- This topic has 6 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
What are your opinions of having a maximum wing span of 40″?
Why not 30″, or 24″?
How about 60″?
What are the chances of this current proposal going through?
I don’t see a need to limit the span. I’d like to see auto-surfaces banned. A processor controlled servo would ruin everything.
I find it curious that once someone finds that they have a successful discus launch glider designed that they want to restrict the event to models that match their design. If I want to build a 45″ discus launch glider, then I am restricted.
I think that DLG should be spun off, or if there is to be any limitations that they reduce the size to 24″. That way you can build two models from a 48″ sheet of balsa.
Anyhow, I hope this proposal “OFF-09-8” is turned down.
OFF-09-8 – Limit Hand Launched glider wing span to 1 meter (39.3705 inches).
2. General. An Outdoor Hand Launched Glider is a non-powered model aircraft designed to fly outdoors.
Simply add after the word “outdoors” the following: “with a projected wingspan less than 1 meter”.
Logic:
Discus gliders are revolutionizing this event. The performance increases are spectacular. Old arms and very young arms are far more competitive than they have ever been. The increase in interest and participation is heartening to see. The event has never been healthier.Nevertheless, clearly the technology exists to build discus gliders with carbon in the 80” span range or even bigger. Such larger planes would have a competitive advantage and would seriously limit the ability or willingness of the vast majority of modelers to compete.
All we have to do is look at our Radio Control brethren to understand what is possible and what is reasonable. RCHLG has limited their span to 1.5 (59+”). Some special events are flown with 50”, 40” or even 30” models. The bigger planes always have a competitive advantage over the smaller ones.
The effective limits of balsa construction seem to be about 40” (~1 meter). The length is also close to the general length of balsa sheets – 36”.
Submitted by: Art Ellis, AMA #3266
… as to limitations of auto-surfaces, etc… in the HLG event, here’s some food for thought:
Though some have used electronically or mechanically powered auto-surfaces on non-discus outdoor HLGs, the wording “non-powered” that is used in the description of the HLG event COULD be used/interpreted to exclude electronically and mechanically “powered” movable surfaces.
After all, if a plane is to have moving surfaces controlled by an on-board power source – some wise guy will soon start flapping the wings with that power source.
Carry the interpretation too far and D/T systems powered by springs or rubber bands or elastic thread come under scruntiny!!! Maybe only my springless, rubberless gravity powered D/T would pass muster!I love the innovation that less restrictive rules allow – Perhaps it has become time for FAI HLG and AMA HLG.
All that said – maybe we could just use the indoor HLG rules for outdoor as well (100 sq. in max wing, no scissor wings, hinged moving parts, etc…)
Or… Outdoor catapult is limited in weight (1.5 oz) why not limit HLG to the same?OK, so you talking about a US rule change but here is a UK perspective. There are no span limits or limits on controlled functions for HLG DLHG. Many years ago a few people flew A/2s in HLG contests in order to get points for our senior/junior championships. I hear rumours some of them occasionally maxed as well. As someone who has flown HLG (and broken my arm doing so) I agree with the plan in the UK to leave things along and let natural selection take its course. Experience suggest (and we have the greatest experinece of DLG through Phil Ball et al) that the models are still developing but that a gagetless (ie non moving surface) DLG is currently the best approach and has the required reliability.
Of course flapping surfaces would not be allowed under our FF general rules.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.