Design > Stunt design
Profile Fuselage Width
john e. holliday:
When electric started to be used it was recommended it be a separate class. But, as usual it was incorporated into the rules to make it just one event. I have watched many events start out as local events and do good until they became a national event which is why the rule book is so thick. Yes, I can remember when there was just one event for racing, carrier, combat, scale and stunt. Then we have people wondering why a low turn out for the events we have now. D>K
Brent Williams:
It's a heck of a lot easier to be inclusive rather than exclusive. Have some fun.
For example, having the definition of a profile fuselage basically being defined by a maximum width measurement of .750" aft of the wing, opens up the competition to a broader range of competitors, designs, materials and importantly, innovation. Be as innovative as you can be with your designs within that sole parameter. Yes, it might yield some impressive, complex profile ships that are big and powerful. However, as a direct counter-point argument to the impressive macho ships that some will build, I offer the legitimate example of Joe Gilbert and his simple Ringmaster as the giant slayer. That Ringmaster is as far to the other side of the scale as one can be. To that end, I would propose that you guys might drop all the antiquated profile definitions and limitations once and for all. Just let people have fun.
Run what you brung...and hope you brought *enough* (* ie, skills, experience, practice, oh and a good plane helps.) Have some fun!
And, as always...The biggest limiting factor IS ALWAYS going to be the guy flying the plane. Have fun!
Chuck_Smith:
You know, you can build a foam core carbon fiber profile in a couple evenings and even at 1/2" thick it will be lighter and stronger than balsa. A lot easier to finish too. That takes all the thickness worry out of it.
Tim Wescott:
--- Quote from: Dave_Trible on March 25, 2021, 03:43:58 PM ---There really are no real written rules to define this. Historically it's been a matter decided more on a local basis. (snip)
--- End quote ---
This. The nice thing about it being local is that if you don't like it, you can always start hosting your own contest with whatever rules you want.
I like the Pacific Northwest rule of a 3/4" maximum aft of the wing TE -- 1/2" slab fuselages are still pretty competitive, and it's easy to make a rigid built-up fuselage out to 3/4" that's rigid enough so you're not tempted into a cf & foam airplane that's within 1/2".
On a plane with an engine, the best thing you can do if you have as much thickness as you want to play with is slap a cheek cowl on the inboard side, to absorb motor vibrations. Any more is just wasted effort. Again, allowing unlimited width is actually relieving the pressure on exotic kevlar/carbon builds that would do the same thing with a lot more effort.
Ultimately, there's no national records involved, which I think goes the furthest to keep it a fun event. Yes, the people who fly the top levels of profile stunt around here show up with some pretty fancy planes -- but I can nip at their heels pretty hard with a Fancherized Twister, if not even win on occasion.
Tim Wescott:
--- Quote from: Motorman on March 27, 2021, 09:16:10 PM ---I'll have to admit when I first saw a profile plane with a big built up nose I was scratching my head. Didn't look like a profile to me. To each his own.
Motorman 8)
--- End quote ---
Well, yes. But consider what the words "stock" and "car" mean, and then look at what NASCAR calls a "stock car".
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version