Author Topic: Carrier rules proposal (Read 3532 times)

skyshark58 · « **on:** February 07, 2010, 10:33:09 AM »

There are two AMA rules proposals up for vote this cycle. One proposes allowing .40 engines in profile and .40 to .50 in class I.The other set rules for electric powered airplanes to compete with glow engine powered planes.
I support the change to allow .40 in profile and have for a long time. I have heard many times from would be new carrier fliers that they already have a .40 and would build a plane if they could use it. They are discouraged by the expense and scarcity of a .36. This change might get some new involved,it's worth a try.
As for electrics, I have seen a few fly and they seem to be very competitive and I am sure they will be equal in the future. So this may be the time to get them included in the rules so they can develop, wheather mixed in with glow or in a separate class
Revue the proposals on the AMA web site and let your navy carrier board member know how you would like them to vote.
Mike

Paul Smith · « **Reply #1 on:** February 07, 2010, 12:01:04 PM »

Mixing electric with piston engines is a terrrible idea in any application where speed is an issue and there is a need to measure engine size.

What is an electric .366?
What's an electric .4028?
Who can define an electric 2.5 cc?

Obviously, there is NO ANSWER.

So we have piston engines of strictly limited capacity competing against totally unlimited electrics. NO WAY.

Low speed is even worse. It's a HUGE CHALLENGE to get maximum power from a piston engine and still get it to idle well enough to complete the low speed. Put a rheostat or some modern equivalent on an electric motor and you can run it up & down all day and never flame out.

It's had to believe that anybody could come up with a worse proposal than the slide & hover package of 1976, but Carrier has done it again.

Just what a dying category needs, a rules change that wipes out all current equipment.

-------------

The bit about RAISING the engine size is another thing! Engines are more powerful than ever before. If anything, they should be REDUCED! Maybe .25 for Profile and keep the 40's for Class I. That way, you could still buy off-the-shelf.

I you really want a piston/electric class, let Class II go back to 4 pounds and all the power you can pack into it. It's fine to have ONE cut throat, unlimited, bring -it-on event. But leave some slack in the two economy events for the more civilized flyers.

skyshark58 · « **Reply #2 on:** February 07, 2010, 01:14:03 PM »

I don't think there is a lot of power difference between a 36 and a 40. Most 36s can compete with a 40 but going the other way (36 down to a 25) would be too large of a spread. Also the physical size between a 36 and a 25 would require new airplanes be built.Most 36s are built on 40 cases and use the same bolt pattern.

Your electric points are well taken and it is a problem. Maybe they should be in their own class.
Mike

Paul Smith · « **Reply #3 on:** February 07, 2010, 01:26:05 PM »

Whether Profile is changed to a 40 or a 25, either way, it wipes out all the investment people have in the current .366's. It will cause some to leave and they probably won't be replaced.

Going back to it's roots, Profile Carrier was designed for stock, plain bearing RC 35's, which could be bought for about $16-$20. The current left-handed Nelson is about a $500 unit (if you can even get one) that puts at about three-to-four times the HP of the original engine.

A modern RC 25 sells for about $80 to $130 and is still quite a bit more powerful than old K&B Greenhead. A new stock engine rule built around today's OS products would be a huge step toward putting Profile back into the hands of non-machinist competators.

Those who want to rework 40's to the max can knock themselves out in Class I. An increase in Class I engine size would just make it another Class II. There's no shortage of 40's.
-----------
All of this is covered in two propsals on the AMA site.

eric conley · « **Reply #4 on:** February 08, 2010, 10:30:41 AM »

I have fielded quite a few calls from fliers that are thinking about getting into Carrier and have found that almost all of these fliers have 40s laying around that they could use but few have 36s. Some will say they have a 32 or 34 but not many say any thing about 36s. If they are going to fly "AMA Profile Carrier" and have no experience, they only need an engine that will fly there airplane so that they can practice until they get the hang of the thing. If they build a plane and learn to fly the event and like the way the event is flown then they can look around at there options on getting a competitive engine (there is not much to choose from in 36s). I find that there is just as much trouble coming up with a carrier plane as there is a 36 engine.
I would not feel at any disadvantage flying one of my 36 powered planes against a 40 powered plane (I have Nelson engines) but admit this may be the exception for a lot of carrier fliers. I also fly some planes with the Thunder Tiger Pro 36 engine and to date have not seen any 40s (current production) that can keep up with the TT. As far as the AMA Profile Carrier event being a beginner event I think that era is long gone. The NCS has a event called Sportsman that the beginner can fly with ease as a entry level event (36 profile). At this time there are 13 carrier events that the NCS measures and if a flier cant find one of those 13 that they could be comfortable with maybe they don't really want to fly carrier.
So I guess you could put me in the ranks of the people that would welcome 40s into the AMA Profile Carrier event. I agree with Paul that electric"s are a very different animal and to me unless it was a high speed limited event it would be hard to work them in and be fair.

