News:



  • April 23, 2024, 09:23:35 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: AMA Carrier Rule Proposals  (Read 2178 times)

Offline bdt-m

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Lieutenant
  • ***
  • Posts: 91
AMA Carrier Rule Proposals
« on: April 28, 2023, 06:54:02 PM »
Proposal  CLNC24-01:
Current Rule:
11.2.1.2.
The longitudinal (forward and aft) axis of the fuselage as viewed from the center of the circle exceeds a
60-degree nose-high attitude except for momentary inadvertent deviations. When the 60- degree limit is
exceeded, the contestant shall be notified immediately and must correct model attitude immediately.
Failure to do so shall result in loss of low-speed score. A maximum of three notifications
shall be given. The longitudinal axis of the fuselage should be level during the high-speed flight. The
intent is to limit the model attitude to no more than 60 degrees above the level-flight attitude. Judging is best performed from the center of the circle using a viewing angle as near as possible (consistent with
the safety) to that of the contestant. The fourth notification shall result in loss of the low-speed point.

Change as follows 11.2.1.2.
The longitudinal (forward and aft) axis of the fuselage as viewed from the center of the circle exceeds a
30-degree nose-high attitude except for momentary inadvertent deviations. When the 30-degree limit is
exceeded, the contestant shall be notified immediately and must correct model attitude immediately.
Failure to do so shall result in loss of low-speed score. A maximum of three notifications
shall be given. The longitudinal axis of the fuselage should be level during the high-speed flight. The
intent is to limit the model attitude to no more than 30 degrees above the level-flight attitude. Judging is best performed from the center of the circle using a viewing angle as near as possible (consistent with
safety) to that of the contestant. The fourth notification shall result in loss of the low-speed points.

Basically, the same except a 30 degree max attitude vs the current 60 degree. My opinion is a horrible rules change..

Proposal  CLNC24-02:
Change Paragraph 11.2. as follows:
Present Rule Wording:
"Low-Speed Points. Low-Speed Points shall be scored as 10 times the ratio of High-Speed to Low Speed using the following formula, rounded to the nearest 0.01 point: Low-Speed Points = 10 x High Speed MPH / Low-Speed MPH. Low-Speed in Miles Per Hour (MPH) shall be calculated using the
following formula, rounded to the nearest 0.01 MPH: MPH = 1799.28 / time in seconds per paragraph
11.1. As an option, High-Speed MPH / Low-Speed MPH may be calculated as Low-Speed Time (sec) /
High-Speed Time (sec)."
Proposed Rule Wording:
"Low-Speed Points. Low-Speed Points shall be scored using the following formula, rounded to the
nearest 0.01 point: Low-Speed Points = 100 - Low-Speed MPH. Low-Speed in Miles Per Hour (MPH)
shall be calculated using the following formula, rounded to the nearest 0.01 MPH: MPH = 1799.28 /
time in seconds per paragraph 11.1"

The proposed new rule CLNC24-02 will diminish the low speed value and increase the high speed value. As an example, if your High Speed is 100 MPH and your low is 10 MPH, with a 100 point landing and a 100 point scale bonus your score would be: 100 + 90 + 100 + 100 = 390
This really emphasis High vs Low speed.
My opinion is this would turn carrier into a speed event.

Thoughts-opinions?

Online Paul Smith

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: AMA Carrier Rule Proposals
« Reply #1 on: April 29, 2023, 06:33:56 AM »
You missed the point of the second proposal.

Under current rules, a slow high speed will also reduce your low speed points, thus making high speed twice as important.

The proposed new rule effectively assumes a 100 MPH high speed for every entry for the purpose of low speed points. 
Thus, under the proposed rule, a slower model only loses high speed points and not also part of its low speed points.

Doing the math for a 100/20 score and a 100/10 score, the faster model still wins, but by a smaller margin.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2023, 07:48:13 AM by Paul Smith »
Paul Smith

Online Paul Smith

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: AMA Carrier Rule Proposals
« Reply #2 on: April 29, 2023, 07:53:54 AM »
I don't favor the 30 degree rule either.  I see it as an enforcement nightmare.

The effective way to deal with the all-day low speed would be to ban left hand rotation of the engine and sliding leadouts.  Then stopping, hovering, and going vertical would not be enforcement issues.
This would offend only the three people who dominate the event but open the door many others.  Between them they have 91% of the Nats wins in the last 16 years.  Enough is enough.
Paul Smith

Offline Bob Heywood

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 999
Re: AMA Carrier Rule Proposals
« Reply #3 on: April 29, 2023, 08:34:21 AM »
Concerning Proposal -01,

A majority of the currently active fliers like things just the way they are. It seems that the people who didn't like the rule change beginning in 1978 have long since walked away from Navy Carrier or just fly against themselves.

in general, the intent of limiting the attitude to 30 deg. is to open up some options on how to best approach Slow Flight. Plus, it would be a benefit to eliminate the Center Judge.

The rule change process is in its early stages. The first round of voting ends soon. We would like to keep the proposals active so there can be some meaningful discussion and perhaps some viable cross proposals. You really need to communicate your opinions to the Navy Carrier Contest Board member for your AMA District. Comments on Stunthangar are not gonna get the job done.
"Clockwise Forever..."

Offline Bob Heywood

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 999
Re: AMA Carrier Rule Proposals
« Reply #4 on: April 29, 2023, 09:08:33 AM »
Concerning Proposal -02.

Under the current scoring calculation, Low Speed has an overriding influence on the final score.

Right now the planes being flown run between 100 - 110 for High Speed and roughly 5 - 7 mph for Slow Speed, depending on the prevailing ground winds. The intent of the proposal is to open up the window for smaller, potentially faster planes that likely won't fly as slow as the larger planes to be competitive.

We are going to test this proposal against the current rule with the times from the NATS, along with some archival data, just to see how things work out.

We've been flying under the current rule for over 40 years. It's time for a change.

Same deal, contact your District Navy Carrier Contest Board member and offer your constructive opinion.
"Clockwise Forever..."

Offline bdt-m

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Lieutenant
  • ***
  • Posts: 91
Re: AMA Carrier Rule Proposals
« Reply #5 on: April 29, 2023, 10:04:56 AM »
I honestly don't see the merit of either proposal, as far as eliminating the center judge by going to 30 degree's vs 60, you will still need the center judge to enforce the 30 degree rule. After reading the posted responses; I dislike proposal 02 as well as I dislike 01.

IMO; leave the rules alone, seems rule changes starting from doing away with the 1974-75 rules have not been a positive move for carrier for whatever reasons. I say build & learn to fly to the current rules, changing the rules just because a few 'dominate" isn't the answer, seems like the wrong approach...again just IMO.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2023, 11:20:28 AM by bdt-m »

Online Paul Smith

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: AMA Carrier Rule Proposals
« Reply #6 on: April 29, 2023, 02:04:21 PM »
I honestly don't see the merit of either proposal, as far as eliminating the center judge by going to 30 degree's vs 60, you will still need the center judge to enforce the 30 degree rule. After reading the posted responses; I dislike proposal 02 as well as I dislike 01.

IMO; leave the rules alone, seems rule changes starting from doing away with the 1974-75 rules have not been a positive move for carrier for whatever reasons. I say build & learn to fly to the current rules, changing the rules just because a few 'dominate" isn't the answer, seems like the wrong approach...again just IMO.

30, 60, or 90 degrees needs to be judged from somewhere.
Paul Smith

Online Paul Smith

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: AMA Carrier Rule Proposals
« Reply #7 on: April 29, 2023, 02:34:03 PM »
Based on AMA's published results, it's surprising the whole category has not been dropped.

We drastically need rules revisions.  Sadly, the tiny number of full-time winners controls the system and will not allow meaningful change.
It is clear that the end of Carrier will not bother them as long as they win the final contest.

Electric Carrier, with three classes, has been offered at The Nats ten times.   Three events times three prizes times ten years equals 90 awards.  But only 50 awards were actually given due to meager entries. 
In the history of the events only two entrants came in forth place.  But five FIRST places were unawarded due to ZERO entries.
If that's not the definition of failure, what is?
Paul Smith

Offline bdt-m

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Lieutenant
  • ***
  • Posts: 91
Re: AMA Carrier Rule Proposals
« Reply #8 on: April 29, 2023, 04:44:44 PM »
Based on AMA's published results, it's surprising the whole category has not been dropped.

We drastically need rules revisions.  Sadly, the tiny number of full-time winners controls the system and will not allow meaningful change.
It is clear that the end of Carrier will not bother them as long as they win the final contest.

Electric Carrier, with three classes, has been offered at The Nats ten times.   Three events times three prizes times ten years equals 90 awards.  But only 50 awards were actually given due to meager entries. 
In the history of the events only two entrants came in forth place.  But five FIRST places were unawarded due to ZERO entries.
If that's not the definition of failure, what is?

Rule changes have the tendency to diminish entrants, some will not want to build all new planes & equipment. I worry that will be the case if the rules proposed pass.

If the goal is simplifying & eliminating the skill level needed to compete to the current set of rules, like low speed hanging and plane-equipment-engine tuning then I don't believe you will find a set of rules that serious competitors won't push to find what is needed to win & dominate....it's the nature of competition.

Even if you eliminate the slider, CCW engines, a few will prevail and find ways to win & dominate; hence the reason I feel it's best to leave the current rules in place. Make yourself more competitive, learn how to Hang like the best, find ways to win.

Offline Bob Heywood

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 999
Re: AMA Carrier Rule Proposals
« Reply #9 on: April 29, 2023, 04:49:34 PM »
Rule changes have the tendency to diminish entrants, some will not want to build all new planes & equipment. I worry that will be the case if the rules proposed pass.

If the goal is simplifying & eliminating the skill level needed to compete to the current set of rules, like low speed hanging and plane-equipment-engine tuning then I don't believe you will find a set of rules that serious competitors won't push to find what is needed to win & dominate....it's the nature of competition.

Even if you eliminate the slider, CCW engines, a few will prevail and find ways to win & dominate; hence the reason I feel it's best to leave the current rules in place. Make yourself more competitive, learn how to Hang like the best, find ways to win.

Sounds like a plan.

Build a Profile and join the fun...!
"Clockwise Forever..."

Offline john e. holliday

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 22773
Re: AMA Carrier Rule Proposals
« Reply #10 on: April 29, 2023, 07:27:13 PM »
Even though I haven't competed in quite a few years I say leave things alone with the exception of eliminating a few classes.  I have or was at this since there was only one carrier event.  If guy/gals want to win they need to practice.  I admire one individual who has done that also those in the past that were winners.  How many real navy carrier planes are electric powered?  So whoever my district rep is I say no change. D>K
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 bdt-m

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Lieutenant
  • ***
  • Posts: 91
Re: AMA Carrier Rule Proposals
« Reply #11 on: April 29, 2023, 08:13:07 PM »
Never thought of it this way; "How many real navy carrier planes are electric powered"....very good point DOC.

