Reed Speed version 2.0/ Nitro November

batjac wrote:

I've already started drawing, so you can count me in.  But, I was drawing to the wing/length rules from the first contest.  Are they going to be the same?

The Artiste Mark

Mark,
Yes, wingspan, wing area, and length will not change. If I were drawing up a new plane it would be modeled on one with a retractable gear. Hint hint.

Jim

I'm in 100%!

I am most certainly in. 100%

The previous one looked like so much FUN.

I will start a plane.

I will just wait to get the rules. To ensure I do the right thing.

Theo

I'm in! This time- with an engine that makes fast noises!

I'm in !!

I'm in.

Edit: lf we agree to fly we need to make every effort to do so.

I'm a little embarrassed for not being able to post a vid the first time.. but I'd love to do it again. My main gear easily detaches from the wing on the Rare Bear.. plus I'd love to build another model.

Jim, did you catch my comment in another thread regarding line length? If not; I had pointed out that a 35 foot line-length might make it easier to launch and fly a reedie-powered model, as well as requiring less space to fly. There would be more positive line-tension/control in breezy conditions too. I realize that hand launches will help.. and some of us flew successfully on 42' lines.. but these semi-scale reed-powered models don't have the power/speed of the high-performance rotary-valve engines that are traditionally used for the 1/2A Profile Proto Speed class. Mouse-class is a different story. You had stated that you were open to suggestions and FWIW.. this is one that I think could help flyers (especially novices) achieve more successful flights with less risk of damaging their models getting them airborne or the inevitable unexpected breeze gust. One more point; speeds would be higher and more "characteristic" of a speed event because of the reduced line-drag.  

I'm in. I fully intended on posting a video this time. I wasn't happy with the way my plane turned out and would love another chance at it.

roddie wrote:I'm a little embarrassed for not being able to post a vid the first time.. but I'd love to do it again. My main gear easily detaches from the wing on the Rare Bear.. plus I'd love to build another model.

Jim, did you catch my comment in another thread regarding line length? If not; I had pointed out that a 35 foot line-length might make it easier to launch and fly a reedie-powered model, as well as requiring less space to fly. There would be more positive line-tension/control in breezy conditions too. I realize that hand launches will help.. and some of us flew successfully on 42' lines.. but these semi-scale reed-powered models don't have the power/speed of the high-performance rotary-valve engines that are traditionally used for the 1/2A Profile Proto Speed class. Mouse-class is a different story. You had stated that you were open to suggestions and FWIW.. this is one that I think could help flyers (especially novices) achieve more successful flights with less risk of damaging their models getting them airborne or the inevitable unexpected breeze gust. One more point; speeds would be higher and more "characteristic" of a speed event because of the reduced line-drag.  

I think we both know that only the appearance of speed will be higher, but the new line length is incorporated into the equation and actual speed will be the same.

I do like your idea however, I don't know if we all could handle spinning that fast. In my experience as we age the less we can tolerate when it comes to spinning. That's not a jab at our older members it's just what I have seen first hand in the circle.

I wonder if we could compromise? Maybe make total line length 42'? That means we cut lines to 40' from center handle to center wing and calculate 2' for arm length. It's how it's normally done.

Ron

JPvelo wrote:Mark,
Yes, wingspan, wing area, and length will not change. If I were drawing up a new plane it would be modeled on one with a retractable gear. Hint hint.

Jim

*crinkle crinkle crinkle*  *wad wad wad*   *toss*  

Well, back to the drawing board.  Living just down the road from the original Vans Aircraft Factory, also known as the VanGrunsven family barn, I see RV's flying overhead all the time.  So, my November entry was going to be a RV-8.  But, no one has done a retractable RV-8, and I don't see a need to give myself a further handicap in the next contest by adding gear drag, so it's time to look for another design.

The Tosser Mark

Just my 2 cents, but I'm for 42'(or 40) as opposed to 35. Only the most anemic 1/2A plane needs to be on 35' for flyability reasons. As for field size, I can understand that. Until the church trimmed trees, I was on 35'. Happily back out to 40'+ again now.
Rusty

I am IN... Note I am also thinking 42-40' would be a good spinning length for me , Mark sorry I think I got the batjac wrong in an earlier post.............  Let's do it!!! Welcome Theo!!  What the help is a retractable gear on a C/L look like..    Roddie less weight and more power Just my   But I am one without a flight in, this time   Getback

How about streamlined nacelles this go around?

Cribbs74 wrote:How about streamlined nacelles this go around?

Yeah, more nose weight, that should make our cartwheels even more entertaining.  I can't believe that none of us except Jim made a plane that would glide.
Rusty

The reason I brought up nacelles as they are more streamlined and I saw a Shoestring .15 Goodyear racer and it had cheek blocks/ nacelles or whatever you call them and besides being functional really looked sharp.

It can't be much more weight than cowling and certainly less drag. Jim's planes did seem to have a better glide, but they too hit hard. If we had flown over pavement I bet our landings would have been similar to his.

We use nacelles/CB all the time in stunt and it doesn't add a significant amount of weight. Just something I was thinking about.

Make it full fuse and profile class, same box. Full fuse has no fairing restrictions. Lifting bodies welcome even.

Phil

Thanks Getback

I am excited about this one. I would prefer it is kept to profile, but lets see what the final rules will be.

Which ever way, I will build a plane and have a flight for sure.

I also vote for keeping the lines at 40'.

Theo

I like the idea of going straight up "Mouse 1" class. I have a set of plans I've been wanting to build and it's an AMA race if someone would want to fly in an event/contest around them. We only have one contest a year around here that has this event.

RknRusty wrote:

Cribbs74 wrote:How about streamlined nacelles this go around?

Yeah, more nose weight, that should make our cartwheels even more entertaining.  I can't believe that none of us except Jim made a plane that would glide.
Rusty

I built tail heavy, I think that helped with the glide.

Cribbs74 wrote:How about streamlined nacelles this go around?

I removed all language prohibiting nacelles/fairings.

Hey, Theo, this is off topic, but since you're here I'll ask. Did you ever get started building your Li'l Satan, how's that going?
Rusty

duke.johnson wrote:I like the idea of going straight up "Mouse 1" class.  I have a set of plans I've been wanting to build and it's an AMA race if someone would want to fly in an event/contest around them. We only have one contest a year around here that has this event.

Duke,
I based the rules on 1/2a profile proto. I added the scale element to encourage people to learn not only to scratch build but design their own model. These are skills that are being lost in the model aircraft hobbies .

Jim

All right,
Here's the updated rules:
https://www.coxengineforum.com/t5898-cef-profile-scale-reed-speed-rules

These can be found on the "Reed Speed" sidebar, I simply edited that post.

I set maximum nitro at 35% because anyone can easily buy it from sig. I would love to go higher on nitro, as much as 50%, if we can find a supplier so it's easily available to all competitors.

Jim