Logo
Builders' Plan Gallery  |  Hip Pocket Web Site  |  Contact Forum Admin  |  Contact Global Moderator
May 29, 2020, 12:47:32 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with email, password and session length
 
Home Help Search Login Register
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: My Peanut Victory  (Read 3509 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Bredehoft
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 56
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1,019


Topic starter
WWW

Ignore
« on: August 02, 2014, 03:35:48 PM »

I spent the last 3 days at the 2014 AMA FF Nats participating in the FAC events.  I posted this on my Facebook page a little bit ago.

I got in late last night from 3 days of FAC Events at the 2014 AMA Nats in Muncie, IN. I went down there with one goal coming out of the FAC Nats two weeks before: to win Peanut Scale and the AMA Nats. I have won before; in fact, I won the previous two Peanut events at the AMA Nats. But those wins were not as important to me as this one. I planned to win this in grand fashion, with a legitimate winning flight. Many times, Peanut Scale is lightly competed and I have won by being the only competitor or by having the best flight among mediocre flights.

My Peanut has always been on the verge of great flying. I finally have it trimmed to fly with authoritative left climbing spirals, but have been plagued with duration-killing, locked-prop, right-hand spiral dives. This time, I finally solved the locked-prop issue and my final flight was a spectacular 1:55 flight - far and away the best Peanut flight of the day and only 5 seconds short of the best possible flight. I set my goals and overcame the obstacles. To me, this was a legitimate Peanut win at the AMA Nats.

This plane, the Pegna P.C.1, was a Schneider Cup proposed racer.  It was never completed.  My model, built from the plans in the June 1979 Model Builder magazine, is over 20 years old.  I rebuilt it and re-covered it last year.

--george



My Peanut Victory
Logged

Mooney
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 30
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 697


Whenever possible, fly with the sun at your back



Ignore
« Reply #1 on: August 02, 2014, 03:41:13 PM »

Kudos! George.  Good looking model.
Logged
Balsa Ace
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 25
Offline Offline

Canada Canada

Posts: 466


FAC Member



Ignore
« Reply #2 on: August 02, 2014, 05:25:19 PM »

Congratulations,very nice.

Scott
Logged

Hawker Sea Fury FB.11
HMCS Magnificent
VF-871   Royal Canadian Navy
ffkiwi
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 22
Offline Offline

New Zealand New Zealand

Posts: 550



Ignore
« Reply #3 on: August 02, 2014, 06:03:10 PM »

Don't the rules require Peanuts to be scale models of full size flying man carrying aircraft? If so I can't see how a peanut model of an aircraft that was never completed-and hence never flew can be eligible....

 ChrisM
 'ffkiwi'
Logged
Bredehoft
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 56
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1,019


Topic starter
WWW

Ignore
« Reply #4 on: August 02, 2014, 09:15:56 PM »

The Flying Aces Club Scale Rules permit proposals.  To quote the rules (III-1.0-E) "Models may be built from original plans, published plans, or kit plans of any heavier than iar, full size prop driven aircraft, jet, or manned rocket, built or proposed."  Scale events at the US AMA Nationals are flown as a subset of the NFFS events and are FAC events, covered by FAC rules.

--george
Logged

ffkiwi
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 22
Offline Offline

New Zealand New Zealand

Posts: 550



Ignore
« Reply #5 on: August 02, 2014, 10:58:02 PM »

Hmmn-fine then according to FAC.  Our rules are somewhat different.....   I do recall somewhere in the past-Flying Models? Model Aviation? American Aircraft Modeller? a design for a Peanut scale FAI power model being published-complete with miniature single cylinder engine up front and miniaturised F1C layout. That would certainly not comply with the spirit nor intent of the rules.
    The FAI F4F rules (Peanut Scale, provisional) state "...replica of a heavier than air man carrying aircraft...."