Offline Bob Heywood

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 999
Re: AMA Carrier Rule Proposals
« Reply #12 on: April 30, 2023, 06:09:01 AM »
REAL Navy Carrier plane...
« Last Edit: April 30, 2023, 09:09:21 AM by Bob Heywood »
"Clockwise Forever..."

Online Paul Smith

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: AMA Carrier Rule Proposals
« Reply #13 on: April 30, 2023, 08:50:49 AM »
Real Navy Carrier plane...

New rules should limit designs to high performance aircraft that actually were deployed on carriers.

No light observation planes that could land anywhere.
No one-off sales stunts like the Mustang and the Airabonita.
No German fighters that might have flown off a carrier that was never built.
No land planes that were launched from carrier with no return.
No land planes that made an emergency landing of a carrier.

That still leaves plenty of genuine US, British and Japanese designs.

Paul Smith

Offline bdt-m

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Lieutenant
  • ***
  • Posts: 91
Re: AMA Carrier Rule Proposals
« Reply #14 on: April 30, 2023, 11:28:13 AM »
Rule changes are complex and challenging for the many reasons already listed. One big reason why it is best IMO to leave the rules as they are, plus I personally like the current rules (and the 1974-75 rules) except for the wording in Profile Carrier "resembles" for the 10 bonus points, it is way to vague, and leaves room for dispute.

Again, just my opinion, however; if I was to compete, I would embrace the rules in place for the Win.

Online Paul Smith

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: AMA Carrier Rule Proposals
« Reply #15 on: April 30, 2023, 11:48:27 AM »
US Navy Carrier did fine with the original rules from 1949 until about 1968.
Simply put, 4 pounds, 44" wingspan and all the power you could get.
All you could get amounted to a Fox 59, McCoy 60, Dooling 61, or two JBB 36's.
But then came engines like the Supertiger, Rossi and OPS 65's the doubled the power (or more) and made the event a life-threatening monster.  It was fastinating to watch, but few people actually got involved.
Then came the Supertiger G21/40 and Class I, which saved the event for reasonable people.
Profile Carrier with STOCK plain bearing off-the-shelf engines brought in a deluge of NEW carrier flyers.

But the carrier KINGS of the day couldn't stand letting commoners win carrier prizes, so they GUTTED the Profile rules.  The new and current engine is a ball-bearing racing engine with left hand rotation.  So now the only way to win is to pay huge money to get an engine maker to downsize a 40 and make it left-handed.  No wonder three people have 90% of the Nats wins in the last fifteen years.

We need a set of rules that effectively sets the clock back to 1968 when ANYBODY could buy a Supertiger CRC 35 or a G21/40 and have a fighting chance to compete.  As of now and every rules change since 1975, the board is controlled by people who just want to win and being the sole Nats entry is just fine with them.

The only of rules that currently do that is NWS 40, which mandates an FP 40 of Tower copy of it.  That engine is no longer produced but they are plenty on Ebay.
Paul Smith

Offline Jim Carter

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 953
Re: AMA Carrier Rule Proposals
« Reply #16 on: April 30, 2023, 02:04:54 PM »
New rules should limit designs to high performance aircraft that actually were deployed on carriers.

No light observation planes that could land anywhere.
No one-off sales stunts like the Mustang and the Airabonita.
No German fighters that might have flown off a carrier that was never built.
No land planes that were launched from carrier with no return.
No land planes that made an emergency landing of a carrier.

That still leaves plenty of genuine US, British and Japanese designs.
What   %^@??  Just to throw some "stuff" in the pot for consideration:
You mean I can't use my Fox 35 powered Bi-Slob done up like Sqn. Cdr. E. H. Dunning who makes the first landing of an aircraft on a moving ship, a Sopwith Pup on HMS Furious, August 2, 1917 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_carrier-based_aircraft#/media/File:Dunning_Landing-on_Furious_In_Pup.jpg)??  Heck ... it's about as scale looking as the profile MO-1   :o :-\   (Now lem'me git outta' here before the real fussin' starts?)

Online Paul Smith

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: AMA Carrier Rule Proposals
« Reply #17 on: April 30, 2023, 06:12:35 PM »
My very point.

A Sopwith Pup or a BiSlob or a Cessna 150 can land anywhere.  But that doesn't make the carrier planes.
 
We need to stick with Hellcats, Wildcats, Corsairs and Zeros.

As a compromise, you can use a light observation plane if you can land it WITHOUT a hook.
Paul Smith

Online john vlna

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1353
Re: AMA Carrier Rule Proposals
« Reply #18 on: May 01, 2023, 12:11:30 PM »
I am OK with the current rules, personally I think it is a lot of fun to fly slow with the current rules, yes some folks are very, very good. That is because they have worked to be where they are. Don't worry so much-fly carrier or don't 

Online Paul Smith

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: AMA Carrier Rule Proposals
« Reply #19 on: May 01, 2023, 02:16:20 PM »
Judging by Nats entries and reported results, only about four or five people like the current rules.
Unfortunately, they seem to be content to pick up automatic Nats trophies every year until the end.

If I ran an event and couldn't even give away the 2nd and 3rd place awards I would be working on changes.

