Author Topic: Carrier rules/ Arresting gear history (Read 3866 times)

Wayne J. Buran · « **on:** January 13, 2012, 07:50:47 PM »

http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2011/12/brief-history-of-tailhook-design.html

This is an interesting site that illustrates the evolving naval aircraft arresting gear for aircraft carriers. Take a look at it and that may help sort out some of our rules issues.
Thanks
Wayne

Wayne J. Buran · « **Reply #1 on:** January 13, 2012, 08:12:01 PM »

So if you read it carefully you should understand more about how the subject evolved. That said, it is my opinion, because I lived through it that our rules were adjusted to add more interest and potential aircraft that could be used in the Navy Carrier event. PAR 7 of the 1974-75 rules was very clear. Eligeable aircraft were either operational or experimental. Par 3 was even more clear and that said the aircraft must be equiped with an arresting hook. Seems clear to me that certain airplanes that set precedence by use were really not eligeable until someone forced a rules change to affect more participation or lowering the bar for more participation. Remembering also that there was no longer U S Navy participation in AMA aero modeling. It was really a sign of the times and no matter what was done participation continued to decline. So the real quesion is what as participants do we want this event to be, a model airplane arresting contest or Navy Carrier as it was originally intended.
Thanks
Wayne

Peter Mazur · « **Reply #2 on:** January 14, 2012, 07:32:13 AM »

Paragraph 3 says that the model shall be equipped with an arresting hook. This paragraph does not refer to the prototype on which the model was based, and it is not referring to the qualifications for scale bonus points.
Pete

Bob Heywood · « **Reply #3 on:** January 14, 2012, 09:37:57 AM »

The broad answer to the question is that the urge to compile the highest possible score has pushed aside almost any notion of the event being firmly based on scale prototype naval aviation operations.

bill bischoff · « **Reply #4 on:** January 14, 2012, 11:09:40 AM »

Quote from: Peter Mazur on January 14, 2012, 07:32:13 AM

Paragraph 3 says that the model shall be equipped with an arresting hook. This paragraph does not refer to the prototype on which the model was based, and it is not referring to the qualifications for scale bonus points.
Pete

Agreed. But, to qualify for bonus points, it must be a model of a "carrier aircraft". The only concrete definition of "carrier aircraft" is that it made a carrier takeoff and arrested landing. Rule 8.1b opens the door for aircraft that can't be proven to have made arrested landings. So the questions remains, what is the intent of that rule? Is it simply to acknowledge that proof of arrested landing may not exist, or to specifically allow subjects that didn't make arrested landings?

Peter Mazur · « **Reply #5 on:** January 14, 2012, 11:27:08 AM »

It's hard to say what was in the mind of the proposer when section 8.1 was written (unless the old paperwork exists somewhere.) But what it says, which may or may not coincide with the original intent, is that models may be designated as carrier aircraft without documentation of arrested landings. It doesn't say that the lack of documentation can't be because an arrested landing never took place. Since it doesn't discuss that detail, we go with the literal reading of the rule and can't try to enforce an original intent that is not in the wording of the rule itself. So aircraft that never made an arrested landing, as long as they were designated as carrier aircraft by an acceptable source, would seem to meet the rule as worded.
Pete

bill bischoff · « **Reply #6 on:** January 14, 2012, 02:57:40 PM »

Again, what you say is true. Without knowing the intent, all we have is what the rule actually says. But, unless an "acceptable source" plainly states "this is a carrier aircraft", we have an ambiguous rule. There is no definition of what it takes to be a "carrier aircraft", or what information the "acceptable source" must give.

It may be possible, through researching many years of rule change proposals in old Model Aviation magazines, to gain additional insight on this subject. I don't have a dog in this fight, so I'm not sure I'm willing to invest that much effort. I was hoping somebody may have had some recollection of this from long ago.

Peter Mazur · « **Reply #7 on:** January 14, 2012, 03:38:08 PM »

It would be interesting to know what the proposer might have had in mind, but as a Contest Director, I have to enforce the rules as they are written. And that, it seems to me, would be that if I buy the validity of the "acceptable source" and that source says it was a carrier aircraft, my responsibility is clear and the model is eligible for scale points. It is hard to imagine confronting a contestant with the argument, "Yes, that is what the rule says, but the original intent was something else."
One can always argue that the rule should be changed to meet some other goal. (I make no such argument.) But we have to enforce the rules as written until they are changed through the whole rules change procedure.
Pete

Fred Cronenwett · « **Reply #8 on:** January 14, 2012, 08:06:23 PM »

At one point I did a bunch of research on carrier aircraft and found that aircraft fell into several categories. I have no opinion on how the rules are understood or written but I did uncover this litte bit of trivia for whats it's worth...

