Number Identification Rules

[PJ Rowland]

Ok so in a previous topic we started to Thread Drift " what the Heck " we started to talk about the number ID.

I think this deserves more looking into as per the rules.

Not to stir the pot, however.. some people are saying it must be on the top, but as per the rules it states.

2.3. All models shall be identified by the contestant’s AMA license number permanently affixed to the upper side of the right-hand lifting surface or to each side of the fuselage or vertical stabilizer. The height of numerals shall be at least one (1) inch (25.4 mm). Both stroke and width shall be such to enable ready recognition. It is suggested that the letters USA (25mm [1 inch] or higher) be placed at least once on the model.

This is a difficult one if one were to argue in a court.

It clearly states " upper side of the right-hand lifting surface " - one could assume they mean the top of the wing relative to the ground, but this is where problems occur. It doesnt say "affixed to the upper side of the wing relative to the aircraft sitting on the ground with undercart wheels resting on the ground "

The rules are clear - "upper side of the right-hand lifting surface" - We are all running symmertical airfoils, so there is no Upper side of any lifting surface.
To define Symmerty sym·me·try  (sm-tr)
n. pl. sym·me·tries
1. Exact correspondence of form and constituent configuration on opposite sides of a dividing line or plane or about a center or an axis.

The key words here are : Exact correspondence of form

EXACT correspondance : ex·act
 
–adjective
1.
strictly accurate or correct: an exact likeness; an exact description.
2.
precise, as opposed to approximate: the exact sum; the exact date.
3.
admitting of no deviation


An EXACT likeness.

So....... if we are running Exact likeness lifting surfaces, how can anyone define with great 100% accuracy what is the Upper and what is the Lower of something thats Identical and exact ? There is no reference in the rules where to reference the definition of Upper, exept to reference the lifting surface.

The definition of Upper also requires further reading :
upper  
— adj
1.    higher or highest in relation to physical position, wealth, rank, status, etc

It also says " higher in relation to physical position " in this case.. the lifting surface..

So there is no clear guidelines as to :

What is upper ? We cannot say " Upper or Higher in relation to lifting surface ,when both airfoils are symmetrical.



I would be disputing this with vigour if I was ever pulled up on it - If you have ever been in court, people have been able to form arguments against MANY things by looking closer at what defines something. It can be as simple as " Your being charged for littering in public " Then define what is a public place, look into boundaries, look into what is littering.. Thats why the laws have SO many sub headings and why now most law prosecutors will sight previous cases, where much of the precidence has been set.

Thats my opinion based on the facts avaliable.

[PJ Rowland]

Further to that -  you can look at the definition of lift :
Lift -
Aeronautics . The component of the aerodynamic force exerted by the air on an airfoil, having a direction perpendicular to the direction of motion and causing an aircraft to stay aloft, opposing the force of gravity.

We fly upright and inverted so when the model is inverted all the regular laws of lift are still in place.

So there is no clause for " aircraft to stay aloft " when in regular upright flying configuration with cockpit to the sky and wheels to the ground.

This is almost not relivant because the rules dont sight the exact definition of lift as a guide. It just sights the "lifting surface" or " to the upper side of the right-hand lifting surface "

The issues are the placement - and defining what is the "upper" part of the lifing surface. We cant clearly define what is upper because there is no references as to where to take the reference point of " upper " from.

[Mark Scarborough]

Ok I will bite, first off, if you believe there to be ambiguity in the description of the upper surface,, then the simple solution is to affix it to both sides of the fuse,, no argument possible there is there,,,,

now, granted a case COULD be made, however, I think that you will never,, NEVER have this conversation at a contest unless you are the one bringing it up. Therefore if you put your number on the upper surface of the right lifting panel, it will only go one place, that's the top of the right wing,, period. To argue that a symmetrical wing has no upper surface is to argue that it has no conventional, or normal orientation. This is actually invalid. observation of the numbers will only take place while the plane is at rest, presented for approval prior to flight. Therefore, unless you plan on presenting your airplane upside down, you have nothing to worry about..
there is an element of truth and fact to your argument, but I don't believe there is a need to pursue it as though someone is going to disqualify you ,, and as I stated, if you are worried about it, just put it on both sides of the fuse, or go old school air force, put it on the upper right wing, and the underside of the left wing,, problem solved, your covered even if you hand your plane to the judges upside down.....