Paul Smith

Online john vlna

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1353
Re: AMA Carrier Rule Proposals
« Reply #20 on: May 01, 2023, 08:51:55 PM »
Unfortunately Paul you are correct. I don’t think rules are the problem. I think age and other interests may be the main reasons. There have been many fliers since I started flying in 1990 that are gone. Reasons vary but they all were able to fly extremely well under the current rules.By the way trophies at the NATS are based on number of entries, For a low turnout fewer places are awarded. There may not be lower place trophies going to wast.

Offline bill bischoff

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 1704
Re: AMA Carrier Rule Proposals
« Reply #21 on: May 01, 2023, 09:51:08 PM »
I wonder what it's like to hate everything... ???

Online Paul Smith

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: AMA Carrier Rule Proposals
« Reply #22 on: May 02, 2023, 07:10:42 AM »
Unfortunately Paul you are correct. I don’t think rules are the problem. I think age and other interests may be the main reasons. There have been many fliers since I started flying in 1990 that are gone. Reasons vary but they all were able to fly extremely well under the current rules.By the way trophies at the NATS are based on number of entries, For a low turnout fewer places are awarded. There may not be lower place trophies going to wast.

From what I gleaned from the posted Nats results, there were enough entry fees collected to cover three awards to all the carrier events since 2005.
But posted results indicate that in many cases there were not enough flyers with scores to claim many of the third places, several seconds and SIX first places.

We are in need some substantial changes to direct the carrier events tom equipment that can be bought TODAY and no remain chained to things three people had custom made 35 years ago.

A category can't live too much longer with two guys winning 72% of the time.
Paul Smith

Online Paul Smith

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: AMA Carrier Rule Proposals
« Reply #23 on: May 02, 2023, 08:54:25 AM »
I wonder what it's like to hate everything... ???

So, is discussing the rules is a hate crime now?

Too bad we didn't have more hate crimes in 1975. 
The self-serving package of rules changes of 1975 caused 75% if the carrier flyers to quit the events.
Paul Smith

Offline bdt-m

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Lieutenant
  • ***
  • Posts: 91
Re: AMA Carrier Rule Proposals
« Reply #24 on: May 02, 2023, 01:19:27 PM »
I wonder what it's like to hate everything... ???

Don’t see it as “hate”, more like complete frustration. Discussion of current & possible rules is OK IMO. Paul does have some issues with the ‘good old boys club’, at the same time he also has some valid concerns. Still; major rule changes are not the answer IMO, clarifying some vague wording would definitely help, like “arrested landing”, and “resembles” in PC, both leave room for ambiguity.

Online Paul Smith

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: AMA Carrier Rule Proposals
« Reply #25 on: May 17, 2023, 07:15:52 AM »
I heard today that BOTH of the proposals passed the first stage of voting.

The capping of low speed scores won't bother me, but is sure will hurt those who win by the four-minute low speed.  Under the proposal, a 5 MPH low would score 95 points, regardless of the high.  Under current rules a 5 MPH low coupled with a 90 high would yield 180 points.  The current "ratio" system makes the score skyrocket with very low lows.  With the profit of low speed capped at 99 points, the incentive to go really fast with return.

The 30 degree low speed will kill the advantage of hanging.  Why not just ban sliders and be done with it?  Whether the angle is 90, 60, 45, or 30 degrees, somebody still needs to judge the low speed angle thus pick the winner.  I can visualize a low more pilots being warned and ultimately punished under this rule.
Paul Smith

Online john vlna

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1353
Re: AMA Carrier Rule Proposals
« Reply #26 on: May 17, 2023, 07:59:05 AM »
changing the rules will cause me to say bye-bye ??? to carrier

Offline bdt-m

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Lieutenant
  • ***
  • Posts: 91
Re: AMA Carrier Rule Proposals
« Reply #27 on: May 17, 2023, 02:08:44 PM »
Proposal  CLNC24-01:
Current Rule:
11.2.1.2.
The longitudinal (forward and aft) axis of the fuselage as viewed from the center of the circle exceeds a
60-degree nose-high attitude except for momentary inadvertent deviations. When the 60- degree limit is
exceeded, the contestant shall be notified immediately and must correct model attitude immediately.
Failure to do so shall result in loss of low-speed score. A maximum of three notifications
shall be given. The longitudinal axis of the fuselage should be level during the high-speed flight. The
intent is to limit the model attitude to no more than 60 degrees above the level-flight attitude. Judging is best performed from the center of the circle using a viewing angle as near as possible (consistent with
the safety) to that of the contestant. The fourth notification shall result in loss of the low-speed point.

Change as follows 11.2.1.2.
The longitudinal (forward and aft) axis of the fuselage as viewed from the center of the circle exceeds a
30-degree nose-high attitude except for momentary inadvertent deviations. When the 30-degree limit is
exceeded, the contestant shall be notified immediately and must correct model attitude immediately.
Failure to do so shall result in loss of low-speed score. A maximum of three notifications
shall be given. The longitudinal axis of the fuselage should be level during the high-speed flight. The
intent is to limit the model attitude to no more than 30 degrees above the level-flight attitude. Judging is best performed from the center of the circle using a viewing angle as near as possible (consistent with
safety) to that of the contestant. The fourth notification shall result in loss of the low-speed points.

Basically, the same except a 30 degree max attitude vs the current 60 degree. My opinion is a horrible rules change..

