News:


  • April 25, 2024, 06:34:37 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: PC Design, Wins, History ?  (Read 12440 times)

Offline Louis Matts

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Ensign
  • **
  • Posts: 32
PC Design, Wins, History ?
« on: February 28, 2016, 12:07:39 PM »
A lazy Sunday for me, reading old magazines, most of the early ones I have picked up at used book stores over the years. It's fun reading through CL & PC  :!

My magazine collection starts from 1970 on up, looking through old issues & focusing on PC (Profile Carrier) only, I am trying to note what PC design has won the most Nat's, what I have found is interesting.

As a carrier history buff, and just for pure fun only, does anyone want to guess what design has the most PC Nat’s wins and why? (I can document the wins, don't have the answer to why). D>K

LM

Offline Balsa Butcher

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2357
  • High Desert Flier
Re: PC Design, Wins, History ?
« Reply #1 on: February 28, 2016, 07:45:11 PM »
Well, it's either an MO-1 or Grumman Guardian...Mox-Nix. Forgive me if you know this but the Knights of the Round Circle's flying site at Whittier Narrows has a permanent (concrete) carrier. Don't know how much non-scheduled action it gets but I do know there are a few carrier fliers in the club, one of whom I flew carrier with 45 years ago in the Circle Burners. My suggestion: If you are serious about getting involved get in touch with the KOTRC and make an appointment to meet at the field some weekend or attend a meeting. The Narrows is not all that far from San Diego IMO. Heck, with enough notice I might even throw in a few "PC"s and join you. Their web site is "KOTRC(dot).ORG"  8)
Pete Cunha
Sacramento CA.
AMA 57499

Offline Paul Smith

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: PC Design, Wins, History ?
« Reply #2 on: February 29, 2016, 07:15:55 AM »
Until the scale-like bonus, the winners were often stripped-down rat types.

I don't think the airframe design means much.  Your study would be more meaningful if it focused on the engine setup.

I won it in 1970 with an OS Max III RC.  Then the K&B Greenhead RC took over.  In the final years of the "stock plain bearing RC", the Supertiger 35 CRC was king.
Paul Smith

Offline Louis Matts

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Ensign
  • **
  • Posts: 32
Re: PC Design, Wins, History ?
« Reply #3 on: February 29, 2016, 10:11:58 AM »
I agree Paul the older PC’s look like “stripped-down rat types”. I will reach out to the “KOTRC” Balsa Butcher, thanks for the contact info. H^^

What I found did surprise me, here is a quick tally:

Going through all the back issues, results, and Nat’s write-ups, what I found is the most dominant PC design based on the most Nat’s wins from 1970 to today is the Carlos Aloise Condor, followed by Bill Melton’s Guardian. Dick Perry wrote many a columns back in 74, 75 and 76 noting the “complete dominance” of the Condor PC plane with 9 Nat’s Championships (8 in 3 years), and one 1977 Nat's Win in Jr. (only PC event Aloise's entered in 77). Most of the times the Aloise Nat's wins in Jr. Sr. and Op. came with scores that exceed the rest of the Op. field:

1974 Nat’s Winner in Jr, Sr. and Op. 3 Nat’s Wins
1975 Nat’s Winner in Jr, Sr. and Op. 3 Nat’s Wins
1976 Nat’s Winner in Jr, and Op. 2 Nat’s Wins (No Sr. Entry for the Condor as Carlos A. ran & won Op.) 2 Nat’s Wins
1977 Nat's Winner in Jr. 1 Nat's Win (No Aloise Sr. or Op. entry for 1977)

From what I read; Bill Melton flying his Guardian Won 8 Nat’s spread out over many years.

From my limited research, the Aloise Condor & Bill Melton Guardian are the two most dominant & winning PC planes to date. Talking to Bill Melton back in 91-95, Bill did mention the Aloise family did fly PC back in the 70’s, I just never realized to what extent they dominated the event; 9 total Nat's Wins, 8 Nat’s Championships in 3 years, plus 1 Nat's Win in 77 is impressive in my opinion.

The most dominant engine based on total Nat's wins is the ST C35. This one is harder to document as a lot of Nat's wins/years the engine used is not clear. I could be slightly off on this one observation, and this will change as no one uses the ST C35 today.

