- I have transferred some of the comment in the "Combat-Shut-Off" group
to this group since my response to it is more a general comment than a
In a response to Göran Olson's comment on my shut-off project Bill Lee
> "Third. What did he base his decision of failure on? His website(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CL_Combat_Shutoffs/message/61)
> seems to document success. He developed a shutoff, it worked, he
> flew competitions with it. And when he didn't he had two fly-aways.
> Maybe I missed something, but in reading his website, I really saw
> nothing that gave his reasons for the conclusion he made. That's
> why I thought that perhaps he made the combat-l post in jest."
Maybe I didn't make my point clear enough on my website so please let
me try to explain the idea behind my shut-off project:
First, I didn't give up on my mechanical shut-off because it didn't
work. I shut it down because it could not be used as a general
shut-off system in F2D-combat !
I was (and still am) looking for a shut-off design that can generally
be used in combat. Not just by me and other DIY nerds but a system
that will suit all pilots. This ideal system should solve the fly-away
problem with minor side effect on rest of the F2D combat as possible
and it should be made available to all pilots.
Any shut-off design will have an effect on the whole F2D combat buisness.
A very expensive shut-off system would ground those pilots that can't
affort them. Self-made shut-offs would ground those who can't produce
their own system. Complicated systems will set pilots without a well
trained pit crew out of the game. Etc.
If the shut-off rules are introduced before we have a well designed,
well tested, available ready-to-use systems and a set of consistent
rules there is a high chance of a serious reduction in the combat
activity in the next years. I have not yet seen any of these matters
been fulfilled but more people are now starting to work with these
problems. This is why I recommend that the shut-off rules are
postponed for a year. More time is needed to develop the shut-offs and
to get the rules ready for this new situation.
I think it would be a big mistake to make the shut-off systems
mandatory from 2009.
- --- In email@example.com, Tom Siegler <tmsiegler@...> wrote:
>I saw the photo of that failure. The spruce used in the cap seemed to
be a bit substandard with only 6 lines of grain across the entire
width of the cap, and it split. My planes have about 12-15. In any
case there are 2 simple solutions. Last night I epoxied a 1 1/2" long
piece of 1/16" plywood on top and redrilled the hole. I then used my
pull test scale and test pulled it at 50 pounds, problem solved. The
other way which my friend in San Diago is better. He installed the
bellcrank 3/4" further forward. This way the bolt goes through 4
times as much bass wood. Also it locates the bellcrank in a strait
line with the leadouts for less friction. This can't be done with
internal controls as it would interfere with the fuel cavity. Also he
uses 1 hole in the leadout wire and runs both lines through them and
hooks up directly to the bellcrank. Do you suppose there would be
less drag if the lines are together and there are no big pieces of
fuel tubing at the end of the leadouts to make the line connections?
> Chris,with a hard hand pull (jerk) in flight. the top rib cap let go. i'm
> A friend tested one on a ukarine f2d plane. the center rib failed
concerned with an external control on an rtf plane made for an
internal bellcrank as all the load is going in the top of the rib not
half into both top and bottom as on an internal mount.
> TomSee how.
> Iskandar Taib <ntaib@...> wrote:
> chicken_lovernz <chris_renton@...> wrote:
> > Not to start an argument but you cant really say
> > something has been
> > proven until it has been used in actual F2D
> > contests.
> Jeff HAS used it in F2D competition.
> Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail.
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]