rules clarifation

[proto]

question can anybody please help.in class 1/2a and class2 team race does the total wing aera include the centre setion of the body

[locktite401]

question can anybody please help.in class 1/2a and class2 team race does the total wing aera include the centre setion of the body

The current MAAA rules are available in the document available from:

http://www.maaa.asn.au/maaa/pdf/maaa%20 ... 202009.pdf

Ray

[flyingkiw1]

I do not think the rules clarify the situation, but as far as my understanding goes it is "projected wing area", not including any fillets, but including the "projected" bit in the fuz.

Lance

[CLAMF 1]

I wouldn't claim to be an outhority, but the MAAA rules for 1/2A and Class 2 refer back to F2C rules regarding wing area and having read the F2C rules I still could not give a definative answer, but if I had to vote on it I would support flyingkiwi1 in his interpretation.

[locktite401]

Yep, after wasting half and hour I found them at:

http://alpha924.server4you.de/FAI/Sport ... ine_09.pdf

I couldn't find any mention of how wing areas for a TR was determined except for Section 4.3.4 (c) which gives a total minimum projected surface area for an F2C model. It looks to me to be a Bush Barristers delight to apply this rule to Australian 1/2A and Class two TR. Why wouldn't the total projected surface area include the side and front projections as well as that of the plan for an F2C model? Or is that the case?

I's say that the concensus opinion given in the posts above was ok, but the other interpretations would have to be accepted as well.

Ray (strapping his amateur asbestos wig on)

[doc]

I do not think the rules clarify the situation,

I fear Lance is correct, although when last I flew class 2 teamrace in Australia (1964) the rules were very clear: the wing area enclosed inside the fuselage was counted as part of the required 125 sq. inches. I'm not aware of any specific decision having been made to change that, but obviously someone has abbreviated the rules since those days, apparently leading to confusion if not (in the opinion of bush lawyers) an actual change.

I'm told that in Britain the enclosed wing area inside the fuselage is not counted. When I was drawing up the Galaxie plan I had already drawn the wing based on my old Joker which was 126 sq. inches including the part inside the fuselage when John Hallowell told me I had to make it bigger. I can't remember now whether that was to make the plan suitable for Britishers, or whether his Australian Classic B rules exclude the wing area inside the fuselage... but whatever the reason it was easily done. Athol Holtham always made his wings way bigger than they needed to be at the time, so the final wing planform drawn is possibly closer to his original than my first attempt might have been.

I'm wearing my own aluminised flameproof suit tonight, so I can add:

Wouldn't it be marvelous if the M.A.A.A. had a technical officer who could quickly clarify matters relating to its rules?

[ARGHETT]

The term " PROJECTED " in aeronautical terms refers to the ATMOSPHERE . Wing In . Projected Area. Others not.