I do like to read about the history of CL, PC, and the Nat’s. It made for an interesting & peaceful Sunday with lots of reading time  n~

LM
« Last Edit: March 04, 2016, 12:40:15 PM by Louis Matts »

Offline john e. holliday

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 22773
Re: PC Design, Wins, History ?
« Reply #4 on: February 29, 2016, 12:52:31 PM »
That is very interesting as I myself dropped out of carrier flying during the 70's.  In fact I flew only Class II carrier.  That period of time I was trying to be a pit man in F2C competition.   
John E. "DOC" Holliday
10421 West 56th Terrace
Shawnee, KANSAS  66203
AMA 23530  Have fun as I have and I am still breaking a record.

Offline Louis Matts

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Ensign
  • **
  • Posts: 32
Re: PC Design, Wins, History ?
« Reply #5 on: March 02, 2016, 06:12:54 PM »
My limited search shows 74, 75, 76 and 77 had a significant number of entries from 70 to over 100. What has happened to the entry numbers for PC?  Looking at the last few Nat’s, entries are dismal, down to <10 if I read the AMA numbers correctly. In 91 when I made my Nat's visit as a spectator, I want to say entries number >30, guessing here from what I saw. Seems like PC is going down the drain, competition is almost at zero, honestly shocked at the low turn out  %^@

LM

Offline Wayne J. Buran

  • AMA Member
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1096
Re: PC Design, Wins, History ?
« Reply #6 on: March 03, 2016, 05:12:39 AM »
Louis, I don't think you want to go there.
Wayne
Wayne Buran
Medina, Ohio
AMA 14986 CD
USAF Veteran 35 TAC GP/ 6236 CSG, DonMuang RTAFB, Bangkok, Thailand 65-66 North Coast Controliners   "A fine is a tax for doing wrong. A tax is a fine for doing well!

Offline Louis Matts

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Ensign
  • **
  • Posts: 32
Re: PC Design, Wins, History ?
« Reply #7 on: March 03, 2016, 08:34:32 AM »
That's Ok Wayne. Since I am the new guy, I can also be the whipping boy if it opens a discussion that helps lead to a solution. Not trying to stir the pot and I fully apologize to everyone if this is a sore subject that I have no business asking or commenting about. From my newbie point of view, it does seem PC & Carrier in general is in deep trouble and close to disappearing if Nat’s entry levels are an indication of the pulse of the event. Not  S?P

LM

Offline Wayne J. Buran

  • AMA Member
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1096
Re: PC Design, Wins, History ?
« Reply #8 on: March 03, 2016, 10:46:49 AM »
There is still a heartbeat but not much.
Wayne
Wayne Buran
Medina, Ohio
AMA 14986 CD
USAF Veteran 35 TAC GP/ 6236 CSG, DonMuang RTAFB, Bangkok, Thailand 65-66 North Coast Controliners   "A fine is a tax for doing wrong. A tax is a fine for doing well!

Offline Bob Heywood

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 999
Re: PC Design, Wins, History ?
« Reply #9 on: March 03, 2016, 11:22:04 AM »
AMA Profile Carrier and .15 Profile Carrier both filled out the NCS Top Twenty in 2015. For sure it's not like times past but the competition is still pretty intense and everyone seems to be having a good time. Build your plane and join in!

At the 2015 NATS wind was an issue for Profile and sort of for CL I & CL II. On Thursday for NCS Unofficial Events the weather was "Chamber of Commerce" perfect. The deck ran all day and everyone used all their attempts because it was so much fun.

Get on the AMA web site and look for the Flickr link under the Nationals coverage. Lots of Carrier pictures. Here is the direct link:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/modelaircraft/albums/72157655873957461
"Clockwise Forever..."

Offline Balsa Butcher

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2357
  • High Desert Flier
Re: PC Design, Wins, History ?
« Reply #10 on: March 03, 2016, 11:45:03 AM »
Respectfully: The state of carrier (and C/L in general for that matter) has been discussed to death on this forum and elsewhere. The bottom line is if you want it to continue-build, fly, participate, enjoy it for what it is for as long as it lasts. Don't overthink it, you ain't gonna change it,... so just do it!  8)
Pete Cunha
Sacramento CA.
AMA 57499

Offline Louis Matts

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Ensign
  • **
  • Posts: 32
Re: PC Design, Wins, History ?
« Reply #11 on: March 03, 2016, 01:03:56 PM »
Thanks guys for setting me straight, just don't shoot the messenger. I have every intention of competing in the near future. Last; as previously stated "I fully apologize to everyone if this is a sore subject that I have no business asking or commenting about" y1

LM

Offline bill bischoff

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 1704
Re: PC Design, Wins, History ?
« Reply #12 on: March 03, 2016, 08:01:54 PM »
I just did a check of newsletters from 1986 to 2006 (that's what I have paper copies of), and made the following tallies. Melton Guardians won profile at the NATS 11 times, counting Jr, Sr, and Open. Bischoff MO-1's also won 11 times (J,S,O), and set records 7 times (J,S,O). More different people were flying my MO-1 to make up the 11 wins, for whatever that's worth.


