Building Tips and technical articles. > 1/2 A building.
Half A at Brodak's - Rules discussion
Larry Renger:
Here in LA, we fly 1cc event with the full PAMPA pattern, It really is not that hard unless you come to the contest with an untried model.
Scores usually are in the 400s with strict judging. We don’t tolerate “That’s great for a 1/2A”. In light winds a small model can easily do a “Pro” pattern up to the pilot’s ability. Bart Klapinki borrowed my Sky Sport model and pulled a 495 point pattern on his first flight. Wish I could do that despite flying it all the time. HB~>
Practice, work out the bugs and you will prosper.
goozgog:
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.
Dennis Adamisin:
Keith
EXCELLENT post.
I was there when Cox (spearheaded by Larry Renger) brought a bunch of their then new ME-109's, with foam sheath wings, reed valve engines & external tanks to the NATs. Not sure what the engine configuration was, I would GUESS they were stronger than a stock Golden Bee. However the system WORKED and they instantly captivated a sizable group of otherwise serious stunt flyers into having an absolute blast! I was one of the Judges of an impromptu Stunt Contest that occurred.
As pointed out in the airticle you posted, in successive years the 1/2A event was confirmed and purpose built airplanes built around ever higher performing Tee Dees (the only hi performance choice available) became the norm. Performance was spectacular, but participation started to wane - took as much or more effort to participate in part because of the temperamental nature of extracting the max power needed for the ever more sophisticated (mostly bigger) airplanes to perform.
There are now more engine choices and (as flown at Brodak) choices up to .061. You can spend as much on a 1/2A Combat engine as you can on a high-zoot Pro Stunt engine. There were LOTS of great airplanes, but history suggests that the boom & bust will repeat itself.
There were folks at Brodak wistfully saying they wished there was a separate class for (much lower performing) reedies they used to fly as kids. In my mind that extended to the OK Cubs & similar that also existed as simple entry level engines that would run, albeit at a lower performing level.
I posted an earlier version of what follows in the Open Forum, ONLY AS A THOUGHT STARTER, for a reedy class event that would TRY to keep things simple. I copied (& updated) it here for the same reason - Why a Reedy class? Because THOSE are the engines we grew up on! I remember my brother & I burned up literally GALLONS of 30%-40% nitro (Rat Racer fuel) 8cc at a time through baby bees & golden bees. We even had a couple with dual port sleeves. However we'd be hard pressed to make a reedy competitive with even a Tee Dee, much less a Big Mig .061. Reedy engines are still plentiful too.
SUGGESTIONS FOR A REEDY CLASS: (just cuz ya gotta start somewhere) K.I.S.S.!
* Cox Reed Valve (any), OK Cub, Wen Mac or Testors up to .049. Includes Cox Product Engines with external tanks. No pressurized fuel systems.
* Flights to be done on a single tank of fuel, 3.5 minute(?) time limit. No maneuver scored after that time
* 35' lines, 15#(min) Spectra (short lines make it easier for single port engines, harder for the late series hi performance reedies because of excess speed)
* No Take-off or Landing, allow hand launch & belly landing (omitting LG improves performance when power is marginal)
* Maneuvers (blend of Modern & OTS maneuver descriptions. Goal is to fit expected flight duration for a Golden Bee with integral tank on ONE run)
> Starting & launch in 30 seconds - 5 points
> Reverse Wingover
> 3 round Inside loops (recover inverted)
> Inverted flight
> 3 round Outside Loops (recover upright)
> 3 round Lazy 8's (like OTS except keep to 45 degrees)
> 3 Vert 8's (like OTS)
> 3 OH 8's (like OTS)
> 4-Leaf Clover (enter/exit from level flight)
*One thought would be to replace the last three maneuvers with ones that can be flown from level flight. THAT should make it more plausible to fly this event when the winds start coming up
I think this would be easy to fly with a Baby Flite Streak or Combat Kitten type airplane with a Golden Bee - might get away with a Skyray or Stuntman. My often flawed long term memory is that I could get about that many maneuvers out of a Golden Bee on a single tank, but would have to try it again to see!
Why my fixation on a single tank flight? Just cuz - multiple flights are a PITA...
Inviting better ideas.
kenneth cook:
I really don't know why so many were wishing that they could've flown their reedies, that was never a issue. They were allowed from day one and that never changed. Paul Smith said it early on prior to the official rules being posted, if you want duration, put a tank on it. So where were all those people that wanted to fly? It takes little to nothing to make a reedie fly long enough. Put a product backplate on it or drill the stock tank and attach a external tank.
Dennis Adamisin:
--- Quote from: kenneth cook on July 05, 2019, 05:52:42 PM --- I really don't know why so many were wishing that they could've flown their reedies, that was never a issue. They were allowed from day one and that never changed. Paul Smith said it early on prior to the official rules being posted, if you want duration, put a tank on it. So where were all those people that wanted to fly? It takes little to nothing to make a reedie fly long enough. Put a product backplate on it or drill the stock tank and attach a external tank.
--- End quote ---
I dunno, maybe because using a reedy versus a Profi or Big Mig .061 is like showing up in the OK Corral with a rubber knife..?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version