Proposal  CLNC24-02:
Change Paragraph 11.2. as follows:
Present Rule Wording:
"Low-Speed Points. Low-Speed Points shall be scored as 10 times the ratio of High-Speed to Low Speed using the following formula, rounded to the nearest 0.01 point: Low-Speed Points = 10 x High Speed MPH / Low-Speed MPH. Low-Speed in Miles Per Hour (MPH) shall be calculated using the
following formula, rounded to the nearest 0.01 MPH: MPH = 1799.28 / time in seconds per paragraph
11.1. As an option, High-Speed MPH / Low-Speed MPH may be calculated as Low-Speed Time (sec) /
High-Speed Time (sec)."
Proposed Rule Wording:
"Low-Speed Points. Low-Speed Points shall be scored using the following formula, rounded to the
nearest 0.01 point: Low-Speed Points = 100 - Low-Speed MPH. Low-Speed in Miles Per Hour (MPH)
shall be calculated using the following formula, rounded to the nearest 0.01 MPH: MPH = 1799.28 /
time in seconds per paragraph 11.1"

The proposed new rule CLNC24-02 will diminish the low speed value and increase the high speed value. As an example, if your High Speed is 100 MPH and your low is 10 MPH, with a 100 point landing and a 100 point scale bonus your score would be: 100 + 90 + 100 + 100 = 390
This really emphasis High vs Low speed.
My opinion is this would turn carrier into a speed event.

Thoughts-opinions?

Agreed....both of these proposals are a mistake IMO. Leave the rules alone, period! If you want to fly SPEED, you have numerous event choices from 1/2A to D speed, + Jet. Neither of these proposals will increase participation, however; either one or both will obsolete current competitive equipment, causing further erosion of the number of entries.

Online Paul Smith

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: AMA Carrier Rule Proposals
« Reply #28 on: May 18, 2023, 04:29:16 PM »
changing the rules will cause me to say bye-bye ??? to carrier

As with many other categories of modeling, The AMA Rule Book gets so screwed-up that people abandon rule book events and just fly local events with common sense rules.

As I see it, these changes will only impact modern Profile, Class I and Class II, plus their electric variants.  Per Nats results there are only about three active flyers in these classes.

We will still have 15, Skyray, NWS-40 and the three Nostalgia events. 

Paul Smith

Offline bdt-m

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Lieutenant
  • ***
  • Posts: 91
Re: AMA Carrier Rule Proposals
« Reply #29 on: May 19, 2023, 11:06:06 AM »
As with many other categories of modeling, The AMA Rule Book gets so screwed-up that people abandon rule book events and just fly local events with common sense rules.

As I see it, these changes will only impact modern Profile, Class I and Class II, plus their electric variants.  Per Nats results there are only about three active flyers in these classes.

We will still have 15, Skyray, NWS-40 and the three Nostalgia events.

IMO....never a good idea to change rules that impact current participants based on an unproven assumption of increased participation. Never works...!

Online john vlna

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1353
Re: AMA Carrier Rule Proposals
« Reply #30 on: May 21, 2023, 08:12:11 AM »
agree

Online Paul Smith

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: AMA Carrier Rule Proposals
« Reply #31 on: May 22, 2023, 10:57:14 AM »
IMO....never a good idea to change rules that impact current participants based on an unproven assumption of increased participation. Never works...!

A radical rules change when there were 100 active flyers was a disaster.
Now that Carrier is down to the final five there isn't much to lose.

I, for one, will continue either way.  My opinion is NOT accompanied by the common threat of quitting if I don't get my way.  I welcome the new competition.  I seriously doubt that the current top dogs will quit either.
Paul Smith

Offline bdt-m

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Lieutenant
  • ***
  • Posts: 91
Re: AMA Carrier Rule Proposals
« Reply #32 on: May 22, 2023, 03:05:55 PM »
Seems if either or both proposals pass, you will turn AMA Carrier into a High-Speed event; won by smaller, faster airplanes with more powerful engines.

Online Paul Smith

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: AMA Carrier Rule Proposals
« Reply #33 on: May 22, 2023, 05:57:59 PM »
Seems if either or both proposals pass, you will turn AMA Carrier into a High-Speed event; won by smaller, faster airplanes with more powerful engines.

True.
But we won't have to mess with sliders and spend all day flying low speed.
The current rules have enabled three guys to win 92% of The Nats events for the last 15 years.
I can pretty-much guarantee that they will modify their planes or build new rather than quit.
Paul Smith

Offline bdt-m

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Lieutenant
  • ***
  • Posts: 91
Re: AMA Carrier Rule Proposals
« Reply #34 on: May 22, 2023, 06:04:14 PM »
True.
But we won't have to mess with sliders and spend all day flying low speed.
The current rules have enabled three guys to win 92% of The Nats events for the last 15 years.
I can pretty-much guarantee that they will modify their planes or build new rather than quit.

The other option is to get the other competitors that haven't flown for the past +30 years back into AMA carrier to beat the "three guys"...these "three guys" may be good, just not that good  n1
« Last Edit: May 22, 2023, 07:14:52 PM by bdt-m »

Online Paul Smith

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: AMA Carrier Rule Proposals
« Reply #35 on: May 23, 2023, 05:37:13 AM »
The other option is to get the other competitors that haven't flown for the past +30 years back into AMA carrier to beat the "three guys"...these "three guys" may be good, just not that good  n1

That option has always been on the table.

