1.-2. Ballot wordings Hull Cross section and Tiller

this is steve’s copy

16. Hull cross sections must be rectangular. Fuselage side panel parallel projected planes intersecting with the deck or bottom parallel projected planes shall be 90 degrees, +- 2 degrees from a point 6’’ (153. mm) from the bow to a point 6’’ (153. mm) from the stern. A maximum 1/4’’ (6.3 mm) radius is allowed on the outside top corner of the fuselage where the deck and side panel intersect. Concavities in the deck are not permitted. “

if the wording “rectangular” is removed ,another change is required to be made to description of Deck/Bottom, that change would require that wording to the point that deck and bottom must be flat and not convex . if not , nowhere are the decks and bottom required to be stated so currently. this would open up a new group of building issues to the specificatictions by definition rectangular is define as :

adjective
shaped like a rectangle
having or relating to right angles
mutually perpendicular rectangular coordinates
having a base or section shaped like a rectangle
we have to be very cautious with wording here.
having hull sections required to be rectangular with a tolerance would be as steve’s will avoid this issue and having tolerance here does not discount on intent of “rectanglular”
it might be all as simple as this suggested wording
16. Hull outer surface cross sections must be rectangular +/- 2 degrees from a point 6’’ (153. mm) from the bow
to a point 6’’ (153. mm) from the stern with exception in way of cockpit. A maximum 1/4’’ (6.3 mm) radius is allowed
on the outside top corner of the fuselage where the deck and side panel intersect.
Concavities in the deck are not permitted.
I think this may cover Peter’s intent?
Thinking outside the box my only concern here is: in way of cockpit side panels could be angled or curved in a way (in section) that may have aero implications we are not thinking of….
jk

Peter, Jeff’s point is that the word rectangular implies that the flat surfaces of the rectangle must be flat. The hull sides can’t be curved from top to bottom, and the top and bottom surfaces of the hull can’t be curved from side to side. If we take out the rectangular statement how do we close that potential loophole?

I think Jeff’s last proposal covers it and also covers the cockpit question.

Steve

Need to reach a conclusion on the hull cross section proposal discussion.
Please look at this. currently myself and Steve are in agreement on the following text. Peter’s comment thinking that cockpit, knees, rails etc are not part of discussion is somewhat correct. However the subject here is part of “cross section tolerance” This applies specifically between to and from areas along fuselage. The following wording specifically excludes area in way of cockpit where there is no deck. this cleans it up
Only reservation I have is the issue of seat back “support”, at this time I consider that out side the constraints of the specification as other “structural member”
I believe this covers Peter’s intent of inserting a tolerance of the angles created between deck and bottom to side panels
this does not change angle that was specified originally by peter’s proposal
haven’t heard from the others lately or at all
would like to have this done, but correct. Definitely need some others to comment
16. Hull outer surface cross sections must be rectangular +/- 2 degrees from a point 6’’ (153. mm) from the bow
to a point 6’’ (153. mm) from the stern with exception in way of cockpit. A maximum 1/4’’ (6.3 mm) radius is allowed
on the outside top corner of the fuselage where the deck and side panel intersect.
Concavities in the deck are not permitted.

It looks good to me.

Proposal for tiller to have “breakaway or release” action will need more time to get proper wording. Time has run out to get this to ballot in the next day or so . this will not be on upcoming ballot

We need not word a proposal in haste in order to make a deadline when the committee cannot get to a satisfactory concept put in writing

This should continue to be resolved with the goal to make a strong viable proposal , a new dedicated topic will be created to further discuss this properly since it was in a topic containing two proposals

JK