I've looked through 20 pages of design forum and 20 pages of aerodynamics forum, and can't find what I want. Here's the mission:

Aircraft must be single engine, have integral landing gear.
Aircraft must be able to taxi & rise off ground.
No retracts.
Any single wing conventional airframe (tractor, wing/fuselage/tail) aircraft allowed.
No restrictions for airfoil, wing area, wingspan, or aircraft weight.
Engine must be a Non-Racing (NO ROSSI, JETT, NELSON, etc.) Stock throttled carb type with only the factory furnished stock "Out Of The Box" muffler. All engines not to exceed .25 cu in displacement and a retail/mail order cost of $100.00
Fuel & Props have no restrictions.

100mph is necessary to be competitive. I've done some prototype testing, and found that scale models of pylon racing planes are actually quite slow. Swept wings have no advantage over straight wings. Tapered wings affect handling more than speed, doesn't matter which or both edges are tapered. Dual wing-mounted aileron servos with external pushrods make little difference from a single servo and torque rods (heavier), but if the torque rods are too small diameter, at speed you have no aileron effect, but you'll have lots of toothpics.

Let the arguments begin!

Scale down a Quickie 500.

Ditto.

Dr.1

I thought of that, scaled to about 350 in^2 wing area. The people I know who have plans don't care to share them. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find plans for a balsa Quickie 500 on the internet, either. I've found several references like "Built from plans by Joe Blow," but Mr. Blow seems to have passed away or is no longer in the plans business. Oh, well. I guess I'll just have to buy a Dominator and scale it down.

There are a couple of links to CAD files near the bottom of this page: http://www.pylonworld.com/rc_pylon/q...500_planes.htm . At least the "Pintail_Q500" link worked.

I'd say that you would be on the right track by scaling down a quickie for your event. An ordinary quickie with a good sport .25 engine is good for about 90 mph with a prop in the 8-5 to 8-6 range. I don't like standard quickies with only .25 power because they are difficult to launch successfully if the wind conditons are not straight down the runway, due to being slightly underpowered. We ran an event like that in California for about 3 years before everyone decided that the attrition was just too high, and it switched over to low cost .40's.

A few years earlier, my club decided to build a quickie class around a .25 engine with a 300 ^2 wing and a weight of 2 1/2 lbs. Although these flew quite well, they landed like a Formula One and many were destroyed landing by the average flyier.

So if you build a quickie style airframe with 350^2, it should easily reach your goal of exceeding 100 mph, though I would recommend you design it with 400 ^2 to lower landing speeds (it will still exceed your goal of 100). Landing mishaps take out about as many racing airplanes as midairs.

Be sure to experiment with the prop sizes. A .25 sized sport engine will run very well on a 7-6 prop with good rpm if the airframe is clean enough to hook up with the smaller diameter.

If the design is not intended to have any built in limiting factors then the Quickie is not the best prototype to scale down for this. The Quickie concept and resulting rules were intended to produce a speed limited and simple to build model that would appeal to the beginning racer who felt they were not up to the challenge of Formula 1 or the FAI pylon event. In reality the Quickie designs are actually quite crude and are that way on purpose.

Look at the current winners in the Formula 1 event and the FAI events for signs of what is needed. Higher aspect ratios and raked back tips to limit drag in the turns and thin airfoils with just a hint of camber. But even these events have requirements for minimum airfoil thickness and fuselage cross section.

If you want a truely "no holds barred" racer than it'll eventually come out looking like a scaled up Speed 400 electric racer with a slightly modified nose to fair in the engine cylinder and with minimal fuselage and just some landing gear added on. But if the goal is to create a new and simple to build for racing class then the scaled down Quickie concept is the way to go.

BMathews, I think that's the next road to explore, scaling down or up one of the classes that does not have the design restrictions of the Quickees. I guess I'll have to bite the bullet and dust of the old surf board building skills. Lessee, a little foam carving, some sanding, lay-up, vacuum bagging, I can do that.

The Quickies are not exactly things of beauty either, if that counts for anything.

Is it the years upon years of spadding that caused some of that dust to settle?

Ananth

For further inspiration about a minimalist racer that is simple and fast to build do a search in the 1/2A forum for "swr" which stands for Sheet Wing Racer. Some of the guys are having a great time with simple to carve sheet wing models.

For a 25 I could see a simple bagged foam or all sheet carved wing model of about 280 to 300 sq inches with an all up weight of around the high 20 to low 30 oz mark being a real scourge around the course. Probably light 3/8 or 1/2 inch balsa with a spruce sub spar to help out the streght issue.

I just recalled that I still have this link:
http://www.wingermodels.rchomepage.com/whisper.htm
It is a "400" electric balsa and plywood plane. The wing is carved: 1/4" + 1/32" balsa. The 1/32" is to make it easy to put in some plywood under the trailing edge. I bought the plan but have not got around to building yet. Now, what would happen if you scaled it up a bit...

Thanks for all the good sources. Much appreciated.

No, I haven't been SPADding for years. I haven't even been flying RC for years. I'm a newbie to RC. I tried a SPAD for getting stick time when the weather was too nasty for a beginner to risk balsa. Coroplast is a cheap (I own a screenprint shop) and quick medium to dabble with, and much more tolerant of rough handling than balsa. SPAD design has come a long way the past couple years, especially with non-combat planes, but I can't see Coroplast ever flying as well as balsa.