Quantcast

DT6 F1 Racer

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

WonderousMountain

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
2,124
Location
Clatsop, Or
That Hex tile Carbon sandwich is interesting in the DT-6.

C-1a/0 goes up to 300Kg, 661lb - Formula 1 is above 500.
So you have 160 pounds to fit between.
Shark plane has C-1a/0 speed record. It's not formula 1 AFAIK.

 
Last edited:

Speedboat100

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
1,598
Location
Europe
That Hex tile Carbon sandwich is interesting in the DT-6.

C-1a/0 goes up to 300Kg, 661lb - Formula 1 is above 500.
So you have 160 pounds to fit between.
Shark plane has C-1a/0 speed record. It's not formula 1 AFAIK.

They need a lot of ballast if they wanna claim both classes records.

F1 has to weight 229 kg...EMPTY... IRC.

Extra weight is allowed in a F1..has to be close the CG.

C-1a/0 are all under 200 kg empty.
 

Creighton

Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
15
Location
Salt Lake City, Utah USA
Original Rivets only flew 146 mph. Later model did 220ish mph speed.

This is much cleaner now...depends like you say how well the flap and flying tail are arranged...for sure. Spitfire with split flap did Mach 0.92.

I doubt with 66 sqft wing this will never be fastest ( even with 12,5 degree average sweep ).


Wonder if this is the Anequim wing foil ?

All flying tail is not legal in Formula 1.

Owner builder Race 15.. T tail Cassutt
 

Riggerrob

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
1,584
Location
Canada
It's in the Rules after a fatal crash
Many Formula One rules were written after crashes.
They tried to keep things simple with stock Continental engines ... by banning controllable pitch propellers, flaps, retractable landing gear, etc.
For example, the 500 pound rule was written to discourage building flimsy, light-weight airframes. They tried to encourage builders to invest in strong spars.
A minimum of 66 square feet of wing area is intended to keep landing speeds within reason.
The other motivation was trying to keep the cost within range of mere mortals.
Sadly, rich guys are willing to pay staggering amounts of money to squeeze out the last few knots.
 
Last edited:

Creighton

Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
15
Location
Salt Lake City, Utah USA
Many Formula One rules were written after crashes.
They tried to keep things simple with stock Continental engines ... by banning controllable pitch propellers, flaps, retractable landing gear, etc.
For example, the 500 pound rule was written to discourage building flimsy, light-weight airframes. They tried to encourage builders to invest in strong spars.
A minimum of 66 square feet of wing area is intended to keep landing speeds within reason.
The other motivation was trying to keep the cost within range of mere mortals.
Sadly, rich guys are willing to pay staggering amounts of money to squeeze out the last few knots.

You can have Flaps. but the minimum wing area is calculated in the stored position.
 

Creighton

Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
15
Location
Salt Lake City, Utah USA
Who actually crashed with a flying tail and when ?

This Crash was about 10 years ago when a freind of mine saw Her Daughter lawn dart into the ground. It was not a full flying tail but an adjustable Horizontal that moved during manuvering that causes the airplane to pitch up violently and lose both wings at about 18g's. We have never had this type of accident on a conventional fixed Horzontal and elevator racer and we will not allow another one to happen. As Chairman of the IF-1 Technical Rules Committee I can assure you we have a great reason to restric any tail design without a fized Horiaontal. So adjust your design to fit the rules (the Formula) of IF-1 or race somewhere else. We have been the same class with rules developed before WW2 and the only racing class to have raced as much as we have on nearly every continent and we strive to make 250MPH 40 feet off the ground be as safe as possible with Airplanes that you can build and afford. We welcome all that follow the Formula.

Creighton King
Builder Owner Race 15 Last Lap Player
 

Speedboat100

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
1,598
Location
Europe

This Crash was about 10 years ago when a freind of mine saw Her Daughter lawn dart into the ground. It was not a full flying tail but an adjustable Horizontal that moved during manuvering that causes the airplane to pitch up violently and lose both wings at about 18g's. We have never had this type of accident on a conventional fixed Horzontal and elevator racer and we will not allow another one to happen. As Chairman of the IF-1 Technical Rules Committee I can assure you we have a great reason to restric any tail design without a fized Horiaontal. So adjust your design to fit the rules (the Formula) of IF-1 or race somewhere else. We have been the same class with rules developed before WW2 and the only racing class to have raced as much as we have on nearly every continent and we strive to make 250MPH 40 feet off the ground be as safe as possible with Airplanes that you can build and afford. We welcome all that follow the Formula.

Creighton King
Builder Owner Race 15 Last Lap Player

Ok Creighton King !

Very sad to read that what happened to Erica Simpson...it is very unfortunate. I bet a system like that can be made to work, but it needs a well proven and tested design. I was suggesting a T-tail like mr Falck had in his Rivets, but all flying...as I have in my LS sailplane model.
 

Steve C

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
158
Location
Lodi, CA
Good to have your input here Creighton. I had no idea an adjustable stab was involved with that accident.

Steve C
 

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
8,019
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
My actual experience is limited to one highly modified Cassutt 2M racer, #81 "BooRay", over the course of two years (I have never had the privilege of flying a stock "Hershey bar" Cassutt). Mine had a very aggressive aluminum tapered wing originally (NACA 66-209 airfoil), then a slightly less aggressive composite wing (Grove mod. 64-209).

I always wheel landed mine, at a pretty high speed. Maybe 95-105 mph touchdown speed on the mains. As soon as the tail came down, all hell broke loose and it was quite a chore to keep it going straight. I made an assumption that this was because of the long-chord wing root/center section/canopy/turtledeck "blanking" the little tiny vertical fin.

They tell me the stock Cassutt 3M flies real nice, maybe someday I'll be able to fly one...
 
Top