2016 rules

retired1
Member
Member
Posts: 674
Joined: July 25th, 2012, 5:04 pm
Division: Grad
State: FL

2016 rules

Postby retired1 » May 20th, 2015, 12:09 pm

With the high times at nationals, the rules will surely get a lot tougher for next year.
My guess is 45 cm span, the same 8g weight, and 1.5 g of motor.
What is your thoughts????

bernard
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 2009
Joined: January 5th, 2014, 3:12 pm
Division: Grad
State: WA
Location: Seattle, WA
Status: I'M A DOG
Contact:

Re: 2016 rules

Postby bernard » May 20th, 2015, 12:19 pm

If part of the plan is to make it so this year's planes aren't competitive or are illegal, decreasing the dimensions is an easy way to do it.

What bonuses do you think could be possible for state and national tournaments?
"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."

DoctaDave
Member
Member
Posts: 167
Joined: December 28th, 2013, 10:59 pm
Division: Grad
State: CA

Re: 2016 rules

Postby DoctaDave » May 20th, 2015, 1:12 pm

I'm hoping a pusher or canard bonus will be implemented which I think would be pretty interesting.

JonB
Coach
Coach
Posts: 293
Joined: March 11th, 2014, 12:00 pm
Division: C
State: FL

Re: 2016 rules

Postby JonB » May 20th, 2015, 1:18 pm

I'm hoping a pusher or canard bonus will be implemented which I think would be pretty interesting.
Canard Wright Stuff... oh man. That would be interesting!

DoctaDave
Member
Member
Posts: 167
Joined: December 28th, 2013, 10:59 pm
Division: Grad
State: CA

Re: 2016 rules

Postby DoctaDave » May 20th, 2015, 1:26 pm

I think they've done a canard bonus in the recent past so I don't know if they would consider bringing it back. I think they've also done it before so that an unlimited wing chord was allowed.

DoctaDave
Member
Member
Posts: 167
Joined: December 28th, 2013, 10:59 pm
Division: Grad
State: CA

Re: 2016 rules

Postby DoctaDave » May 20th, 2015, 1:32 pm

Also does anyone know if they are considering wright stuff capacitor still? I hope it stays rubber though.

retired1
Member
Member
Posts: 674
Joined: July 25th, 2012, 5:04 pm
Division: Grad
State: FL

Re: 2016 rules

Postby retired1 » May 20th, 2015, 1:38 pm

I would not like either option. The canard for the glider was a disaster of definitions. If they go that route, I hope that they write it with unusual precision. They will have to be careful or a lot of people will end up with designs like Bernie Hunt's two wing model. IE: the horizontal stab was the same size as the wing.
I sort of doubt if they would go the pusher route altho I have to guess that there are some references or plans out there-somewhere. Since it is the last year for high school, they might do it with a huge bonus like they did with the Chinook style with helicopters.
Bonus might be a cord of 7 cm normal, 6.5 for state and 6.0 for national.

retired1
Member
Member
Posts: 674
Joined: July 25th, 2012, 5:04 pm
Division: Grad
State: FL

Re: 2016 rules

Postby retired1 » May 20th, 2015, 1:50 pm

Capacitors would be interesting, but would be a bit more expensive than rubber for the latest and greatest caps and motors. If I remember correctly, that is why they did not bring it in after the trial event several years ago.

calgoddard
Member
Member
Posts: 244
Joined: February 25th, 2007, 9:54 pm

Re: 2016 rules

Postby calgoddard » May 20th, 2015, 2:37 pm

I believe the final definition for a canard in the ELG event was very well articulated.

A capacitor powered Wright Stuff event has many potential drawbacks. For one, a team with lots of resources can buy 500 capacitors, all marked with the maximum amount of micro-farads allowed under the rules, and then test them one by one to determine the capacitor with the optimum capacitance. Capacitors have tolerances, i.e. slight variations from their labeled capacitance. Removing the rubber from Wright Stuff eliminates the torque v. turns and prop matching analysis and leaves the event with a "cookie cutter" electric motor, capacitor and prop combination. Do we really want the winner of the Wright Stuff event to be the team with the most expensive miniature brushless DC motor and Lithium Polymer battery combination?

As to bonuses for the Wright Stuff event, those directed toward variations in air frame configuration are the most constructive. For example, bonuses for a smaller wing chord, a canard configuration, a pusher configuration, a twin propeller configuration and so forth, can be very challenging and instructive. Air frame configuration bonuses encourage experimentation and have the greatest potential for students to learn the most about aerodynamics. How about bonuses for the use of a 3-bladed propeller or a four-blade propeller, with the proviso that the blades are of equal size?

With no limit on wing chord, students can determine the sweet spot. In the past, there have been bonuses for pushers and canard airplanes in Wright Stuff. The pusher bonus was very successful as many teams opted for this design at the State level using a great Wright Stuff pusher design by the legendary Cezar Banks. Not as many teams appeared to have elected to gain the canard bonus, but with enough bonus, e.g. 20 - 30% of flight time, students might be encouraged to try that very interesting configuration. Indoor and outdoor rubber powered stick model canard aircraft have been flown successfully for many, many years.

I am against a payload bonus. With wing span, wing chord, and rubber motor limitations, there is little a student can do to improve the load carrying ability of a Wright Stuff airplane. If the goal is to have shorter flights, simply limit the maximum rubber motor size to 1.5 grams, as has been done in the past in the Wright Stuff event. Also, the heavier the model airplane, the more susceptible it is to damage upon a collision because it has to fly faster to stay aloft. Students need to have Wright Stuff airplanes that can survive a lot of test flights.

retired1
Member
Member
Posts: 674
Joined: July 25th, 2012, 5:04 pm
Division: Grad
State: FL

Re: 2016 rules

Postby retired1 » May 21st, 2015, 9:53 am

I believe the final definition for a canard in the ELG event was very well articulated.
As I remember, there were many questions before it was finally resolved and even then I would question how well articulated it was. My comment was in hope that IF they used the canard for a bonus that they would put extra effort into having it the best that it could be at the beginning.Some of the questions that were in the FAQ were very similar to questions asked at the summer institute. I do not remember any of the proposed rules being changed at that time.

My memory is clouded, but I do not remember any of the teams that medaled using the canard bonus.

While I would not particularly like to see capacitor be the event. Rich teams can also spend lots of money on finding the absolute best rubber which is similar to spending on caps. It still ends up being trim and flight experience being the MAJOR factors.


Return to “Wright Stuff C”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest