I am not new to the Carrier events and I like what I like about the event in general. However, that being said, I start to see models of "Carrier Model Aircraft" that don't look like anything that ever flew off the deck and/or landed on one. Just because someone paints their model in "navy colors" doesn't qualify it for Carrier IMHO. Taking a Clown Racer and painting it Blue & Yellow with stars, bars and hook, doesn't make it a model of a carrier type plane---if it is used as a trainer---OK---but not for competition. Many years back I had a "trainer" that I converted to three line and put on a hook to practise---but if I would have shown up at any contest with carrier--they would have thrown me out the gate. Certainly Profiles or full built models of any nations carrier models do more than just retain the "spirit" of the event---even though their wings may be modified. I for one am a down to basics person and this is my personal preference in attending Carrier fly-ins. The great confusion starts in Carrier as in all other c/l events---"local rules"---what you can do here but not in the next county, they have their own rules, but that's why you join one club and not another---and that's another story. 

Paul if you want an MO-1 I can put you onto a kit---you know I started to stir this up on the Yahoo Carrier site and it has provided some interesting comments and opinions. I built my first Carrier in 1951 (while in college) and spent a few years chasing around Korea and Germany in the service. When I got back my profile Wildcat with an K&B .29 and a venturi flapper, third line and hook, we flew for ten years at various Carrier events and big local meets. I flew as fast as the K&B (tweaked a wee bit) would let me and then I would go into a normal slow speed and land. None of this ridiculous prop hovering of the MO-1's and more recently electric abominations, whose only relationship to a carrier plane is a blue stick body, yellow wings, stars and a hook. This is a true abomination, not the electric, the plane. The slo-flight portion has evolved to it's present ridiculous state because guys started to add full race tuned engines and produced ridiculous fast speeds and the AMA injected a "fix" into the system. Take any good event and sooner or later the "Cheating Edge" will stretch the envelope and the story goes around from there. No matter what hobby or sport, there is always someone who will finagle the event or occurrence. 

I certainly don't want an MO-1, kit, plans, or otherwise.  That lightweight observation plane was (and still is) a loophole with wings that should have been disallowed in the first rules cycle following its appearance.

The framers of the constitution were tinking Corsair, Wildcat, Dauntless, Avenger,,,,, Battle of the Coral Sea, Midway,, rah, rah!!   Not every bug smacker that (once) landed on a flattop.

  Gents I guess I don't hide my opinions too well---but they are mine and not necessarily the feelings of others. Let's just enjoy the c/l activities specially Carrier and my obsessivenesses are just that, mine. But crazy as it seems, there is a spot for each of us to stand on to observe and  accept or dismiss, as we choose. Keep your lines tight and you landings right on. See you around 

  Not to carry this too much further---this is what I am seeing and what others are saying as the event seems to turn off more than it attracts. It's just what I have seen at "contests" (5 competitors) with maybe 2-3 that even resemble a carrier plane either built-up or Profile. 'Nuff said 

I've flown carrier several times.  I'm fairly new to it, having flown 15 carrier, and a Skyray 35 setup for carrier in the sportsman or profile class.  I had intended to build a more serious plane and upgrade my hardware to be competitive, etc but I've lost interest.  I don't want to build a MO1, or any other similar caricature.  I want to build a somewhat scale-ish plane that a fairly knowledgable person could recognize, but I don't think it'd be competitive, so why waste my time?  Carrier is nearly dead around here, maybe if the status quo wasn't a MO1, it would be more popular.

I hear what you're saying or I'm reading what you're typing, and I understand it.  A big part of why I've flown carrier as much as I have is because of how helpful and inviting the carrier flyers have been.  I'm sure that there are other competitive planes then the MO1 but I don't see them winning.  For that matter I don't see them flying at all.  What I do see are MO1's and lots of them.  I wouldn't have come out here and started a thread about carrier.  The only reason I posted anything at all on the topic is that this stuff comes up fairly often and no one listens. 

I happen to be new to this board, but I'm not new to Navy Carrier.  I won't bother to try to change anyone's mind about what the Navy Carrier event is today.  I would like to clear up a couple of points on some of the comments that have been made.

One of the complaints is that "the event has become too technical .. " .  Newsflash - the event has NEVER been anything but 'technical'.  Go back to the earliest days of the Navy Carrier event and you will find McCoy .60's, running on pressure with high nitro fuel.  The "throttle" was a home-built exhaust slide (or rotor), and a home built fuel meter.  When Class 1 was added, K&B and HP rear rotor and other Rat-Race engines were likewise "throttled". This was because the scoring favored high-speed, pretty much above all else.  Scale points have always been kind of second-thought.  You don't have to document anything except general outlines and even those are never checked.  The event was called "Rat Race for blue airplanes", with pretty much the same attitude as it is now called "Prop hanging for MO-1's".  When Profile was added, there were no scale points.  If you think the MO-1 is ugly, you should see some of the planes flown before the 10 scale points were added to profile.  So if you want to fly a scale airplane, in a scale like manner and land it on a model of a carrier deck, go right ahead.  You always could, but you wouldn't have been any more competitive with "Old fashioned" carrier than you are in todays "Modern" style.

