Logo
Builders' Plan Gallery  |  Hip Pocket Web Site  |  Contact Forum Admin  |  Contact Global Moderator
September 16, 2019, 04:31:09 AM *
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]   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Is the DH.6 eligible for WWI mass launch in FAC ?  (Read 538 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Sharbonda
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 1
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 11

Topic starter


Ignore
« on: March 22, 2019, 01:30:08 PM »

From Wikipedia ... [ At the end of 1917, about 300 DH.6s were transferred to the RNAS for anti-submarine patrols. While far from ideal for this work, the type proved surprisingly "seaworthy", being known to float for as long as ten hours after ditching.[10] On operations, the underpowered trainer could not carry both an observer and weaponry. The majority of patrols were flown solo, allowing a token bomb load ]
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Is the DH.6 eligible for WWI mass launch in FAC ?
Logged
bjrn
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 1
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 58



Ignore
« Reply #1 on: March 22, 2019, 01:49:16 PM »

Not sure that the DH6 would make a good free flight model.  The full size aircraft was deliberately designed to be unstable so that it would be more effective as an elementary trainer. Trimming could be a problem.
Logged
billdennis747
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 51
Online Online

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,648



Ignore
« Reply #2 on: March 22, 2019, 02:13:05 PM »

Not sure that the DH6 would make a good free flight model. 
The wing section is horrible but apart from that, why not? The incidences may need fiddling a bit
Logged
Indoorflyer
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 13
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1,063




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: March 22, 2019, 03:15:24 PM »

WW I Combat Mass Launch is the title of the event.  From "zee book of rules":   (see E.)
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: Is the DH.6 eligible for WWI mass launch in FAC ?
Logged

Make the same mistake on both sides; nobody will notice...
rbrpwr
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 1
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 35



Ignore
« Reply #4 on: March 23, 2019, 10:09:11 PM »

Yes, after joining I regularly flew against one in WWI ML events.  A great flyer!  Since it appered early in the War it was not armed with a gun, unless the pilot carried one.  It was armed with bombs and the CD allowed use that way.  Put a couple of hollow balsa units, mounted scalewise and compete away!
Logged
Indoorflyer
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 13
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1,063




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: March 24, 2019, 02:20:25 AM »

The OP should ask the FAC keeper of the rules.
Logged

Make the same mistake on both sides; nobody will notice...
Bredehoft
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 54
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 995


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #6 on: March 25, 2019, 10:23:37 PM »

I, too, have flown against the DH.6 in FAC WWI Dogfight, mostly indoors.

I think we all can understand why it might be a controversial plane, but - personally - I would allow the plane, if my opinion were asked.

I would recommend posting the question on the FAC-GHQ Facebook page, where Dave Mitchell (Keeper of the Rules) is more likely to weigh in - and provide a ruling.

Here is the link:  https://www.facebook.com/groups/FlyingAcesClubGHQ/

--george
Logged

dorme
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 6
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 135



Ignore
« Reply #7 on: March 25, 2019, 10:42:17 PM »

Here's some hx for eligibility....

At the end of 1917, about 300 DH.6s were transferred to the RNAS for anti-submarine patrols. While far from ideal for this work, the type proved surprisingly "seaworthy", being known to float for as long as ten hours after ditching.[10] On operations, the underpowered trainer could not carry both an observer and weaponry. The majority of patrols were flown solo, allowing a token bomb load and a lightweight radio installation to be carried, although convoy escort missions generally carried an observer who could communicate with ships using an Aldis lamp.[8][11] The "built in" instability designed to keep a student pilot alert proved tiring for pilots on long patrols over water, and experimental changes were made in mid-1918 to improve stability. These included the introduction of 10 in (25 cm) of back-stagger to wings of reduced chord and camber, with narrower elevators and rudder. DH.6s modified to this standard were unofficially dubbed "DH 6As".[10]

Nicknames

Many RFC/RAF aircraft of this period received nicknames (some of which, like the "zoo" names of Sopwith types, reached semi-official status), and the DH.6 has a variety of humorous but disrespectful epithets. The reactions of novice pilots were probably behind it being called the "clutching hand".[7] Australian airmen may have been referring to its lack of speed when calling it "skyhook", although the shape of the exhaust pipes has also been mentioned.[citation needed] Other nicknames for the type included "crab," "clockwork mouse," "flying coffin" and "dung hunter" (these last two on account of the shape of the plywood cockpit, thought to resemble either a coffin or an outside toilet).[12]


Logged
Indoorflyer
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 13
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1,063




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: March 25, 2019, 11:30:25 PM »

Interesting but the case should be made with the FAC admins.  I guess "dogfight" really isn't a good term; that implies  air  to air engagement.  Also, maybe "purpose built" doesn't ring true anymore, either.  Trainer repurposed as a "patrol/bomber". 
Logged

Make the same mistake on both sides; nobody will notice...
charlieman
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 3
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 211



Ignore
« Reply #9 on: April 02, 2019, 06:35:02 AM »

Arbitrary rules can lead to all sorts interesting situations/dilemmas and can showcase devious, not to mention INTERESTING interpretations! I once had a CD disqualify my use of a rubber bladder motor, in a scale jet model, because it did not fit his idea of what "extensible rubber strands" were. Se la vie.

IIRC, aviation giant Burt Rutan was well known for his innovative application of AMA rule book. Which usually saw his  "interpretations"  outlawed , soon after.
Logged
billdennis747
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 51
Online Online

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,648



Ignore
« Reply #10 on: April 02, 2019, 08:13:04 AM »

I once had a CD disqualify my use of a rubber bladder motor, in a scale jet model, because it did not fit his idea of what "extensible rubber strands" were. Se la vie.
Tell us more!
Logged
charlieman
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 3
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 211



Ignore
« Reply #11 on: April 02, 2019, 05:04:14 PM »

In that particular CD's view the motor had to derive it's motive power from twisted rubber strands, turning a propeller which moves air, in turn propelling the model forward.  My model design had a surgical rubbe rtube bladder pushing(expelling) the air directly rearward. In my understanding of AMA rubber scale rules , at that time, the rule stated twisted or otherwise extensible energy stored within the the stretched rubber, with my emphasis on the "or" portion! This was years ago, and this particular CD has passed away.  AMA no longer supports scale FF events, but does allow the more recent Flying Aces rules/events.  Shame, really. For all the restrictions the Flying Aces complained about, they IMHO actively discourage scale model development, in not allowing anything but traditional materials.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 I currently favor the example of British indoor rules (others?) that place emphasis on scale attributes ALONG with realistic flight judged within a minimum duration. For what it's worth, I fervently believe everyone should compete, indeed model, in whatever vein they choose!
Logged
DHnut
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 14
Offline Offline

New Zealand New Zealand

Posts: 629



Ignore
« Reply #12 on: April 02, 2019, 07:21:37 PM »

You could of course use the FAI F4A, D, E, and F rules that are modelled on the BMFA rules. They are on the FAI web site.
Ricky 
Logged
Pages: [1]   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!