stunthanger.com

Speed,Combat,Scale,Racing => Carrier => Topic started by: Bob Riegl on September 27, 2007, 06:29:28 AM

Title: Carrier Farce
Post by: Bob Riegl on September 27, 2007, 06:29:28 AM

 S?P 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.  D>K

Title: Re: Carrier Farce
Post by: Paul Smith on September 27, 2007, 11:52:20 AM

I'm not sure what triggered this comment,,,

Might it possibly be:  15 Profile Carrier at The Brodak?

Mr. B gives a bonus for the use of his kits.

"Some might say.
The glass is half full,
Others might say, the glass is half empty,
I say, where's the bar maid?"

While Brodak gives a bonus for his kits, he but doesn't offer much on the 15 profile menu.
The good news is: he doesn't make an MO-1.

ps: Sig also owns a field and hosts a contest: Skyray Carrier !!!

How can you (further) make a farce of an event that condones prop-hovering MO-1's?

Title: Re: Carrier Farce
Post by: Bob Riegl on September 27, 2007, 04:34:47 PM

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.  HB~>

Title: Re: Carrier Farce
Post by: john e. holliday on September 27, 2007, 06:36:54 PM

Bob, I don't know what brought this on.  My first Carrier NATS was in 1964 at Grand Prairie, Texas.  Then I didn't make it back to the NATS until 1970 in Glenview, Illinois.  The best I ever did was a Chickopee, MA NATS when I flew a Consolidated Mauler with two line electric control.  I have not accomplished the hanging portion of carrier yet.  It is just lack of practice.  I was not competing when the sliders were coming in.  Otherwise I myself would have put in a proposal to out law them.  But, after watching 15 & Skyray carrier in which a slider is not allowed, you don't need it.  I have spent quite a few years helping in carrier in some form or another at the NATS.  I admire the guys that can fly the low speed like they do.  If you like the way carrier was flown in the early days maybe you should look into Nostalgia Carrier.  I have been flying the old Roberts Bearcat with an old Supertigre 35.   Now as far as scale points. go read the rule book again.  Basically all we look at is front, side and top view.  As far as color schemes if it looks right it goes.  After one of the NATS when a profile almost won without scale points a proposal was passed that disallowed profiles in scale carrier.  Don't take my word on this as I may have to double check on that.  Anyway I need to get a good scale ship going again.  Have fun,  DOC Holliday

Title: Re: Carrier Farce
Post by: Paul Smith on September 27, 2007, 06:38:49 PM

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.

Title: Re: Carrier Farce
Post by: bfrog on September 27, 2007, 09:10:22 PM

A few comments. The blue stick body, yellow wings, stars and a hook plane was actually designed by a multi-time National champion and was built to rules for 15 carrier. This event is there to encourage people to try carrier. It's meant to give them a starting point. It does not have the dreaded slider and is speed limited so that race engines need not apply. The electric abomination as it was so elegantly described took a lot of work to get in the air and has taught me a lot about a new way to power control line. The fact that there were 6 times as many electric motors sold for model airplanes last year compared to fuel engines indicates that a lot of people think its a good way to fly. To fly the electric I can go to a nearby park, to fly the fuel version I have to drive 40 miles each way to the only field in the area that will allow unmuffled engines. The electric gets more flying time needless to say.

As for MO-1's, yes, there are a lot of them. Are they the only competitive model? NO. At this years Nats I did farily well with a DeHaviland Vampire that flew as well (or even better) than most of the MO-1's. Eric Conely has a Corsair that he flies extremely competitively along with his ME-109. Randy Bush has a Bearcat with a Thunder Tiger 36 that has posted very good scores this year. It takes work and practice to get other planes to do well but that can be accomplished. You have to build and fly them until the work well.

I flew my carrier planes last weekend and will fly them again this weekend. Practice is the way you improve and learn. I plan to go to 3 contests in October and will bring 3 different planes. One of the contests actually has electric classes, along with the AMA events and Nostalgia (for those that don't like the "new" rules). There will be a good turnout at all of these events by people who want to FLY carrier, not just take pot shots from the sidelines. I like to encourage participation in modeling and try to be positive, open minded and involved in what is going on now and in the future. This is a hobby and is there for enjoyment. If it isn't enjoyable for some people they can quietly do their own thing and let the rest of us have a good time.

