Scioly.org

Need a bit of guidance here. I was recently helping the kids of our younger Div B team in covering their wing, winglets, and stabilizers but apparently during the transport of the aforementioned items, some of them got a few small tears in the Mylar. I don’t know if trying to patch them using spare mylar would help(or even work), or just trying to get the Mylar off and repeat the covering process. Responses are much appreciated.

I had a similar issue, don't worry! It's definitely fixable--if you scroll through this year's Flight forum bjt4888 and coachchuckaahs both mention this(I broke my stabilizer in two spots, the ribs poked through. It's good as new now ). I'd link the post if I could find it, but if you use the "search" function in the forums, you can look through archives and find a very detailed description of both bjt4888 and coachchuckaahs' solutions.

randomdogonapc wrote: ↑December 28th, 2022, 2:12 pm Need a bit of guidance here. I was recently helping the kids of our younger Div B team in covering their wing, winglets, and stabilizers but apparently during the transport of the aforementioned items, some of them got a few small tears in the Mylar. I don’t know if trying to patch them using spare mylar would help(or even work), or just trying to get the Mylar off and repeat the covering process. Responses are much appreciated.

Hi, what I do for small tears in the mylar is I take a piece of extra mylar, spray a tiny bit of super 3m 77 on it, and patch it on. For bigger tears I usually just redo it.

Hello,

Can you just use a paper airplane?

Thanks

If I'm not missing something in the rules, yes-you probably could. However, you're going to be guaranteed last place, or at least a very low score, depending on the teams you're competing against.

Ram458 wrote: ↑January 6th, 2023, 9:53 am Hello,

Can you just use a paper airplane?

Thanks

Ram,

Of course, this is unofficial interpretation of the rules as official answers to questions like this can be through the SO website FAQ, but my reading of the "Flight" rules I see, "...free flight rubber powered aircraft..." and "...gliders must have a hand-held launcher...". The rules seem to imply that a glider with a rubber band launcher qualifies as "rubber powered" (based upon standard definition of "rubber powered", this is a very flexible interpretation). Also, the rules state, "...any materials except boron filaments may be used in construction...".

So, if your paper airplane glider has a rubber band launcher, it probably qualifies. And, yes, as Cat mentioned, a paper airplane will probably finish near last place in a typical competition.

Instead of a paper airplane, there are some very simple kits and plans that can be built in less than an hour that will fly for almost 60 seconds if the rubber motor is wound correctly. I'll connect a link to one of these super simple designs soon.

Brian T

Unfortunately, the results at my team's regionals are generally so poor that a well-built paper airplane like the Sky King would probably come in second or third place. My team has maybe 40 or 50 person-hours in our plane, and we will probably win regionals, but for less than an hour or two you could do nearly as well with a paper airplane. Last year at regionals our plane flew for almost three minutes, and second place was around 10 seconds. I realized we had spent WAY too much time on our plane. Not one other team used a torque meter, wound their rubber properly, counted their winds, properly trimmed their plane, or anything. 75% of all planes had a flight time of less than 2 seconds, including kits. A paper airplane, at the regional level, is probably a great return on investment.

BrianZ wrote: ↑January 7th, 2023, 9:48 pm Unfortunately, the results at my team's regionals are generally so poor that a well-built paper airplane like the Sky King would probably come in second or third place. My team has maybe 40 or 50 person-hours in our plane, and we will probably win regionals, but for less than an hour or two you could do nearly as well with a paper airplane. Last year at regionals our plane flew for almost three minutes, and second place was around 10 seconds. I realized we had spent WAY too much time on our plane. Not one other team used a torque meter, wound their rubber properly, counted their winds, properly trimmed their plane, or anything. 75% of all planes had a flight time of less than 2 seconds, including kits. A paper airplane, at the regional level, is probably a great return on investment.

BrianZ,

Very unfortunate that teams in your region don't take the learning (and fun) opportunity to spend more time on the flight event. In our min-Michigan 20 team region a paper airplane would definitely get 20th place by a large margin. At Michigan States last year (50-60 teams, if I remember correctly) easily 2/3 of the teams were above one minute with quite a few between 2:00 and 2:30 and the winner flew 3:09 in a pretty low 22 ft ceiling.

Good job learning and performing the event at a high level. The great experience in experimental science is definitely the reward for your efforts.

Brian T

Ram458 wrote: ↑January 6th, 2023, 9:53 am Hello,

Can you just use a paper airplane?

Thanks

Ram458,

Here is a super basic airplane plan and building instruction from the National Free Flight Society (NFFS) website "Science Olympiad Resources/Coaches" page that takes only one hour to build and flies up to 60 seconds in a gym. All the materials you can get at a good craft store; uses only three stick sizes of generic quality balsa wood and gift wrap tissue covering.

Rubber that works best is .075" or .080" (dimensions like this are available from several of the kit companies). 3/32" rubber will work too, but will fly lower duration (maybe 30-40 seconds). Wind the rubber to the turn count recommended by the formula I posted in the first page of this forum thread and use the winding technique from the video posted there too. The propeller and hub is off of a "dime store" airplane like the Guillows "Sky Streak" (pack of 2 of these airplanes is about $10; google search).

https://freeflight.org/wp-content/uploa ... os2019.pdf

Brian T.

Very unfortunate that teams in your region don't take the learning (and fun) opportunity to spend more time on the flight event.

Agreed. Actually, I don't know that it's that they're not taking the time, as they have designed and built their airplanes themselves, or built from a kit. It's just obvious that they don't have a basic understanding of the principles of flying an airplane like this. I know that in my first year of coaching high school indoor free flight (which was a TSA event) I didn't know what I was doing, at all, and we had a 35 second flight time (in which we won first place because no other team was able to get their airplanes off the ground). I didn't know how to properly wind a motor, or that the turn was mostly controlled by the stabilizer tilt, or how to match a motor to a propeller. We based our plane off of a Hanger Rat, as it showed up first in a Google search, and I had to call a teacher over from the junior high to help me tune it because he flew radio controlled airplanes and I thought some of that knowledge might translate. That's how we got 35 seconds.

The knowledge is so specific and specialized to this kind of airplane. It's also spread out over 4 decades of non-searchable Indoor News and Views photocopied 'zines. High school students without a coach who has studied and understands the principles of indoor free flight are at a real disadvantage. I sometimes think I would like to put together a website that breaks everything down about the physics of flying these airplanes, winding the motors, construction techniques, and all specifically for Science Olympiad and TSA events. It would be a lot of work, but it would narrow the gap between teams who have a knowledgeable coach and those who are starting from scratch, with no base-level knowledge. I keep saying I'm going to put on a flight clinic for my local teams, but I'm already maxed out on time and I want to redesign our tandem stabilizer with a camber of 2.5% instead of 4% so it provides less lift in an effort to reduce decalage.