Author Topic: AMA Rule Proposels (Read 1465 times)

skyshark58 · « **on:** November 26, 2007, 11:11:09 PM »

Gentelmen: Could we get your opinions about the two proposed control line rule changes?

#1 Has to do with allowing synthetic control lines in place of steel.

#2 Has to do with dropping the penalty for not keeping both engines running during
the low speed run.

Both of the proposals can be read in their entirety on the AMA web site.

Mike

Paul Smith · « **Reply #1 on:** November 27, 2007, 07:01:26 AM »

1. Line options:

I oppose this idea in ALL performance events: combat, speed racing, and carrier. The lines should be the simplest possible uniform standard.
Everybody should use exactly the same lines. A variety on lines opens the door for inventive ways to beat the system.

We should complete with engines, airplanes and piloting. The line spec should not be an item of competition.

What if the new lines increase perfomance and cost $400 a set? One more way to buy a win. NO.

Paul Smith · « **Reply #2 on:** November 27, 2007, 07:15:54 AM »

2. Two-engine carrier.

Back in the olden days, it was routine to build Tigercats and cut the outboard for LOW, but there was no bonus at all for twins.

I've been thinking of building a twin. Today's rules give you 20 points for keeping both engine running at HIGH, but penalize you half the LOW speed points if an engine quits during the LOW. Thus, you will certainly lose if you fail to keep them both going. So you get an extra 20 points for sure, but would lose about 80-to-100 if something goes wrong.

I haven't seen one twin entered under current rules, have you?

Are the people with money and time invested in single (everybody) willing to give break to a design that could make their stuff uncompetative?

Alan Hahn · « **Reply #3 on:** November 27, 2007, 07:38:43 AM »

Well it certainly sounds like if you can make it so the outboard engine goes to low throttle and doesn't quit (something a number of those "low-intelligent" RC fliers seem to be able to do), you could compete given the current rules. Why keep bitching

about the people who still fly carrier and win?
Several of those guys are now trying something new (e.g. electric) that could make their own stuff non-competitive. Get in on the ground floor and beat them!

Paul Smith · « **Reply #4 on:** November 27, 2007, 10:07:59 AM »

Somebody must think keeping two engines running is an issue, or else they wouldn't have bothered to attempt a rules change.

As I see it, it's not the "problem" of keeping two engines running, it's the ADVANTAGE of stopping the outboard. That's probably why the current rule is as it is.

eric conley · « **Reply #5 on:** November 27, 2007, 10:47:17 AM »

Mike, thanks you for bringing this to the attention of the general rank and file of carrier. A forum is an ideal place to air this and I hope people will go to the AMA site and study these proposed rules.
I'm a little lost on the twin engine rule change myself. I have given much thought to a AMA profile event entry with a twin engine plane and the ''what if one engine stops'' thing never entered my mind. Most of the newer engines and carburetors are pretty dependable and if you can enter a single engine plane in carrier and finish your flights you should be able to enter a twin and do the same (I think).
The reason that always stopped me is there are no good competitive combinations of engines available for the AMA profile event. The last combination I worked on was a Navarossi 21 on the inside wing and a Nelson 15 on the outside wing. I figured that would give me the maximum speed possible and both engines seemed to work well with carburetors. This was a pretty heavy (the Navarossi) combination of equipment but what the heck. The clincher to not do it was how much weight I would have to put in the outside wing tip, sort of tipped the scales on that project.
My point is, the failure to get entry's in multi-engine carrier has more to do with the size (36) of the engine package. Seems to me if the rules allowed two 21s there would be a stampede (well 1 or 2) to collect the extra points and join the competition. Keep in mind that twins are almost never ''faster, better'' than a single engine plane.
Thanks again Mike for getting this out front. eric

Joejust · « **Reply #6 on:** November 27, 2007, 11:58:01 AM »

Mike, the engine rule is a bit puzzling, but I could live with it. The proposal for using non metal lines is really wrong. Unless one is an expert in tying either a Polomar or Improved Clinch knot there is little chance that one can tie lines of equal length. It might work in other events like PA where there is the ability to change the handle setting to get neutral elevator setting. Because the lines must be tied on to some type of permanent line connector I doubt that most can tie the lines perfectly for the use of a three line handle. While the bursting strength of the new mono line is impressive I doubt that they will work in carrier. Many years ago I worked with the Dupont Co. in developing new fishing lines. There are many problems with mono that make their use doubtfull in control line flying, particularly carrier.
Joe

Clancy Arnold · « **Reply #7 on:** November 27, 2007, 01:08:58 PM »

Joe
I do not think that "Monofil line" is the intent. It has too much stretch to work. See my postings in Half A forum. The newer woven lines have almost no stretch and I have been using them for Quarter A and smaller models. See my IBTW (.020) and Micro (.010) Barnstormer postings.
Clancy

eric conley · « **Reply #8 on:** November 27, 2007, 01:34:34 PM »

While we are talking about the Carrier Rules Proposals (2) you may want to go to the AMA site and look at Rule Proposal CLG-09-02 that is aimed at the definition of CL-Profile. I don't know about you but I have had no trouble with the current rule and I don't know of any of my flying buddies that have either. For some funny reason I see this rule proposal as a give away to the electric motor people and a take away from the internal combustion people. I'm going to try to attach my thoughts to this forum entry. eric

Joejust · « **Reply #9 on:** November 27, 2007, 04:21:42 PM »

Clancy, The problem remains the same with woven lines. They will be extremly hard to tie 3 lines without the adjustment one can find with an adjustable handle. Perhaps the new woven lines will work in let us say Stunt, but with a three line handle I doubt if it can be done.
Joe

Bill Little · « **Reply #10 on:** December 02, 2007, 01:50:14 PM »

While I am not a great big proponent of the fiber lines in competition, I think the line length problem can be solved with clips like are necessary on the Ted Fancher Stunt handle (Hard Point) which makes different lengths of line clips necessary. ?? ?? ??

Author Topic: AMA Rule Proposels (Read 1465 times)

skyshark58

AMA Rule Proposels

Paul Smith

Re: AMA Rule Proposels

Paul Smith

Re: AMA Rule Proposels

Alan Hahn

Re: AMA Rule Proposels

Paul Smith

Re: AMA Rule Proposels

eric conley

Re: AMA Rule Proposels

Joejust

Re: AMA Rule Proposels

Clancy Arnold

Re: AMA Rule Proposels

eric conley

Re: AMA Rule Proposels

Joejust

Re: AMA Rule Proposels

Bill Little

Re: AMA Rule Proposels