| | Igor Burger | Re: F2B Model Specifications Status Report | 26.08.2002 - 12:47:29 | Peter is right the fuel tanks, exhaust systems, but also construction of engines, intake systems and so are also devices controlling run of the engine. I do not think we should disqualify some of them just because we do not know them yet or we can not name them like tricky scavening, tricky prop
[More...] | 45
|
| | | Peter Germann | Re: F2B Model Specifications Status Report | 26.08.2002 - 14:36:45 | 4.2.2. d Variable pitch props
Yes, Igor, we forgot about the variable pitch prop. The reason is that 4.2.2 d intends to prevent in-flight power changes in general (For piston engines) and this excludes a variable pitch prop. For clarification, we may want to state:
[More...] | 46
|
| | | Igor Burger | Re: F2B Model Specifications Status Report | 27.08.2002 - 19:19:08 | Peter, it is pity to hear there is such resistance against the progress, but I understand it. Anyway I am surprised that such an easy power train like simplest R/C for $100 engine with piece of metal in form of L bellcrank on spring which simply control the power delivery is called the technology
[More...] | 49
|
| | | Peter Germann | Re: F2B Model Specifications Status Report | 28.08.2002 - 08:57:55 |
On new "open"class:
While certainly an interesting perspective, one must remember that the FAI is rather reluctant when it comes to add new classes to the Sporting Code. The procedure takes many years and I doubt whether it would make sense, after 3 years time used so far, to drop
[More...] | 50
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Stephan Raetsch | Re: F2B Model Specifications Status Report | 26.08.2002 - 14:56:15 | Dear Peter,
from my point of view we should allow:
1. any control of secondary engine control like throttle, cut-off device etc.
if somebody thinks this is an advantage, he should be able to use whatever he likes. I personally don't care whether we talk about
[More...] | 47
|
| |
|
