|
Slowmatch
|
 |
« Reply #25 on: December 07, 2021, 07:17:23 AM » |
|
I really like the Squarecoupe Tim  The Fane F.1/40 is another possible fun one. |
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Mefot
|
|
« Reply #26 on: December 07, 2021, 07:32:55 AM » |
|
I've never built a Bostonian but always fancied this subject. A choice of two versions too !!!
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Russ Lister
|
|
« Reply #27 on: December 07, 2021, 08:38:43 AM » |
|
Some great ideas ... I like the Hillson Something I messed about with in 2005 ... I called it the Bostonian Belle, but I wanted to get it prettier. Notice the cheeky angle of the box forming the undercarriage as well as the canopy! Not sure how it would look in reality, but I would extend the axle out a little from the box. |
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Indoorflyer
|
|
« Reply #28 on: December 07, 2021, 10:59:34 AM » |
|
The Fane F.1/40 is another possible fun one.
This and the Siebel have no practical way of accomodating a rubber motor. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pete Fardell
|
|
« Reply #29 on: December 07, 2021, 11:31:14 AM » |
|
The Fane F.1/40 is another possible fun one.
This and the Siebel have no practical way of accomodating a rubber motor. Just angled down through the fuselage surely? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Slowmatch
|
|
« Reply #30 on: December 07, 2021, 11:41:03 AM » |
|
This and the Siebel have no practical way of accomodating a rubber motor.
My Bostonians tend to fall into two catagories: the highly optimised and the highly impractical. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Indoorflyer
|
|
« Reply #31 on: December 12, 2021, 07:37:25 PM » |
|
Just tossing this out. I think one other person has built one. Easy-peasy if you're good at bending wood over a hot iron, probably a nightmare otherwise.
I just tried adding it to the plans directory, but I don't know if it took.
I went back and re-read your build thread. Really a neat little Bostonian! (SquareCoupe) I checked my files, and I downloaded a full size pdf plan, must have been from your drive in that thread. I still don't see your uploaded copy in the HPA plan gallery. There isn't a Bostonian category per se, but there is a catch all "Indoor-Other Classes" area that would be appropriate. BTW, the copy I have has the canopy "hoops" and the wedgie shaped noseblock. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
THB
|
|
« Reply #32 on: May 14, 2022, 04:35:29 AM » |
|
Inspired by this thread, been thinking about some possible left-field Bostonian designs. I note that the Norwind and some other rules I've seen don't mention that the motor needs to be supported within the hypothetical / imaginary 1.5 x 2.5 x 3.0 box. Whereas I seem to recall this was part of the original rules (or was that Saint Formula, Embryo, Legal Eagle...?). My question then is about whether the motor can now be carried on a solid motor stick, or sticks, or within a hollow motor stick, possibly attached to, or passing through, the imaginary box? Starting to sound very Schrödinger's Cat - especially when I live in a city that doesn't run formal Bostonian competitions, so there is no Contest Director to disqualify me...  Interested in any thoughts re this Tim |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Tim
"Life is what happens while you're busy making other planes."
|
|
|
|
lincoln
|
|
« Reply #33 on: May 14, 2022, 09:56:36 AM » |
|
I hadn't looked at this thread for a while. The Squarecoupe looks great. It would be interesting to see what could be done with the Hillson. It's just begging for someone to do a model of it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
THB
|
|
« Reply #34 on: May 21, 2022, 03:57:31 AM » |
|
Sometimes you follow a path that turns out to be a dead end... I thought a 'possible fun Bostonian' might be a Gossamer Albatross.
The 1.5 x 2.5 x 3.0 box would be the cyclist's pod of course - and the wing would just be 'clipped' right off.
I started drawing it, and wondered if I could fit the rubber within the pod.
i built a quickie sheet mock up at about 6in span. It flys - but like other canards I've tried, it needs a lot of nose weight to get the CG to a spot just in front of the wing L.E. - which seems to be where it needs to be.
This can be partly solved by running the rubber externally over the top of the wing and extending it all the way to the front of the canard. But that looks kind of ugly and probably well illegal.
So I think back to the drawing board... unless someone cleverer can make it work!
Maybe Pete Fardell will build one and get it across his backyard Channel? :-)
Tim
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Tim
"Life is what happens while you're busy making other planes."
|
|
|
|
Indoorflyer
|
|
« Reply #35 on: May 21, 2022, 05:04:16 AM » |
|
George Bredehoft/Volare Products has the "Sky-Box" design which meets the Embryo requirements. It is somewhat similar to the Albatross configuration. He kindly provides a link to his plan at the bottom of this page. Looks like a fun design. https://volareproducts.com/blog/?p=3239 |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
lincoln
|
|
« Reply #36 on: May 21, 2022, 02:17:34 PM » |
|
That Squarecoupe is charismatic, but I have trouble bending balsa and I don't know if I could do it to such a small radius, even if I soaked it and used an iron. Might be tempted to use very thin split bamboo, but that might still be too heavy.
--------
How about a Bostonian version of Joe Wagner's Dakota or Osprey? Probably the latter if you want to be competitive.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pete Fardell
|
|
« Reply #37 on: May 21, 2022, 04:50:55 PM » |
|
I really like the Gossamer Albatross idea, Tim! As well as a way to make the rubber fit it also needs a clever pun name I suppose. Neither “Bostomer Albatross” nor “Gossamer Altrabost” quite do it for me. I’m sure there’s a better one?
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 21, 2022, 06:37:58 PM by Pete Fardell »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