Secondly, the MO-1 did not come into the event when the scoring change made low-speed more important than the previous method.  The MO-1 came into the event because it was a simple box fuselage, of minimal
cross-section, with a shoulder wing (carved from a slab of 1/2" or 3/8" balsa).  It was the nearest "scale" design to a rat-racer that anyone could find.  It did not prop-hang, in fact it would barely slow down to 30 mph.  It had no flaps, so there wasn't any way to slow it much.  Didn't matter, since low speed didn't matter much.  It was fast.  It happened that, when the scoring DID change to make low-speed more important, the MO-1 was one of the easier prototypes to change into a prop-hanging, leadout-sliding freak-show.  I'm kidding - I personally fly a profile MO-1.  So sue me .. :-).  In fact, prop-hanging flight was pioneered by Dave Wallick, and I don't remember him flying anything but Guardians.

And lastly, the Skyray was not picked as a "beginners" carrier plane.  Skyray carrier was added to the Sig contest because Mike Pratt wanted an event that pushed Sig kits.  It was the 2nd Sig contest that had events other than Stunt, so it was 24 years ago.  I remember Mike commenting that he specifically designed the Skyray wing structure to allow room for a 3-line bellcrank and the ability to adjust the leadout position.  I was there when that conversation took place.  So comments about the "Stock" leadout position are not really relevant to the design criteria or the rules as they were originally envisioned.  Whether it makes a good carrier plane or not is really not relevant, but we do the best we can with it, because it's Sig's contest.  Sig wrote the rules and Sig continues to maintain the rules that are used, although there is nothing preventing anyone running a contest from changing anything about them.  They are merely one variation of a "local rules" event.

Mike A.

Well, it only means that I'm getting old -   Except for the Sig stuff (I have missed two of the 25 Sig contests), much of it is what I read or heard about, as much as what I experienced.

But much of the moaning for the  "lost" Navy Carrier event ignores the facts -- It has always been a mixture of guys (and some gals) who fly for different reasons, but the trophies go to those who score the highest.  Since the points come from performance, not scale realism, it becomes a "technical" quest for points.

Mike A

Hi Bob -

While I understand your point on .15, I can't say that I find it any harder or more of a trim challenge than profile. You fly a Sniper - Long before I ever heard of Bill B., I was flying a shoulder mounted foam wing on a pine fuselage that very much resembled a Sniper. I called it the MO-2.  Was it ugly - you betcha.  But not the ugliest at our local contests. It was also the first .15 carrier model that I was aware of that hit the speed limit AND turned a 3-minute low in the same flight.  So, for that summer I claimed the .15 "Record". Power was a Conquest .15 with a small Perry carb, running on 15% nitro.  Prop was pretty high-tech too.  A Master Airscrew 7-6, cut down to 6 3/8. ( I don't know if that prop would work these days - Master Airscrew changes prop designs without telling you quite often ).  Just for the record, my current .15 is the MO-3, and only slightly better looking.

I've taught several people to fly carrier using this exact setup - most are capable of doing 20 or 25 second laps on the first or second flight.  The "secret" of course is, they don't have to learn to trim a plane, just fly a plane that is already trimmed.

For a plane that causes headaches, I nominate the Skyray - in just about any event.  On this forum is a picture of e-carrier at the Sig contest.  There is a pretty good picture of me holding my grey/white/orange Skyray, and a pretty good description of my flight here:

http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php?topic=5672.msg46087#msg46087

When he says that my Skyray '... blew up ...', that is an accurate statement.  In my experience, the Skyray is prone to unexplained blowing up or some other carnage all too often.  I blame lite-ply ...      Whoever introduced lite-ply to the modeling world must not have ever actually FLOWN a model airplane.

Well, it's all good .. it's a hobby, not a religion.  So there are not absolutes.  I'm still not sure that I agree with a weight-based definition of .15 e-carrier, but at our spring contest, we will use whatever NCS comes up with.  We will allow electrics in .15 and we will CONTINUE to allow cross-flow .19's in .15, just like we have been doing since we first started flying .15 carrier in this area.  I've got a Veco .19 that would kick butt if I ever decided to pull it off my combat plane ..... of course, then I wouldn't have any combat planes that would do the 75 mph speed limit.

Mike A