Category 1 - Aircraft with arresting hooks with clear historical evidence of taking off and landing on a aircraft carrier with a hook

Example: Grumman F6F Hellcat, there is not argument there that this qualifies

Category 2 - Aircraft with arresting hooks and only performed an arrested landing on a carrier for trials only, never went into production or active duty

Example: P-51D mustang, the proof is out there, difficult to find for some, again this qualifies

Category 3 - Aircraft with arresting hooks and only performed an arrested landing on a land based runway with arresting cables

This can be harder to prove due to the lack of information, in some examples I only found written text that this was performed
One Exampe might be the Junkers Ju-87B

Category 4 - Aircraft described as a carrier aircraft in written text but getting proof of an arrested landing is very difficult or impossible to find

Example - The Vought XF5U-1 Flying Pancake. Historically it is described as a carrier aircraft and Paul Matt's 3-view shows a hook, but I believe this aircraft never
even flew as a prototype, so does this qualify? I won't get into that discussion.

Category 5 - Aircraft that have landed on the carrier decks without a hook and was able to land and come to a stop with it's own brakes

Example - I'll pick a current one, the F-35 Jet for the US Navy, this lands without a hook at all, how do you handle that situation?
Same thing would apply to other aircraft in the past that have landed without the benefit of the arresting Hook

Land softly,
Fred Cronenwett

bill bischoff · « **Reply #9 on:** January 14, 2012, 09:04:48 PM »

Quote from: Peter Mazur on January 14, 2012, 03:38:08 PM

It would be interesting to know what the proposer might have had in mind, but as a Contest Director, I have to enforce the rules as they are written. And that, it seems to me, would be that if I buy the validity of the "acceptable source" and that source says it was a carrier aircraft, my responsibility is clear and the model is eligible for scale points. It is hard to imagine confronting a contestant with the argument, "Yes, that is what the rule says, but the original intent was something else."
One can always argue that the rule should be changed to meet some other goal. (I make no such argument.) But we have to enforce the rules as written until they are changed through the whole rules change procedure.
Pete

The point I am trying to to make is that without some insight into the intent of the current rule, it is largely too vague to be useful. I understand that if my acceptable source uses the exact phrase "this is a carrier aircraft", it's crystal clear. But suppose my acceptable source doesn't say that. What are the necessary pieces of information that the acceptable source must provide to satisfy the requirement? In order to know that you must have a definition of what constitutes a carrier aircraft, which we don't. That's the whole problem.

The 1974-75 rules were in an old newsletter, and I found them to be clearer than what we have now. I realize that they don't count anymore, and from a bit of research I think they may have been changed to their current wording for 1976. They say, "To qualify for bonus points the prototype aircraft must have been used for operations from aircraft carriers. Experimental aircraft which did not reach operational status are acceptable if the prototype was intended for carrier operation or if the prototype made actual carrier-type takeoff and arrested landing on an actual or simulated carrier deck."

Note that the phrases "... used for operation from aircraft carriers..." and "...intended for carrier operation..." do not mandate that the prototype made arrested landings. However, this was only true in 1974-75.

Does anybody still have a 1976-77 rule book? I am curious to see if the current wording on this subject was put in place then. I searched through the rules change info in Model Aviation from the start of the magazine up through the mid 90's and didn't find anything pertaining to this. The results of the 1976-77 rule change initial vote would have been published in early 1975, prior to the start of Model Aviation as we know it today. This also predates the creation of the NCS.

Please realize that I am not trying to promote one particular interpretation of the rules, and I am certainly not looking for an argument from Pete or anyone else. Quite the opposite. I believe Pete, being a by-the book kind of guy and also long time carrier competitor, could be just the person who could help me get to the bottom of this question.

