Re: [RCSE] After the 2006 NATS - 2 Meter Comments
I think I was 2nd or 3rd last year with a 45 point flight. This year, I was 7th with a 10 point flight. Boom failed on launch. Borrowed an Organic for the last few flights. rdwoebke wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Marc Gellart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ya, one flew, it was Mike Lackowski's(sp), and it blew up about half way through the event... Marc Ouch. Keep in mind Mike took top 10 with a 2 meter Aegea he built (it well may be this exact one) last year. Ryan RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format . RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Re: [RCSE] After the 2006 NATS - 2 Meter Comments
At 11:25 PM 7/31/2006, you wrote: I am not sure just when the 2 meter class became codified. There was only one class at the first LSF contest (1971) - held at the Nelson glider ranch, Livermore, Ca. BTW, that same year, an early form of f3b was flown at the NBSS contest in Santa Rosa, Ca. Regis I am not sure when the 2-meter class was codified. I first flew 2-meter at the LSF Tournament at Lockport, IL in 1979 and was the first contest for the Winglet Spica. In 1980 and 1981, 2-meter event was still unofficial and flown the day after Standard Class and Unlimited. In 1983, 2-meter was flown at the same time as Standard and Unlimited. I remember it well as I flew all three classes with the Spica by changing the wing tips between classes. I am not sure about 1982 but think it was an official event since it was not flown after the Nats was over. I have a photo of Carl Goldberg talking to me about winglets as I was changing from the winglets to the standard class wing tips for the next flight. Chuck Anderson RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
RE: [RCSE] After the 2006 NATS - 2 Meter Comments
We have a great 2m series here in Australia. We have restrictions on 'full house' models and fly basic 2 channel models. The Blejzyk First is a very popular, super strong and efficient model used by about 70% of the competitors. Carl Strautins, who is currently in Martin, representing us at the WC's reckons that it is more difficult to fly one of these models well, than it is to fly in the open class. He still manages to win or get very high results in the 2m rounds. There has been a resurgence of interest in this class, down under, and it gives many pilots the option of competing in a class that is affordable to them. It is also a relatively level playing field in regards to model technology. The First however, can withstand 2 man tows or full winch tows, with impunity, and launches a good deal higher than, say, a Sagitta or similar, so there is an advantage for those who fly this model. Good to see that there are a bunch of people who are still pushing for that class to be maintained at your Nats. Klaus Weiss Sydney Australia http://www.hsl.org.au http://www.airsportsrc.com.au RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Re: [RCSE] After the 2006 NATS - 2 Meter Comments
At 10:40 AM 7/31/2006, you wrote: The real question is "why fly different classes in the first place?". If the tasks are all the same, then why change to planes that have less functionality or lower capability? Even F3J contests are just TD with a man tow. So why are there different events for the same thing? LSF first divided soaring into two classes sometime before 1973. By 1973, the SOAR Nats had grown so large that they decided to adopt the LSF class system in order to award more trophies without awarding trophies so far down the list. After all, a fourth place trophy sounds better than a 10th place trophy for the same score. As I remember, 100 inch span was chosen because about half the fliers had models with wing spans over 100 inches and there were a lot of kits with wing spans between 90 and 100 inches on the market. At least that was the explanation given when the SOAR Nats established standard class as models with wing spans up to 100 inches according to an article published in Sailplane. I could look it up but I am too lazy to search my collection of Sailplane magazines. :-) Chuck Anderson RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Re: [RCSE] After the 2006 NATS - 2 Meter Comments
Tom, great seeing you this past week.. only 50.5 weeks til next year.. the real classes are those that are wing-span based.. 2 meter & unlimited we used to have standard too but that class was eliminated (partially my doing) in the mid 90s to make for more allowable time and greater differentiation between wing span classes.. there are major performance differences between "the best" 2 meter sailplanes and 3 meter plus span planes.. add to that the difference in visibility and other factors, it's a bit of a different soaring game.. it's because of this that 2 meter remains such a viable class and maintains it's important role in the NATS schedule.. lots of folks don't like them cause "they ain't the big ships".. they aren't supposed to be.. >>The real question is "why fly different classes in the first place?". << -- CoreComm Webmail. http://home.core.com
RE: [RCSE] After the 2006 NATS - 2 Meter Comments