Offline john vlna

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1353
Re: PC Design, Wins, History ?
« Reply #13 on: March 03, 2016, 08:45:28 PM »
Louis
Don't feel to bad. I first flew CL in 1950. Back then everyone flew CL. By 1970 fewer, by 1990 fewer, by today fewer.
Things change over time.
John

Offline Wayne J. Buran

  • AMA Member
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1096
Re: PC Design, Wins, History ?
« Reply #14 on: March 04, 2016, 06:18:52 AM »
For those inclined, visit the Navy Carrier Society facebook page. Some folks from the EU have chimed in with interesting info.

Thanks
Wayne
Wayne Buran
Medina, Ohio
AMA 14986 CD
USAF Veteran 35 TAC GP/ 6236 CSG, DonMuang RTAFB, Bangkok, Thailand 65-66 North Coast Controliners   "A fine is a tax for doing wrong. A tax is a fine for doing well!

Offline Louis Matts

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Ensign
  • **
  • Posts: 32
Re: PC Design, Wins, History ?
« Reply #15 on: March 04, 2016, 10:28:42 AM »
I just did a check of newsletters from 1986 to 2006 (that's what I have paper copies of), and made the following tallies. Melton Guardians won profile at the NATS 11 times, counting Jr, Sr, and Open. Bischoff MO-1's also won 11 times (J,S,O), and set records 7 times (J,S,O). More different people were flying my MO-1 to make up the 11 wins, for whatever that's worth.



Makes sense if you count "different people". My finding and I may not have been clear enough, was adding up individual wins for one design based on a name(s). Melton & Aloise. I don't have newsletters, only mags. Still, if we use the winning count from "different people", The Melton Guardian & Bill Bischoff MO-1 won 11 each, and the Aloise Condor Won 9, all very impressive.

PS: how many PC Nat's have you won Bill Bischoff? I show 2 Nat's; congratulations Bill B  :)!

LM
« Last Edit: March 04, 2016, 12:42:06 PM by Louis Matts »

Offline Louis Matts

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Ensign
  • **
  • Posts: 32
Re: PC Design, Wins, History ?
« Reply #16 on: March 05, 2016, 03:10:48 PM »
PC Individuals with the most Nat’s wins from 1970-2015.

Pete Mazur 11 Nat’s Wins (+22 PC Nat’s entered) 50% Win Ratio
Bill Melton 8 Nat’s Wins (+13 PC Nat’s entered) 61% Win Ratio
Carlos Aloise 4 Nat’s Wins (6 PC Nat’s entered) 66% Win Ratio
Burt Brokaw 3 Nat’s Wins (6 PC Nat’s entered) 50% Win Ratio

More interesting data from the Top 4 PC Nat’s winners, all of them great competitors.

LM
« Last Edit: March 11, 2016, 10:18:23 AM by Louis Matts »

Offline Louis Matts

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Ensign
  • **
  • Posts: 32
Re: PC Design, Wins, History ?
« Reply #17 on: March 08, 2016, 12:34:32 PM »
Trying to learn & understand the history of PC and how we got to the current rules and participation level. I sent a few questions to 3-4 PC flyers, first response is from Carlos Aloise. Wasn't sure to post it or not, I decided it is good to hear from everyone, here it is:

Hello Louis:

I do remember meeting you at the Nationals in the early 90’s as well as a few phone conversations we had later on. I am sorry I don’t recall the details of our conversations. It’s good to see your new found interest in Profile Carrier, lots of fun going fast & slow all in one flight…

When did you start flying PC, what club and why?
We started flying Control Line in 71-72, Profile Carrier in 73. Profile Carrier became part of our families weekends at Sepulveda Basin & Whittier Narrows Control Line Parks in SoCal. We were not associated with any club or carrier flyers. We had purchased 2 used, stock ST C35’s…everyone else was using McCoy/Tester .36 engines. The only option was to make the ST C35 work as good as we could. We learned how to win with what we had...The Condor design was born; it won its first time out in 73, and continued to win every contest & Nationals we entered from 73-77…my Dad, Brother and I never lost a Profile Carrier event with the Condor.