Mike Anderson · « **Reply #10 on:** January 14, 2012, 10:37:02 PM »

I have 1978-79, but not 76-77. The rules in the 78-79 book are identical to the present day rules, EXCEPT rule 8.1. is marked with the big black circle that denotes a change is incorporated in that paragraph. Maybe your Model Aviation search could turn up the change that passed to that paragraph.
Here is the passage, but instead of the black dot, I've used an appropriate (I believe) smiley -

8. Bonus Points.

8.1. A scale model of a carrier aircraft of any nation, provided it displays the national markings of the using nation,
   shall receive bonus points. A carrier aircraft is any man-carrying aircraft which was successfully flown and which
   meets at least one (1) of the following requirements:
    a. Aircraft made actual carrier-type takeoff and arrested landing on an actual or simulated carrier deck, or
    b. Aircraft is designated as a carrier aircraft by an acceptable source (in cases where actual carrier-type
      takeoff and arrested landing are not documented).

    8.1.1. Scale three-view drawings of the full-scale aircraft and proof that the aircraft meets the above requirements
    must be submitted to be eligible for scale bonus points. (See Proof of Scale rules in the Unified Scale Judging section
for acceptable sources of plans and documentation.)

bill bischoff · « **Reply #11 on:** January 15, 2012, 12:41:25 PM »

Mike, you are absolutely right. Thanks for getting me to look in the right place. For those who want to read along, go to page 68 in your December 1975 Model Aviation.

The problem is that it is hard to get all the nuances from just a sentence or two in the summary. What is interesting is that there were multiple proposals submitted by the NCAC to address this. Two made it to the final vote. #104 passed unanimously. This is what changed the rules to their current wording. More interesting perhaps is #100, which was defeated by a 5-5 vote tie. It says, "Do not require "arrested" landings in order to qualify for bonus points." The defeat of this would seem to indicate that the powers that be at the time wanted to require that an arrested landing, or at least intent of an arrested landing, to be required of a bonus points legal model.

Now that the exact time period is identified, does anybody have any additional information to add? Anybody from the 1975 CLCB or NCAC save any documents or have any recollections? Would AMA have record of any of this?

Mike Anderson · « **Reply #12 on:** January 15, 2012, 05:07:33 PM »

No, what is interesting (IF I remember correctly - not always the case) is that the NCAC, made up entirely of carrier flyers, proposed or approved #100 for a vote but it was shot down by the CL rules committee, made up of predominantly non-Carrier flyers. I much prefer today's environment, where the rules are set by the SIG.

bill bischoff · « **Reply #13 on:** January 15, 2012, 06:52:36 PM »

"I much prefer today's environment, where the rules are set by the SIG."

Actually, AMA rules aren't set by the SIG's. Unless things have changed significantly since I was CLCB chairman, here's how it worked. Before SIG's, there were advisory committees for the various disciplines. Rules proposals submitted by the advisory committees would get passed in the initial vote automatically. Eventually, SIG's came along, and SIG's made advisory committees redundant or unnecessary. I don't actually know for certain, but advisory committees may have gone away, and SIG's may have absorbed that particular power. But now, we have multiple control line contest boards to represent the different events, rather than a single control line contest board. The idea is that the people on the various boards have a more personal interest in the rules they are voting on, so you don't have a predominantly stunt or racing board voting on carrier proposals.

BillLee · « **Reply #14 on:** January 15, 2012, 09:53:56 PM »

Quote from: bill bischoff on January 15, 2012, 06:52:36 PM

"I much prefer today's environment, where the rules are set by the SIG."

Actually, AMA rules aren't set by the SIG's. Unless things have changed significantly since I was CLCB chairman, here's how it worked. Before SIG's, there were advisory committees for the various disciplines. Rules proposals submitted by the advisory committees would get passed in the initial vote automatically. Eventually, SIG's came along, and SIG's made advisory committees redundant or unnecessary. I don't actually know for certain, but advisory committees may have gone away, and SIG's may have absorbed that particular power. But now, we have multiple control line contest boards to represent the different events, rather than a single control line contest board. The idea is that the people on the various boards have a more personal interest in the rules they are voting on, so you don't have a predominantly stunt or racing board voting on carrier proposals.

You're right in most of that, Bill.