Tom. If you have to ask you just don't get it! JMHO Harry -Original Message- From: Thomas Koszuta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 11:40 AM To: RCSE Subject: Re: [RCSE] After the 2006 NATS - 2 Meter Comments The real question is "why fly different classes in the first place?". If the tasks are all the same, then why change to planes that have less functionality or lower capability? Even F3J contests are just TD with a man tow. So why are there different events for the same thing? Cross country is a distance task. HL has a completely different task structure. F3B is TD, Speed and Distance. F3B, 2M, Unlimited, (Scale Aerotow?) and RES are all the same tasks for the pilot with different planes, so why bother flying different classes to begin with? > At 07:33 AM 7/31/2006, Rick Eckel wrote: >>If you are going to buy an airplane >>buy a 2meter. It qualifies to fly in both 2meter and unlimited contests! >>And if you're not practicing with a 2meter you aren't learning >>anything IMHO. Don't forget that it should be a RES 2M so you can fly the same plane almost all week. Tom Koszuta Western New York Sailplane and Electric Flyers Buffalo, NY - Original Message - From: "S Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Rick Eckel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "RCSE" Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 8:50 AM Subject: Re: [RCSE] After the 2006 NATS - 2 Meter Comments RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Re: [RCSE] After the 2006 NATS - 2 Meter Comments
The real question is "why fly different classes in the first place?". If the tasks are all the same, then why change to planes that have less functionality or lower capability? Even F3J contests are just TD with a man tow. So why are there different events for the same thing? Cross country is a distance task. HL has a completely different task structure. F3B is TD, Speed and Distance. F3B, 2M, Unlimited, (Scale Aerotow?) and RES are all the same tasks for the pilot with different planes, so why bother flying different classes to begin with? At 07:33 AM 7/31/2006, Rick Eckel wrote: If you are going to buy an airplane buy a 2meter. It qualifies to fly in both 2meter and unlimited contests! And if you're not practicing with a 2meter you aren't learning anything IMHO. Don't forget that it should be a RES 2M so you can fly the same plane almost all week. Tom Koszuta Western New York Sailplane and Electric Flyers Buffalo, NY - Original Message - From: "S Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Rick Eckel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "RCSE" Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 8:50 AM Subject: Re: [RCSE] After the 2006 NATS - 2 Meter Comments RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Re: [RCSE] After the 2006 NATS - 2 Meter Comments
I learned that smaller the wings the faster it drops. The higher you go the harder it is to see. Wingspan is king, ask DP, Marc Gellart, or any of the number of top pilots in unlimited flying Sharons. I flew my first plane in 2M, a Wanderer, what a hoot. I installed a Picolario and was amazed that at 890 feet it looked like my unlimited ship at 1800 feet. If I need a thermalling challenge I fly DLG. Steve Meyer LSF IV SOAR At 07:33 AM 7/31/2006, Rick Eckel wrote: Somehow this seems wrong headed :-). If you are going to buy an airplane buy a 2meter. It qualifies to fly in both 2meter and unlimited contests! And if you're not practicing with a 2meter you aren't learning anything IMHO. No wait! On second thought - don't buy a 2meter. They fly lousy and are a waste of money. Only an unlimited ship is worth the bother. (Whew! Almost shot myself in the foot there.) Thermals :-) Rick At 08:21 AM 7/31/2006, S Meyer wrote: Next year there will be at least 2, I plan on being there for 2M using the wing from Mike's old 2M. Duck's are expensive, I'd rather buy an unlimited plane than buy a 2M Duck. Only need to fly it 3 days a year, (one day of practice). Steve Meyer LSF IV SOAR At 07:45 PM 7/29/2006, Marc Gellart wrote: Ya, one flew, it was Mike Lackowski's(sp), and it blew up about half way through the event... Marc - Original Message - From: "Paul Jacobson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "tony estep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "RCSE" Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 11:31 PM Subject: Re: [RCSE] After the 2006 NATS - 2 Meter Comments Was anyone flying the Mark Drela designed Aegea 2M at the NATS? The design for the Aegea 2M was posted to the Allegro-Lite group in August 2002, so it seems to be contemporaneous with the Mantis 2M & the Organic 2M. On 29/07/2006, at 11:00 AM, tony estep wrote: From: Jim Deck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ...the dominant design utilized by the top ten finishers was the venerable "Duck"... A very fine post in its entirety, Jim. 2-Meters is a world unto itself, and when good flyers go at it, it's a very worthwhile event. You have to launch to the moon, then find lift quick, because the little planes come down in a hurry and don't travel well if you hit sink. The dominance of the Duck design seems to me to have some interesting implications. U.S. flyers generally have disdained V- tail airplanes, but the Duck shows that they can learn to love 'em if the tail is big enough. Additionally, the Duck has a fairly low AR wing and is pretty heavy; these characteristics don't match the current fashion, but in this class they seem to prove out to be best in practice. It would be neat to see a resurgence of interest in 2M, just to see what other design tweaks might come along. It seems that there hasn't been much design activity in this class since the Organic and 2M Mantis. Maybe there's a world-beater out there to be discovered. RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Re: [RCSE] After the 2006 NATS - 2 Meter Comments
