Author Topic: Incredible Shrinking Event (Read 4657 times)

peabody · « **on:** August 16, 2006, 07:51:40 PM »

Carrier is a great event....but is a victim of success by its participants......those that really enjoy flying Carrier soon get all caught up in reverse rotation, high nitro and line sliders and the casual participant gets swept away.
Profile Carrier was conceived as an entry event...but soon the good guys brought the high tech stuff and neophytes
I believe that Carrier might not die (that's what it's doing) if Profile did not allow sliders, reverse rotation and was flown on 10% fuel.
And the prop hanging, while a challenge, is a joke to most that might otherwise consider building a plane....

Dave Rolley · « **Reply #1 on:** August 16, 2006, 08:45:27 PM »

I wish I had $5 for everytime I've allowed myself to get involved with this discussion (regardless of the event). Here I go again.

Personally I don't believe there is any such thing as a beginner's event that is part of the competition at the Nationals. At least where something like skill classes don't exist in the event. Since the Navy Carrier Society includes Profile Carrier as part of the determination of the National Champion (the Eugene Ely award), there is no way the event could be considered a beginner's event at that venue. At the local level, maybe. But not at the Nats.

A long time ago (1976?) I had a conversation with one of the then "big guns" in Navy Carrier. His view was there are two types of modeler interested in Navy Carrier. The one that like the scale-like aspects of the event and the ones that like the performance aspect of the event. Right now the performance folks hold sway and have for many years.

Want to change Navy Carrier to something that more closely resembles the event as many remember it? Easy. No change in equipment or fuel is required.

First, change the low speed factor from 10 to something like 3 or 5.

Second, change the maximum angle of attack during low speed from 60 degrees to 30 degrees. You won't even have to buy a new triangle to judge the angle, just flip the triangle over to the 30 degree side. I'd leave the AOA unrestricted outside of the timed portion of low speed.

These two changes accomplishes several things. The first change reduces the reward for extreme low speed flight. The second change makes extreme low speed flight very difficult.

Nothing I've suggested obsoletes any current equipment.

However, with the increased emphasis on high speed performance, we will see the event shift more towards the horsepower event it was 30 years ago.

The purpose of these changes is to make the event appear more reachable by the average modeler and thereby increase participation. The folks that are currently winning will probably still win.

Dave Rolley

john e. holliday · « **Reply #2 on:** August 17, 2006, 08:44:04 PM »

Now if we could get the NCS to see it like this. See ya labor day weekend. DOC Holliday

Dave Rolley · « **Reply #3 on:** August 18, 2006, 09:50:46 PM »

Actually it isn't the NCS that has to be convinced change is needed and that a particular approach is the way to go.

A change can be submitted by any AMA member. At that point it is up to the appropriate contest board. That is who needs to be lobbied for a particular change.

January 1, 2007 starts a new rules cycle with the approved changes effective January 1, 2009. Proposals will be accepted starting January 1, 2007 through September 30, 2007.

Looking forward to seeing you in two weeks. Bring the grand kids. We have Junior Mouse 1 and Junior 1/2A Profile Proto trohies for them to try for.

Dave

Dave Rolley · « **Reply #4 on:** August 20, 2006, 12:16:03 AM »

I flew Carrier from about 1975 until roughly 1999. I stopped flying Navy Carrier for a number of reasons. Most of them have to do with my son and I taking up F2C and trying to make the USA team. And we are still working on that one.

I've had 120 MPH Class 1 flights and 125 MPH Class 2 flights. There still is an OPS 65 gold head engine sitting in my basement waiting to be put into a Class 2 Guardian. I sure miss those in the current event. I can remember when 90 seconds on low speed was considered good. And a landing was often a surprise, not a certainty.

I learned to hang a model to stay somewhat competitive. I have even managed to stall a profile model and get to drop off into a spin and get a turn and a quarter before it hit the ground. Sure screwed up the lines on that one.

What I really miss the most in modern Navy Carrier is going to a contest and having 25 models in the Carrier pit area. The Topeka contest used to be like that. Heck the Denver contest used to be like that without anyone coming in from out of town. Does anyone remember the 1976 Nats at Dayton. More Carrier models and flying than you could shake a stick at.

