Wright Stuff C

[CrayolaCrayon]

I know of some kit makers getting around 60-70 seconds. Aim for increments, and making small changes. It's okay if it's only 10 or 20 seconds at first. Start slow, and work your way up.

[jinhusong]

I assumed that left and right turn bonus will force kids build airplane closer to real airplane, symmetry, not optimized deeply for left turn.

Maybe just like RC airplane, adjust rudder and aileron (optional) between the 2 official flights.

Tiger

[klastyioer]

I assumed that left and right turn bonus will force kids build airplane closer to real airplane, symmetry, not optimized deeply for left turn.

Maybe just like RC airplane, adjust rudder and aileron (optional) between the 2 official flights.

Tiger

there are many other options to consider for the bonus as well this year
its very doable, best of luck to all of you

[builderguy135]

I assumed that left and right turn bonus will force kids build airplane closer to real airplane, symmetry, not optimized deeply for left turn.

Maybe just like RC airplane, adjust rudder and aileron (optional) between the 2 official flights.

Tiger

there are many other options to consider for the bonus as well this year
its very doable, best of luck to all of you

even though i haven't built anything yet, i think its pretty obvious that the bonus is needed to even be reasonably competitive. optimizing for left turns instead of having something symmetrical might be a lot better, but it's definitely not 100% better.

[calgoddard]

I have been involved with WS since 2004 as a coach, event supervisor, and workshop presenter.

The WS 2020 rules largely dictate a rubber powered model airplane which is inherently unstable and difficult to trim, and will lead to much student frustration and disappointment. Many students will therefore probably give up on free flight after competing in WS. Did anyone on the particular SO rules committee responsible for drafting the WS 2020 rules actually build and fly a WS airplane that meets those rules before they were formally adopted? If the goal of the WS 2020 rules was to limit flight times, there were much better ways to do this. Let me give you one example.

Several years ago, I proposed an event for SO called Rubber Powered Airplane (RPA). The goals of RPA were to increase experimentation and the variety of designs at competition, and to simplify judging at check-in. The RPA rules can be found at the following link (see Reply #19):

https://www.hippocketaeronautics.com/hp ... ic=21883.0

Basically, under the RPA rules any design of rubber powered airplane that fits inside a FedEx large box (with or without the propeller installed) while in flight configuration and that weighs a minimum of 5 grams is permissible. There is no limit on the size of the rubber motor or the diameter of the prop. The sizes of the wing, stab, fin and motor stick are only limited by your ability to fit the fully assembled air frame into the FedEx large box.

Maxout’s simple RPA design is displayed at Reply #11 at the link above.

Stable and easily trimmable models are readily achievable under the rules of the RPA event. It was successfully run as a trial event at the 2017 SoCal SO State Finals. The winning flight time at that competition was only 69 seconds partly due to late publication of the RPA rules and the minimum effort students were able to devote to competing in a trial event. RPA flight times of 2+ minutes are possible in a standard size HS gym. RPA flight times could easily be further limited by simply increasing the minimum weight of the airplane to 6, 7, or even 8 grams, without compromising the ease of achieving stabile designs.

The RPA event was praised by WS coaches and expert indoor fliers. It could have been adopted by the Nationals SO organization and renamed WS to continue the tradition of that event. Instead RPA died as a potential SO event in 2017 without any reasons for its non-acceptance being made public.

Draw your own conclusions.

[CrayolaCrayon]

I really wish that stayed in the running. That's really a shame to hear that it died. Maybe it's possible to try to revive something like this? But, I'm skeptical if it'd go any farther than where it went previously.

[chalker7]

As a manufacturer I couldn't care less, but as a mentor of umpteen young modelers it makes my blood boil, especially considering who writes these rules. He should know better, and he keeps doing this crap anyway.

Josh, since you seem to have a specific person in mind, would you care to share exactly who you are so frustrated with and why exactly it makes your blood boil? What other "crap" has this person done previously?

I am personally one of the three members of the group of people you could plausibly be talking about. Another of our group has already posted in this forum and you appear to not know him at all so it's highly unlikely you are referring to him. So, by pure chance it's 50-50 if you're talking about me, but by referencing our previous interactions, I'm pretty certain you're talking about me. If so, I would appreciate a simple heads up before you trash me publicly and denigrate an overall process you self-admittedly know little about. At the end of the day, I would super duper appreciate it if you were more respectful of the volunteers who do not get compensated for their time and are dedicated to the success of an overall program across the entire country at many different competitive levels (especially considering you are now personally profiting off of this program.)

