Originally Posted by
Steelie
Wheels,
Based on all of the comments you have made in this thread, it is clear....very clear,... You have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about.
You did not build a Rascal 168.
You have not flown a Rascal 168.
You do however have...seemingly... some sort of self-awarded level of expertise in all things balsa, plywood, and glue.
"Pity" as you say about omitting struts is very appealing to you, is an evident statement of your lack of necessary structural engineering for the airframe you have no experience with.
The pilots here that have done what you have not, are beyond your level.
Stick with what you know and leave the rest to us.
"Us"? EXCELLENT since experts like you, who've all built and flown this particular model, all clearly understood that building it without struts is a laughable idea only fools like I would entertain.... then I'm sure you'd be happy to share with us all the modifications you made while building yours to compensate for this glaring error by the designer... it would mean that all these poor sig customers could be flying their rascals that much sooner, you wouldn't deny them the advice of someone "on your level" would you?
Re: the 30%, I let people decide for themselves whether, in this hobby, there's a great deal of discussion centered around the possible causes and preventative measures for crashes and structural failures in planes, and whether 30% sounds like an outlandish claim... it's not like there's an entire forum section devoted to it or anything, right? I'm glad you were good enough to quote me directly right before you shoved words in my mouth about "garauntees" though, I'll let people decide for themselves how valid that was as well.