I'd like to think that shifting the event away from the current low speed emphasis and flight profile would help get folks building and flying Carrier again. But when I look around, I see and hear lots of folks complaining about the current event, but no one building any Carrier models or anyone submitting rules proposals to change things.

Maybe it is a chicken and egg kind of thing. But we sure had more folks flying it when we used 70% nitro, went 110 - 120 MPH, and hoped the engine would make it through low speed than we do today.

Dave

Bill Little · « **Reply #5 on:** August 20, 2006, 10:14:33 AM »

Hi Dave,

As a kid in the early '60s, I wanted to fly Carrier. Lots of reason for the desire, but no way to do it. I had two buddies that I flew with. We just flew stunt and some fun planes. Did not know of a "local" meet, and the NATS were an impossibility!

Now, there are even less people flying C/L, especially kids. The whole scene has changed, and I would "still" like to fly some carrier, but the overall situation for me still has not changed much. Local meets (only 2 in our state) do not consider flying carrier, and attending the NATS is only a slightly better chance.

I have been to Brodaks and I watched Carrier there for quite a while last time. I really am not interested in trying to fly a "Bi-Slob" at high and low speed. Doing a Sabre Dance is a fun thing to do when goofing around, but not my interest when or if I were to fly Carrier.

Different strokes for different folks and all, I would much more like to fly a Scale looking plane and in a much more realistic flight pattern.

Who knows, I might still get to try it some day.

Bill <><

Leroy Heikes · « **Reply #6 on:** August 25, 2006, 11:26:46 AM »

I would like to try carrier also I have watched them fly at the Nats, and at the world championship in 2004, when they did the demo contest. I even have some old Sterling Kits sitting in the cupboard. I however can not fathom the prophanging technique. The best carrier flight I saw was when a guy flew a profile corsair, and it just flew the slow speed with a slight increase in angle of attack. It looked like he was doing his landing approach.

Leroy

bfrog · « **Reply #7 on:** August 25, 2006, 07:04:19 PM »

I have to jump in here and stand up for what carrier is really like today. I took up carrier in 2001 after not having flown control line in some 35 years. I built up a pretty much stock Brodak kit, the Guardian, with a Webra 35 as the power plant. It took some practice but getting it to hang was more balance of the plane and some practice flights. It is not all that hard to do. The key elements are proper balance, line sweep and tip weight. The next thing is practice. Like anything it does take some getting used to.

I find carrier fun and a challenge. Getting both high and low speed out of a model is and interesting exercise and the flying part of low speed demands good concentration.

There are other options if you want to fly carrier as it was flown before "hanging". At the Nats and at other contest there are nostalgia classes that do not allow hanging or line sliders. Or you can build a 15 size that doesn't allow sliders but does allow hang. Another option is Skyray which is a stock Skyray with a throttle. Lots of ways to get started that don't have to be too complicated.

Carrier is like many other control line events these days. Lots of experienced people and not many younsters. I was at a speed contest last weekend and they had very similar concerns that there was very little new blood in the event. Control line is overshadowed by all the RC events and technology that is very attractive to newcomers that want to fly model airplanes. There are many ARF's and ready to fly planes that are easy to get going with. Hopefully there is enough interest to keep all of the events going but it takes people who want to build their own airplanes and take some time getting the bugs out. I find that fun and entertaining, others want to buy a plane or helicopter and take it out of the box and get in the air.

Just my 2 cents.

Wayne J. Buran · « **Reply #8 on:** August 25, 2006, 08:26:38 PM »

I think the high point for carrier was the 72 NATS at Glenview NAS. The last Navy NATS had three decks and if you didn't get your name on the sign up sheet you were toast. What a rush that was flying at that NATS. BTW, the MO-1 had not yet been unleashed upon us. Guardians, Bearcats, Corsairs, TBD's, Myrts, Skypirates and Skyraiders as far as you could see. I have never since seen so many McCoy and Rossi 60's in the same place at one time.
Thanks
Wayne

Dave Rolley · « **Reply #9 on:** August 26, 2006, 01:00:18 AM »

I went off and spent some quality time with a spreadsheet program. Discovered some interesting things about Navy Carrier scoring. The first thing I found was the current scoring system is better balanced than the old scoring system.