Paul Smith · « **Reply #5 on:** February 08, 2010, 11:09:38 AM »

I'm surprised how little discusion this posting has triggered. I read the two proposals and discussed them with my district rep on the NCCB. He sees things pretty much my way so I didn't bother to comment until somebody asked.

I guess if an increase to 40 in Profile actually brings out a significant number of NEW flyers, it could be called a success. As I see it, the event is already grossly overpowered and a further increase in cubes is a step in the wrong direction. I don't anybody who knows anything about modeling competition honestly believes that an increase from 366 to 40 won't result in a performance jump that turns the 36 into a loser.

Perhaps this pill could be sugarcoated with a provision for contra clockwise rotation only, so as to spare the contestant the challenge of finding somebody to make a trick crankshaft (a major barrier to participation).

Jim Oliver · « **Reply #6 on:** February 08, 2010, 12:23:44 PM »

As a person that recently purchased a TT 36/Guardian combo and all the accessories to fly Profile Carrier
(first timer), I am not amused by a rule change that will make my new engine non-competative!!

Cheers,
Jim

skyshark58 · « **Reply #7 on:** February 08, 2010, 12:48:24 PM »

I don't think a reverse rotation is an absolute requirement to be competitive. Eric's TT aren't and he flies them very well. Bill Melton flew nothing but standard rotation and did very well.

In reply to the new flyer with the TT36 and Guardian, you have a nice entry level set up that could be competitive some day. But there is quite a learning curve to go thru to become competitive. It's like in stunt, you buy a Nobler ARF with a fox 35 and go to a contest, are you competitive? Not really, but it is a good start.

These are only rules proposals, let your contest board member know your feelings.
Mike

Peter Mazur · « **Reply #8 on:** February 08, 2010, 01:35:49 PM »

Perhaps comments on the electric rules from someone who is actually flying electrics would be in order. I think it is important to take the electric airplanes as a whole, not just pick a single aspect (high speed) to worry about. It is possible to build an airplane that might have a better high speed than a glow equivalent. However, to do that takes weight. The maximum power output of these motors at reasonable efficiency is proportional to the weight of the magnets. I have been trying to find motors to maximize power for electric competition and these things get heavy really fast. The best profile motor I have found from Scorpion (which puts out less than a Nelson .36, but is close enough for local/regional contests) weighs 7 ounces. Add the electronics stuff and you are probably at 11-12 ounces. I have one of these in a Brodak/Calkins Guardian that I am trying to get to work. It weighs in at 53 ounces with the lightest battery pack I can put in it, and I have no confidence that this is enough batteries to get a competitive low speed time. (I ran out of juice before landing with my Skyray, and the low speed was only just over four minutes. I need a lot more than that for Profile to be competitive.) And the electric Guardian, weighing 6-12 ounces more than the glow guardian depending on fuel load, really doesn't fly as well as the glow. So I can get more power than I have now for high speed, but only at the further expense of a good low speed. And I hit the wall at 3 1/2 pounds for Profile and Class 1. Try as I might (and I am trying hard )the electrics are just not up to the glow powered models. I like them, they are convenient, grease-free, quiet, easy to start, and such. But when the chips are down and I want to win, I bring out the glow.
The idle is another problem with electrics. You wouldn't guess so, but all three classes of my glow airplane have more reliable and more flyable idles than my electrics. There are a number of reasons why this is true, some of which will be overcome with time, experience, and testing, I hope. It is easier to set the electrics up for modest performance, which should be helpful for people trying to get into it. But to get the right performance for the top level competitor will take a lot more effort. I have been doing this for three years and haven't got it right yet. I've had a lot of flame outs or other problems, and have seen other electrics with the same problems. But a beginner can get into the air easily, just like with an R/C-tuned engine throttle, which is an advantage for getting participation.
One thing some of us are hoping is that we can get some people already familiar with electrics, perhaps from their R/C activities, to try it in Carrier. This is perhaps the same sort of hope that someone flying R/C with a .40 will build a Carrier airplane for it and get into the event. If you look in the local hobby shop, you can see that the number of glow engines is dwindling severley, and the number of electric motors has surpassed them by a very large factor. Electric power may well be the future of all model airplanes. If you think it is hard to get a Nelson .36 now, just imagine trying to buy any hot motor a few years from now. If it isn't on eBay from a modeler's estate, it will be unobtainable.
Pete

Peter Mazur · « **Reply #9 on:** February 08, 2010, 02:06:46 PM »