How did your family & you win 9 Nat’s in 3-4 years?
During the years 74, 75 and 76 we loaded the family van, and drove to all 3 Nationals from SoCal. We didn’t have a lot of money, so it was always a very frugal trip. We camped, ate camped cook meals, participated in Profile Carrier and drove home. My Dad had to get to work; therefore we had no time or money for site seeing. Our family (National’s) trips are to this day some of my most cherished memories; we had a lot of fun and winning made the long trips home a lot shorter. I credit all our wins to my parents, making sure my brother & I had all the support we needed. They taught us how to work & study hard, took us flying every other weekend and made a family event out of every flying session.

Why did you stop flying PC in 77, why did you return in 88?
High school, college, work, etc.…in 77 on forward, all got in the way of modeling & carrier. The change of rules in Profile Carrier did not help. It was obvious the rules change was a direct attempt by some to stop us from winning in Profile Carrier. This left a bad taste in my mouth; we had been constantly questioned at the local & national level. The rambling by some was “we must be cheating”…our ST C35 engines were faster than the competition, we had been protested, and our engines torn down & inspected at every Nat’s (in most cases, only our engines received this type of negative attention)…our engines were always found to be stock & legal, yet the bias continued; in 77 enough was enough…“good old boys club” at its best.

In 88 I was reading the 87 Nat’s issue and decided to build a new Profile Carrier using an ST X-36 I built. I could fly +6 minutes if I wanted to in 88-91, kept running out of fuel, just needed a bigger gas tank that I never built. Set the Profile Carrier record in late 88 with a score in the +386 range that held for +10 years, and won the 91 Nat’s, placed 2nd in 89 when my 10 bonus points was removed from my overall score after my flight…not a good thing IMO. I also placed 2nd and 4th in Class I & II flying the same MO-1 Profile Carrier (Larger engine for Class II) with slow speeds well into the high 5 minutes…this caused a lot of controversy to say the least.
I only built one version of my MO-1, really never practiced, and did not take Profile Carrier seriously…I would fly Profile Carrier after my Nat’s Speed venues were completed/end of day. CL Speed was my only real focus in 90-95. I gave my Nat’s winning MO-1 & Aloise ST X-36 to my very good friend Bill Melton in 91/92….since then I have never flown Profile Carrier again.

Would you return to fly Profile Carrier?
Maybe, don’t really know. I do feel Profile Carrier still has a “good old boys club” mentality as it did in 74-77 as well as in 89-91….
IMO it would help to have a clear definition of Profile Carrier bonus points, and not a vague definition left to ones interpretation of the meaning of “closely resembles”… since the meaning of “resembles” is ‘similar to’, my MO-1 in 89-91 should NOT have had the 10 point bonus removed from the final score. It did “resemble” an MO-1, and certainly did not “resemble” a Guardian, ME109, Corsair or Cessna. Just more of the “good old boys club” shenanigans that has led to a decline in participation; again this is just my opinion.

While some will not like to read or agree with what I just wrote, I am saying it as I have experienced it firsthand. Don’t let my experiences sway you away from Profile Carrier. It is a wonderful event, filed with good people; one that I am sure will bring a lot of challenges & positive experiences for you. Plus; your passion for the event will translate to the winners circle. Build a Profile Carrier, practice as much as you can and go win some events; Nat’s included. Full speed ahead Louis…!

Carlos


I will share other PC flyers responses to my questions when I receive them.

LM

Offline Chris McMillin

  • 22 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1899
  • AMA 32529
Re: PC Design, Wins, History ?
« Reply #18 on: March 08, 2016, 09:59:22 PM »
Louis,
Are you building or have built a Profile carrier model? We're having a bit of a resurgence in the event in Tucson and want to expand it to SoCal. I have one unbuilt Guillows III profile and two Scale Nostalgia ships in the finishing stage hoping to join in. Look for the events this year and join in.
Chris...

Offline Louis Matts

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Ensign
  • **
  • Posts: 32
Re: PC Design, Wins, History ?
« Reply #19 on: March 09, 2016, 05:39:15 PM »
Louis,
Are you building or have built a Profile carrier model? We're having a bit of a resurgence in the event in Tucson and want to expand it to SoCal. I have one unbuilt Guillows III profile and two Scale Nostalgia ships in the finishing stage hoping to join in. Look for the events this year and join in.
Chris...