Just for reference, the basic current scoring system is: (leaving off resolution and rounding stuff)
High Speed points = High Speed in MPH
Low Speed points = (High Speed in MPH / Low speed in MPH) * 10
Landing points
Scale points

Total points = High Speed points + Low speed points + landing points + scale points

The old scoring system:
High Speed points = High Speed in MPH
Low Speed points = (High Speed in MPH - Low speed in MPH) * 3
Landing points
Scale points

Total points = High Speed points + Low speed points + landing points + scale points

The old scoring system favored low speed performance. If you had a flight of 90 MPH HS and 20 MPH LS (with scale and landing points), the HS counted for 18% (CL 1&2) or 23% (profile) of the total score while the LS counted for 42% (CL 1&2) or 53% (profile) of the total score. The current scoring system per centages are 27% and 37% for HS with LS being 13% and 18% of the total score (CL 1&2, Profile respectively).

So how come we see the flying style and scores being flown at today's contest? Simple, if the HS is held constant, the low speed portion of the score takes on a greater percentage of the score the slower you fly. At 10 MPH for the low speed, the percentages are almost evenly distributed between the point categories. A flight with 90 MPH HS and 10 MPH has the HS contributing 24% (CL 1&2) or 31% (profile) of the total score and the LS contributing 24% (CL 1&2) or 31% (profile) of the total score. Where things get interesting is at 5MPH LS. At that performance point the HS contributes 19% (CL 1&2) or 24% (profile) and the LS contributes 38% (CL 1&2) or 47% (profile) of the total score!

So two things have aligned to create the current situation. A scoring system that, in my opinion, excessively rewards extreme low speed performance and a flying style that allows that extreme low speed performance to be achieved. If the the low speed multiplier were changed to 5, the balance point currently at 10 MPH shifts to approximately 5 MPH. This reduces the reward for extreme low speed performance. If the maximum allowed AOA was reduced from 60 degrees to 30 degrees, it would be harder to achieve the extreme low speed performance.

Either change will have an impact on the event. If I could only have one of the two suggested changes, I'd prefer to see the maximum AOA during low speed reduced. Maybe we would see more folks flying the event. And then again, maybe the event is already past the point of no return and nothing will help.

Dave

Wayne J. Buran · « **Reply #10 on:** August 26, 2006, 04:41:28 AM »

Dave, was the change in the airplane types and flight attitude changed by the scoring or the allowance of the extreme angle of attack in the low speed. IE if the sliders had been disallowed to begin with would we have what we have today. I have always believed that the demise of carrier as an event was the lack of the previous reality or prototypical attitude at low speed. I am not counting the general demise of control line by radio control. Does this make sense?
Thanks
Wayne

Darrell Mims · « **Reply #11 on:** August 27, 2006, 10:47:23 AM »

I for one would think that you would have more participation if the flights were more realistic . I never understood the concept of hanging on the prop ,most old time movies you saw a plane at a certain angle and not looking straight up . We are all competitive and want to win ,and if we can find a way to get around the rules we will. I know we write our on rules or at least try to keep them in check. But we need more participation and to me it would be more fun and relaxing,The only way to do that is to start over with simpler execution.

Dave Rolley · « **Reply #12 on:** August 28, 2006, 10:00:48 AM »

Wayne,

The change in the scoring system was independent of the technology that allowed the extreme low speeds. The scoring change was an attempt to make the distribution between the elements of flight more equitable. It isn't perfect but is really better in that regard than the older scoring system. It simply has the unintended consequence of breaking down around 10 mph on low speed. At the time the new scoring system was adopted No one was flying 10 MPH in competition. I'm not sure many folks considered it really feasible. At the time a 2 minute low speed (15 MPH) was considered excellent. Ninety seconds (20 MPH) was more the normal performance for most folks.

I might not be remembering things exactly as they happened and the names could be wrong. I was at the 1976 Nats in Dayton when Dick Davis did his prop hanging flights at the Nats. He would have won had he gotten his landing. At that time the rules only required the model to maintain forward motion. The 60 degree rule did not exist. What was demonstrated was the idea the extreme low speed (for the 1976 time frame) was possible without stopping the model's forward motion. I don't remember if the Davis model had sliders, but my next model sure did! For a while, the sliders provided improved low speed without extreme angles of attack. However, nose out and nose up low speed attitude came rather quickly. That is where the 60 degree rule came from. It was an attempt to limit nose high flying (saber dance) without prohibiting it.