While I'm at it, let me comment on the .40 in Profile proposal. We have seen this before, I'm afraid, and it tends to not get approved. It does make it easier to find engines. Most of us would find Nelson Pylon .40's of various models pretty quickly. So the increase in power over the present engines could be significant, and I agree with Paul that an increase in power is not what the event really needs. One might argue that the increase in power would tend to obsolete existing equipment, something which rule changes are not supposed to do.
We have had the argument that people have .40's and would fly Carrier if only the rules permitted them to use their .40's. The Sig Skyray event was created with this in mind: .40's were permitted so people could use what they have, a speed limit was included so it didn't much matter if it was a racing .40 or a sport .40, and it was based on a simple, available kit, and sliders were forbidden to maximize simplicity. I don't know if I have ever seen anyone who was not flying some other class of Carrier already build a Skyray Carrier model. So people say, "If you only allowed .40's in Profile, I'd fly," but I remain unconvinced by past history. Maybe a local rule allowing R/C .40's in Sportsman would be a better move. Some people already permit that. Beginners could get some practice in the local contest and when the guy gets good enough to go traveling to other contests, he could swap out the engine for a universally legal one.
My guess is that the number of people taking up carrier because they have a .40 and not a .36 would be about zero, but of course, that is only my best guess. People who tend to want to get into Carrier at more than their local club contest will be willing to go out and buy the TT .36 and be able to compete in contests anywhere. Those who only want to compete in the club contest can have a special sport event for that.
Pete

Peter Mazur · « **Reply #10 on:** February 08, 2010, 02:20:23 PM »

As long as I am on a role, there is another rules proposal involving Carrier under Control Line General. this would allow Speed and Carrier records to be set at Record Trials, not just at contests. I will not comment on Speed, but for Carrier I think this is a bad idea. First, having no competitor who will get upset might tempt the judges to allow the low speed angle of attack to go well above 60 degrees, or maybe to have the airplane back up without such a thing being noticed officially. I could also schedule a 'record Trial" for every Sunday for six months, and when the wind is perfect, go out and put up a great flight. With a contest, you don't have so many days to choose from, and you have to compete for flying time with other contestants who want to fly. The record trial system could be abused so easily and that potential for abuse outweighs any possible advantage.
Pete

Mike Anderson · « **Reply #11 on:** February 08, 2010, 02:38:00 PM »

The problem with changing from .36's to .40's is that we'll be changing from Nelson .36's to Nelson (or maybe Jett or VF-P) .40's. Those that don't have or can't find a competitive .36 will not have or be able to find a competitive .40. The event will very quickly boil down to one or two specialty engines that are either VERY expensive or no longer in production at all posting the top scores and records, and the (misguided and unfortunate) perception that if you don't have one, it isn't worth your time to take up the event at all.

The somewhat off-topic comments regarding going to .25's instead are even worse, in that all the currently flying profiles will become illegal and the event will not be rejuvenated - it will dry up and blow away. But even if it doesn't, then the above becomes true once again.

It will be more productive if we promote the speed-limited events that we already have and try to draw our newbies from there - in fact, .40's are already legal in Skyray and we already have a speed limit in Skyray - perhaps a "Sportsman" event that is based on the same performance limiting would be more successful than what we currently call Sportsman. I can certainly understand why some would not be happy flying stock Skyrays in Carrier, but if they could be kit-bashed into something better looking, maybe some of that initial interest could be ignited. I am also fully supportive of Sig (read: Mike Gretz) being in control of the Skyray Carrier rules, but I wonder if we could build some event that will allow some creativity in a simple "Formula" plane, with a performance limiting factor, that the current non-"Sportmen" will stay out of and the current "Maybe-Newbie"s might give a try.

All that said, I don't have any real strong feelings one way or the other about the .40's in Profile, since I'm rather pessimistic about that change producing the desired results. For me, it will be as simple as replacing my 5.8 K&B with a 6.5 K&B, which has been sitting in my 'someday' box since this issue first started to get tossed around, like 1985 or so.

Bob Heywood · « **Reply #12 on:** February 08, 2010, 03:19:48 PM »

Re: Proposal No. CLNC 11-2 , Engine size revision(s)

I do not support this proposal in its present form. Changes to both Profile and Class I should not be bundled.

Increasing the displacement limit for Profile would, for all intent and purpose, make Profile and Class I the same. This isn't right. I'm much more inclined to go along with Paul and take advantage of the wide range of reasonably priced .25 R/C engines on the market. There is a certain logic for introducing change. When 21 Sport Speed was introduced the event enjoyed some of the largest number of entries for C/L Speed. There were different engines and new faces. I just don't see .40s offering anything.

Instead of raising the displacement limit for Class I, it's time to look at the rationale for maintaining Class I and Class II. A more practical approach is to return to a single scale based class. Current Class I and Class II scores are competitive with each other. The venerable Class C/D racing engine is all but extinct. As a result, lower displacement engines are appearing in Class II. A better solution is to have a single event but establish a wire diameter break at, for sake of argument, .46. From what I can see there is no longer any real difference between a Class I and Class II model. Class I was fine during the heyday of the .40 but them days are over.