Yes, 2 PC's. 1 is a Bill M Guardian and 1 is a Bill Bischoff MO-1. I have 2 engines, one is Nelson .36 with standard rotation, and one is Fox .36. Looking to get these 2 PC's done by August, I build slow LOL H^^

LM

Offline Louis Matts

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Ensign
  • **
  • Posts: 32
Re: PC Design, Wins, History ?
« Reply #20 on: March 11, 2016, 10:13:33 AM »
From one of the "greats", with 11 PC WINS Peter Mazur-

Hi Louis,

I have enjoyed your Stunthanger discussions and figure I owe you comments on this thread and others. I have been slowed down by a retina detachment but the surgery and recovery have been going well so I can see pretty well again and don't have to spend my days and nights holding my head in awkward positions. Now, let me get to your questions.

I started flying Carrier in 1967. I was a grad student at Northwestern University at the time and a founding member of the local Lake Shore Radio Control at the time. I was not in any control line club at that time and didn't know any local control line guys. I bought a Sturdy-Built Mauler kit and built it for a K&B .40 R/C front intake, the same kind of engine I was using in R/C at the time. I finished it and took it to my parents home in Fargo, ND, for a summer vacation. Every evening I took it to the local F M Skylarks control line field and flew it. I grew up in Fargo and was a founding member of the Skylarks and had many friends there. (Still do, and I try to go back every year for their annual contest, this year being the 60th. I'll be there.) nobody in Fargo was into carrier yet. I worked a lot with Paul Kegel, now a well-known Carrier flier and event director at the Fargo contest, to get this airplane working and to practice flying. Paul and I drove his GTO to the big contest in Minneapolis to compete against real experts in Carrier. I had achieved a dead-reliable engine run, decent high speed performance given the limits of the engine, and reliable flight performance thanks to all the practice, nearly four weeks of flights most evenings. I managed to win first place in Class 1 and I was hooked. Paul was hooked, too, and went onto build his own carrier models.
I continued with the Mauler in competition, following up with an Airabonita and then a Don Gerber MO-1, always in Class 1. By the 1970's I was in New York, working and then living on Long Island. I got to fly in contests in the New York-New Jersey area and occasionally Pennsylvania, met a lot of nice Carrier guys, and got better at this. Still only an R/C club to fly with, so not much Carrier flying except at contests. But I won my share. I built MO-1s for Class I and Class II, took them to the 1975 Nats in Lake Charles and took 1st in Class II and 2nd in Class I, my First Nats trophies. I have been at every Nats since then. Notice I have not mentioned Profile yet. I didn't fly profile. But in 1978, the NCS was new and gave a very nice pewter plate to the overall high-point-total, the Eugene Ely Award. (Of course I liked the plate: I bought it and had it engraved, so it reflected my tastes. I was NCS president for its first 12 years.) Anyway, in order to win this plate, one needed the points that came from each class and I had never flown Profile. So before the 1979 Nats, I decided to build a GS Bearcat profile and powered it with a Tune-Hill .35, an engine based on a slow rat version of the OS .40 FSR. I made the first test flight at the 1979 Lincoln Nats, won 2nd place and won Class I and II and my first Eugene Ely award. I continued to fly Profile after that, although my favorites were still Class I and II. (Although you counted 10 1st in Profile, I checked and it is 11.)

The Bearcat was a reliable airplane and very fast. But the rules had changed for 1977 to give more points for low speed and people were learning that it made a difference. Dick Davis was hanging a Profile Carrier version of, I believe, a Mongoose. Dave Wallick won the 1980 Ohio Nats with about four minutes of hanging low speed, setting a new record and a new standard for Profile low speed flight. I managed to win Profile once more with the Bearcat in Reno in 1984 but it was time for something with a better low speed. I built a Leroy Cordes Spearfish and flew that for years, winning in 1988-1990 with it. My third Profile was an original MO-1 design flown 1992-2008. (I didn't have a lot of building time so I tended to stretch a model as long as possible. This one had a solder joint fatigue in 2008 and finally died.) My MO-1 won four 1sts, seven 2nds and two 3rds, and it held the profile record for a very, very long time. All but the last win were using old Tune-Hill engines, a design from the 70's. Eventually I switched to the Nelson Combat and I am still using that. After the MO-1 crash I needed a new profile model. I started building a modified Brodak Guardian (design by Bill Calkins) one week before the 2009 Nats. That was a good choice and it won in 2009-2011. I wrote the design details for Hi-Lo-Landings in the summer of 2009 and Gary Hull put it in Control Line World. I recommend this model highly for it's really good calm weather low speed, due to its thick airfoil. Thin airfoils seem to do better in windier conditions than the Guardian.