Take at look at the results of the last 15 years at Muncie.
Fifteen years, six AMA Rule Book events. three awards per event.  That is 270 awards.  Only ONE contestant who actually flew came in 4th place.  All the rest were routine participation awards.   Without bringing up the spreadsheet, about 92% of the wins went to three flyers with a few crumbs being scattered about.  Something on the order of 60 to 80 were unclaimed.

Those numbers indicate that the category is broken and needs to be fixed.
Paul Smith

Offline bdt-m

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Lieutenant
  • ***
  • Posts: 91
Re: AMA Carrier Rule Proposals
« Reply #36 on: May 23, 2023, 10:59:51 AM »
That option has always been on the table.

Take at look at the results of the last 15 years at Muncie.
Fifteen years, six AMA Rule Book events. three awards per event.  That is 270 awards.  Only ONE contestant who actually flew came in 4th place.  All the rest were routine participation awards.   Without bringing up the spreadsheet, about 92% of the wins went to three flyers with a few crumbs being scattered about.  Something on the order of 60 to 80 were unclaimed.

Those numbers indicate that the category is broken and needs to be fixed.

Reason why increasing participation is most important, don't agree with these two rule changes increasing participation. Need to look at other options or rules that would increase entries....hope I am wrong; these two proposals are not the answer IMO.

Offline Bob Heywood

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 999
Re: AMA Carrier Rule Proposals
« Reply #37 on: May 23, 2023, 02:37:40 PM »
OK Gentlemen,

Starting today, what would you do to sell Navy Carrier?

Perhaps more to the point, what are you wiling to do to help?
"Clockwise Forever..."

Offline bdt-m

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Lieutenant
  • ***
  • Posts: 91
Re: AMA Carrier Rule Proposals
« Reply #38 on: May 23, 2023, 04:31:25 PM »
OK Gentlemen,

Starting today, what would you do to sell Navy Carrier?

Perhaps more to the point, what are you wiling to do to help?

Good question...!

I would start with looking at what are the current restraints affecting low number of entries, while not diminishing the challenge of the event(s). As a past carrier contestant who is considering returning to AMA carrier events, I see the following issues that should be addressed with the current set of rules:

For PC; eliminate the vague wording for bonus scale-not scale of 10 points. The word "resembles" is an issue IMO, we should not have rules that are vague and open for bias or varying interpretation. Either have a defined scale requirement or don't. I personally know 3 different possible PC competitors that have stopped flying PC carrier of the vague "resembles" rule. According to Paul, since basically PC has 3 contestants that win +90% of the AMA Nat's....this alone has the potential to double the possible competitive entries.

For CI, CII & PC; Define clearly what an "arrested" landing is. Again, a vague rule open to interpretation...doesn't have to be, it can clearly state "must stop by wire/rope engagement with hook".... or a similar statement.

Seems one big issue IMO is we are all getting older, some are ahead of the aging curve. IMO we need to allow entries to either fly or launch the model they entered under their name. Similar to Speed rules; someone else that is an AMA member can fly the entry. This would allow those that can't fly the higher power events to build, participate, compete and enjoy the carrier event.

On Non-AMA carrier like Nostalgia; for Gods sake why allow modern engines to compete in a class that is based around 1973-1976 rules? If it's Nostalgic carrier, it should be a given to use engines belonging to the time period. Plenty of older plain bearing engines from the 70's are available for a fraction of the cost of modern-day engines....either tighten the rule, or increase engine bonus points for time specific engines to 100 bonus points.

Increase exposure to AMA Carrier; locally as well as Nationally. As someone looking at Carrier again (as I mentioned above)...for the West Coast; Carrier is 'DEAD', NO information on events, for the most part it applies to all of Control Line.... this needs to change; how I am not sure, I do want to change this. However, this might answer the question; "what are you willing to do to help"....

Last; leave the rules alone as they are, change is not always good. If I was selfish about what would benefit me the most, I would say pass both rule proposals. The result will become 'Speed Carrier'.... right down my wheelhouse.

Online Paul Smith

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: AMA Carrier Rule Proposals
« Reply #39 on: May 24, 2023, 07:01:03 AM »
OK Gentlemen,

Starting today, what would you do to sell Navy Carrier?

Perhaps more to the point, what are you wiling to do to help?

Very simple:

Scrap the current events and replace them with all new classes based on equipment you can buy TODAY.

All three classes would be Profile Scale with normal (counterclockwise) engine rotation and NO sliders.  15 Class, 25 Class and 46 Class.  Nobody really wants to build three-dimensional scale models that don't fly well anymore.

In the absence of left-handed engines and sliders, there would not be much (if any) need to police the angle of attack.

I would accept the proposed simple low speed scoring (100 point minus low MPH).

You CANNOT  get new people to enter an event that is dominated by racing 40's destroked to 36 and made left-handed in 1988.  Those who got K&B, MVVS and Nelson to make these engines got their money's worth long ago, along with a heap of records and Nats prizes.







Paul Smith

Online Paul Smith

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: AMA Carrier Rule Proposals
« Reply #40 on: May 24, 2023, 07:41:36 AM »
OK Gentlemen,

Starting today, what would you do to sell Navy Carrier?

Perhaps more to the point, what are you wiling to do to help?

Take a look at the world of F2.
All four events are high tech, high performance, and high cost.
But they all have high participation.  Why?
Because all four events have adapted to the the technology of TODAY and the equipment is readily available to anyone who choses to buy it.