OK, so why my two suggestions? If the low speed multiplication factor is lowered from 10 to 5, the current advantage in the scoring is moved from 10 MPH down to 5MPH. This is a temporary fix because folks are already approaching that speed. The other suggest I have it to lower the maximum AOA allowed in low speed. With the extreme power to weight ratio our models have, it will be far more difficult to fly an extreme low speed at 30 degree AOA that the current 60 degree AOA.

But notice, neither of the revisions requires any changes to the models. No equipment is obsoleted.

As to the discussion about realism, Navy Carrier hasn't been a scale event for a very long time. The folks flying the event like the performance aspect of the event and aren't listening to the realism argument.

But then, they probably aren't listening to my suggestions either.

If I were going to start flying Navy Carrier again tomorrow, I'd build an external control Skyray and figure out the control and balance system needed to get to a good hang and practice. Once I could crack 2.5 or 3 minutes on low speed, I'd order a left-hand rotation Nelson 36 and build my scale profile.

For the scale classes, I'd go with an OPS 60 or 65 (I have both) in a Guardian. Believe it or not, they hang wonderfully.

later,

Dave

Wayne J. Buran · « **Reply #13 on:** August 28, 2006, 05:48:07 PM »

Dave, thanks for the reply. Interesting information. So do you think that if you supplied a rules change request, that it would get serious consideration. I really would like to see the low speeds but a lot less hang. I remain interested in the nostalgia side. I keep working on my Boss Class 2 Guardian and am looking for something for profile that has a nostalgia flare. Maybe a nice Vietnam era Skyraider. BTW, I would support your suggested scoring change. Thats a start at least.
Thanks
Wayhe

Dave Rolley · « **Reply #14 on:** August 28, 2006, 08:22:20 PM »

Wayne,

The nice thing about the rules process is a proposal does not have to go through any screening by the special interest groups to be considered by the contest board. Having said that, the control line contest board has been split along event category lines (there is a Navy Carrier Contest Board). But that isn't all bad either. The make up of the contest board is recommended by the SIG, not dictated by the SIG. The actual makeup is still in the hands of the AMA. Since the voting results are public information within the AMA and we know who represents a particular district we have some insight as to the contest board member's views and who to lobby.

Even though I have flown Navy Carrier in the past and I have an interest in the event, I believe the proposal should come from someone currently flying the event at contests. I'm willing to sign as the CD on the proposal but since I'm not a current competitor, I'm not willing to be the originator. As I said, I believe the originator should be a current competitor.

I doubt I still have the plans, but a friend took the three views of an A-1E (the bubble canopy one) and made a crude set of plans. The model looked good in the air. Just don't get carried away on the scale height of the fuselage. For a 36" - 40" span model around 325 sq in the scale fuselage will approach 6" top to bottom. Something thinner will still look good on the end of the lines. A fuselage mounted bellcrank with a little dihedral in the wing should allow for a line guide on top of the wing tip and would allow you to play with a slider out in the open if you so desired. Even without prop hanging, a slider makes low speed easier.

One gentleman in Wichita had a Skyraider complete with under wing stores. It wasn't real fast or particularly slow, but he got a complete flight most of the time and enjoyed flying it at contests.

Just to open this topic up a little, if Navy Carrier is a hobby for you (I'm not picking on Wayne, the use of the pronoun you is for anyone reading this), the opportunity to participate in competition ocassionally and fly off of a deck against your personal best performance in any class is probably sufficient. If however, Navy Carrier represents more of a sport for you, where the competition is the important part of your activity, then you should be playing in the current competition arena and trying to change the event as a recognized participant. Afterall, why should the event change if someone says they will participate when those that are participating are not seeking the change?

