F3A Biplanes have a future!

[Henderson,Eric]

My data source says that wing mount sides were primarily balsa and needed a simple lite ply plate to remedy the situation.

I am not sure why we are so interested in the failure aspect when the "how it flew" is what peaks my interest. I am tracking the Bi-plane "adventure" and so far it seems they snap recover better, roll much better, circles etc. this is because they transition between wing lift and fuselage lift much better than the current mono's..

Eric.
 
-----Original Message-----
From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
[mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Derek Koopowitz
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 9:17 AM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: RE: F3A Biplanes have a future!


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.
#

==================# 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.
#