[PerttiMe]

Is this forum based in Lawyerstania, or something :p

If the quote from the rules is accurate, you don't have to put the number on the wing at all. Also, it does not say that some parts of the aircraft are not allowed to have the numbers.

[Brett Buck]

I would be disputing this with vigour if I was ever pulled up on it

  And you would lose.  It's perfectly clear what the passage in question means, essentially everyone that has read it in the last 60 years or so managed to understand it the same way. It's no more ambiguous, say, that "the maximum wingspan is 2 meters" rule in FAI - just to pick a random example.

   It's really not that hard to understand or to comply with the rules. The last thing the event needs are (more) people trying to put forth tortured interpretations to try to make some sort of statement.

   And, by the way, the definition of "lifting surface" in the quoted passage is not in any way ambiguous. On a conventional monoplane, it's the wing that provides the lift. It's the same wing whether it is providing lift in the upright or inverted directions.  "Upper" is also not in any way ambiguous - all legal stunt planes have a clearly and obviously defined "top" and "bottom", defined by the side that is on top when you take off and execute the "takeoff and level flight" maneuver.  Hence the definition of "upright" and "inverted" flight.

     But, by all means, try that one at the NATs next year. I am sure that Bill Rich and Brenda Schuette will be very impressed with your reasoning.

    Brett

[Larry Fernandez]

Interesting point here.
A few years back, I built a Hemstraught PT-19 to replicate the full size PT-19 my dad and I built.
I tried in every way to replicate every detail as such that I did not want to put one inch numbers across the wing,
Instead I put them on both sides of the vertical stab.
I am not one for pushing the boundaries of the rules, but when I explained my reasoning to the Golden State CD, he let this slide.

was this a correct decision on his part, or was he just being a nice guy.

I figure, if means not flying the plane at a contest, I could easily put masking tape on the wing and write my number across the tape with a fat permanate marker.

Larry Buttafucco Stunt Team

[Wynn Robins]

PJ - you are clearly overlooking the OR  scenarios that are twofold in your description in your first post here - OR both sides of the fuselage OR both sides of the rudder


it doesnt have to be on the wing at all..

not that I care - In NZ -- we dont even need to have registration numbers on our planes

[BillLee]

...
Not to stir the pot, however.. some people are saying it must be on the top, but as per the rules it states.

2.3. All models shall be identified by the contestant’s AMA license number permanently affixed to the upper side of the right-hand lifting surface or to each side of the fuselage or vertical stabilizer. The height of numerals shall be at least one (1) inch (25.4 mm). Both stroke and width shall be such to enable ready recognition. It is suggested that the letters USA (25mm [1 inch] or higher) be placed at least once on the model.

The rule you quoted is only applicable to stunt models. The General rules, which apply across the board, read:

"4. Identification: All models, except Indoor, will be identified with the owner's name and address or AMA number, on or in the model. Individual events listed within this (Competition Regulations) may have additional identification requirements which must be adhered to."

Yes, the rule you quoted is the stunt rule, but it does not apply to any other event.

Regards,

Bill Lee

[Chuck Feldman]

I guess I am a Rebellious person. Never liked being told something i have to do because its required. So I truly resent the Stunt AMA number rule. most stunt ships are carefully built and finished. Some are pure works of art. Having to affix a meaning less number to one is ridiculous in my opinion. Why break the semitry of beauty with this number. I do agree that the interior ID tag makes sense. Not having one doesn't make sense at all. We should change this rule and make the number display an option.

[PJ Rowland]

Whoa whoa whoa...... People....   