 ChrisM
 'ffkiwi'


....which rather begs the question-if one was to build and attempt to fly a model of a full size prototype which crashed on its first attempted takeoff, and the model did the same-would the competitor be eligible for full flying points....;-) ?
.....the Tarrant Tabor springs to mind as a suitable candidate........
Logged
dputt7
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 96
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 2,103




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: August 03, 2014, 01:58:03 AM »

No reflection on George, but that makes a joke of Peanut "Scale" as do the other "Scale'' classes that allow Luft. '46 type models. surely there is enough "Proper" Scale subjects around without having to resort to that.

Well done George, sounds like a very satisfying win.
Logged
Mooney
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 30
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 697


Whenever possible, fly with the sun at your back



Ignore
« Reply #7 on: August 03, 2014, 10:41:52 AM »

I'm not sure it makes the class a joke.  It is a scale model and it opens the door to some designs that would otherwise be un-built and unflown.  Scale documentation is still required.   I guess it is a matter of perspective.  I can appreciate yours.  Me, I like to see people build what they like and compete with it as opposed to building a model just because it is optimal for a specific class or event.   Boring to see 6 of the same plane in a mass launch.  I always cheer on the odd ball design.
Logged
Bredehoft
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 56
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1,019


Topic starter
WWW

Ignore
« Reply #8 on: August 03, 2014, 06:57:04 PM »

Really, proposed designs are rarely seen.  Most FAC modelers build "real" planes.  And that is probably because of the lack of documentation on the proposals.  A 3-view for this particular plane can be found int he book "The Speed Seekers".  It is reported the fuselage/hull was started but never finished.  Of course, coloring and markings are speculative, but this is permitted within the FAC rules as long as they are period correct.

The FAC is really the sole Free Flight Scale organization in the US; the AMA has deferred (formally or informally, I don't know) to the FAC for Scale Free Flight.  The FAC rules promote flying and the fun of flying.  Models must be "recognizable"; deviations from scale are permitted.  Landing gear may be modeled in the retracted position, if applicable, as there is no ROG requirement in Scale.

It's all great fun!

--george

Logged

Alan Mkitarian
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 5
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 131



Ignore
« Reply #9 on: August 03, 2014, 10:04:21 PM »

George,
     Great looking ship.  Did you fly it at Genesco?  You might be interested in the Pseudo Dime P.C. 7 Piaggio  (16"ws) in the 2013 March/April Free FlightDigest
by Bernard Guest.  Included is a small color three view with racing number 7 and logo for the fuselage.  I might build this over the winter in Florida?
                                                                                                                                                            Regards and thermals always
                                                                                                                                                                                    Alan Mkitarian
Logged
lincoln
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 34
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2,192



Ignore
« Reply #10 on: August 04, 2014, 12:49:02 AM »

I thought the  Pegna P.C.1 had been built but never flew? I seem to remember footage of them testing the hydroplanes or something. In any case, it's a nice subject for a model.


I think there are lots of interesting aircraft proposals that really ought to be modelled. For instance, one if my favorites is the Seversky Clipper. It even has quite a bit of documentation. Patent drawings, three view, MAN cover art, etc.

http://www.jitterbuzz.com/manreal/Seversky_D112834_DESIGN_FOR_AN_AIRPLANE.pdf
http://www.jitterbuzz.com/manfil/MAN_Aug_1938.jpg

------------
I like the FAC, but I wish that there was some venue for the kinds of rubber scale models that they don't allow. For instance, driveshafts and gears so we could run all props off one or two motors, or synchronize all props. People did quite a bit of stuff with gears before WW2. I also think that we'd be seeing some foam masterpieces if they weren't banned. The FAC is lots of fun, but it's now got a monopoly on rubber scale. Overseas, there are some modellers who can do wonderful stuff with foam. For instance, the first model on this page:
http://www.ffscale.co.uk/page3cc.htm
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: My Peanut Victory
Logged
Maxout
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 99
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2,729


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #11 on: August 04, 2014, 07:33:54 AM »

Names have been redacted to protect the guilty. Please don't ask who they are because I don't believe in divulging the identity of private conversations...

It's all great fun!