Have a good one,

Dave

eric conley · « **Reply #15 on:** August 28, 2006, 09:38:38 PM »

Dave has a good point when he says any change in the rules should come from someone that is an active carrier flyer. There are alot of nay sayers out there that talk about carrier and how they would fly the event if only the rules were changed to what they and everyone else would want. The major portion of the people that are active in carrier at this time favor a performance event and strong competion, they are very focused and serious about competeing and where they are in the top 20 and so forth. At one time carrier was more of a pick up event that a scale builder, stunt flyer, or racing pilot would enter for the fun of it. It is not that type of event now. I fly AMA carrier and love the event for all of its chalenges and performance potential. Not enough scale? Well those butt ugly MO1s that you see out there are pretty close to scale. Dont like them do you, are the rules going to be changed to exclude some of the planes that are doing so well now? I dont think so. The beauty with profile carrier is that the planes only have to resemble the real plane and you have some wiggle room to build some very competitive planes that look very good and are not MO1s. The reason you see so many MO1s in class 1 and 2 is they are easy to build, very competitive, and high performance. Now if you want to go to the scale side you can fly in Nostalgia. Dick Perry has made a list of nostalgia qualified planes that is dozens of planes long that you can enter in nostalgia events. No sliders, no hang, great looking planes and quite a bit of action as many of these planes were pretty fast. One north west flyer said he knew just how to fix carrier and had quite a list of what was wrong (as he saw it) with it. He was encouraged to write up some rules for his event and start having the event at the meets in his area to see how it would go over. That was the last we heard about his better way and now who knows maybe it would have been a lot of fun. 15 carrier has sure gone over well so it can be done. eric conley

bfrog · « **Reply #16 on:** August 29, 2006, 12:09:15 AM »

I agree with Eric. Carrier is fun and a challenge, but it is not that difficult to get into. You just have to try, ask questions and put in some effort. It doesn't take magic learn how to hang a plane, it takes some practice and some work with the equipment, but that is what modelling in all about. You can't expect to fly fast without putting the right parts together. You can't expect to hang a plane without building it so it will hang and then practice, practice, practice. Just like any other event. The guys that fly stunt spend many hours doing the pattern over and over. Thats why they are good. They spend a lot of time and effort building and finishing their models so they work and look good. Its the same with carrier.

In profile there are a lot of MO-1's but there a plenty of competitive models of other planes too. Eric has built some beautifull Me 109's and Spitfires that he has set very high scores with, Ron Duly has built very pretty Guardians that fly extremely well, my Vampire can be competiitve (the pilot could use some more practice but the plane is capable of high scores).

The only way to learn something is to get in a try it, then work out the bugs and practice. Sure you could change the rules to something different but the really good guys would still be the good guys because they work at it.

Carrier is a challenge, getting the plane to work well, learning how to fly it in calm and windy conditions, getting the most out of the conditions. Fly as fast as you can and then have some touch to keep it going at a walking pace. That takes some skill and practice.

I encourage others to try it out the way it is, work hard at it and then decide if they like it or not. I'm not the most experienced flyer in carrier but I am willing to help out anyone that has some interest.

eric conley · « **Reply #17 on:** August 29, 2006, 10:55:29 AM »

Hi Bob it is nice to hear from you. Saw your other post in this stream, and I feel that these gentlemen dont know how much they are missing. When I first saw AMA navy carrier I was at a WAM meet in Corning CA and was there to fly stunt and 1/2 A proto speed. I pretty much bombed in stunt and after flying the proto I noticed this strange goup of people off in the dirt flying planes. Well it was carrier and I stood there and watched and I have been sold of this event ever sence(1992). The first thing I did was join the Navy Carrier Society so I could get there news letter. At that time there was a mountain of information to be had in the publication and I even got a hold of the previous editor (Mr. Pugh) and asked him if he had any back issues of the news letter that I could purchase. He said he would be glad to send them and sent me all that he had. What a wealth of information. From there I got a kit from Golden State Models for a profile MO1 and purchased a Webra 32 and had at it. Bill Bischoff was telling every one that the bigest key at learning carrier was Practice, practice, practice. If you couldnt fly the plane, the best eguipment in the land was not going to get you anywhere and he was so right. Most of the early practice was with the hang and the more I practiced the better it got. Took me a couple months to get the hang of the hang and it was time well spent. The hang may look kinda crazy or just plain crazy( it dosnt look as bad from the inside of the circle as it does from the outside of the circle) to a lot of people but the control of the handle (stick for pitch) and the control of the throtle ( to gain or loose altitude) are very much like a real plane when they are dirty and and slowed down, nose hi, (yes our noses are 50 degrees higher) and carring plenty of power to hold altitude. Believe me it feels real good. Later in the year I entered soom meets and had alot of fun. After a few years and several MO1s I started to scratch build some different planes that I thought would compete well with the MO1s. First came the Bf 109T and it was great so tried a Seafire MK 17 and it was real nice but that elliptical wing was real hard to build so only built one. At this time I'm building a corsair and so far it seems to be comming out pretty good but you never know until you fly them for a little while if there up to competion. And on that note I believe I'll sign off and get busy on the F4U as here in Nevada you have to get the painting done before winter sets in. eric conley