So much to digest..  I dont even know why I thought It prudent to bring this topic up.. I Just wanted to point out that Rules are open to interpretation - Someone mentioned on a previous thread that it did or didnt have to be on the Right hand side of the wing.


Now peoples...... For the record - i'm certainly not looking to cause trouble nor be " one of those people at contests that stirs the pot " or....trying to put forth tortured interpretations to try to make some sort of statement.  I was merely saying that If one were to argue left or right side of the wing, perhaps it needed to be cleared up 100% ( I see and read similar points about the dreaded BOM rule.. so this is no different .

Now onward..

Brett did make a couple of EXCELLENT points ;that I will agree with :
"Upper" is also not in any way ambiguous - all legal stunt planes have a clearly and obviously defined "top" and "bottom", defined by the side that is on top when you take off and execute the "takeoff and level flight" maneuver.  Hence the definition of "upright" and "inverted" flight.


Well.. I do agree, but I don't
Yes I agree that all legal stunt planes have a clearly and obviously defined "top" and "bottom" when in relation to how you start the pattern, but not as you defined it.. and there is no-where in the rules that DOES define the top and bottom of an aircraft. That was part of my point.

You cant use the word Upright..
up·right  (prt)
adj.
1.
a. Being in a vertical position or direction: an upright post. See Synonyms at vertical.
b. Erect in posture or carriage: "She sat with grim determination, upright as a darning needle stuck in a board" (Harriet Beecher Stowe).
c. A perpendicular position; verticality.

Should be read to mean ; When the plane is at its Horizontal Axis.



To argue that a symmetrical wing has no upper surface is to argue that it has no conventional, or normal orientation. This is actually invalid. observation of the numbers will only take place while the plane is at rest, presented for approval prior to flight

Well.... in defense of the point.. I did argue that something that is symmetrical has no top or bottom, because it IS SYMMETRICAL. Its pretty simple to understand. My point was - as you mentioned, " it has no conventional, or normal orientation" I'm not saying that it has no orientation, Im saying that the question of how its orientated isnt stated When we fly both ways.. . According to Brett, the Orientation is Upright. Or when its Vertical ?

Observation of the numbers will only take place while the plane is at rest, presented for approval prior to flight.
Prior to Flight 




It's no more ambiguous, say, that "the maximum wingspan is 2 meters" rule in FAI - just to pick a random example..  Touche' That was indeed Random.
( On a side note about that, that rule was brought in mid construction and it was an oversight, it was a mere 2 inches over, hardly any performance gain, I elected to fly at the Nats knowing that it was over. At the flyers meeting it was asked if anyone objected to this rule breech, no-one said anything. Mid way through Round 3 a protest was put in.
According to the FAI rules :

B.18.2. Time limit for lodging protests:
a) Before the opening of the contest:
A protest against the validity of an entry, qualification of competitors, the contest rules, the flying and
contest area, the processing of models, the judges or other contest officials, must be lodged at least
one hour before the opening of the contest

That is pretty straightforward, and I was aware of this rule, and requested at the start of the contest to have it agreed upon that it be either allowed or DNQ BEFORE the contest.
I think ( and many others agree ) that during Round 3 at a Nationals was not correct...

Did I kick up a fuss ? Did I sulk ? Did I try to argue the point?? ?? No no and no.. I coped it on the Chin, said " Fair enough, I made a mistake. Lets be a man and take it fairly without making a scene. DNQ Round 3 At a Nats.. And you - yourself know how difficult it is to prepare a stunter of that magnitude let alone try to campaign it at a Nationals.... All that work, for nothing..

Still here smiling about it tho

So please people, don't argue against my Character or integrity toward rules interpretation.... I've played my fair share of Bad Hands.

 and no Brett, I wont be "trying" anything next year.. Bill scares me


This is part of what a forum is about - Conversation, Idea's exploring options.
God I love stunt See you all at the Nats in 2011.

[Allan Perret]

PJ: Yea you are right, a symmetrical wing has no top or bottom.
AT LEAST NOT UNTILL YOU GLUE IT INTO THE FUSE !!!
 

