retired1 wrote:As I remember, there were many questions before it was finally resolved and even then I would question how well articulated it was. My comment was in hope that IF they used the canard for a bonus that they would put extra effort into having it the best that it could be at the beginning.Some of the questions that were in the FAQ were very similar to questions asked at the summer institute. I do not remember any of the proposed rules being changed at that time.
"At State and National Tournaments only a glider in a canard configuration must receive a 30% bonus added to its Time Aloft." I agree that it could be more specific and at least define what a canard configuration is.
retired1 wrote:My memory is clouded, but I do not remember any of the teams that medaled using the canard bonus.
Mira Loma High School (CA) had both gliders with the canard bonus, and placed third in the event with a score of 83.42, taken from three flights. The next highest placing team with canard gliders was Troy High School (CA) which placed 22nd with a score of 50.30. Nine teams had at least one glider in the canard configuration.
retired1 wrote:While I would not particularly like to see capacitor be the event. Rich teams can also spend lots of money on finding the absolute best rubber which is similar to spending on caps. It still ends up being trim and flight experience being the MAJOR factors.
I talked to the the second place team from this year's National Tournament, and they used Tan Super Sport, the same rubber available in Freedom Flight kits used by many teams this season.
"One of the ways that I believe people express their appreciation to the rest of humanity is to make something wonderful and put it out there." – Steve Jobs
bernard wrote:I talked to the the second place team from this year's National Tournament, and they used Tan Super Sport, the same rubber available in Freedom Flight kits used by many teams this season.
That is very true, but there are differences between each batch. There is regular talk in AMA circles which one is best and even temperature difference effect on various lots.
I have used kits/rubber from FF for several years and there is a difference in performance. In choppers, we got one bad lot from them-could not get a normal wind with it-broke early repeatedly.
Now, if we could just trim better it could make a difference.
Now that we use torquemeters, it is not difficult to see some changes in lots.
The final definition for a canard configuration under the 2014 ELG rules was established by two official answers in response to FAQs that were posted last year on the National web site, as follows:
01/01/2014 - 20:38
What are the exact specifications needed for a glider to be considered a Canard Configuration?
There are two horizontal aerodynamic surfaces in elastic launch gliders. The larger surface is the primary source of lift and is considered the "wing." The smaller is a stabilization source and is considered the "horizontal stabilizer." Canard configurations place the horizontal stabilizer in front of the wing (reverse that of traditional layouts.) No aerodynamic surfaces may be behind the main wing.
1/01/2014 - 20:56
Does a "canard configuration" refer only to the horizontal surface, i.e. can there be a vertical fin at the rear of the glider?
Yes, a vertical fin may be at the rear of the glider for a canard as long as it does not provide any lift.
Taken together the foregoing answers provide a very well articulated definition of a canard configuration.
In regard to rich teams being able to afford the best rubber, I seriously doubt that would be a deciding factor in any Wright Stuff competition. I know the specific TAN II rubber batch you are probably thinking of. It is not available, at any price. I have not been able to obtain it myself over the last ten years. Some fliers have access to this batch of TANN II rubber, such as members of the United States F1D team. People do not ask those who still have limited quantities of this rubber to sell or share any of their precious reserves. It is generally saved for serious indoor competitions and world record attempts. If you have a source for this particular batch of TAN II rubber, please send me a PM with details and I will jump at the chance to buy some. The general consensus in the indoor flying community is that, but for the special batch of TAN II rubber of which I speak, and perhaps one or two other difficult to obtain batches of TAN II rubber, most batches of TSS rubber manufactured since 2009 are equivalent to the remaining batches of TAN II rubber in terms of performance.
I would really like to see the 2016 Wright Stuff rules designate a much lighter airplane. The students have experience in previous years building a 3.0 gram helicopter and i think that a 3.0 or 3.5 gram airplane would provide a new challenge. I'd like to see a 46 cm wingspan with no limit on wing chord, stabilizer span, stabilizer chord or propeller diameter or materials (student constructed or commercial). To keep duration within reasonable limits, a rubber motor weight of about 0.7 grams would work. This would effectively fly like a 1/2 motor F1M-limited. Wings and stabilizers could be built to weight using hobby shop wood of about 7 lbs/cu ft. and covering would need to be ultrafilm or superultrafilm. As the vast majority of teams used the Freedom Flight kit this year, they are used to handling ultrafilm.
Kit suppliers shouldn't have a problem with this as companies like Freedom Flight already sell a foam-bladed propeller kit that would be suitable. 1 mm foam for prop blades is also easily available from companies like Great Planes. A good sub-1.0 gram propeller could also be built using 1/32" sheet 7 lb/cu ft A-grain balsa as sheets like this usually have some 5 or 5.5 lb sections. C-grain is a favorite for propeller blades like this, but A-grain for this weight and thickness works fine too.
This approach would have a built-in bonus concept. Students that construct their own propeller would be able to get to the 3.5 gram minimum pretty easily and students that decide to use a commercial propeller will most likely not be able to get under 4.5 grams.