The Advisory Committees existed at the discretion of the CLCB chairman and had a small number of special privileges when it came to rules-making. They were a recognition that the CLCB could not have proper expertise in all disciplines. A proposal, as you said, from an Advisory Committee automatically passed the initial vote, but it ultimately had to be passed by the entire CLCB. It was often the case that the CLCB being unfamiliar with a particular discipline would not pass proposals that came from the actual involved folks in that discipline. Bad, bad! As the various SIGs were born, the need for the Advisory Committees diminished since the SIG usually represented a broader population. But at the same time, the special privileges that belonged to the Advisory Committees also fell by the wayside.

Many of us recognized that the CLCB, structured in that fashion, needed to be fixed. In fact, I found an article in an old American Aircraft Modeler (wasn't that the carrier for AMA news before Model Aviation came along?) from the very early 70's where the CL columnist was suggesting that the CLCB should be restructured. In the late '90s-early 2000s, working through our District VIII VP, we were successful in getting the CLCB restructured into separate contest boards for each discipline, a structure that is much more responsive and responsible to the folks that actually fly the events.

Bill

Wayne J. Buran · « **Reply #15 on:** February 21, 2012, 08:06:27 PM »

I was at our club meeting tonight 10/21 (North Coast Controliners) Cleveland , Ohio and was surprisingly presented with an extremely well preserved 1961 AMA rule book. What a surprise it was. As it was, it was nostalgia night and we also had a chance to review a pictorial history album of our club. Anyhow I took the time to scan the rule section for carrier. Interesting reading as this was before the advent of Class 1 & 2 and engine size limit. The rules were brief and to the point. Kinda like our government use to be before the lawyers really got there hooks into it. Anyway check it out its good reading and now you all have a copy.
Wayne

bill bischoff · « **Reply #16 on:** February 21, 2012, 09:38:50 PM »

It might be cool to create an archive of old carrier rules, either here or someplace else. I have a 1964 rule book, and I could do the same thing that Wayne has done. Anybody else got an old rule book laying around?

Wayne J. Buran · « **Reply #17 on:** February 22, 2012, 05:03:40 AM »

Bill, thats a great idea. Ya know its a wonder that the AMA dosent have a rule book history.
Wayne

Wayne

Mike Anderson · « **Reply #18 on:** February 22, 2012, 09:32:07 AM »

I have a 1955, I think - I'm at work at present time - Carrier is NOT part of that rule book. I also have a December, 1952 "Model Aviation" newsletter (the forerunner of the current AMA mag) which outlines the Carrier rules that were going to be used at the 1953 Nats. It is interesting that the Carrier event did not become official rule book material for several years after it began to be flown at the Nats. I don't know for sure, but I think this may have been the first carrier competition. The 1953 Nats were at Willow Grove, PA. Naval Air Station.

Mike Anderson · « **Reply #19 on:** February 22, 2012, 09:39:09 AM »

Just found the 1952 MA on my work computer -- I'll post it in 2 separate postings, as it's slightly over 1 Meg total.

Mike Anderson · « **Reply #20 on:** February 22, 2012, 09:41:06 AM »

1952 - rest of pages (page 5 is just a blow-up of the deck diagram)

john e. holliday · « **Reply #21 on:** February 22, 2012, 09:51:05 AM »

Thanks for the rules. Wish we still had the rule about the touching of water. Of course carrier pilots all walk on water. I have lost a couple of attempts because of the hook coming loose early on launch. Or even during low speed the hook touching the grass.

bill bischoff · « **Reply #22 on:** February 22, 2012, 07:21:12 PM »

1964 carrier rules, first page

bill bischoff · « **Reply #23 on:** February 22, 2012, 07:22:08 PM »

1964 carrier rules, second page

john e. holliday · « **Reply #24 on:** February 24, 2012, 09:42:47 AM »

Yep, that the rules that were in affect for my first NATS. 1964 Grand Prairie Navel Air Station. Boy that was so many years ago and being just my first time at a really big meet, other than the Wichita Contest usually just before the NATS. Was flying Sterling Gaurdian with a Merco .49 Throttle Control engine. I was so happy to get official flights and meet people, I can't even remember where I placed. The good ole days when there was only one Carrier Event.

Bob Reeves · « **Reply #25 on:** February 24, 2012, 02:20:37 PM »

Too bad this part isn't still in the rules..