[Tom Niebuhr]

PJ,
The other thread was very clear about this. For stunt models.  It has always been Upper Right Hand Wing. That clearly means if you are looking down at the planform of the wing it is on right hand wing.  At least  10 or 15 years ago the rule was revised to include the OPTION for numbers on the side of the fuselage or rudder instead of on the upper right wing.

As Brett said, AMA number placement has been understood for 60+ years.

I know that some countries have their numbers on the upper left hand wing, but this is not acceptable in the USA unless it is a foreign licensed airplane. (And, yes, some Cd's have let this go by.) IF it is an AMA license number, the above rules apply.

The other thread questioned placement of the numbers on the bottom wing surface.

Why are we splitting hairs over nothing?
As I said in the other thread as long as the above requirements are met, there is no reason that numbers can not be on the bottom.

The reality is that as long as the above minimum AMA requirement is met, you could put the numbers on the bottom, the spinner, wheel pants, prop, pilot's helmet, or anywhere else you can think of and in any size you want.

Case closed.

[Larry Fernandez]

I guess I am a Rebellious person. Never liked being told something i have to do because its required.

Never ??
Then,
You never liked having a drivers licence because it required?
You never liked having insurance because its required???
You never liked driving the speed limit because its required?
You never liked showing up at your job on time because its required??
You never liked wearing a safety thong on your handle because its required???
You never liked signaling the judges before the start of a flight because its required??
And on and on and on.......................

Without any identification numbers, how is the plane to be identified??
If I'm tasked with appearance judging and I'm looking at twentyfive planes with no numbers, how am I supposed to identify each plane and score accordingly.

Rebellious or not, rules have a purpose and sometimes they even make sense.

Larry, Buttafucco Stunt Team

[Marvin Denny]

  HMMMM  !! I always thought that the WHEELS were always on the bottom of the AIRCRAFT.   Irreguardless of what position the plane was in, the wheels were ALWAYS on the bottom of the AIRCRAFT.
  Therefore, the portion of the wing that is opposite of the wheels is the TOP in relation to the AIRCRAFT.

  Bigiron

[Clancy Arnold]

Why are all of you ignoring the most obvious reference - THE PILOT.

Up is in the direction of the pilot's head verses his feet.  Left and Right refer to the pilot's right and left sides.

As for a symmetrical air foil, We do not use them!!

Remember we use "STUNT FLAPS."  If you look closely there is a small deflection from neutral at all times upright or inverted to offset GRAVITY.  The only time the wing would qualify as symmetrical is in a vertical climb or dive.
Clancy

[Jim Thomerson]

Notice the difference between the general rule, "Owner's Number" and the stunt rule, "Contestant's Number".  So far as the numbers interfering with the aesthetics of the airplane, take a look at Claus Maikis' airplanes.  If my numbers interfere with the aesthetics of my airplane, it is a reflection of my lack artistic ability, and nothing else.

[Paul Smith]

 "...contestant's AMA license number permanently affixed to the upper side of the right-hand lifting surface or to each side of the fuselage or vertical stabilizer...."

The business of numbering a plane at the contest using marker pens and/or masking tape is in violation of the above rule.  

As I see it, this is a good rule for preventing sharing and borrowing of models during a contest. It also makes transfer of ownership (a clear violation of the BOM) just a bit more difficult.

Back at the dawn of time, it was top of right wing only. But then somebody pointed out that general aviation puts numbers on the body and the military puts 'em on the vertical stab.

One loophole, never mentioned by current lawyers, but figured out by the Rudner brothers at age 13, is that there's no rule against extranous numbers on a model.  

[Brett Buck]

Notice the difference between the general rule, "Owner's Number" and the stunt rule, "Contestant's Number".  So far as the numbers interfering with the aesthetics of the airplane, take a look at Claus Maikis' airplanes.  If my numbers interfere with the aesthetics of my airplane, it is a reflection of my lack artistic ability, and nothing else.

   Bravo!  Perfectly well said.