Somehow this seems wrong headed :-). If you are going to buy an airplane buy a 2meter. It qualifies to fly in both 2meter and unlimited contests! And if you're not practicing with a 2meter you aren't learning anything IMHO. No wait! On second thought - don't buy a 2meter. They fly lousy and are a waste of money. Only an unlimited ship is worth the bother. (Whew! Almost shot myself in the foot there.) Thermals :-) Rick At 08:21 AM 7/31/2006, S Meyer wrote: Next year there will be at least 2, I plan on being there for 2M using the wing from Mike's old 2M. Duck's are expensive, I'd rather buy an unlimited plane than buy a 2M Duck. Only need to fly it 3 days a year, (one day of practice). Steve Meyer LSF IV SOAR At 07:45 PM 7/29/2006, Marc Gellart wrote: Ya, one flew, it was Mike Lackowski's(sp), and it blew up about half way through the event... Marc - Original Message - From: "Paul Jacobson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "tony estep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "RCSE" Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 11:31 PM Subject: Re: [RCSE] After the 2006 NATS - 2 Meter Comments Was anyone flying the Mark Drela designed Aegea 2M at the NATS? The design for the Aegea 2M was posted to the Allegro-Lite group in August 2002, so it seems to be contemporaneous with the Mantis 2M & the Organic 2M. On 29/07/2006, at 11:00 AM, tony estep wrote: From: Jim Deck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ...the dominant design utilized by the top ten finishers was the venerable "Duck"... A very fine post in its entirety, Jim. 2-Meters is a world unto itself, and when good flyers go at it, it's a very worthwhile event. You have to launch to the moon, then find lift quick, because the little planes come down in a hurry and don't travel well if you hit sink. The dominance of the Duck design seems to me to have some interesting implications. U.S. flyers generally have disdained V- tail airplanes, but the Duck shows that they can learn to love 'em if the tail is big enough. Additionally, the Duck has a fairly low AR wing and is pretty heavy; these characteristics don't match the current fashion, but in this class they seem to prove out to be best in practice. It would be neat to see a resurgence of interest in 2M, just to see what other design tweaks might come along. It seems that there hasn't been much design activity in this class since the Organic and 2M Mantis. Maybe there's a world-beater out there to be discovered. RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Re: [RCSE] After the 2006 NATS - 2 Meter Comments
Next year there will be at least 2, I plan on being there for 2M using the wing from Mike's old 2M. Duck's are expensive, I'd rather buy an unlimited plane than buy a 2M Duck. Only need to fly it 3 days a year, (one day of practice). Steve Meyer LSF IV SOAR At 07:45 PM 7/29/2006, Marc Gellart wrote: Ya, one flew, it was Mike Lackowski's(sp), and it blew up about half way through the event... Marc - Original Message - From: "Paul Jacobson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "tony estep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "RCSE" Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 11:31 PM Subject: Re: [RCSE] After the 2006 NATS - 2 Meter Comments Was anyone flying the Mark Drela designed Aegea 2M at the NATS? The design for the Aegea 2M was posted to the Allegro-Lite group in August 2002, so it seems to be contemporaneous with the Mantis 2M & the Organic 2M. On 29/07/2006, at 11:00 AM, tony estep wrote: From: Jim Deck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ...the dominant design utilized by the top ten finishers was the venerable "Duck"... A very fine post in its entirety, Jim. 2-Meters is a world unto itself, and when good flyers go at it, it's a very worthwhile event. You have to launch to the moon, then find lift quick, because the little planes come down in a hurry and don't travel well if you hit sink. The dominance of the Duck design seems to me to have some interesting implications. U.S. flyers generally have disdained V- tail airplanes, but the Duck shows that they can learn to love 'em if the tail is big enough. Additionally, the Duck has a fairly low AR wing and is pretty heavy; these characteristics don't match the current fashion, but in this class they seem to prove out to be best in practice. It would be neat to see a resurgence of interest in 2M, just to see what other design tweaks might come along. It seems that there hasn't been much design activity in this class since the Organic and 2M Mantis. Maybe there's a world-beater out there to be discovered. RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Re: [RCSE] After the 2006 NATS - 2 Meter Comments