The simpler answer to your question as to how I won lots of Nats events is actually a lot simpler than all this might indicate: I worked pretty hard at Carrier and flew in a lot of contests. In the old days I could get to 10-12 contests a year and that kept me pretty sharp. There aren't that many around any more, sadly.
Carrier flyers are dying out, literally, and we are not picking up young people as fast as we lose old ones. This is pretty obvious. But, are there any rules changes that would help? I don't think there is a magic bullet here. There is always talk of getting rid of hanging on low speed, but that is a pretty drastic change that would obsolete present equipment and consequently lose some of the present flyers who won't want to rebuild their fleet. There are unofficial events, such as Skyray and Northwest Sport .40, that people are enjoying, but I think one of the reasons for that may be that they are, indeed, unofficial and are low, fun-type events. Making them official would mess that up. We do have Sportsman Profile Carrier which is popular in some parts of the country but not held in others. We always have it around here, without regard for how many contestants we are expecting. I wish more places would do that. We have Sportsman at the Nats every year, even though turnout is pretty low. I guess Sportsmen don't travel cross country to fly, but they might show up at local contests. Even the occasional stunt flyer might be interested in giving it a try if the local club will lend him a plane. We have had that happen, and I know Bill Bischoff kept "the Mule" that anybody could.

I have been pushing the Electric Carrier events. I and several others, including Eric Conley and John Vlna, think this is an improvement and are willing to switch most of our flying to Electric. Lots of places don't have contests including Electric. The rules were written to try to keep the scores for gas and electric close together. I have been working pretty hard on electric and can't get my Electric scores up to my corresponding gas scores, but they are close enough that I can compete in most local contests. I might go to more contests if they held combined events.

A good reason to support Electric is that this is the present and future technology for most R/C modelers. They are comfortable with the technology and it is easier for many of them to learn how to set up an electric system than a gas system. And the cost for Electric continues to drop, so that is not a barrier. So I am hoping for more R/C guys to give Carrier a try. I've met a few, but it's too early to know if this will help. I don't think it will hurt, though, and it's worth a try.

It would be nice if the barriers to beginning competition were lower, as they are in Stunt, for example. You can buy an ARF or an ARC that will allow you to compete, within your own ability, at all but the highest level of competition. If newcomers to Carrier (or more seasoned competitors who don't have time or inclination to build) had a decent model available with good flight characteristics, they might be willing to give it a try. Sadly, I have no answer as to how to make such an ARF available. At least we have a Brodak kit available everywhere (Guardian) that is fairly simple, and, with a few trivial modifications, can fly very well and win a lot of contests.
So, I have no easy solution that brings in lots of new competitors, just a few simple things that might help around the edges, like making the Sportsman event available everywhere. Perhaps the Electric events will help, too. Invite more people to your local contest and your local club, a simple act that can help every event.

Pete


I will keep posting them as they come in.

LM

Offline Louis Matts

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Ensign
  • **
  • Posts: 32
Re: PC Design, Wins, History ?
« Reply #21 on: March 12, 2016, 10:06:42 AM »
From Bill Bischoff, in my book "one of the greats":

Louis, thanks for thinking I might have something worthwhile to say. Feel free to share...

I started flying CL in 1971 in suburban Chicago. I moved to Texas in 1984 and joined the Dallas Model Aircraft Association. My first PC airplane was a Dumas Crusader, built in 1986. I flew it in Houston on Memorial Day weekend, and then my second contest with it was the '86 NATS in Lake Charles. There I met the carrier flyers I had only read about, and I joined NCS. 25 years later, I built another Crusader for nostalgia profile. It was a detailed thread on Stunt Hangar.

I won the NATS the same way anybody else does, by having the highest score among the people who flew THAT DAY, under THOSE CONDITIONS. It's always windy in Texas, so we learn how to fly in the wind. When it's windy at the NATS, we have an advantage. Honestly, the NCS Top Twenty scores are a better measure of performance than NATS victories. My NATS winning scores were by no means my best compared to what I was capable of. 
That being said, it pays to practice in less than ideal conditions.