As Jeff has done previously in this thread, I'm more than happy to talk about the rules on substance and will defend every decision we've made for this year's rules. I hear the concerns about stability and a tiny propeller. As Jeff stated previously, much of our intention this year was to limit flight time. As an additional point of reference, we always want to provide the students with a new challenge and force them to construct a new airplane for the upcoming year. Hence all of the tweaks.

The switching direction of the circles idea came directly from me. I have been thinking for quite awhile about ways to reward students for knowing how to make adjustments on their airplanes, for giving them credit for actually testing their models before the competition. As someone who has both run this event for longer than most of the people on this forum have been alive and a high level competitor beforehand, I see a ton of teams who show up with barely any understanding of their airplanes and the absolute minimum 10 flights in their flight log. This phenomenon does not apply to just new teams at regionals, but many many experienced teams and high level nationally competitive ones do the same thing. They all buy the same one or two kits and do the absolute minimum to get a respectable plane.

We wanted the students to demonstrate that they could personally (not their coaches, not their parents) interact with their airplanes in a way that would make them fly differently in a predictable manner. We thought about quite a few different ways of demonstrating this knowledge, but many of them would either require too much time for a competition setting or require specific knowledge from event supervisors (a big risk for competitors and a likely reason for tournaments to simply not host the event.) Ultimately, changing the flight circle direction is what we settled on and we used adding the flight times as both an easy to understand and easy to calculate bonus. Plus, with it being such a large bonus, it would strongly incentivize teams to actually attempt it. So yes, it was thought out.

As for the dimensions, propeller span and biplane issues, all of these were inserted as new challenges for the upcoming year. Even though I know many teams will use those numbers as a rough build guide, there is no requirement that you push the limit on any of them. If you are finding you have too many stability issues with the dimensions, perhaps you should try cutting one down one dimension or another to tweak the aspect ratio to a more stable configuration. Experiment! Try different things out! Don't assume the solution has been figured out for you in advance. It's early in the season, who knows what the optimal solution will look like?!

Finally, just as a minor aside, getting new events in Science Olympiad is a very complicated process. As a first step (after the proposed event rules are written) the event has to be run at multiple regional and state tournaments as a pilot. It isn't that we don't like any one event or another, but swapping any event for another isn't as simple as preferring one and going for it. The event developer needs to do quite a bit of marketing and networking to actually get something introduced.

Hope everyone has a great day!
Matt Chalker

[Jdh3]

As a manufacturer I couldn't care less, but as a mentor of umpteen young modelers it makes my blood boil, especially considering who writes these rules. He should know better, and he keeps doing this crap anyway.

Josh, since you seem to have a specific person in mind, would you care to share exactly who you are so frustrated with and why exactly it makes your blood boil? What other "crap" has this person done previously?....
Hope everyone has a great day!
Matt Chalker

I think the point Josh is trying to make is the rules will result in an airplane which is difficult to fly. The small props will burn the winds quickly and the small stab will require moving the wing closer to the point of instability.

This will reduce the flight times (the intended goal) but at the expense of possibly making it too difficult for new/beginner teams. They may become frustrated and quit indoor flying or Science Olympiad.

This seems to go against the goal of the organization. Regardless, these are the rules and we need to live with them for this year. Hopefully, in the future everyone can provide beneficial ways to make the event easier yet still challenging.

Thanks
John

[PM2017]

Disclaimer: I never did this event, so I don't have the same perspective as everyone else here, so I could be absolutely and entirely wrong here.

However, as for the difficulty that the bonus adds (disregarding the prop size decrease), I think that's why it is the bonus. Teams aren't automatically required to go for the bonus. For teams who want to take the extra step, they will be heavily rewarded. I see no problem with this.

Again, could be entirely wrong, but yeah.

[FranklinHung]

Hey guys!

Just a general question, but do you usually just buy 1 kit brand or buy multiple kits and learn from there? Last year I bought the Senior Flyer which was a AMAZING plane designed by Joshua Finn, but the year before that I didn't build with a kit. This year I have already build the 2020 Senior Flyer with the biplane design but am wondering should I also get the freedom flight models kit too? I've never tried Dave's kit before so any thoughts would be appreciated! Also, at the end of building from kits, I plan to attempt to build from my own design, take what I've learned from the kit(s).

Best Regards,

Franklin Hung