer
builderguy135 wrote:
September 3rd, 2019, 5:30 pm
This sounds stupid and it probably is but wood you be able to make the entire airfoil out of wood?
would*
and i mean tbh no but why not try if youve got the time lmfao

Re: Wright Stuff C

Posted: September 3rd, 2019, 5:58 pm
by bjt4888
K,

Because of better wing loading, I am thinking definitely biplane.

There are some challenges. Keeping weight reasonable. Building two flying surfaces with correct and matching washin/washout (or, perfectly flat).

Brian T

Re: Wright Stuff C

Posted: September 4th, 2019, 9:18 am
by Maxout
Several of us have built prototypes now, including ones for production. Flight times in the 60-70 second range without too much fiddling. They have very limited power and ANY hint of turbulence blows them out of the sky. Static margins are very low and it's hard to get sustained thrust of any reasonable amount. I have yet to climb one above 20', but like I said, 60-70 seconds, both directions.

The rules are poorly formed resulting in truly ugly airplanes. Doubling the stab span would have greatly eased the trimming difficulty and made for prettier looking airplanes. Basically, the rules are crap because they wanted to screw us all over with difficult to fly airplanes. As a manufacturer I couldn't care less, but as a mentor of umpteen young modelers it makes my blood boil, especially considering who writes these rules. He should know better, and he keeps doing this crap anyway.

Re: Wright Stuff C

Posted: September 4th, 2019, 10:00 am
by builderguy135
Maxout wrote:
September 4th, 2019, 9:18 am
I have yet to climb one above 20'
Time to find a tall partner for wright stuff everyone!
Maxout wrote:
September 4th, 2019, 9:18 am
Several of us have built prototypes now, including ones for production.
I'm assuming biplanes are marginally better than monoplanes. Is this correct?

Re: Wright Stuff C

Posted: September 4th, 2019, 10:24 am
by CrayolaCrayon
Maxout wrote:
September 4th, 2019, 9:18 am
Several of us have built prototypes now, including ones for production. Flight times in the 60-70 second range without too much fiddling. They have very limited power and ANY hint of turbulence blows them out of the sky. Static margins are very low and it's hard to get sustained thrust of any reasonable amount. I have yet to climb one above 20', but like I said, 60-70 seconds, both directions.

The rules are poorly formed resulting in truly ugly airplanes. Doubling the stab span would have greatly eased the trimming difficulty and made for prettier looking airplanes. Basically, the rules are crap because they wanted to screw us all over with difficult to fly airplanes. As a manufacturer I couldn't care less, but as a mentor of umpteen young modelers it makes my blood boil, especially considering who writes these rules. He should know better, and he keeps doing this crap anyway.

Amen. I don't know who writes these rules, but it sure makes 2019 seem like a dream. We were headed in the right direction. I thought that this year's rules would keep moving in the right direction, on the verge of EZB or penny planes... That would be so majestic.

Let's just go back to 1999 rules and lift the rubber limit... and stock up on some rubber in May ;)

Re: Wright Stuff C

Posted: September 4th, 2019, 10:46 am
by builderguy135
klastyioer wrote:
September 3rd, 2019, 5:32 pm
builderguy135 wrote:
September 3rd, 2019, 5:30 pm
This sounds stupid and it probably is but wood you be able to make the entire airfoil out of wood?
would*
and i mean tbh no but why not try if youve got the time lmfao
Pun intended lol

Re: Wright Stuff C

Posted: September 4th, 2019, 10:47 am
by klastyioer
builderguy135 wrote:
September 4th, 2019, 10:46 am
klastyioer wrote:
September 3rd, 2019, 5:32 pm
builderguy135 wrote:
September 3rd, 2019, 5:30 pm
This sounds stupid and it probably is but wood you be able to make the entire airfoil out of wood?
would*
and i mean tbh no but why not try if youve got the time lmfao
Pun intended lol
ugh

Re: Wright Stuff C

Posted: September 4th, 2019, 11:21 am
by jander14indoor
I know everyone loves long flights. BUT, we have to run this event among 23 other events the same day. As a practical matter, we've found keeping top times below three minutes makes the competition more manageable. Last years planes were starting to push that, so they were intentionally handicapped. So sorry, never going to see Penny Plane type rules.

Though other than the prop, I don't see that much of a handicap...
Last year's tandems, two lifting surfaces, 35X7X2 give a lift area of 490 sq cm.
This year's bi-planes, two lifting surfaces, 30X8X2 give a lift area of 480 sq cm.
Yes I know that the two surfaces on bi-planes don't work as efficiently as a single surface of same area, but that is also true of tandems.
And why are the static margin's so bad. Can't that be adjusted, even with the smaller stab?

We also have a community (concerned over parent built) within SO that likes build on site and doesn't fully recognize the real importance/purpose of this event is test and evaluation. Making the results more dependent on obvious student action during the event helps stave off the (I think overblown) concerns about parent built airplanes.

Jeff Anderson
Livonia, MI

Re: Wright Stuff C

Posted: September 4th, 2019, 5:07 pm
by coachchuckaahs
Jeff:

Thank you for your insights.

Is that the same faction that believes that kits are needed to win?

While I understand the reverse circle is to force the kids to re-trim the plane, it is unfortunately still strapped with the 8-minute limit. With the small prop, expect super thin rubber with many turns, It will be a challenge to get two flights started in the 11-minute window (3 preflight, 8 flight). IF this were science, then there would be time to retrim the plane between flights. If last year's goal was 3 minute flights, and 5 resulted, then I would expect this year's designs, with some optimization, will reach the 3 minute target. The kids will need pre-set adjustments, rather than truly perform a handful of trim flights making adjustments as required.

I have been coaching my HS kids to F1D this summer. It has been a LOT of work, with 4-6 hour days most weekdays for the last month. But I am impressed with how quickly these kids pick up building skills FAR more complicated than WS. Since many planes are kit-based, with comprehensive instructions, I really do not see the prevalence of parent-built or coach-built planes. My kids are now convinced they can build an SO plane in one 6-hour session (scratch built, not kit). They have built LPP's and F1D's, all of which fall under similar BOM rules. And they have shown themselves very capable!

I agree that test/eval is the core of this event. WE have a goal to get in the gym as early as possible, and typically log 400 or more flights before Nationals. A build-on-site event eliminates the science (presumably it would be a one-design contest), and makes it all about building quickly. In a 50-minute window there would be little time to optimize in a data-driven approach. I hope we never go that way!

As for my team, I would welcome any and all observers to come watch my kids during a build. We are probably going to do a parent build of P18's before Eager in April, because the parents are feeling left out!

Coach Chuck