F3A Biplanes have a future!

[Derek Koopowitz]

Well, you may want to add that it failed because he was supposed to install
the flying wires and didn't... Or so I heard.

-----Original Message-----
From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org] On
Behalf Of Jerry Budd
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 11:31 PM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: RE: F3A Biplanes have a future!


Chip Hyde's crashed about a minute into the first flight due to a 
structural failure of the wing(s).

>What other biplane has crashed due to wing failure besides the one I 
>reported?
>
>Peter
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jerry Budd [mailto:jbudd at QNET.COM]
>Sent: Wednesday, 14 May 2003 12:16 AM
>To: discussion at nsrca.org
>Subject: Re: F3A Biplanes have a future!
>
>
>>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.
>#
>
>***************************** Disclaimer *****************************
>
>The contents of this electronic message and any attachments are 
>intended only for the addressee and may contain privileged or 
>confidential information. They may only be used for the purposes for 
>which they were supplied. If you are not the addressee, you are 
>notified that any transmission, distribution, downloading, printing or 
>photocopying of the contents of this message or attachments is strictly 
>prohibited. The privilege of confidentiality attached to this message 
>and attachments is not waived, lost or destroyed by reason of mistaken 
>delivery to you. If you receive this message in error please notify the 
>sender by return e-mail or telephone.
>
>Thank you.
>
>
>=====================================
># 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.
>#


-- 
___________
Jerry Budd
mailto:jbudd at qnet.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.
#