Bob

Peter Mazur · « **Reply #13 on:** February 08, 2010, 04:18:15 PM »

I fly both Class 1 and Class 2 and, at least with my stuff, find them to be entirely different. I get the same high speed in each class when they are both working properly. But the overall flight experience is quite different, and i can get a much better score, and under more varied weather conditions, with class 2. I would hate to see either go away, Class 1 because of its lower cost and Class 2 because I find it to be more fun.
It is important to consider what we gain from eliminating one or combining two of the scale classes: One fewer official event for Carrier people to fly at a contest. I don't see that as a gain at all. If local clubs find they have too many events then they can combine them, but let's not do that for the rest of us. If we reduce the number of Carrier events by one, I do not believe there is any chance at all of adding another one: We will just have reduced our activity irrevocably. Some at AMA might even be pleased to get rid of another pesky control line event.
Pete

skyshark58 · « **Reply #14 on:** February 09, 2010, 11:06:02 AM »

The proposal does not eliminate any class. It allows 40s in profile,40 to 50s in class I and does not change class II. Mike

ooffy · « **Reply #15 on:** February 09, 2010, 11:47:39 AM »

OK, don't jump down my throat just because I am not yet flying Carrier, but I am one of the people Carrier fliers are trying to attract to the sport. I have a very full plate getting my 8 classes of CL Speed going this season and then Falls rolls in and I'm way behind on my FF programs - I'm sure all or you can relate. Carrier is on my horizon and I have equipment on had - I'm just dealing with the TMM problem - Time, Money, Motivation - you never have all three at one time - right now, I have the Money and the Motovation - just the Time is missing

Some comments on going to .40 engines from my Speed and FF experience - switching from Nelson .36 engines to .40-sized pylon engines will require major modification to the models or new models altogether. The .40 pylon engines are about 15-20% heavier than the Nelson .36 and will require new piston/liners and headbuttons to reduce timing and compression to get them to ideal. A .40 pylon engine will NOT stay lit at 3/4 throttle, let alone anywhere near idle speeds. One could try to find a Nelson .40 lightcase, but you think .36s are hard to find . . . and then, no doubt, some hawk will find a lightcase Nelson .41 . . .

If one cannot find a Nelson .36, any of the other suggested .36 will be just a strong if you invest the $300 price difference in having a qualified engine tuner trick it out. Speed and performance costs. I do like the idea of outlawing counter rotating cranks as a simple way of avoiding unnecessarily pricing people out of the sport or having to hunt for someone to make them a crank. Yes, I know Henry has CCW cranks for his engines, but others would need to be made to be made for other engines, and they would not be inexpensive do to the low volume demand.

In both FF and CL Speed, we have welcomed electrics with growing participation and interest - BUT, they are separate classes for so many reasons.

Hope this help,
Ron Bennett

Paul Smith · « **Reply #16 on:** February 09, 2010, 11:55:13 AM »

Quote from: Peter Mazur on February 08, 2010, 02:20:23 PM

As long as I am on a role, there is another rules proposal involving Carrier under Control Line General. this would allow Speed and Carrier records to be set at Record Trials, not just at contests. I will not comment on Speed, but for Carrier I think this is a bad idea. First, having no competitor who will get upset might tempt the judges to allow the low speed angle of attack to go well above 60 degrees, or maybe to have the airplane back up without such a thing being noticed officially. I could also schedule a 'record Trial" for every Sunday for six months, and when the wind is perfect, go out and put up a great flight. With a contest, you don't have so many days to choose from, and you have to compete for flying time with other contestants who want to fly. The record trial system could be abused so easily and that potential for abuse outweighs any possible advantage.
Pete

Very, very true. I agree 110%.

The subjective nature of low speed judging makes Carrier records inappropiate, just as they are in Stunt and Scale.

eric conley · « **Reply #17 on:** February 09, 2010, 05:02:32 PM »

I guess I'm left a little lost on the information above about the Nelson engines. It was around 1992 that I decided to get a Nelson engine for my AMA Profile Carrier plane so I could eliminate the need to play around with a half dozen different engines and around that many different engine builders, so I could consentrate on building good carrier planes. At that time I was going to use the Nelson Combat engine that weighed in at a little over 8 ounces. Henry told me he thought I would be better off with the heavy case engine (Nelson Sport 40/Sport Q-500 at 14+ ounces) and he could install a reverse crank at no extra cost because the cranks came from his 7.5cc Powerhead (his outboard engine). To make these engines 36 he install a new liner, piston, and head.
This engine proved to be outstanding for me and I still have that engine and use it in my AMA Profile Carrier planes. Henry made several batches of pistons, liners and heads so he could supply these engines to other carrier fliers. This engine has never had to be repaired and is completely reliable so that I could build planes and practice flying the carrier event. I tried hard to get my fellow carrier fliers to get one of these engines but few ever did. Instead they would buy a variety of other engines (investing more money and time than I) and try to get them to be competitive. Those Nelson engines saved me hundreds of dollars and also hundreds of hours of my time and believe me time is the most precious things we have.
The reference above that these engines would not idle down well must refer to the Nelson FAI 40 that is equipped with a full wave tuned pipe. My engines will run opened faced or with Henry's Ultra Thrust quarter wave muffler. Eric

skyshark58 · « **Reply #18 on:** February 09, 2010, 07:00:01 PM »

Many carrier fliers use the engine Eric refers to with no idle problems. I have two of them equipped with Perry carbs and they both are super dependable. The weight difference between a Nelson 36 and a 40 can not be much, probably measured in grams certainly not a 20% increase !
Mike

ooffy · « **Reply #19 on:** February 09, 2010, 07:02:41 PM »