" During official timed runs the model may not loose it's forward counter clockwise motion or deviate radically from the flight characteristics of it's prototype."

skyshark58 · « **Reply #26 on:** February 24, 2012, 05:00:16 PM »

You may fly at any angle you wish up to 60 degrees. 60 degrees is not a requirement!

Mike

john e. holliday · « **Reply #27 on:** February 25, 2012, 09:29:01 AM »

Rule 7.4 states that Flight Termination is immediate if the model does not maintain forward motion in respect to the ground.

When I was center judge at the NATS I finally started doing the following to stop the complaints. If the plain did not stop forward motion long enough for me to raise my hand it was still go. But, if I seen the plane move backwards in respect to the background, that was the end of the flight. Only had one argument after that and he was put down immediately by the other contestants. Too bad I didn't judge the 60 degree right before I quit doing the center judging.

But, I have seen stuff get by because the event director, the constestants and even NATS management did not want to stir the waters. One in particular was a plane in which the airfoil was as thick as the fuselage.

bill bischoff · « **Reply #28 on:** February 25, 2012, 11:18:21 AM »

Quote from: Bob Reeves on February 24, 2012, 02:20:37 PM

Too bad this part isn't still in the rules..

" During official timed runs the model may not loose it's forward counter clockwise motion or deviate radically from the flight characteristics of it's prototype."

The trouble with this rule is that is basically unenforceable. What are the flight characteristics of the prototype? How much is a radical deviation? Like it or not, 60 degrees is an absolute quantity, not an abstract concept. You may not agree with the number, but this is how rule should be written.

Wayne J. Buran · « **Reply #29 on:** February 25, 2012, 05:25:17 PM »

Quote from: Ty Marcucci on February 25, 2012, 11:49:13 AM

Ha, I'm with Mr. Reeves on this one. If you ever served on a carrier or chased one, and any aircraft got to 60 degrees, it was time to lower the MWB and go after the bodies if they ever came to the surface. Been there, did that three times. Not fun.
But then slow times would not be all that slow, just realistic, not ridiculous..

Anybody have any wild idea why 60 deg was chosen? Typical of rules is that no one looks at the consequences of what they are creating or the impact of such a rule. They are just to focused on the intention in this case of making the emphasis on slow flight. Who thought it was acceptable for a model airplane of the day to approach the deck of a carrier in a 60 degree stall.
Wayne

john vlna · « **Reply #30 on:** February 25, 2012, 07:13:38 PM »

Wayne,
I think the guy to talk to is Dick Perry. He told me once that he was the author of the rules change. The purpose was to emphasise slowspeed points and reduce the emphasis on high speed, which was getting to fast.
John

Wayne J. Buran · « **Reply #31 on:** February 26, 2012, 04:34:28 AM »

Just what I said, unperceived consequnces. Now we are stuck with it. Just like politics, nobody questions the monster thats being created.
Wayne

Wayne J. Buran · « **Reply #32 on:** February 26, 2012, 05:42:43 AM »

I suggest that when the time comes for the next cyle of rules proposal that we have a serious discussion on this forum about what proposals we, you or I would like to make. That would give us a chance to discuss, correct and write proposals that make sense and submit for change. We can all submit our own proposals but atleast there will be some group thouht for how they are put together and exactly what are the goals of the proposals. Unless I am missing something this seems to be the only forum anybody is having regular discussions about the Navy Carrier event that we are all concerned about. That might eliminate or at least reduce unpercieved consequences. What do you think?
Wayne

Bob Heywood · « **Reply #33 on:** February 26, 2012, 08:29:48 AM »

Navy Carrier was first flown at the 1950 Nationals. The original scoring system was used for about 28 years. The event has been using the present system for 30+ years. A cursory study of the NCS Top 20 results since 2006 reveals that scores in CL I and CLII have pretty much leveled out. Wayne is on to something. It's time to do a reset and freshen up the competitive challenge.

To my way of thinking, the one thing that has been missing from the rules since the beginning is a Statement of Purpose for the event. That is, what exactly should this event strive to accomplish? There may be a gut level sense but it should be stated clearly and concisely. This might be something along the lines of ~ "To capture the excitement of Naval Aviation by recreating as closely as possible the challenge of aircraft carrier based flight operations...". The next step would be to craft a set of rules that supports the purpose.

Go back and look at the 1952 Model Aviation a few responses back up the line in this thread (Reply # 19). Read para #3 on the first page and go from there.