Paul Smith

Offline bdt-m

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Lieutenant
  • ***
  • Posts: 91
Re: AMA Carrier Rule Proposals
« Reply #41 on: May 24, 2023, 10:13:27 AM »
Take a look at the world of F2.
All four events are high tech, high performance, and high cost.
But they all have high participation.  Why?
Because all four events have adapted to the the technology of TODAY and the equipment is readily available to anyone who choses to buy it.




Very simple:

Scrap the current events and replace them with all new classes based on equipment you can buy TODAY.

All three classes would be Profile Scale with normal (counterclockwise) engine rotation and NO sliders.  15 Class, 25 Class and 46 Class.  Nobody really wants to build three-dimensional scale models that don't fly well anymore.

In the absence of left-handed engines and sliders, there would not be much (if any) need to police the angle of attack.

I would accept the proposed simple low speed scoring (100 point minus low MPH).

You CANNOT  get new people to enter an event that is dominated by racing 40's destroked to 36 and made left-handed in 1988.  Those who got K&B, MVVS and Nelson to make these engines got their money's worth long ago, along with a heap of records and Nats prizes.

It seems what you are saying is a lack of equipment, specifically .36 engines for PC.... I agree this is a major point, as you stated "absence of left-handed engines".

I don't agree with "sliders....angle of attack", both sliders & angle of attack (60 degree's), are available to everyone. Sliders are very easy to build, LS at 60 degree is a matter of building the proper plane (engine can be CW or CCW) and PRACTICE, lot's of PRACTICE.

A lot of good information on both sliders & plane design has been shared & published by everyone; Melton, Bischoff, Mazur, Cordes, and a host of other top carrier flyers. Can't use sliders & 60 degree as an excuse not to compete based on non-available equipment, the lack of .36 competitive engines is a viable excuse.

Soo; let's get someone to make a dozen .36 CW & CCW PC & CI (can be .40) engines.... y1

« Last Edit: May 24, 2023, 07:35:03 PM by bdt-m »

Online Paul Smith

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: AMA Carrier Rule Proposals
« Reply #42 on: May 24, 2023, 11:03:28 AM »
So; let's get someone to make a dozen .36 CW & CCW PC & CI (can be .40) engines.... y1
[/quote]

A more viable approach would be to simply change the Profile Carrier engine specification to "RC 40 engine with the factory throttle and CCW rotation only".

That's essentially the same as NWS-40 with the exception that NWS-40 specifies an engine that went off the market decades ago.  But OS FP40's are still available while left handed K&B 5.8's are not.

Sliders:  Yes I made some and one of mine still works.
Without sliders anybody can do a TWO minute low and the fastest plane wins.
With sliders anybody can do a FOUR minute low, low speed violation are questionable judgement call, and the fastest plane STILL wins.

Paul Smith

Offline Bob Heywood

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 999
Re: AMA Carrier Rule Proposals
« Reply #43 on: May 24, 2023, 08:47:46 PM »
Good question...!

I would start with looking at what are the current restraints affecting low number of entries, while not diminishing the challenge of the event(s). As a past carrier contestant who is considering returning to AMA carrier events, I see the following issues that should be addressed with the current set of rules:

For PC; eliminate the vague wording for bonus scale-not scale of 10 points. The word "resembles" is an issue IMO, we should not have rules that are vague and open for bias or varying interpretation. Either have a defined scale requirement or don't. I personally know 3 different possible PC competitors that have stopped flying PC carrier of the vague "resembles" rule. According to Paul, since basically PC has 3 contestants that win +90% of the AMA Nat's....this alone has the potential to double the possible competitive entries.

For CI, CII & PC; Define clearly what an "arrested" landing is. Again, a vague rule open to interpretation...doesn't have to be, it can clearly state "must stop by wire/rope engagement with hook".... or a similar statement.

Seems one big issue IMO is we are all getting older, some are ahead of the aging curve. IMO we need to allow entries to either fly or launch the model they entered under their name. Similar to Speed rules; someone else that is an AMA member can fly the entry. This would allow those that can't fly the higher power events to build, participate, compete and enjoy the carrier event.

On Non-AMA carrier like Nostalgia; for Gods sake why allow modern engines to compete in a class that is based around 1973-1976 rules? If it's Nostalgic carrier, it should be a given to use engines belonging to the time period. Plenty of older plain bearing engines from the 70's are available for a fraction of the cost of modern-day engines....either tighten the rule, or increase engine bonus points for time specific engines to 100 bonus points.

Increase exposure to AMA Carrier; locally as well as Nationally. As someone looking at Carrier again (as I mentioned above)...for the West Coast; Carrier is 'DEAD', NO information on events, for the most part it applies to all of Control Line.... this needs to change; how I am not sure, I do want to change this. However, this might answer the question; "what are you willing to do to help"....

Last; leave the rules alone as they are, change is not always good. If I was selfish about what would benefit me the most, I would say pass both rule proposals. The result will become 'Speed Carrier'.... right down my wheelhouse.

That's a bit to cover.

First off I agree completely that Nostalgia is out of control. I think from a marketing point of view it should be re-branded as Classic Navy Carrier. Only kits and designs available prior to the 1978 cut-off should eligible. The engine issue is a bit more complicated as there may or may not be enough older engines available. However, I would give the schnuerle engines a performance factor for High Speed. The High Speed Score would be XX% of the actual speed instead of giving the non-schnuerle engine a handicap. I might even go so far as explicitly making certain engines ineligible.