Eric is right on about his custom .36, Henry Nelson is one of the greatest assets we ever had in this sport. Not only did he build a out-of-the-box front-runner, he would go to great lengths to put out custom parts and engines for us - and what was truly remarkable was that the last engine in a batch ran identical to any other engine he made - no small feat in and of itself. But the fly in the ointment, so to speak, is that Henry no longer sells complete engines, only replacement parts and is pretty adamant he is not interested in custom assembling any engines. Most Carrier fliers that I have seen flying Nelson .36 are using the combat-case (8 oz.) block with a square-to-round intake adapter that Henry supplied with the engines. I am not certain, but it is my understanding that engines he sold to Carrier fliers had a different liner timing than ones sold to Combat fliers, but I may be wrong on that point.

The only Nelson .40 engines that are available are in the hands of fliers already. There is the combat-case (8 oz.) side exhaust .40/.41 he sold through Doug Galbreath for free flight, the Q-40/Q-500 side exhaust big case (15 oz.), and the FAI rear intake/rear exhaust piped engines (14 oz.). He also made front/bottom intake rear exhaust engine (I'm looking for one if anybody know of one that needs a new home). All of the pylon engines are timed very high and would not stay light at lower RPMs.

Henry may indeed have .36 piston/liner set to fit the big case blocks and CCW cranks, but my point on CCW cranks is that they are not available for any other make and I think the last thing Carrier needs is to become a "one-custom-engine" class based on a maker that has made it very clear he is willing to support products he made but is retiring and not interested in any new projects.

Ron Bennett
Monmouth, OR

skyshark58 · « **Reply #20 on:** February 09, 2010, 07:30:06 PM »

We use the Q40/Q500 40 case with a 36 piston ,liner and head. I believe to convert to 40 only these parts need to be changed. As for needing a CC crank, it's optional. One can get better performance if a standard crank is used because of prop choices. With a CC about the only choice we have is the APC 9-6. The CC crank makes a slight difference and many fliers do fine without one.
Mike

eric conley · « **Reply #21 on:** February 09, 2010, 08:04:09 PM »

   There are people that would differ about the CCW engines being superior to the CW engines (not that I want to give mine up) in carrier. The late Bill Melton who was Nation Carrier Champion I believe several times and the current National Carrier Champion many time over, Pete Mazur did and do not use CCW engines for a couple of reasons. One reason was they didn't feel they were that important to success and they were limited in how many different propellers were available to get the most out of the engines. Although my current AMA Profile engine and my Class 2 engine have CCW Nelson engines my Class 1 engine is a Bill Melton Nelson 40 with a CW crank which I do not plan on changing out, ever.
   When I first started flying Carrier there were FOX 36 and 40 engines with factory CCW cranks along with the WYLE Combat (hope I spelled WYLE right?) engine that had a FOX CCW crank. There have been several builders of CCW engines over the last twenty to thirty years and they all had mixed results as do the CCW Nelsons. I think it was Bill Bischoff that championed the CCW engines to where they are today and he used the Wyle engine in AMA Profile and Class 1 with much success although he didn't have total domination because of flier's like Bill Melton and Pet Mazur. Eric

Mark Scarborough · « **Reply #22 on:** February 10, 2010, 02:05:06 PM »

I think one of the points that is being missed here that is valid to getting people into carrier.
I have posted questions about carrier, and the "help" I got bordered on insults.
I had people tell me, that I wasnt dedicated enough to participate since I wasnt willing to invest hundreds of dollars to TRY the event. I was asking for a way to maximize my involvment, nostalgia, profile, ect,, and was basically told that if I wasnt willing to build different airplanes then why bother.
Heck< I just want to try the event,, I dont want to win the worlds,, ( not this year anyway

)
I got responses that argued about the horrible rule change, hanging, sliders, everything,
I really never got any positive help except OFF the forum from one person.
I have in my drawer several .40 sized engines,, I was going to use one if I could, but I cant, so I purchased a K and B that was legal, NIB, then was told basically that I couldnt handle it, and it wouldnt work right,,
SO, today, I dont see myself participating, even though I have always thought carrier would be a blast,, my reason,,,
I deal with attitudes, and self serving people at work all the time, why would I want to willingly put myself back into that for my hobby, when no one seems willing to actually give positive constructive advice,,

Ok in fairness, its not NO ONE< but the point is valid, people were to concerned about arguing about rules that dont matter to me , because we have what we have today,,
SO you may want to look at the real reasons people dont participate, instead of what you THINK the reason is.
the first rule of troubleshooting is to find out what the true problem is,, not the symptom, the problem,,,

bfrog · « **Reply #23 on:** February 10, 2010, 04:25:24 PM »

Mark,

I sent you an email with some comments.

Thanks for trying to get the thread back to a productive line of thought.

Mark Scarborough · « **Reply #24 on:** February 10, 2010, 08:10:07 PM »

Bob,
thanks for the email.
reading and thinking,,
it is sad that I ended up with a bad taste in my mouth about carrier, I always thought that the contrast of having to attain high speed and low speed, plus spot landing was a very challenging prospect..