Another way to look at it is if you throw enough ducks at a problem, you'll find one that works. I'm happy that everyone else likes to fly Ducks. tony estep wrote: From: Marc Gellart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I would take note that the Organic was "the" 2m ship prior to this year. At the Nats, there has never been any ship with greater numbers than the 2M Duck. The Organic in many areas holds sway cause of it's availablility, and it is a decent ship, but Ducks have always had the numbers behind them here. == Yep, agreed. The Organic was the best design that was readily available. But despite the maximum difficulty of getting a Duck (I saw a used one for sale for $1000), many top pilots have gravitated to it since it first appeared, because it has the right design to win 2M. That's what's interesting to me. Its low AR, fairly high wing loading, and high operating CL are all at the opposite end of the spectrum from the current fashion in Unlimited, where light planes with long, skinny, thin-section wings flying at low coefficient of lift are appearing all over the place. I guess it proves that in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is. RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Re: [RCSE] After the 2006 NATS - 2 Meter Comments
Ask Don Stackhouse about why a Duck works. It will fry his cork. Actually, Mr Reynolds gets very happy with a Duck, and the empty weight is only about 40 ounces and some even less. I think that it fools the air into thinking it is something that is much larger. And yes, a complete Duck ready to go is in the $1000 range, kind of nuts, but for those of that taste, it works well. Marc - Original Message - From: "tony estep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "RCSE" Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 6:33 PM Subject: Re: [RCSE] After the 2006 NATS - 2 Meter Comments From: Marc Gellart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I would take note that the Organic was "the" 2m ship prior to this year. At the Nats, there has never been any ship with greater numbers than the 2M Duck. The Organic in many areas holds sway cause of it's availablility, and it is a decent ship, but Ducks have always had the numbers behind them here. == Yep, agreed. The Organic was the best design that was readily available. But despite the maximum difficulty of getting a Duck (I saw a used one for sale for $1000), many top pilots have gravitated to it since it first appeared, because it has the right design to win 2M. That's what's interesting to me. Its low AR, fairly high wing loading, and high operating CL are all at the opposite end of the spectrum from the current fashion in Unlimited, where light planes with long, skinny, thin-section wings flying at low coefficient of lift are appearing all over the place. I guess it proves that in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is. RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Re: [RCSE] After the 2006 NATS - 2 Meter Comments
From: Marc Gellart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I would take note that the Organic was "the" 2m ship prior to this year. At the Nats, there has never been any ship with greater numbers than the 2M Duck. The Organic in many areas holds sway cause of it's availablility, and it is a decent ship, but Ducks have always had the numbers behind them here. == Yep, agreed. The Organic was the best design that was readily available. But despite the maximum difficulty of getting a Duck (I saw a used one for sale for $1000), many top pilots have gravitated to it since it first appeared, because it has the right design to win 2M. That's what's interesting to me. Its low AR, fairly high wing loading, and high operating CL are all at the opposite end of the spectrum from the current fashion in Unlimited, where light planes with long, skinny, thin-section wings flying at low coefficient of lift are appearing all over the place. I guess it proves that in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is. RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Re: [RCSE] After the 2006 NATS - 2 Meter Comments
Tony, I would take note that the Organic was "the" 2m ship prior to this year. At the Nats, there has never been any ship with greater numbers than the 2M Duck. The Organic in many areas holds sway cause of it's availablility, and it is a decent ship, but Ducks have always had the numbers behind them here. Marc RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Re: [RCSE] After the 2006 NATS - 2 Meter Comments