Dave Rolley · « **Reply #18 on:** August 29, 2006, 11:50:53 AM »

Eric,

Very nice description of your experience with Navy Carrier. It is an interesting event. One little nit, Navy Carrier has almost always been a focused event. It does not have a history of being a pick-up event for flyers in other events. It becomes an all consuming event for those that are interested. As I said in an earlier posting, I dropped Carrier because we are chasing F2C, which is the mother of all consuming events! (Actually, any event can be all consuming.)

Over a period of time, any event ages to the point that it isn't attracting as many new folks as it once was. When Gerry Deneau and I came up with the 15 Profile Carrier event, we were specifically targeting new folks that probably had a Goodyear engine to use. The KISS principle is why all the restrictions exist in that event. BTW, at the time of its creation, the NCS leadership was not in favor of 15 Carrier. They didn't feel it was needed. The event was successful because folks liked it and Gerry (and others) got articles about models for the event published in Model Aviation (and other magazines).

As to the models used, I can remember folks complaining about all the Guardians in Navy Carrier (Sterling used to have a kit that worked for both Class 1 and Class 2). There has always been a design that seems to work better than the rest and folks gravitate to that design. If you can find Charles Reeves original article on the MO-1 you would see that the current MO-1s are a far cry from where he started with the model.

I have successfully used a Bearcat (loosely based on the GS Bearcat) in hanging flight. It doesn't take a high wing model with 400 sq inches to fly slow. My 305 sq in Bearcat was perfectly capable. You just need to understand the relationship between the forces involved.

I still think Navy Carrier needs some changes. Even as a competitor, I found someone else's slow flight boring to watch. Don't misunderstand, it is great to fly! But boring to watch. New competitors come from the spectators. So I believe the event needs to shift somewhat to attract folks to the event. You have already read the changes I think are necessary.

Dave

john e. holliday · « **Reply #19 on:** September 05, 2006, 11:05:58 AM »

To all who have responded to this post. I still beleive the demise of carrier actually started when it was passed that a person could enter profile and scale carrier. At one time you either flew scale(Class I & II) or you flew profile. At the first Profile Carrier Nats there were over 200 entries. Line sliders had not been used yet. We will never see those days again. But, I do hope somebody will put in a proposal for a change in AOA in the rules. Being a center judge at several NATS it was hard to tell when a person had actually stopped forward motion. Had several complaints when it was called. So it became that I would watch for the model to go backwards. Also the way a plane hangs on the end of the lines, it is very hard to accurately tell when a plane was past the 60 degree angle. Also after several years of center judging I was told I was judging off the wrong shoulder when at the time nobody complained. Guess I will have to get the HB 61 back in a Gaurdian. Later, DOC Holliday

Keith Spriggs · « **Reply #20 on:** September 11, 2006, 11:15:39 PM »

Shortly after profile carrier became an event I built a plane of my own design (nobody else would claim it) I have not picked up a control handle in 35 years, but I am planning on getting back in to it. I recently dug out my old equipment including what was left of the profile carrier. It was powered by a SuperTigre ST35. I placed first or second in most contest that I entered because it would fly so slow. There were a few planes that were faster,but none that were any slower. It had quite a lot of engine offset and as you can see a lot of area in the horizontal stabilizer. I dint even know what "line sliders " are. Yes it would hover and even fly backwards, although I never did that in a contest.

I was just thinking that it might be interesting if your "target" low speed was a percentage of your high speed. Go over or under and lose points. I assume that real carrier planes have an optimum landing speed.