     Brett

[Tim Wescott]

The reality is that as long as the above minimum AMA requirement is met, you could put the numbers on the bottom, the spinner, wheel pants, prop, pilot's helmet, or anywhere else you can think of and in any size you want.

I think there's a paint scheme in there.  Dang -- that'd be worse than checkerboard (probably in every way).

[PJ Rowland]

Well guys, it seems old P J was just: 1. Bored  2. Lost an argument with the wife 3. Too cold to build. 4. Too cold to fly 5. Has lawyer genes somewhere 6. Bored and feeling frisky, but wife said not tonight. 7. Bored and had one too may beers. 8. Bored just bored.

Hmm.. 1 : Possibly

2: Single
3: Summer in Australia
4: Need to build my US nats model so no flying..
5: Possibly.. but unlikely..
6: Possibly but still single
7: Dont drink beers..
8: I was at work...

I wasn beign argumentitive, just explorative. I love all the comments about wheels, and piolet position and relative position to the sun during the equinox, but the facts are there plain and simple, it doesnt state anywhere other than " upper right part of a lifting surface" my point was if you wanted to make it clear you need to make it CLEAR by adding in these definitions. The whole point that got me thinking was if someone put it on the left not the right, where would they take the reference? Looking from behind the model? from the front? Piolets perspective? or Mechanics? If you flew counter clockwise would this also apply?

True I think common sense will always reign out in the end, but ive seen many petty arguments here in the past about rules, from established level flight position, to BOM rule to the latest about starting electrics and not having someone launch it...

Just banter guys.... nothing more to it.. and yeah there was a hint of bordeom in there but Spice is the essence of life

In fact further to that... it doesnt stipulate that it needs to be Clearly visable or even in English. Whats to stop someone using white text on a white background? or writting it in Arabic numerals ?

[Brett Buck]

I believe it is required for positive Identification and due to the insurance rules. Lawyers, ya know. 
When several look alike ARFs show up, the only way to ID them is by the AMA members AMA number.
Of course if one does not like the rules, one can play elswhere.

    The insurance requirements are fulfilled by the safety code version, i.e. in one on the airplane somewhere. The location requirements are unique to stunt. I would guess that they are there for identification for appearance judging.

     Brett

[Phil Coopy]

Boy, you guys need a job........

Phil

[PJ Rowland]

TY :

Both stroke and width shall be such as.........

By your own admission, this mentions nothign about colour or font choice.

stroke adj - a mark made on a surface by a pen, pencil, or paintbrush; "she applied the paint in careful stroke"

This could allow for a white mark that is visable in close range.... 

The kicker really is.. " to enable ready recoginition " What is ready recognition ??
but again what if a cd is hard of sight ? or has some sort of sight issue and can only see in monotone ?

.. Could happen.... Cats only see in 3 colours.. 

Wish work was busier....... LOL

[Guy B Jr]

Down South, we call this "choking on a gnat".

[PerttiMe]

... which side is up in the southern hemisphere?

[Larry Fernandez]

  

As I see it, this is a good rule for preventing sharing and borrowing of models during a contest. It also makes transfer of ownership (a clear violation of the BOM) just a bit more difficult.
Paul Smith
 

Paul,
Why would you want to prevent one of my buddies from borrowing my plane at a contest??
Why would you want to make it a bit more difficult for me to give one of my planes to someone??

Larry, Buttafucco Stunt Team



[/quote]

[Paul Smith]

 
As I see it, this is a good rule for preventing sharing and borrowing of models during a contest. It also makes transfer of ownership (a clear violation of the BOM) just a bit more difficult.
Paul Smith
 
Paul,
Why would you want to prevent one of my buddies from borrowing my plane at a contest??
Why would you want to make it a bit more difficult for me to give one of my planes to someone??

Larry, Buttafucco Stunt Team

If you believe that the sport of modeling includes BOTH building and flying by the contestant, you would understand my point and the point of the people who wrote the rules.

