Re: Wright Stuff C
Posted: September 7th, 2019, 12:44 pm
Are you speaking from actual knowledge of this or something you've been told? I'm asking this seriously because several of us have a *much* different perception of the rules writing process based on several experiences we've had with SO and discussions with coaches who attend SOSI.jander14indoor wrote: ↑September 5th, 2019, 7:02 amOh, a general comment. These rules are NOT written by an individual, definitely committee written. And reviewed by lots of people. So they tend to be compromises between competing ideas (The reason I hate rulings based 'spirit of the rule' when I'm not sure the authors agree on what the 'spirit' is! Though I have used that reasoning at least once...). So don't hate on someone you 'think' threw in a rule you don't like. The responsibility is shared.
The static margins cannot be adjusted without creating an unwieldy, ugly model that is extremely sensitive to turbulence. Like I've said there are several models out now and the flight behavior is extremely disappointing. This isn't about flight times--it's about creating poorly formulated rules which makes the planes unnecessarily difficult to fly.jander14indoor wrote: ↑September 4th, 2019, 11:21 amThough 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?
Well let's be honest, we also have a community within the uppermost echelons of SO leadership who are extremely upset about the existence of purpose-built kits for the flying events. One manufacturer was once approached personally by one of SO's top leaders and asked to either stop making kits that were competitive without modifications or offer multiple designs each season. Given this individual's work schedule, the eye-roll coefficient was predictably high.jander14indoor wrote: ↑September 4th, 2019, 11:21 amWe 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.