F3A Biplanes have a future!

[patterndude at attbi.com]

Right on, Eric,
I do not support any change to our big 2 rules (2m 96dB).  Their simplicity and 
elegance have saved pattern from self destruction and provided stability in 
many ways.

The 3rd big rule: 5kg still perplexes me since heavier doesn't fly better and 
building light is hard to achieve for beginners.  However, I don't wish to 
reopen that nest at this time.

I'm not sure "living" is the term I'd use for landing a bipe in a crosswind.  I 
may have lost a few years doing it.
> Wing mounting on a bi-plane is much more problematic than what we are used to. 
> Do you use plug-on wings, what type of interplane struts, four servos for 
> ailerons or inter-control surface rods? Cabane design is always the toughest 
> problem on a bi-plane. Not to mention the trimming knowledge needed.
> 
> The wing failure(s) I heard about were in the wing mounts that had been made 
> light with balsa, and really needed ply. The parameters that we set for plane 
> weight and size bring out the best in the designers. I truly believe that we 
> will soon see competitive bi-planes.
> 
> One position I would like to take is that I am very much against changing 
> pattern rules/parameters, (2M and 5Kg and db), just because our more advanced 
> pilots can build and fly bigger or heavier planes. (There are options for those 
> needs in scale aerobatics etc.) In example form, a bi-pane might prove too hard 
> to make light enough with a suitably sized and possibly heavy engine. We should 
> not change the rules to allow a plane to be heavier if it is a bi-plane with a 
> 50cc gas engine that has an in-cowl muffler that runs @ 99db. 
> 
> Also before you all get carried away, and for those of you with no bi-plane 
> flight experience, you have not lived until you try and land one in a 20mph 
> cross wind... landing and take-off points in AMA classes still count towards the 
> win. In FAI they(we) just have to get it off the ground and roughly back in the 
> same area, with a couple of procedure turns, to get 10 points...
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Eric.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
> [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of patterndude at attbi.com
> Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 11:05 AM
> To: discussion at nsrca.org
> Subject: Re: F3A Biplanes have a future!
> 
> 
> Clearly building a pattern bipe under 5kg is pushing the envelope for most 
> builders.  Just like the breakthroughs in light laminate construction that are 
> giving us larger fuses, we need some technological advance in wing construction 
> techniques.  
>   There are a lot of wing construction experiments going on with hollow wings, 
> sheet glass skins, foam ribs, etc., but the best results seem hard to reproduce 
> and difficult for the home modeler to achieve. 
>   At first, the early adopters will pay the big bucks and take the bigger 
> risks.  Such is the cycle of advancement.
> 
> --Lance
> > >That makes three (publically known) biplane projects going on right now.
> > >Just when you think you've got the best.... ;>  Time to spend more money.
> > 
> > Two of which crashed on their first flight due to structural failure 
> > of the wings.
> > 
> > More money is right.
> > 
> > >
> > >I'm rather torn on this biplane issue.  Should FAI add a new rule that
> > >outlaws them?  On one hand, I'm sure they will improve our flights, but on
> > >the other I don't want them to be advantage over the planes we have now.
> > >Kind of like changing the 2m size limit to 2.5m.  The guys with the big
> > >factories behind them will have an advantage, while the rest of us will be
> > >alienated.  Going to biplanes might be no different than going to 2.5m, only
> > >it isn't against the rules.  Or, it might be like the switch to 2m planes
> > >from the .60 planes.  I would hate to go back to a 0.60 after flying a 2m.
> > 
> > Pattern will die before we go back to 0.60 sized airplanes. 
> > Pandora's box was opened a long time ago.
> > 
> > >
> > >That said, I want a biplane.  I do expect they will fly better, which is
> > >certainly a good thing, and someone has to develop them before I get to fly
> > >it.
> > 
> > When someone can properly define what "flying better" is, then we 
> > have something that can be debated.  Until then this is just 
> > marketing.
> > 
> > Jerry
> > -- 
> > ___________
> > Jerry Budd
> > Budd Engineering
> > http://www.buddengineering.com
> > =====================================
> > # To be removed from this list, send a message to 
> > # discussion-request at nsrca.org
> > # and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
> > #
> > 
> =====================================
> # To be removed from this list, send a message to 
> # discussion-request at nsrca.org
> # and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
> #
> 
> # To be removed from this list, send a message to 
> # discussion-request at nsrca.org
> # and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
> #
> 
=====================================
# To be removed from this list, send a message to 
# discussion-request at nsrca.org
# and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
#