Chris McMillin · « **Reply #25 on:** February 10, 2010, 11:14:48 PM »

Mark,
I'm building Class I and Class II Nostalgia models with just throttle and hook to see how i like it. I like the models, I like the idea, and so if it turns out I enjoy it that's great. If not, I have some nice old time models to hang on the wall or fly when it makes me happy.
Chris...

Joe Just · « **Reply #26 on:** February 11, 2010, 08:35:42 AM »

Mark, I have a couple of planes, including a Class 1 Zero you can have for trying out your desire to move into Carrier as an additional event. The Zero will be a natural for your .40's. I have a Profile P-51 fitted for a .25 that Dave flew in Portland 2 years ago with success. As I remember a Ukey helped you get going in the right direction, perhaps one of my ships might do the same for you. Let me know, but remember, I can not answer any PM through a Forum.
Joe

john e. holliday · « **Reply #27 on:** February 11, 2010, 09:05:59 AM »

I am thoroughly confused now. CCW=Counter Clock Wise. CC or CW= Clock Wise. Are you guys looking from the rear of the engine? To me it has always been referred to the engines by left hand or right hand engines. I have the Fox that was deemed illegal by some individuals after I bought it for a profile. To me it is left hand engine that is Clock Wise rotation looking at it from the front. The problem is I spent money for an engine that does not work on a profile and nobody has came up with an answer to the problem that I have talked to. Was modifying a Brodak Mauler for it so it would sit upright. Works great upright in which the idle just sits there and purrs at you and revs up immediately when the throttle is advanced. Yes there are or is a small selection of props for the reverse rotation engines.

skyshark58 · « **Reply #28 on:** February 11, 2010, 02:47:04 PM »

Why was it "illegal"? Mike

Joe Just · « **Reply #29 on:** February 11, 2010, 05:28:48 PM »

Perhaps it was a Fox Combat special that was over size at nearly .38 cid. Some of thesxe engines were allowed, others were termed illegal. Mike, remember the Jenn .37( the very first Jenn imported from England to the U.S.) I had at a Portland contest several years ago? While the box and the engine read .37 the actual cid was just under .35 when measured. Not all engines sold as being .?? are ar have been.
Joe

skyshark58 · « **Reply #30 on:** February 15, 2010, 11:56:03 AM »

Another advantage to allowing .40s in profile,twin engine airplanes. How many good 18s are available? How many 20s? There are many many 20s so choosing engines would be much easier. I know there are not many twin engine carrier planes in any class being flown but maybe this would encourage a few.
Mike

clscale7 · « **Reply #31 on:** February 18, 2010, 04:46:14 PM »

Same comment on the twin engine model, I generally fly scale models and build a carrier model once in awhile. But I would like to have a profile carrier model with two engines but the power options don't work out, now if I could use two of my .20's then I have profile carrier model that can get off the deck.

I also agree that electric and glow should be a separate event, have a maximum high speed for the electric event just like in 15 carrier and don't try to regulate the motor and battery specifications, there are too many variables.

Paul Smith · « **Reply #32 on:** February 18, 2010, 07:36:36 PM »

Quote from: john e. holliday on February 11, 2010, 09:05:59 AM

I am thoroughly confused now. CCW=Counter Clock Wise. CC or CW= Clock Wise. Are you guys looking from the rear of the engine? To me it has always been referred to the engines by left hand or right hand engines. I have the Fox that was deemed illegal by some individuals after I bought it for a profile. To me it is left hand engine that is Clock Wise rotation looking at it from the front. The problem is I spent money for an engine that does not work on a profile and nobody has came up with an answer to the problem that I have talked to. Was modifying a Brodak Mauler for it so it would sit upright. Works great upright in which the idle just sits there and purrs at you and revs up immediately when the throttle is advanced. Yes there are or is a small selection of props for the reverse rotation engines.

A normal engine is CCW or right-handed. It uses "regular" props of which about 98% of all props are included.
The very rare specialty engines are CW or left-handed. They need "pusher" props which are also rare.

The advantages are:
During acceleration, they torque OUT rather than IN and thus need less tip weight and get a better high speed score.
During low speed, when a burst of power is needed they torque out, so less tip weight is needed and the pilot can allow the plane to get closer to disaster, knowing that torque is on his side.

You don't need CW to compete, only to win if the competition has it.

Bob Reeves · « **Reply #33 on:** February 19, 2010, 02:26:21 PM »

I was taught and always thought anything on an airplane is referenced from the pilots seat. Left wing, Right wing... This would make our normal left hand cranks rotate Clock Wise. On the other hand, motors and engines are referenced from the shaft which would make it CCW.

Why don't everyone forget the durn clock and just say left or right hand which everyone understands.

Thomas Wilk · « **Reply #34 on:** February 19, 2010, 06:02:02 PM »

How do you explain clock wise and counter clockwise to a kid with a digital watch?