I'm Ok with the rules as they are now. Over the years, I got quite tired of people who complained about hanging, or the planes not being scale enough, or a host of other things. The worst part was when somebody would invariably say "I don't like something, so YOU shouldn't be able to do it any more." Fortunately, I don't seem to hear that so much these days. I think the inclusion of 2.4 ghz radios is a good thing, as it makes building and setting up a model so much easier. There is lots of untapped potential here.

The way to increase participation at the local level is to have more carrier contests, so more people are exposed to the event. Once someone shows the tiniest bit of interest, put a handle in their hand and let them try it.

As for the NATS, all I can say is that we need to get more people interested at the local level first if we expect to see new faces at the NATS.

BB


Bill has been very help full, sending me his MO-1 plans, and answering my questions. Thank you Bill. y1

LM

Offline Louis Matts

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Ensign
  • **
  • Posts: 32
Re: PC Design, Wins, History ?
« Reply #22 on: March 18, 2016, 01:55:00 PM »
Very nice reply from Mr. Conley-

I was at a WAM contest in 1991 in Corning CA and saw this bunch of guys off in the dirt flying an event I had never seen before. I walked over and lo and behold they were flying Navy Carrier, they were having so much fun and the event turned out to be was a gift to me. I was raised in Santa Ana CA, El Toro Marine Air Station was south of me and Los Alamitos Naval Air Station was north of where I lived so all I saw when a plane flew over was a Hellcat, Corsair, or a Grumman Avenger (1944). I also was a frequent visitor to the Mile Square Marine Auxiliary air field on my bike where the Marines practiced carrier landings (bouncing), I couldn’t wait to get home from Corning contest to start building a carrier plane. At that time I was in a control line club called the “Central Valley Control Line Club”,valley referring to the San Joaquin Valley in CA. One of the members was making kits under the name of “Golden State Models” one of those kits happened to be a MO-1 design by our own Dick Perry NCS president. By the start of the 92 flying season I was placing or winning in every contest I entered, (I was retired and could practice 3 or 4 times a week) I practiced hard and long per Bill Bischoff's instructions.

     I was a late comer to the NATs, for some reason I always thought I was to old to travel back to Muncie. After I introduced Burt Brokaw to carrier and he was flying quite well he said one day, “why don’t we go to the NATs” and after I got him to promise that he would look after me there we went to the 2012 NATs and that is when I won a National Championship in PC. It was quite a surprise to me and much by default because Burt never got to put in his second flight in PC because of wind.  So that has been my one and only PC first at the NATs, I've attended four in a row now and enjoyed them all, always a good bunch of competitors and the 2015 NATs has been the best sense there were many more competitors than the previous three years, more really great people and their planes.

     I have no trouble with the current carrier rules. When flying with the WAM people there was not any talk about the rules, it was all fun a really great bunch of competitors. When I started flying in AMA contest I started to hear the grumbling. Funny thing was, none of the competitors was grumbling it was these guys that kept coming over to the carrier circle and telling anyone that would hold still that carrier had been ruined with the hang? I still am mystified with their song and dance, they have missed many good years of flying carrier. Actually I do have one concern now that I injured my shoulder in the 2015 NATs while pull testing my IC class 2 plane. I do believe the carrier planes should be pulled at 20Gs (not 25Gs) but I don't think the pilot should have to be part of the structural pull test. If the ED thinks the pilot is incapable physically of flying the plane then give the pilot a 40 pound pull test to test his strength and agility. I have seen several older men fall while making a pull test when something broke, its not very pretty and a wonder to me why more older participants haven’t been injured badly.

     Increased participation? As for the NATs, if more of the people that fly carrier would go to the NATs it would sure help. As far as local and regional participation, I've seen so many ideas and ways purposed to build participation and to me it just doesn’t do much good if you have no one to sell the idea to. Fly carrier now, later is not coming.  

Eric Conley


Thank you Eric.

LM

Offline Louis Matts

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Ensign
  • **
  • Posts: 32
Re: PC Design, Wins, History ?
« Reply #23 on: March 25, 2016, 04:08:20 PM »
Looks like this is the end of the line for any other reply's on this topic. I do thank everyone that responded to my questions, very informative & great insite on the "Greats". Got to get to building my 2 new PC's  H^^

LM


Advertise Here
Tags:
 


Advertise Here