Unfortunately there are too many at the top who want to claim it's all about fun, and those of us who see model flying competition as a fun game of wits are accused of taking the fun out of it. I like researching the ultimate subject and building it to its limit and flying it to its limit. Apparently, though, that strategy is seen as lacking some ethereal quality called "FAC spirit" which is the blanket method for addressing things that certain leadership dislike but are too lazy to put in the rulebook. (We should note here that the DC Maxecuters have made massive improvements in how the rules change and administration process occurs)

I proudly affiliate with the Cleveland Clowns philosophy of loving the concept of FAC events, enjoying the models, and proudly admitting to not have any "FAC spirit", whatever it is. And I don't understand how that's bad, seeing as how Larry, Don, Chuck, etc have a blast flying all manner of fun contraptions. And no, despite being competitive as all get out, we don't pitch a fit when we lose, because competing is fun.

I just take issue with the notion that anyone who wants to innovate should keep that stuff out of FAC flying when many of the very people who promote such notions have done more to innovate in the realm of FAC models than anyone else.

I also take issue with one FAC leader's opinion that the non-scale endurance events aren't inside the scope of FAC flying when that member has a raft of Kanones accumulated from his enthusiastic flying of those very events.

I like the FAC, but I wish that there was some venue for the kinds of rubber scale models that they don't allow.

About 10 years ago, several prominent FAC members put together a well formed proposal for a no holds barred rubber scale event in which there would be no materials limitations. It had excellent support from a large number of participants, and was handed off to Ross Mayo, who threw it in the trash with the remark that composite models are in violation of the FAC purpose statement.

Oh but carbon and foam are fine if they aren't used a structural parts! And I cannot for the life of me understand how wing joiners and stab carry through spars aren't structural parts...

Sorry for the rant, but this stuff boils over from time to time...
Logged
Bredehoft
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 56
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1,019


Topic starter
WWW

Ignore
« Reply #12 on: August 04, 2014, 09:04:36 AM »

Alan - yes, I flew it at Geneseo to 4th place in Peanut - but didn't have the prop-lock issues solved yet.

Lincoln - no, I think the P.C.7 was built and in the water.  It had hydrofoils.  The P.C.1 was to have a hull like a single float and a tilt-up nose to get the prop out of the water until it was up to speed and on step and the nose could be lowered. 

I also agree that the Seversky would be a super model and project!

--george
Logged

dmar836
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 6
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 290



Ignore
« Reply #13 on: August 04, 2014, 01:02:25 PM »

Congrats!
Logged

How you do anything is how you do everything.
cglynn
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 8
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 363



Ignore
« Reply #14 on: August 04, 2014, 03:25:37 PM »

Great flying George!  That is a very nice model you have built and the flight times confirm and reward your work.  Well done. 

To tag on to something Josh touched on;  free flighters need to remember two things- this is a hobby one for fun, but by starting to time flights and give awards, it becomes competition.  In competition, any serious participant will push the limits of the sport and the rules.  This should be accepted, expected, and encouraged.  This is especially true in classes with BOM rules in effect.  Why should we stifle creativity and ingenuity?  I am will to be those that have brought a particularly radical design to life an competed/finished well with it had a blast. 

As someone who is just getting into free flight competition, I have lots of fun, and respect those who are better than me, and use their successes and my not so much successes to motivate me to build and fly better.  But I will not criticize another flyer because they "take the fun out of it" by flying something that pushes the rules.

Off my soapbox, thanks for listening.
Chris
Logged
ffkiwi
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 22
Offline Offline

New Zealand New Zealand

Posts: 550



Ignore
« Reply #15 on: August 04, 2014, 06:54:49 PM »