Tom Wilk

Paul Smith · « **Reply #35 on:** February 19, 2010, 07:05:30 PM »

Quote from: Thomas Wilk on February 19, 2010, 06:02:02 PM

How do you explain clock wise and counter clockwise to a kid with a digital watch?

Tom Wilk

,,,,or anthing else for that matter.

Actually, there's nothing inherently obvious about defining the two directions of threaded fasteners are "right handed" and "left handed".
The best I can figure is that "right handed" means "normal", as in the majority of the population.
There are more left-handed people than left hand threads (and crankshafts), but that's the best I can figure about the definitions.
Maybe if left handed people had a powerful pressure group, they would make a big stink.

Lee Thiel · « **Reply #36 on:** February 19, 2010, 07:37:12 PM »

Soooo, if your sitting in the pilot seat, and the engine is turning to the right, that is clockwise.
So how does CCW=Right? My clocks don't seem to agree.
Lee TGD

skyshark58 · « **Reply #37 on:** February 19, 2010, 08:55:22 PM »

CCW = LEFT HAND CW = RIGHT HAND BOTH AS VIEWED FROM THE PILOTS FRONT FACING SEAT

MIKE

Randy Bush · « **Reply #38 on:** February 20, 2010, 07:53:09 AM »

Locally I hear:
"standard" or "normal" or "regular rotation"
versus
"reverse rotation".

Engines can have either a standard crank or a reverse crank.
Likewise with rear rotors.

Randy

skyshark58 · « **Reply #39 on:** February 20, 2010, 08:14:35 AM »

That works too! Might be more simple.
Mike

david smith · « **Reply #40 on:** February 24, 2010, 08:04:47 PM »

This is a response to an email I received from Everett Shoemaker asking me what I thought about the rules proposals. I figured I would post it here too.

I agree with you on all the issues. I dont think electrics are ready to compete with gas as far as performance and power go but they will be before too long. When they do catch up they wont just catch up and then stay even for awhile, they are going to catch and jump past like glow motors are tied to a tree. I think they need to stay as unofficial events for a while longer until they can get a little bit more established then maybe consider making them an official event of there own if we do anything. There are only a handful of people that fly electrics anyways and I wont say I will never fly them but I very seriously doubt that i will. One other question is how many carrier flyers will drop carrier all together because they either dont understand electrics or they are possibly scared of them? We cant afford people leaving carrier.

I dont understand what is going to be accomplished by upping profile and CL I engine limits. If you look at the contest reports and what people are running in profile obviously nelsons win but theTT 36 looks like it is holding up pretty well and there are a few others that do well and almost all of them except the nelson are under $100. There is no excuse for someone to not fly carrier with motors under 100 bucks and kits readilyavailable. I have also been telling person after person that if they build a plane that is consistent and reliable they will place top three. Now if there is a big rush of newcomers then that may not be the case but that would be a very good problem to have and we can deal with that when that day comes.

With Class I going up then what about Class II is it still 40 to 65 or will the lower limit of Class II be 50? We cant have them over lap because what is the point in having 2 events if you can have the same engine and same plane and essentially the same score. Now I know that there is an overlap from profile to CL I but there is a point difference because of scale points.

If we end up increasing the engine limits then why not increase CL II to unlimited and make it a 30G pull test. That would be fun! It would still be limited to 4 lbs so you couldnt put some giant motor on it. I would really like to put 2 Nelson 40's on a Tigercat.

I will post this on stunt hanger and send it to all on the yahoo carrier group people too.

As for the question about twins earlier why does everybody assume you have to use 2 of the same engines I plan on using a .19 and a .15 on a profile Tigercat and a .40/.25 combo on a Class II T cat.

L0U CRANE · « **Reply #41 on:** February 25, 2010, 03:05:50 PM »

Lee T., a bit late, but to your question about CW or CCW...

I've never started the engine on a control line model of any type while sitting in the cockpit thereof...

When the model and I are in usual starting positions, a standard shaft gets flipped CCW, right? In addition to the factory or custom reversed shafts, you can operate some standard engines CW (from starting viewpoint). ENYA engines with an even 4-bolt front bearing/intake assembly, and possibly some K&B front rotary or rear disk valve engines may also have a uniformly spaced 4-bolt front or backplate.

These inlet blocks, rotated 90° from stock position, reverse the inlet sequence. Why only 90°? You 'advance' or 'delay' the shaft or rear-disk port opening by 90° and it meets the inlet feature 90° 'sooner' (if you think of it as advanced) or 'later' (if the other.)

|90°| + |90°| is |180°| - Voila: reversed rotation. (Using the "|...|" to indicate 'absoute value')

HOWEVER, most engines have their case-inlet timing biased to favor the direction they were manyfactured to run in. That may not be optimum when the leads and lags are reversed... I have flown a reversed operation ENYA, and it does workl. The question with any such reversal is how well it does, compared to its power in stock form.

I've also used a factory reverse-operation shaft in a Fox Stunt 35, back when the selection of RH or "Pusher" props was much wider than today. That did just fine! Shaft inlet open and close timing was identical to the standard CCW engine. Run seemed to be, as well. That's not a high performance Carrier engine, though...

