F3A Biplanes have a future!

[Jerry Budd]

Re: the flying wires, I'm pretty sure it didn't have any.

Eric, I agree the "how it flew" should be of more interest but I 
don't think you're going to get much (if any) information of 
substance from a 45 second flight (regardless of what the pilot may 
tell you).

Jerry

>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.
>#


-- 
___________
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.
#