But people who push the envelope as far as rules are concerned SHOULD be challenged-otherwise what is the point of having rules?  Challenges do not have to suceed-but they do at least result in an assessment of whether a rule has been breached or not and a decision. The outcome may not please either the challenger or the flier.....
     To illustrate a similar point-the vintage rules in NZ have a preample that dictates what vintage is about-and defines the intent and spirit of the concept. The rules go into detail on what is and isn't permitted-'but if in doubt refer back to the preamble'   There is an extremely talented modeller here in NZ who has flown a vintage model with a fully moulded fibreglass fuselage in competitions ( vintage R/C ones) for a number of years. If I'm ever CD of a competition where he enters that model I will disqualify him without hesitation-and with no regret. That model-whilst beautifully crafted- clearly breaches both the letter and the spirit of the rules.['Modern materials such as fibreglass and C/F may only be used for local strengthening in high stress areas'] The fact that no previous CD has ever done so is no justification-and merely reflects either unfamiliarity with the rules or a degree of cowardice.
  Conversely another NZ FFer once entered a catapult model in FF rubber scale at the NZ Nats-it was finally banned (after a significant furore) on the grounds of safety, as the existing rules did not specifically state that the motor had to be carried by the model.....DH Nut who posts here will no doubt recall the incident....
   Another well known NZ scale flier-Lloyd Willis-now resident in Australia once disqualified the ENTIRE entry in C/L Goodyear at a South Island Championships. Why? The rules state the model must be within 10% of scale outline-none of the competitors had brought any scale documentation whatsoever with them, so could not prove their model complied. [I was one of his helpers on the day-a junior lap counter-there was hell to pay over his decision, but he stuck to his guns]
  Rules are rules-if they govern model specifications, then you can't treat them as optional, and ignore them one day, and not another, or only enforce some of them, some of the time...........
 

 ChrisM
 'ffkiwi'
Logged
DHnut
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 18
Offline Offline

New Zealand New Zealand

Posts: 754



Ignore
« Reply #16 on: August 04, 2014, 09:02:26 PM »

Chris I remember the event well and the protest that followed. My decision was upheld but I must correct you on the lack of rule clarity. The rules stated you were not allowed to leave the motive power behind or jettison any part of the model so the decision was easy on two counts. It takes courage to stand up to some of the pressures some people put on officials. Another incident occured when a very well known modeller was marked down on scale outline and was very vocal until we were able show the evidence from his own documentation. He took this in a graceful manner unlike the catpult owner. He had built the model off a well known plan service drawing rather than using his own accurate drawing.
 Ricky
Logged
cglynn
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 8
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 363



Ignore
« Reply #17 on: August 04, 2014, 09:05:23 PM »

Chris, I am in no way saying one should cheat or push rules to the point of almost cheating.  What I was refering to, and should have stated more clearly, was regarding a local flyer wing accused of taking the fun out of FAC NoCal because he built models with monster wing areas and very light weights.  He did this to be competitive and ultimately win events.  Apparently, many fliers took issues with his competitive buildin and flying because, in thir
minds, this flier constantly winning NoCal took the fun out of it for everyone else.


In my minds eye, this flier did nothing against the spirit
of the rules, but rather built a built a model that conformed to a T.  I think his superior building and design skill should be rewarded.

Now, flying in a vintage class with a molded composite fuse is just not right.

Chris
Logged
ffkiwi
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 22
Offline Offline

New Zealand New Zealand

Posts: 550



Ignore
« Reply #18 on: August 04, 2014, 10:03:48 PM »

Chris-a lot of people DO push rules to the limit (and sometimes beyond)-modellers should not be afraid-or reluctant to speak out when they see this. Sometimes there is the 'halo effect'-because a big 'name' may be doing it-he is presumed to be beyond reproach-and people may be reluctant to speak up. Often their suspicions may be well founded-and the 'name' has gotten away with it for so long they're not used to be challenged. The worst that can happen after all is a that  challenge is found to be unwarranted-but as long as it is made in good faith, there should be no opprobrium attached to the individual who makes it. I have had first hand experience of top FAI modellers in both F1A and F1B breaching the rules-in one case I was timing the F1A flier-and in another the modeller was deliberately heating a spare motor. The outcomes in each case were different-in the first the flier was allowed a reflight, in the second the flier was-quite rightly in my opinion, challenged-but was a 'name' and the jury ruled in the flier's favour...

Ricky has already commented on my earlier post re the catapult....

