Wright Stuff B

[WrightStuffMonster]

I'm far from the best flier, so I expect nationals winning times will be well over three minutes (unless its held in a closet).

Considering that at least years nationals there was only one team that was significantly over 3 minutes with rules that were much more conducive to longer flights I am not so sure about your prediction. I know that several teams (myself included) had reliably flown in the mid four minute range in practice flights in a gym of a similar height but no one even broke 4 mins the whole day which demonstrates how wrong things can go at nationals. One thing that I think really works to decrease times is the heat and humidity of the gym as the AC is off for the whole day. As hot as it got in DC and Kansas I would imagine that it will be even worse in Georgia. If the ceiling height is under 30 ft I would imagine that any time over 3 mins at nationals would be extremely competitive.

[jander14indoor]

Yep, nationals last year in DC was rough on a lot of otherwise very good teams. Circumstances at the contest are always important, thus the importance of practice flying under contest conditions, and practice the day of the event.

As to the planes themselves, actually, I think this years rules are as conducive to long flights than last years. Those wings were long and narrow, thus aerodynamically efficient. But with no chord limit you can make REALLY big wings this year. And I think you can get bigger faster than the loss in aerodynamic efficiency. With 1.5 vs 2.0 gm of rubber, dropping from 4 minute flights to 3 is about right.

Plus my plane has flown less than 6 flights and I know it is far from optimally trimmed. I also know fliers like WrightStuffMonster can out fly me blindfolded. I never had a four minute plane with last years rules. Thus my prediction if I'm at 2:40 already, nationals will take 3:00 plus to win.

Of course, that's what makes horse races interesting...

Jeff Anderson
Livonia, MI

[jedimstr]

DOES ANYONE KNOW WHICH IS MORE AERODYNAMIC? PLASTIC FILM OR PAPER?!?!?!?!??! please tell me....

[bob3443]

um... is there a difference?

[smartkid222]

i believe he is referring to
plastic film as things like ultrafilm, PPP, polymicro. It's seethough stuff.
paper- tissue paper ex) condenser paper, japanese tissue(?idk the names)

as for which is more aerodynamic, idk
Plastic film is useually ligher though.
read back through this thread. I know that previous dicussions on this topic have been brought up.

[chia]

yep, just check through this thing.
something i should probably do myself...
but plastic film is lighter, and you don't have to mist it like you do tissue.
it can be a little hard to work with, though.

[andrewwski]

Plastic film is smoother, so naturally you'd think it's more aerodynamic, as in less drag.

But it's going to be negligible. Biggest difference between the two is weight.

Tissue is easiest to work with IMO. I don't do the whole misting thing...just crumple it into a wad in your hand and then iron flat.

[jander14indoor]

Actually, smoother isn't always less drag, think of a golf ball. They put those dimples on to reduce drag, not for looks.

As to planes at these speeds, I don't think there's much hard data to say which is best. But at the very advanced levels, most fliers crumple even the film to reduce static cling for easier handling. If experience showed a significant advantage to smooth, they'd deal with the handling difficulties for even a few seconds of added flight time.

MUCH more important is building to weight. As the light films weigh less than tissue it makes it easier to build to minimum weight. But you can get there without it.

Because I got tired of folks obsessing over the film covering I generally use on my SO demonstration planes, I built this years plane using shopping bags from the local Home Depot. Light bags, but I think I can find lighter. These were slightly lighter than tissue, heavier than film, about the weight of light condenser tissue. And my plane came in at 7.1 gm with a huge wing of 14 cm chord. I know several places I can get that .1 gram back, but since I'm a coach/event supervisor, not a competitor I don't obsess over it.

So, don't sweat the tissue/film issue. Use what you can get easily, get building and hit that 7.0 gm minimum weight!

Jeff Anderson
Livonia, MI

[jedimstr]

Thanks, that will help us out.

[chia]

my partner taught me that crumpling the film also makes it stretch further, and it appears to work.
something there does not appear to be, however, is any discussion about glue in this topic.

soo... as all i have is wood glue (meaning i can't actually glue on film yet )... i am seriously in need of some superglue or whatnot. any advice on which brand, or something better than CA...?