What I like about a rule set like this is that it allows many design variations like: propeller diameter, shape or style variations; wider or narrower wing chord; larger or smaller stabilizers, etc. Also, event supervisors would only have three specs to check: rubber weight, wing span and airframe weight.
I also think that the students would get a kick out of seeing airplanes this size getting 3:00 minutes on a 7" or 8" loop of rubber.
I agree with suggestions for no wing chord limit, or at least a wing chord that is generous enough so that the maximum is not the answer. The national and state bonuses encouraged teams to play with the wing chords, and a team I worked with found that the National wing chord was not getting as good results as the State wing chord, with bonuses calculated.
"One of the ways that I believe people express their appreciation to the rest of humanity is to make something wonderful and put it out there." – Steve Jobs
I agree about decreasing the mass requirement. I felt pretty limited with 8 grams, considering the slightly small wing chord. Although this might have been intentional, I think a lower mass would allow for a more optimized plane. I had no problem getting down to 8 grams, and I didn't really get to use my best building skills to get the plane how I wanted it. The best builders which could highly optimize the plane would benefit from a lower mass requirement.
0ddrenaline wrote:I agree about decreasing the mass requirement. I felt pretty limited with 8 grams, considering the slightly small wing chord. Although this might have been intentional, I think a lower mass would allow for a more optimized plane. I had no problem getting down to 8 grams, and I didn't really get to use my best building skills to get the plane how I wanted it. The best builders which could highly optimize the plane would benefit from a lower mass requirement.
I agree that a lower mass requirement would be a fun challenge, of course with the appropriate other adjustments so that the plane does not fly for longer than the allowed testing period. Building to be above the 8 gram minimum was very simple this year for us. And as bjt4888 mentioned, a lower minimum mass works like a bonus because it doesn't punish teams that are several grams over the limit. An untrimmed plane that is the minimum mass might not do as well as a well trimmed plane that is several grams over.
"One of the ways that I believe people express their appreciation to the rest of humanity is to make something wonderful and put it out there." – Steve Jobs
Get crazy with your ideas. I like this conversation and am always interested in how far we can push things. One item to consider is that we write rules for the whole country, with a particular focus on the teams who have never participated before. You all are suggesting interesting ideas, but they seem to skew towards the experienced teams who have some clue of what they're doing.
As a note, we're down to debating specific differences among a small handful of rules options and I think everyone will be intrigued by the rules next year. Capacitors will not be part of the rules, using those would constitute a completely different event (much like balloon launch glider vs. elastic launch.)
National event supervisor - Wright Stuff, Helicopters
Hawaii State Director
OK, why not ministicks.
Beginners could build acceptable models that with lots of flight time would be fairly competitive.
It would take a lot less balsa and regionals like mine that do not hold the event could fly in low ceiling rooms. This would be fantastic as it is difficult for most to have frequent access to gyms.
Open it wide open and only limit min weight and rubber weight.
I like the idea of rules that encourage teams that have never participated to join in and i like quite a few of the ideas proposed in this thread. With all due respect to the SO organizers, I am not a big fan of the "payload" bonus concept. As a coach to fourteen students at four local high schools this year (three schools last year and one the year before) in mid-Michigan, the element of this event that I observe that creates excitement is the long graceful flight. Although, those of us that fly indoor AMA/FAI competition (students and coaches) know that 3:00 - 4:00 is not really a long flight, it is long enough to get big positive reactions from the students and spectators. This year my "sciencey" kids got ad-hoc spectator cheering during practice from groups including: the lacrosse team, the track team, the lacrosse coach, the basketball coach, the basketball cheerleading squad, and many others. I could see the pride in the kids faces and demeanor as these people and groups showed genuine attention and interest in their airplanes. I was sure to tell the spectators that the SO kids were reigning regional champs, state medalists, or something of the sort. The long flight is a big deal to the kids.
If a payload bonus concept is used, and if the payload increases the overall airframe weight significantly, it is possible that the best scoring flights will be of shorter duration (if there is a moderately high payload). While this is an interesting aerospace engineering and physics problem, I think that it would lessen one of the best "interest generators" of the event, the long graceful flight.
I am of the belief that it is not necessary to make large changes in the event each year. The event is very challenging to perfect even with the most basic set of rules. The students that i coached this year all got a big charge out of the event and all had good success stories (due to their dedicated effort), but I reminded them that, as good as their results were, this is such a great science problem that they are only about 1/3 of the way to an optimal solution. I like simple rules that result in a number of variables to test.
I'm sure that SO officials already have great ideas on how to encourage more participation and my ideas are probably not really needed, but (here they come anyway) I would recommend that connections be made with top science teachers (or school administrations, boards, education foundations, etc.) in the locations with low participation. Once connections with groups like this are successful, demos (by students from a successful school) of the construction events (along with brief presentations of data gathering and analysis) would be a great way to build interest. Hopefully, a demo in front of school admins, teachers, parents and students would get interest going on a number of fronts all at once. Possibly a demo could happen a previously scheduled event to ensure attendance (like a school board meeting or another school-wide science event).