As for the rule issues, any AMA member may submit a Rule Change Proposal. If you feel strongly about something submit the proposal. It's all outlined on the AMA web site.

Communication is an issue. NCS needs a dedicated writer/editor/publisher for our High - Low Landings publication. Any takers???

We also need a web site. The treasury is not big enough to contract the job out on the open market so we need to rely on a volunteer. Any takers for this task???

"Clockwise Forever..."

Offline bdt-m

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Lieutenant
  • ***
  • Posts: 91
Re: AMA Carrier Rule Proposals
« Reply #44 on: May 25, 2023, 11:59:54 AM »
Bob:

Plenty of older PC Nostalgia engines on eBay. I see a few C35's, McCoy-Testor and even Fox's. Running modern day schnuerle ball bearing vs +62 year old plain bearing single bypass engines shouldn't be allowed IMO... apples & oranges.

I might be in a position end of the year to assist in both needs; NCS & Web.


Online john vlna

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1353
Re: AMA Carrier Rule Proposals
« Reply #45 on: May 25, 2023, 03:53:19 PM »
I always used the ST c35 plain bearing in nostalgia. I still have 2 or three if anyone is interested, along with some McCoy and K&B plain bearing motors.
I also have nostalgia profile that is electric, probably not legal  VD~ VD~

Online Paul Smith

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: AMA Carrier Rule Proposals
« Reply #46 on: May 25, 2023, 06:44:38 PM »
1978 cutoff?  Who dreamed that up?

1975 was the end of the old days.  In 1976 we were flying the current rules.

Who would design a new model that didn't fit the rules? 

Not that it will ever change, but 1975 was the correct year. 

If I had any impact on the engines, I would allow any pre-1976 RC engine and modern PLAIN BEARING engines.  I would give some slack on the engine rule in the interest of participation.
Paul Smith

Online john vlna

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1353
Re: AMA Carrier Rule Proposals
« Reply #47 on: May 25, 2023, 09:25:20 PM »
Paul i believe 1978 comes from the current nostalgia rules as the cutoff date for an airplane to be eligible as a nostalgia plane. Similar to a lot of the pampa classes which have cutoff dates. I think Dick Perry was the principal drafter of nostalgia rules
The plane i have flown for at least 25 years is a Mottin XPC-1 (1969 design) with a ST C35 plain bearing. Would have looked very natural in 1970

Offline Kris Millard

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • New Pilot
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Re: AMA Carrier Rule Proposals
« Reply #48 on: June 19, 2023, 04:39:00 PM »
If you're looking for new faces, try getting the guys who fly stunt but are not good enough to be competitive to come over and borrow a plane and try carrier. Thats how I got started. I can't do an outside loop to save my life, but I can win carrier contests. we have gotten three more carrier guys in our club as converts. I love all the classes, but I am actually getting good at 60 deg hangs. Please don't take it away. As to the same old faces winning, it's because they are dedicated and practice. All the dang time! Changing rules to de-skill an event is like participation trophies for kids soccer teams, I mean why reward excellence right. MAYBE WE SHOULD JUST DRAW FOR A WINNER AND GO GET LUNCH. Sorry, I hit caps lock. Didn't mean to. Anyway, I don't seek another trophy. I seek to improve my skills, compete with a bunch of awesome flyers, and have more fun than should be allowed. If you want a level playing field, fly NWS.40 or whatever they do back east. I fly it. At our last contest we had 4 people in AMA Profile but we had 13 in NWS.40. But most of us also fly other classes too. It's popular cause its easy and no stress. But I can tell you I am way more proud of my first in Profile than my first in NWS.40...It takes more skill and you're up against better flyers!

Electric? Ewww! Frying castor oils in the morning just...smells like victory!

Offline bdt-m

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Lieutenant
  • ***
  • Posts: 91
Re: AMA Carrier Rule Proposals
« Reply #49 on: June 19, 2023, 05:30:23 PM »
If you're looking for new faces, try getting the guys who fly stunt but are not good enough to be competitive to come over and borrow a plane and try carrier. Thats how I got started. I can't do an outside loop to save my life, but I can win carrier contests. we have gotten three more carrier guys in our club as converts. I love all the classes, but I am actually getting good at 60 deg hangs. Please don't take it away. As to the same old faces winning, it's because they are dedicated and practice. All the dang time! Changing rules to de-skill an event is like participation trophies for kids soccer teams, I mean why reward excellence right. MAYBE WE SHOULD JUST DRAW FOR A WINNER AND GO GET LUNCH. Sorry, I hit caps lock. Didn't mean to. Anyway, I don't seek another trophy. I seek to improve my skills, compete with a bunch of awesome flyers, and have more fun than should be allowed. If you want a level playing field, fly NWS.40 or whatever they do back east. I fly it. At our last contest we had 4 people in AMA Profile but we had 13 in NWS.40. But most of us also fly other classes too. It's popular cause its easy and no stress. But I can tell you I am way more proud of my first in Profile than my first in NWS.40...It takes more skill and you're up against better flyers!

Electric? Ewww! Frying castor oils in the morning just...smells like victory!

Agreed... the skill needed to build, go fast, slow & hang a model at 60 degrees, plus the smell of Glow Fuel makes it hard to beat. Also agree the First Place in PC would make anyone proud to have achieved the winning result.


Advertise Here
Tags:
 


Advertise Here