Those of us who honor the BOM (Builder of the Model) rule think that buy-and-fly amounts to simply playing with toys, not actual modeling.

If the BOM is totally eliminated, there will be no further use for licence numbers, other than for AMA members who build (or at least own) there models to show their membership & ownership.

[john e. holliday]

To me some people try their best to keep control line from growing.  That is why I support PAMPA and the AMA.  PAMPA classes allow people to use planes that under the old days of competition would be left hanging on a wall.  Magic marker has been used in some events at the NATS and some local contests.  A dry rag will not remove the magic marker number unless fuel has gotten on it.  I remember in 70 having to buy a jar of dope to paint my number plus my brothers number on the rudder and fuse side because it was only on the wing.  Also had to fill in canopy area as the event director did not like the out line of a canopy.  I have made people use a marker to put numbers on their racing and carriers planes.  I have not seen this in stunt in which a plane has been presented for processing in which the leadouts have not been completed.  Have in carrier. 

Having been an event director in racing and carrier I have seen a lot.  Like a contestant not showing up for processing before processing closes.  Then headquarters tells you to process the entrant anyway.  Yes I know contestants have driven a long way.  But, when you find out later that said contestant was enjoying dinner and drink when they knew about the processing time is what irritates me.  Even in stuntdom when some contestants know about flying order in an unofficial event are granted early flights so they can make the appearance processing in Adv and Open. 

Now for PJ,  if your plane is legal under your flying organization you have no problem.  AMA has requirements for all foreign contestants.  What would the Worlds be if all contestants had to comply to local model regulations?   Myself, I don't know if I will be at the NATS in 2011 or not.  If I am it will be under the MBS Model Supply canopy helping Melvin out.  So now we need to quit nit picking the rules.  Also remember that appearance points are to be given to the person that actually built and finished the plane in question.

[Trostle]

If you believe that the sport of modeling includes BOTH building and flying by the contestant, you would understand my point and the point of the people who wrote the rules.

Those of us who honor the BOM (Builder of the Model) rule think that buy-and-fly amounts to simply playing with toys, not actual modeling.

If the BOM is totally eliminated, there will be no further use for licence numbers, other than for AMA members who build (or at least own) there models to show their membership & ownership.

Paul,

As usual, you are making a non-issue into a problem.

First, there is only one contest each year in this country where the BOM is strictly required and that is the Nats.  All other contests are run using the skill classes where the BOM is not required.  Now, if a model is flown in the skill classes, appearance points will be awarded only if the contestant is the BOM.  Otherwise, a contestant can use any airplane that he/she did not build.

Second, contests can be run where the BOM rule is waived and there are no appearance points.  All that is needed to run a contest this way is to make that announcement beforehand.  Thus, we can have it both ways.  We keep appearance points/BOM in the rule book, but we can run contests with or without the appearance points/BOM.  And contestants are still allowed to fly in the skill classes even when he/she did not build the model but will forfeit appearance points.

Keith

[Chuck Feldman]

Larry,

Well let me say this. When all the models are set out before you and you are tasked to award appearance points, Do you know the owners of all the 25 models you are scoring? Oh  I didn't think so. As for your examples of things I am opposed to like insurance, drivers license, etc. Let me say this. All the items you listed are important and serve a real purpose. I expressed my view and I am doing it again. How about required things for holding a commercial, multiengine, pilots license. How about meeting the requirements to work on the equipment inside a nuclear power plant. Now there is a place where requirements must be held to very high standards and justly so. These items I have mentioned are important. They have a purpose. I submit that the AMA number must be where ever is a silly requirement and serves no real purpose. By the way Larry the about requirement's have all been met by yours truly.

[PJ Rowland]

This thread was started lightheartedly - lets not drag it down any further with this line of tact........ 

Speaking of borrowing planes, check out the thread:

US NATS 2011 - Got a spare plane.

[RandySmith]

"...contestant's AMA license number permanently affixed to the upper side of the right-hand lifting surface or to each side of the fuselage or vertical stabilizer...."