Clancy Arnold · « **Reply #21 on:** September 12, 2006, 06:35:44 AM »

If you want to make carrier more realistic, consider a landing score based on the actual wire you catch. Regular carrier landings are scored based on which wire they catch. Ever wonder why Navy/Marine pilots want to catch a #3 wire. The aim point of their landing is a spot between the #2 and #3 wires. #3 wire is a perfect landing. If he was slightly low he will catch the #2 wire. If he was slightly high He will catch the #4 wire . If he was low he will catch the #1 wire. If he was high he will miss the #4 wire and he does a bolter and goes around for an other try. If he is very low, he way miss the deck and have a ramp strike. Therefore the landing score should be based on how close to the center wire we land.

Clancy

bruce malm · « **Reply #22 on:** September 12, 2006, 11:18:54 AM »

What if you hit the #3 wire and rip out your tailhook. Always seemed to happen to me. Of course the old Fox 59 with the cut-in exhaust slide throttle didn't really work that well down towards idle. I still had fun a got a 3rd place at the 65 Northwest championships.

Bruce

Keith Spriggs · « **Reply #23 on:** September 12, 2006, 12:22:00 PM »

Quote from: Clancy Arnold on September 12, 2006, 06:35:44 AM

If you want to make carrier more realistic, consider a landing score based on the actual wire you catch. Clancy

That is a great idea.

phil c · « **Reply #24 on:** September 12, 2006, 02:20:59 PM »

Hey Guys, the entry level in carrier is only distantly related to the rules. All the talk about high entries in years past is the same for most events. Combat had 120 entries at the 1976 NATS. All the CL events, and model flying in general, has gotten pretty grey-haired in the last 30 years.

the big thing hanging on the prop does is put a lot of pilot skill into the equation. It takes practice and feel to do well. That gives many flyers an opportunity to do well by practicing flying. The older carrier events really emphasized horsepower and speed. Like speed flying, it took a huge investment in engines and testing to do really well- way beyond what any less-than-dedicated flyer is willing to bet on.

You have realize that in the last 30 years in the CL events, as the fliers have aged the good ones have gotten much better. This puts a very high barrier to entry to anyone thinking they might have a chance at winning. There is a really fine balance to strike between having an element of luck involved(so anyone has at least some hope of placing), flying skill(so anyone willing to practice can get better), and enjoyment(the basic stuff you do in the event has to be interesting enough to do a lot).

bfrog · « **Reply #25 on:** September 12, 2006, 05:23:25 PM »

Phil,

I agree with what you are saying. The "old" carrier rules really did reward high speed, which means hp and $$. The newer rules allow some compromise in that you can go fairly fast (read, not as much money) and then make up for it some with good low speed (read, practice and airplane control). This is part of what makes it challenging and fun. Its not just a matter of building a rocket ship and hanging on.

I still think that any flyer can hang a plane and have good results by doing three things. Balance the plane correctly, have a line slider that is reliable and practice. No, you can't just build a plane and go out and challenge the experts but that isn't a realistic expectation in any event. It does take work. Sportsman class is a perfect place to start and work your way up. Almost anyone at a contest these days will bend over backwards to help and encourage newcomers.

Dave Rolley · « **Reply #26 on:** September 12, 2006, 09:18:09 PM »

Again, a small nit. The old scoring system favored low speed over high speed.

Low speed points were calculated as 3 times the difference between high and low speed. 90 MPH for High Speed and 20 MPH for Low Speed gave you 90 point for High Speed and 210 points for low speed. Landing was still 100 points. I'm ignoring scale points.

The current system would give you 90 points for High Speed. Low Speed points are calculated as 10 times the ratio of High Speed to Low Speed. In this case the ratio is 4.5:1 and the Low Speed point are 45.

Where this breaks down is extreme low speed (around 10 MPH for low speed). At 10 MPH the old system awards 240 points for low speed and the current system awards 90 points for low speed. Almost an even distribution between the component parts of the score for a Class 1 or Class 2 model (roughly 100 points for each part).

It can be fun.

Dave

Howard Olson · « **Reply #27 on:** September 17, 2006, 05:37:39 PM »

Greetings. I fly carrier at every opportunity. I usually just enter sportsman profile. As a relatively casual carrier competitor I have some insight to share.

Rules: You can change them all you want, but the guys who practice are still going to win. I have a modified Brodak Guardian that does 19 seconds and change powered by a used Nelson .36 combat engine with a glued in OS carb. I routinely go faster than the guys in regular profile, but still get the pants beat off of me because the other guys get more practice. How are you going to regulate that? It seems fair to me. More experience, more wins.