From: "Paul Jacobson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Was anyone flying the Mark Drela designed Aegea 2M at the NATS? > > The design for the Aegea 2M was posted to the Allegro-Lite group in > August 2002, so it seems to be contemporaneous with the Mantis 2M & the > Organic 2M. > Yep, the Aegea, which in part evolved from the Mantis, did show up at about the same time. However, it hasn't captured the fancy of a large number of 2M hotshots the way the Duck has done. Actually, until this year the Organic held sway in 2M even more than the Duck. The Aegea and Duck are sort of at opposite poles of design philosophy, and the Organic is somewhat in between. Over time, practical results will sort out which is best. RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Re: [RCSE] After the 2006 NATS - 2 Meter Comments
Marc Gellart wrote: Ya, one flew, it was Mike Lackowski's(sp), and it blew up about half way through the event... And I still finished in 7th with a 10 point round flying the last few rounds with a borrowed Organic, thanks Pete. RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Re: [RCSE] After the 2006 NATS - 2 Meter Comments
Preliminary review is the tail boom failed. Didn't blow up the wing, that would be hard to do. Marc Gellart wrote: Ya, one flew, it was Mike Lackowski's(sp), and it blew up about half way through the event... Marc - Original Message - From: "Paul Jacobson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "tony estep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "RCSE" Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 11:31 PM Subject: Re: [RCSE] After the 2006 NATS - 2 Meter Comments Was anyone flying the Mark Drela designed Aegea 2M at the NATS? The design for the Aegea 2M was posted to the Allegro-Lite group in August 2002, so it seems to be contemporaneous with the Mantis 2M & the Organic 2M. On 29/07/2006, at 11:00 AM, tony estep wrote: From: Jim Deck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ...the dominant design utilized by the top ten finishers was the venerable "Duck"... A very fine post in its entirety, Jim. 2-Meters is a world unto itself, and when good flyers go at it, it's a very worthwhile event. You have to launch to the moon, then find lift quick, because the little planes come down in a hurry and don't travel well if you hit sink. The dominance of the Duck design seems to me to have some interesting implications. U.S. flyers generally have disdained V- tail airplanes, but the Duck shows that they can learn to love 'em if the tail is big enough. Additionally, the Duck has a fairly low AR wing and is pretty heavy; these characteristics don't match the current fashion, but in this class they seem to prove out to be best in practice. It would be neat to see a resurgence of interest in 2M, just to see what other design tweaks might come along. It seems that there hasn't been much design activity in this class since the Organic and 2M Mantis. Maybe there's a world-beater out there to be discovered. RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to soaring- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format . RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Re: [RCSE] After the 2006 NATS - 2 Meter Comments
Ya, one flew, it was Mike Lackowski's(sp), and it blew up about half way through the event... Marc - Original Message - From: "Paul Jacobson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "tony estep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "RCSE" Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 11:31 PM Subject: Re: [RCSE] After the 2006 NATS - 2 Meter Comments Was anyone flying the Mark Drela designed Aegea 2M at the NATS? The design for the Aegea 2M was posted to the Allegro-Lite group in August 2002, so it seems to be contemporaneous with the Mantis 2M & the Organic 2M. On 29/07/2006, at 11:00 AM, tony estep wrote: From: Jim Deck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ...the dominant design utilized by the top ten finishers was the venerable "Duck"... A very fine post in its entirety, Jim. 2-Meters is a world unto itself, and when good flyers go at it, it's a very worthwhile event. You have to launch to the moon, then find lift quick, because the little planes come down in a hurry and don't travel well if you hit sink. The dominance of the Duck design seems to me to have some interesting implications. U.S. flyers generally have disdained V- tail airplanes, but the Duck shows that they can learn to love 'em if the tail is big enough. Additionally, the Duck has a fairly low AR wing and is pretty heavy; these characteristics don't match the current fashion, but in this class they seem to prove out to be best in practice. It would be neat to see a resurgence of interest in 2M, just to see what other design tweaks might come along. It seems that there hasn't been much design activity in this class since the Organic and 2M Mantis. Maybe there's a world-beater out there to be discovered. RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to soaring- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Re: [RCSE] After the 2006 NATS - 2 Meter Comments
