Good points, Pat. But my take is that strengthening the wings using current materials (ie, CF laminates) is a reasonable and prudent exception to the class rules. Admittedly, us guys who are "worried about blowing up their planes on launch [ought to] learn to launch" (guilty! ask my flyin' buddies), but you cannot launch the planes as they were designed because the launch eqpt is different nowadays. Ray Hayes, who is unargueably one of the best designers, builders and pilots of this millenium writes at his Nostalgia WebSite: "Most clubs are geared to large composit sailplanes, their winches are hot, the tow lines are very heavy 280 lb test, the tow line diameter is extreme and therefore produces excess drag. What does this mean, well it means your light weight RES or Nostalgia sailplane will suffer on launch and it better have well engineered wing spars. This and the fact that RES and Nostalgia Classes cater to large wing spans means not much fun for pilots flying Gentle Ladies and etc.. If your club is interested in promoting the RES-Nostalgia Classes you can probably find someone with a docile winch no longer in use. String it up with 125 lb to 150 lb line, maybe use a 6 volt battery and you will be amazed at the gain in launch height and safety for your pride and joy." For me, this says it all. Indeed, lets keep NOS pure. No spoilers, unless they were in the original plans. If you can use them, no mico servos: must use a full-size servo, string and magnets. Use full size servos for the flight controls. No micro Rx's-- 555's are out, as are modern avionics such as 'puter Tx's and light Nicads. You need to use rubber bands in the wing mounts. No nylon bolts allowed. Monokote covering? If the plans were published before Monokote became available, use tissue and dope. Glues for assembly? No CA. Epoxy and Elmers only. And so on and so forth. I say that the rules, as they were originally developed, are adequate. External mods-- such as the c'bal rudder-- are contrary to the original plans. Spoilers and CF is allowed. Me? I'm going out to fly and have fun... Take care, --Bill >From: "Pat McCleave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "RCSE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [RCSE] Counterbalanced rudders on Nostalgia planes >Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 22:18:33 -0500 > >Jack, > >I question how one considers a plane to be so Nostalgic when you allow all >the modern technologies to the planes in the way of carbon fiber and such. >I flew my Windrifters, Sailaires, Drifter II's and such off of winches for >years and did not ever blow up a wing on launch. I did blow one up while >doing loops but that was because I thought I knew more than Tom Williams at >the time and put my shear webs in with the grain running horizontal rather >than vertical. No I did not know anything about how a shear web worked but >I thought I did. If you are going to have bends in the rules that allow >strengthening the wings which does help increase the overall flight >envelope >of the plane, I find it strange that you do not allow what was very common >fixes to a known problem back then to be allowed now. If guys are worried >about blowing up their planes on launch then learn to launch. A lot of >guys >have said it is not about winning but about flying the old birds the way >they were. Well a lot of us flew ours with modified rudders so we did not >have the common rudder flutter and the wagging tail and the slower turn >response and all the other things that went on with the balanced rudder >designs. A well built by original design Windrifter spar system would hold >up to lots and lots of launches on today's winches doing it the old way >with the captured hook and lots of kiting and circle towing. I had many of >launches in those days when there was no line left on the spool and the >plane was almost straight up over the turn around. So if you want to argue >about Nostalgia then lets keep them all totally old fashioned and let the >games begin. Just my 2 cents worth. > >See Ya, > >Pat McCleave >Wichita, KS >----- Original Message ----- >From: Jack Iafret <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: Marc Gellart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; RCSE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Dave ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 1:17 PM >Subject: Re: [RCSE] Counterbalanced rudders on Nostalgia planes > > > > I myself am running a counterbalanced rudder on my Paragon as per the >rules > > (my first Paragon had it eliminated, non-legal) and I can tell you it is >a > > pain in the backside, but that is the way the rules are written. It's a >pain > > because it flutters on launch and breaks a lot but I have just outlined >the > > structure in CF to see if that helps. Not much you can do with sticks on >an > > open bay structure so I launch a little less severe. > > > > BTW, I will be sending out an announcement for rules change proposals >next > > month if you feel strongly, add this to the list to be voted on. I for >one > > would not like to see a lot of little exceptions, like this, to the >rules >as > > that defeats the original intent of the rules (AKA. It's a nostalgia >plane, > > except....). They are really easy to enforce now and if you CD something > > like the NATS like I do, it really helps to have really simple rules. I >am > > still getting static from the purist for allowing spoilers to be added >on > > planes that did not have them. > > > > It is still a voting process and we would see how things go in that >stage >to > > be held the first quarter of 2002. > > > > Jack Iafret > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "Keeper of the Nostalgia Rules" > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Marc Gellart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "RCSE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Dave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: "Jack Iafret" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 1:54 PM > > Subject: RE: [RCSE] Counterbalanced rudders on Nostalgia planes > > > > > > > Dave > > > I do not think people are sayingh there is great difference between >the > > > two. But in most cases you can only do so much structurally to one of > > these > > > ships internally to make it stronger, and the reason that is allowed >is > > > because launch equipment now is not what it was in 1975 when I went to >my > > > first contest. Lets face it, weight is a major issue here, and >second, > > most > > > guys are flying ships built a while back, my Grand was built in about >'85. > > > > > > And to the later part of who says, Jack iafret does and he is the guy >that > > > got off his duff, wrote us some rules, and has been steadfast in > > supporting > > > this event. To me it is an elegant event, I love flying it because I >like > > > my plane, they are fun and relaxing, and I do not feel that I am out > > > launched by anybody in Nos contests because none of them are that >strong. > > I > > > will fly it against the RES guys too, just like the ship. Should I >say > > that > > > it has a gyro in it too? > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Dave [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 10:10 AM > > > To: RCSE > > > Subject: [RCSE] Counterbalanced rudders on Nostalgia planes > > > > > > > > > There has been some input on the list regarding counterbalanced >rudders >on > > > planes like the Oly II, Aquila, Viking, etc. Even some >knowledgeable > > > Level V LSFers have jumped into the fray, stating that the planes >should > > be > > > built according to plans. Who says? > > > IMHO, there is a great difference between sheeting the upper leading >edge > > > of an Oly II and eliminating the counterbalance on the rudder. The >former > > > example is a change of the airfoil, almost like putting a 3021 on an >Oly, > > > while the latter is perhaps more obvious, but only involves the >turning > > > response. > > > Many years ago, I had a conversation with a great flyer who worked >for > > the > > > late Lee Renaud and now builds and flies models for movies and TV. He > > > related his opinion that Mr. Renaud liked to put counterbalanced >rudders > > on > > > everything he built, even if they detracted from the overall design >and > > > efficiency. This is not meant in any way to detract from the many > > > accomplishments of Mr. Renaud, but is just an observation. > > > So, I would submit to you esteemed readers, if the overall shape of >the > > > rudder side view is unchanged, how could this be less legal than >carbon > > > reinforcement, larger spars and wing rods used by many in Nostalgia >class > > to > > > outlaunch their fellow competitors? You guys be the judges. > > > Dave Darling > > > > > > RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send >"subscribe" > > and > > > "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" >and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and >"unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