Bottom line is there are classes for old, new and future carrier planes that are accessable to anyone who wants to be active in the hobby and put in the effort. Build it, fly it, have fun.

Title: Re: Carrier Farce
Post by: Bob Riegl on September 28, 2007, 07:03:01 AM

 ;D 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  8)

Title: Re: Carrier Farce
Post by: Andrew Hathaway on September 28, 2007, 10:34:20 AM

No offense to anyone intended, but carrier as it is now is boring.  Most of the contests I go to don't have many entries in the carrier classes that exist now.  Usually the bulk of the planes in the pits don't look real.  There is nearly zero scale element.  A real full size MO1 is boring.  I actually went out on google and searched for pictures of the real plane since all the MO1 models I've seen haven't really given me any idea what a real one would look like.  When it's modeled with no scale details with all the high tech goodies hanging all over it, all I see is a purpose built, high performance tool.  At that point its no longer modeling Navy Carrier, all the fun goes out the window and it becomes a technical event where the goal is to have a plane that flies really fast, flies really slow, and finishes with a target landing.  The high end engines and equipment people are using just turn me off.  I'm not interested in a technical event.  I don't want to spend my time hunting down a reversed rotation crank, or some obscure engine.  I don't want to build a MO1 and I dont want to compete against them.

Title: Re: Carrier Farce
Post by: Bob Riegl on September 28, 2007, 11:03:08 AM

 8) 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  D>K

Title: Re: Carrier Farce
Post by: skyshark58 on September 30, 2007, 09:11:18 PM

I wonder why all these non carrier fliers bash carrier so often? When I read the other sections I don't see people saying they don't like stunt because real airplanes don't do stunts like the models do. I don't see people say combat is dumb because the go too fast and smash into one another. I don't see letters about scale models going too fast and being unrealistic. No one complains that speed planes are way too fast, dangerous and noisy. Just what is it that motivates modelers that don't even fly the event too continually complain about prop hanging, the color scheme or the type and design of the models being used. I just don't get it. If they don't like carrier go hang out at the what ever it is that they do like and l quit complaing about an event they aren't involved with.  ???

Title: Re: Carrier Farce
Post by: Andrew Hathaway on September 30, 2007, 10:53:38 PM

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.

Title: Re: Carrier Farce
Post by: bfrog on October 01, 2007, 12:30:47 AM

Andrew,

If you read some of the posts above you might have learned that there are competitive planes that are not MO-1s. If you look at the pictures in the AMA site for this years Nats you can see that the planes are not caricatures and do resemble navy planes that are recognizable. If you read some of the posts you can find non-exotic motors that are comptetive. I have never built an MO-1 and have had a lot of fun and resonable success in carrier ( have built a Guardian and now fly a DeHaviland Vampire.  if you want plans and details, email me and I will gladly provide what help I can). When I started flying carrier in 2001 there was one other guy at my field that flew carrier. Now there are 7 or 8. Partly because I promoted it and kept at it, partly. because its fun and different. I certainly didn't tell everyone there that the only good plane was an MO-1 or whine and complain that the rules changed and made the event worthless. I flew my plane, practiced, crashed, fixed broken parts, learned and had success with it. Others saw this as positive and maybe I helped them get involved.

If you have flown 15 and Skyray you would really enjoy a good profile plane with a slider. They are much easier to fly and the results would come quickly compared to the unofficial events. 15 is much more difficult to master than 36 profile. Here's 4 airplanes that would work well that I am sure you can get plans for. By work well I mean they can be competitive from local contests to the Nats.

Hellcat, ME 109 (Eric Conely's version), Guardian (Brodak with a few modifications), and Vampire (Bill Calkins design). Eric now has a Corsair that works well too.

Title: Re: Carrier Farce
Post by: Andrew Hathaway on October 01, 2007, 10:30:26 AM

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. 