Was anyone flying the Mark Drela designed Aegea 2M at the NATS? The design for the Aegea 2M was posted to the Allegro-Lite group in August 2002, so it seems to be contemporaneous with the Mantis 2M & the Organic 2M. On 29/07/2006, at 11:00 AM, tony estep wrote: From: Jim Deck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ...the dominant design utilized by the top ten finishers was the venerable "Duck"... A very fine post in its entirety, Jim. 2-Meters is a world unto itself, and when good flyers go at it, it's a very worthwhile event. You have to launch to the moon, then find lift quick, because the little planes come down in a hurry and don't travel well if you hit sink. The dominance of the Duck design seems to me to have some interesting implications. U.S. flyers generally have disdained V- tail airplanes, but the Duck shows that they can learn to love 'em if the tail is big enough. Additionally, the Duck has a fairly low AR wing and is pretty heavy; these characteristics don't match the current fashion, but in this class they seem to prove out to be best in practice. It would be neat to see a resurgence of interest in 2M, just to see what other design tweaks might come along. It seems that there hasn't been much design activity in this class since the Organic and 2M Mantis. Maybe there's a world-beater out there to be discovered. RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to soaring- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Re: [RCSE] After the 2006 NATS - 2 Meter Comments
From: Jim Deck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ...the dominant design utilized by the top ten finishers was the venerable "Duck"... A very fine post in its entirety, Jim. 2-Meters is a world unto itself, and when good flyers go at it, it's a very worthwhile event. You have to launch to the moon, then find lift quick, because the little planes come down in a hurry and don't travel well if you hit sink. The dominance of the Duck design seems to me to have some interesting implications. U.S. flyers generally have disdained V-tail airplanes, but the Duck shows that they can learn to love 'em if the tail is big enough. Additionally, the Duck has a fairly low AR wing and is pretty heavy; these characteristics don't match the current fashion, but in this class they seem to prove out to be best in practice. It would be neat to see a resurgence of interest in 2M, just to see what other design tweaks might come along. It seems that there hasn't been much design activity in this class since the Organic and 2M Mantis. Maybe there's a world-beater out there to be discovered. RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Re: [RCSE] After the 2006 NATS - 2 Meter Comments
Jim, Thanks for the thoughtful post. I suspect that there are quite a few of us out here who, although we couldn't attend the NATS, are fans of 2 meter flying. I think that the demise of 2 meter is overrated and over-reported. There are still a good bunch who appreciated the attributes of 2 meter craft and the skill they take to fly. In some respects, arguably, they present more of a challenge than their longer winged counterparts. I hope and expect that 2 meter will be alive and well when I am able to attend and compete in the NATS. Rick Eckel "Diehard 2 meter fan" At 05:26 PM 7/28/2006, Jim Deck wrote: From time-to-time in this forum the topic of two meter sailplanes pops up. Frequently quoted is the now very tired "Friends don't let friends fly two meters." Even so, over fifty apparently friendless sailplane pilots competed in the two day, two meter event at this year's 2006 AMA/LSF NATS in scenic Muncie, Indiana. It was my pleasure to have been the contest director for this event and, now that I'm home, I offer the following comments for this forum's edification and entertainment: - First, the competition was every bit as fierce as the much-touted unlimited event which followed. As we were blessed with two days of beautiful weather, thirteen rounds were flown. At the end of those thirteen rounds, a mere 13 points separated first and second place with numerous lead changes throughout the event. From my vantage point, all of the competitors appeared to be enjoying themselves. - Second, it would be all too easy to say that there hasn't been a new two meter design in some time as the dominant design utilized by the top ten finishers was the venerable "Duck". Ahh, but most of the Ducks flying were about as close to the original Duck as a 2006 Corvette is close to the original 1954 model. Sporting a variety of airfoils, v-tails, and carbon fiber, even Daryl's "loaner" was an example of the evolution of a design that was very good to begin with. If you'd like a new, improved Duck, better contact Larry Storie soon as I suspect he'll receive more than a few orders (maybe even a few from California). By the way, Daryl's Duck did sport the raw fiberglass fuselage that's quite the West Coast vogue this giving it a particular California flavor. - Lastly, I must confess that I was among those who wondered if two meter really deserved two days of NATS time. I'm now convinced that the challenge of competitively flying a two meter sailplane is equal to the challenge of any other soaring event and will state that that challenge should continue to earn two meter sailplanes their well-deserved portion of NATS time. Respectfully submitted, Jim Deck RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