Lee Thiel · « **Reply #42 on:** February 25, 2010, 06:13:18 PM »

Hey Lou, I am very small!

Lee TGD

Peter Mazur · « **Reply #43 on:** February 25, 2010, 10:15:37 PM »

"I don't think electrics are ready to compete with gas as far as performance and power go but they will be before too long. When they do catch up they wont just catch up and then stay even for awhile, they are going to catch and jump past like glow motors are tied to a tree. I think they need to stay as unofficial events for a while longer until they can get a little bit more established then maybe consider making them an official event of there own if we do anything.the experts are talking about bigger improvements than that."

Moore's law does not apply to electric motors. Motor performance has not increased significantly for several years. Variety and quality have increased and prices have gone down, but specific power has not changed. This is because of the limits of the materials: The strength of magnets and the resistivity of copper are just not changing very much. The same is true of batteries: Quality has gone up and prices have gone down, and there is a wider variety available, but the specific energy (energy per unit weight) has not changed much and is not expected to. The hot new ideas with nanophosphates might bring the weight of A123's down by as much as 25% over the years, but that still doesn't make electrics intrinsically superior to glow engine systems.
Some of us are working hard to make electric available for Carrier because we think this will be a way to get more people to fly Carrier. A lot of R/C guys, who maybe flew control line when they were younger and would be interested in trying again but have since switched to electrics,might be tempted. Other present Carrier fliers are interested because it is a fun new way to fly Carrier, even if it doesn't blow the competition away. But it is likely to get close enough that the winner will be determined by how he has his whole act together and not so much by his power system.
Hasn't anybody noticed the other half of this thread? There are fewer and fewer glow engines available so people are pushing to change the displacement limits to try to catch engines in the last sizes they can buy. The glow engine is a dinosaur. It takes a dinosaur a long time to die, but they eventually do. And every day there are more and more electric motors and components to choose from, and at lower prices, too.
While we are now flying electric Carrier in unofficial events or, much more often, combined with the regular glow Carrier events, at a large number of contests, I don't believe we will ever be allowed to create any more official events. AMA would rather reduce the number of Control Line events. So the survival of Carrier might well depend on adding electrics to the official events, if not now, fairly near in the future.

Pete

david smith · « **Reply #44 on:** February 26, 2010, 07:57:56 AM »

Now that I read your post about the electrics, Pete, I see your point of view on how it could attract new people. I have been kind of on the fence about them but have not been too sure. I think if I had to choose then I would choose adding electrics before I would up the displacements.

I am still for making CL II unlimited

bfrog · « **Reply #45 on:** February 26, 2010, 09:41:16 AM »

I am strongly opposed to upping the engine sizes in carrier for a number of reasons. The intent of the change is to help grow participation. I believe that the exact opposite would happen if 40s are allowed in profile. This is currently the class with the largest participation. Moving to 40 sized engines would at best add a small number of entrants but at the same time it would jeopardize losing some of the existing flyers. I for one do not relish the idea of having to change from the proven planes that I fly. I believe that many other existing participants would have the same reaction. We have spent years practicing and perfecting our planes. The downside is too great to have a positive net effect on the event.

As far as electrics go I agree with Pete. The amount of energy available in 6 oz. of glow fuel is far greater than what can be packed into current battery technology. Based on current and even projected battery chemistry there is no way the energy density of batteries will come close to what already exists in glow fuel. Electric motors are already much more efficient than glow engines and the limiting factor will always be the batteries. There is no way under current and even the most optimistic projections that battery technology will approach energy densities of glow fuel. The problem is the perception by people who do not understand electrics and see them as "unlimited" power sources. The current weight limits on electrics effectively limit the amount of power you can carry on the airplane. Progress will be made on improving performance of electrics but they will always have a severe weight disadvantage. Once this is understood it's a no brainer to come to the conclusion that electrics are actually handicapped compared to glow power. That being said the advantages of electrics are numerous. More electric motors are sold now than glow engines. More and more people in RC are getting comfortable with electric power. They are quieter and would be able to be flown at many more flying sites than combustion motors. The are clean and "green". I think that in the long run electrics will become much more attractive to many more people.

john e. holliday · « **Reply #46 on:** February 26, 2010, 06:55:19 PM »

David, I am anxious to see your twin engine setups. Also as long as I have flown carrier, I have never known it to be unlimited as far as engine size. As far as I know the max was .65 so the two speed anderson would be legal as I was told many moons ago. I have a Brodak Tigercat with two Fox .15 Schnuerle's on it. I guess I over built it as it weighs too much to be legal. Need to get my SkyRay flying. For guys wanting to use .40 size engines, that is the event. I even argued about the size engine limit when it was first proposed, as it is not legal for Profile.

Also as someone state, "who can start the engine from the pilots seat". Every time I use the other word, it gets blanked out by this computor. See ya down the road.

Author Topic: Carrier rules proposal (Read 3532 times)

Joe Just

Joe Just

david smith

david smith