I also plead guilty to having stopped at least a partial loophole in the interest of fairness many years back-in NZ we have a minimum wingspan of 15" for outdoor rubber scale solely to prevent Peanuts being entered. This was instigated after the Ngatea Nats of 1985 when it was so windy that sensible flying could not be conducted -but several fliers (4 or 5 at least) cast Peanuts into the gale-the one that was blown (you could not say they actually flew) furthest won. The whole thing was farcical-and there was a bit of muttering about 'bringing the class into ridicule'....but I was the one who actually did something about it-a simple rule change proposal to institute a minimum span. It went through virtually unopposed as I recall...


My position has always been-(and its always the really competitive types who are the offenders..!) that if people put as much time and effort into practising, building and trimming as they do in trying to find real and imaginary loopholes in the rules-we'd all be much better off and a higher standard of flying would result.

I don't know how you deal with your 'expert' always winning (which eventually does become a disincentive for others)-except perhaps to institute some kind of tier system as is done in aerobatics-novice, intermediate, expert, masters etc
-it seems to work for them, and once you've won a lower ranked class, you're no longer eligible to fly in that event...
Logged
ffkiwi
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 22
Offline Offline

New Zealand New Zealand

Posts: 550



Ignore
« Reply #19 on: August 04, 2014, 10:10:01 PM »

Chris I remember the event well and the protest that followed. My decision was upheld but I must correct you on the lack of rule clarity. The rules stated you were not allowed to leave the motive power behind or jettison any part of the model so the decision was easy on two counts. It takes courage to stand up to some of the pressures some people put on officials. Another incident occured when a very well known modeller was marked down on scale outline and was very vocal until we were able show the evidence from his own documentation. He took this in a graceful manner unlike the catpult owner. He had built the model off a well known plan service drawing rather than using his own accurate drawing.
 Ricky

Well Ricky it was 30 odd years ago-I can be forgiven for mis-remembering some of the finer detail. I hadn't realised until your post that you were the CD at the time....what I don't mis-remember was the furore that erupted-there was no middle ground-you were on one side of the argument or the other there was no place for fence sitters!. Seems rather trivial looking back at it-but said individual was part of that 'extreme pot hunting' Auckland FF clique at the time-and probably thought there were a few championship points to be accrued by entering rubber scale.

 ChrisM
 'ffkiwi'
Logged
Maxout
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 99
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2,729


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #20 on: August 05, 2014, 07:19:17 AM »

But people who push the envelope as far as rules are concerned SHOULD be challenged

Agreed 100%. I've seen some of this go on...unfortunately most of the challenges I've seen have been rather unjust, like disgruntled competitors demanding that Don Deloach's Yak be DQ'ed at Geneseo because it didn't have wing fillets. No matter the bunch of fliers with fillet-less P-51's! Very childish behavior...

I think his superior building and design skill should be rewarded.

This is what I was getting at. You get a set of rules and determine what will make the most of them. Moffett requires that the model ROG. And so to get the most altitude (and keep takeoff speeds from diverging into flutter), many prominent fliers opt for a 3 point VTO. Nocal specifies a 16" span maximum. So you find the airplane that makes the most of that--typically the Hosler, though there are others. Lacey's are great for peanut...they aren't the silver bullet that people claim. Satellites are great gas models, but there are new designs that make use of carbon and so could be built to fly better. Free flight competition is intellectual--we have to take that into account.

I don't know how you deal with your 'expert' always winning (which eventually does become a disincentive for others)-except perhaps to institute some kind of tier system as is done in aerobatics-novice, intermediate, expert, masters etc
-it seems to work for them, and once you've won a lower ranked class, you're no longer eligible to fly in that event...

1. Not enough participation to break into classes
2. Why? The solution is to learn, work hard, and redesign until you get a better airplane. That's what I did. In 3 years I went from consistently being waaay behind in last place in F1D to setting a national record. I got there by hard work--no other reason. To go a step farther back, in highschool, I built ratty, ugly airplanes, and couldn't get much more than a minute from an Embryo. So I  put some thought into it, started raising my building standards, and produced better finished, lighter airplanes. And I corrected design faults at the same time. By the time I finished high school, I could demand a consistent 2 1/2 minutes from an Embryo.