The business of numbering a plane at the contest using marker pens and/or masking tape is in violation of the above rule.  

UHHH Unless  you use  a  "Sharpie" Permanent marker !!???!!      

Randy

[Jim Thomerson]

Here is Twister where I made the name and numbers the focus of the paint schenme.  

[W.D. Roland]

For me AMA numbers on the wing of combat, Rat and profiles is A-OK
 but look out of place on full stunt planes and especially on scale type stunters.

I did find that AMA number on fuselage sides is very 'civilian' looking and vertically on the rudder is very 'military' looking
and actually look better than without the numbers.

I do remember(I think?) that a different shade of base color being used to put the AMA number on wing of some fliers scale type stunters. Barely noticeable unless the intent is to look for them.

Im happy.

Jim, Your Twister looks fantastic!

[Norm Faith Jr.]

Just one more ...Theoretically...Aren't the flaps (on most "conventional stunters") providing lift, especially in straight and level flight? "Cause" that's where I like to put my numbers.Top right flap, that is.
Norm

[PJ Rowland]

Well Flaps dont provide lift...  the wing does.. Flaps change the camber of the airfoil. 

[Clayton Berry]

I stopped reading after Phil Coopy said yoose fellers need a job.  Ha ha ha.

Hey, no kidding.  I don't mind applying my number as much as I'm required to have a number.  As in, I have no desire to belong to the AMA.  I only do it because I compete.  And this year, I didn't.  I read National Geographic while - you know the drill.  No AMA mag for me for awhile.  Hopefully, my 529887 will still apply when I get started again in 2011.

Hey, the biggest pain is having a duplicate numeral in your number.  Makes everything a bit more trouble, eh?  Hard to find a Letraset page or a set of Monokote letters with an extra 8 included. 

That's when you whip out that Magic Marker, no?  Do they still make those things?  The were always disappearing.  Like magic, if you will.

Speaking of magic markers.  I used to frequent this sleazy bar over in Rockville once a month.  Classic and Vintage Motorcycles Association.  CAVMA.  Hank Dietle's.  1st joint to to open after prohibition.  And one month, the bathroom had been painted over (a task that you wouldn't do for a million bucks if you had no sense of smell and were blind).  Ah, but one thing was there...  In like one inch width pen strokes, some guy had written I brought my big pen tonight!

Put your number on your plane.  Gripe about being required to be an AMA member later. 

[Brett Buck]

Well Flaps dont provide lift...  the wing does.. Flaps change the camber of the airfoil. 

  Flaps are part of the wing. And if you note it takes some effort to deflect them. That means there is a force on them. That force is lift.

     Brett

[PJ Rowland]

Ok Brett I really wanted to take that further and go long winded... But after thinking about it for 20 minutes and reading more detail about Centre of pressures, aerodynamics forces ,and fluid dynamics - combined with the fact your a rocket scientist and eat Calculus for breakfast, with Trig Milk... I thought no no.. Bow out with grace and conceed your outta of your league

This topic went no-where from start to finish fun way to spend 3 days tho !

[don Burke]

Slightly off subject.  A slight angle of attack is all a symmetrical airfoil needs to produce lift.  That's why flapless symmetrical ones fly.  If the wing loading is low the angle is so slight that the pilot and no one can see it.

[Norm Faith Jr.]

  Flaps are part of the wing. And if you note it takes some effort to deflect them. That means there is a force on them. That force is lift.

     Brett

Thanks Brett...I thought I was going to have to hunt down all of my past students and correct the error in one of my lectures. "After thought"...If our "stunter's flaps" don't create lift...what use would it be to seal the gap, as many fliers do?
Norm

[Paul Smith]

To Keith Trostle:

Who, me?  I comply with the rule as it has been written since 1960 (at least).

I'm not the once looking for loopholes and trying to rationalize how the bottom can be called the top.

[PJ Rowland]

I CONSIDER THIS THREAD FINISHED - IT WAS HUMOR THAT WENT ( Excuse the pun..) TO FAR.