Brad LaPointe sent me this as food for thought.
Larry might be right about not making excuses
for 1/2A's being able to fly the full pattern.
My TD.049 runs seven minutes plus on one ounce
of 10%. I don't know how reed engines can
fit into the event without external tanks.
Yet.
From Model Airplane News - October 1977
Sunspot. Control line stunt model, for 1/2 A power.
Quote: "COMPETITION 1/2A STUNT. The exact year is hard to pinpoint, but perhaps 1974 marked the revival of 1/2A Stunt. Cox Manufacturing ignited the spark by distributing a number of their 'Super-Stunters' at the '74 Nats, and ever since then, when stunt stars sported these mini-craft as a gag, the event has burgeoned.
The appearance on the scene in 1975 of such fully blown microstunters as Tercel"foreshadowed the disappearance of the gag. Some stunt heavies were beginning to transcend the sub-twenty dollar, out-of-the-box jobs, and the gleams which shone in some eyes indicated desire that the event be taken seriously.
It may now be proving itself worthy of serious consideration. At the '76 Nats all the idiosyncrasies were visible that can be observed in the 'father' event: competitive mannerisms, prepared equipment, rehearsed patterns, etc. Bob Whitely, Keith Trostle, Jim Lynch, Jim Armour, and Frank McMillan are some stuntsters who made 1/2A in '76 a bit more interesting than in recent years, by competing with time-constructed vehicles. Perhaps as much effort went into their '/2A's as went into their 'regular' stunt ships, seeing them fly in a wind that made even closely watched Walker Cup flights look bad would make it believable.
In addition, Bob Hunt reports from his renowned New Jersey wing factory that considerable numbers of Half-A foam wings are sold regularly; monthly pictures and columns in Model Builder magazine by 'Mr Half-A' himself, Larry Renger, indicate that a certain cross section of the modeling populace is into it enthusiastically.
In spite of the seriousness with which some are taking the event, these quasi-statistics should not cause disillusionment.
Competitively, 1/2A is an aerobatic controversy. This should not surprise the SSF (Serious Stunt Flier, as coined by Model Builder's 'Dirty Dan' Rutherford), for within Stunt society there are pros and cons for everything, even for the style clothes worn while flying. So, if this mini-event's revival is to be observed, consideration must be given to what's happening on the other side where dwell corner-of-the-eye cynicism, fist-clenched dissention, and all that other "heavy stuff' bad guys usually reek of.
For one thing, the word 'official' must run the gauntlet through the AMA. It seems that no one has yet chosen to propose it and follow through. Well, there are 1/2A events; maybe the Stunt clique just doesn't want one.
Although there is apparent interest, the event is still in a stage that has yet to progress beyond mere novelty. Half-A Stunt has been fortunate in its reportage, and perhaps a bit overrated with regard to its popularity. There have been practically no local 1/2A Stunt events, and at the Nats where the event does happen to take place, it is loosely organized, with no clear definition of governing rules.
Finally, there are hard-core cons who consider Half-A a ball-and-chain around the foot of Acrobatics. This group feels that the father stunt event is losing valuable prime time to a meaningless goof-off event, and that PAMPA, in addition to local contest holders across the country, has enough problems putting on well-run Stunt contests, especially the Nats, without complicating and compounding things with 1/2A.
Who is right? On a competition level should 1/2A be promoted or not? This is something PAM PA must deal with objectively, because it utilizes good effort - something that even the father event has trouble eliciting..."
Sunspot, MAN, October 1977.
Topic: Half A at Brodak's - Rules discussion (Read 41548 times)