Title: Re: Carrier Farce
Post by: eric conley on October 01, 2007, 09:07:41 PM

No one listens? What do you mean no one listens. The carrier community is well aware of how people feel about carrier and the MO-1. Many of the carrier fliers have tried to ansewer these messages just as Bob addressed your statements and in the next post you pretty much repeated yourself. You are flying two of the hardest planes to fly in carrier there are. The Skyray was never designed to be a carrier plane and I think it was pushed for a beginner plane for carrier because it was easy to build and rugged so would survive the crashes that were sure to happen when it was flown in the carrier events. .15 carrier planes are light and hard to score high unless flown very carefully by someone other than a beginner. Some say that the better fliers ruined the .15 event with there more advanced planes and the higher scores that were achieved. Well now we have sportsman .15 and sportsman profile carrier so those (we were listening) that want to enter a carrier contest and don't want to build a competitive plane or want to enter something that isn't a MO-1 can fly. Bob and I fly in meets on the west coast and except for CL-1 and 2 you wont see very many MO-1s in these events. I just pulled out the 2006 top 20 list and in the top 5there were 2- MO-1s and the other three were, Hellcat,Vampire, and 109T.
I'm pretty sure that if Bob and I went to the top MO-1 fliers and got them to trade planes with us and then we had a fly off that they would still be the top fliers with our Vampires and Corsairs and he and I would be the also runners in there MO-1s. This event like all others take a lot of practice and drive to excel in. In Bob's area as he says there are many new carrier flyer's, some just really enjoy flying carrier and could care less about being the top gun, and a few others are becoming out standing carrier fliers who do well in competition. When you see all these guys together flying carrier its a real joy and the different planes are something to see.
Do you belong to the NCS and get the news letter? It could change some of your perspective on the carrier events. Keep in mind that the MO-1 is a easy plane to build and everything on that plane is out in the open where you can adjust and tinker with. The planes other than the MO-1 are a little more difficult (one of the major reasons you see so many MO-1s) to build or design and build and not many builders want to go to the trouble. Instead of building and flying they complain. I'm always dismaid that I don't see anyone complaining about combat, speed, stunt, or scale (events much more demanding than carrier) only about carrier? And all they have to do is build what they think is the right plane and come out and fly. Might not win the Nat's the first year but if that is how you measure things then just keep driving and who knows. eric

Title: Re: Carrier Farce
Post by: Mike Anderson on October 02, 2007, 12:11:10 AM

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.

Title: Re: Carrier Farce
Post by: Randy Bush on October 02, 2007, 05:33:18 PM

Hi Mike,

Thanks for that post.  I enjoyed the historical info on Carrier--almost all of which was new to me.

Randy

Title: Re: Carrier Farce
Post by: Mike Anderson on October 02, 2007, 09:11:17 PM

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

Title: Re: Carrier Farce
Post by: bfrog on October 02, 2007, 10:17:14 PM

Mike,

I too enjoyed your brief "history" of carrier. Since I only started in this event a handful of years ago I don't have the experience of the "old style" of carrier. I have pitted for some very good, experienced flyers in nostalgia classes and while the planes were interesting I wouldn't call all of them scale airplanes. They looked nice an flew very fast. The down side was trying to take this nice looking model and attempting to crash it into the deck at a fairly high rate of speed. Not only did they have to be fast they had to be very sturdy to take that kind of abuse. It was a different event and I like the challenge of flying well (i.e. prop hanging). I think the idea of building something that must perform is two very different fight regimes is great fun. It also makes it more of a level field for those of us that can't tweak the last bit of HP out of an engine to get the absolute fastest motor. You can make up for some lack of speed with good skill in the low speed part of the flight.

One last thought. 15 carrier is not an entry event. I know some people start here but it can be very frustrating to do so. They are definitely much harder to fly and get to work properly than a 36 profile. They can really help your understanding of what it takes and are great to build the skills though.

Sometimes the good old days just aren't what they used to be!!!!

Title: Re: Carrier Farce
Post by: Mike Anderson on October 02, 2007, 11:20:37 PM

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