That's how you win--figure out how to make the airplane better. That's the difference between beginner and expert. It also helps to fly often, which is my only real secret. I'm at the flying field 3 evenings per week. Also helps keep my wife and me fit, trim, and tanned! Cool (and she absolutely schooled me in Embryo last night)
Logged
Maxout
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 99
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2,729


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #21 on: August 05, 2014, 07:20:54 AM »

But people who push the envelope as far as rules are concerned SHOULD be challenged

Agreed 100%. There is no room for cheating in our ranks. I've seen some of this go on...unfortunately most of the challenges I've seen have been rather unjust, like disgruntled competitors demanding that Don Deloach's Yak be DQ'ed at Geneseo because it didn't have wing fillets. No matter the bunch of fliers with fillet-less P-51's! Very childish behavior...

I think his superior building and design skill should be rewarded.

This is what I was getting at. You get a set of rules and determine what will make the most of them. Moffett requires that the model ROG. And so to get the most altitude (and keep takeoff speeds from diverging into flutter), many prominent fliers opt for a 3 point VTO. Nocal specifies a 16" span maximum. So you find the airplane that makes the most of that--typically the Hosler, though there are others. Lacey's are great for peanut...they aren't the silver bullet that people claim. Satellites are great gas models, but there are new designs that make use of carbon and so could be built to fly better. Free flight competition is intellectual--we have to take that into account.

I don't know how you deal with your 'expert' always winning (which eventually does become a disincentive for others)-except perhaps to institute some kind of tier system as is done in aerobatics-novice, intermediate, expert, masters etc
-it seems to work for them, and once you've won a lower ranked class, you're no longer eligible to fly in that event...

1. Not enough participation to break into classes
2. Why? The solution is to learn, work hard, and redesign until you get a better airplane. That's what I did. In 3 years I went from consistently being waaay behind in last place in F1D to setting a national record. I got there by hard work--no other reason. To go a step farther back, in highschool, I built ratty, ugly airplanes, and couldn't get much more than a minute from an Embryo. So I  put some thought into it, started raising my building standards, and produced better finished, lighter airplanes. And I corrected design faults at the same time. By the time I finished high school, I could demand a consistent 2 1/2 minutes from an Embryo.

That's how you win--figure out how to make the airplane better. That's the difference between beginner and expert. It also helps to fly often, which is my only real secret. I'm at the flying field 3 evenings per week. Also helps keep my wife and me fit, trim, and tanned! Cool (and she absolutely schooled me in Embryo last night)
Logged
applehoney
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 279
Offline Offline

Canada Canada

Posts: 3,179




Ignore
« Reply #22 on: August 05, 2014, 09:12:14 AM »

>by entering rubber scale.

I plead Guilty as charged......

Many years ago I attempted to enter a scale event with a 1/2A pylon model.  They laughed....  until I produced my .40 version of which the 1/2A was a stick-by-stick reduction, same colour scheme, etc. - and pointed out that nowhere in the scale rules did it say the model had to be of a fullsize airplane. Inferred maybe but not mandated.

I lost out ... was good for the laugh though
Logged
billdennis747
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 60
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 4,031



Ignore
« Reply #23 on: August 05, 2014, 09:36:47 AM »

Just in case anyone wants to have a laugh at those organising comps in the UK, or "push the envelope", the first rule in the book goes:
"A scale model aircraft shall be a reduced scale reproduction of a full size aircraft. The
full size aircraft modelled must have flown and models of pilotless aircraft or drones are
not permitted."
Logged
danberry
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 17
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 953



Ignore
« Reply #24 on: August 05, 2014, 09:37:41 AM »

When Peanut Scale first hit the AMA book it did not specify that it must be rubber band powered.
My buddy Mike Fedor entered and flew, at the NATS,a B70 powered by a Cox 010 or 020 and won hands down.
Within a month there was an EMERGENCY rule change that mandated rubber power.
As far as I know, Mike is the only guy personally responsible for an emergency rule change.

Guys who take things seriously do a lot of winning.
Guys who prepare....do a lot of winning.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!