Line sliders: Low speed with sliders, do-able. Without sliders, much harder. If you think that the use of sliders is a detriment to new pilots entering, please explain how making slow flight harder by outlawing them is going to make carrier more popular with new guys. The line slider impacts everyone equally. What does changing this accomplish?

Hanging: I am OK with the current 60 degree rule. Ideally I would like to see a shallower angle of attack be the norm, but only because it would be more realistic. One improvement that might make sense would be fewer laps in low speed. Timing and spectating for seven low speed laps is a drag with good pilots.

All for now,

Howard O.

Dave Rolley · « **Reply #28 on:** September 19, 2006, 11:15:45 AM »

Howard,

I shouldn't, but I'm going to anyway...

So you fly the event and enjoy it, but by your last sentence, you are bored by watching the current low speed flight.

Welcome to the club

Dave

bfrog · « **Reply #29 on:** September 19, 2006, 04:58:34 PM »

Flying and watching someone fly are two different things. I love to fly carrier and don't expect someone to enjoy whatching me as much as I am enjoying the flying. Watching someone do a 6 minute max in freeflight could be equally as stimulating to the spector as watching a good low speed flight in carrier. The most fun is in the flying but then you have to accept that others will have their turn too. A really good flight of 18 seconds high speed and 5+ minutes of low speed is less than it takes for a full pattern. Its not like a 1/2 hour indoor flight. If you've got a short attention span then maybe speed would be a better event.

I just like to stay positive about something I enjoy doing and realize that part of the participation is timing and watching others try to do better.

Howard Olson · « **Reply #30 on:** September 19, 2006, 05:54:46 PM »

If the topic here is getting more people involved, keeping the event moving along at a pace that stimulates a person's interest may be beneficial. Any new person is likely going to watch a carrier event before they dive in and participate. If what we are doing now, isn't working to generate new pilots, do we keep going along with the people we have, and the last guy flying fold up the deck when he gives up? I went to a couple of Midwest carrier meets this summer. The same four guys, including me, were there at all of them. It would seem that something has to change if carrier is to remain viable. As for flying speed, I am deeply involved with speed and I don't really see it requiring any shorter of an attention span. There were over twenty pilots entered at each of several local speed contests that I attended this season. Most of them entered several events. There was a constant waiting list about ten guys deep in Dayton two weeks ago, all waiting for their turn to go. Speed has shown a small increase in participation the last few years. Maybe there is something to be gained from looking at the events that are enjoying better participation, and seeing if any of their appeal could be brought over to carrier.

Howard

eric conley · « **Reply #31 on:** September 19, 2006, 08:41:31 PM »

Bob, you are so right about the part of being in the circle doing the flying and and trying to up your score, and standing outside of the circle watching someone in the process of beating your score. Much more fun to be in the circle. Like any competition though we have to watch carefully what the other guys are doing and how they are doing it (especially if they are scoring higher) and pick up things that will help you better your scores. I love going to carrier events and talking with the competitors and looking over thier equipment. I have brought few new things to carrier but have sure profited by what I have seen and heard from the other competitors. eric

Dave Rolley · « **Reply #32 on:** September 20, 2006, 04:14:20 PM »

The message that started this thread was concerned with changes to bring more folks into the event.

Several folks have indicated they came into the event as it currently exists and really see no problem with the event as it is currently constituted.

I'm sure it is just my unreliable memory that recalls local level contests with 15 (or more) competitors and 30+ entries across the three core Navy Carrier events.

However, I do remember that the 1975 Nats barely had enough entries to give trophies through 5th place in Profile Carrier. And that the 1976 Nats ran two decks. Or other Nats since that time that were so well attended that the deck was busy most of the day and the deck closed at 5pm with folks on the list still waiting to fly.

Apparently there is no problem with participation in Navy Carrier and no changes are needed to attract folks to the event.

Dave

Paul Smith · « **Reply #33 on:** December 31, 2006, 01:09:01 PM »

Quote from: peabody on August 16, 2006, 07:51:40 PM

Carrier is a great event....but is a victim of success by its participants......those that really enjoy flying Carrier soon get all caught up in reverse rotation, high nitro and line sliders and the casual participant gets swept away.
Profile Carrier was conceived as an entry event...but soon the good guys brought the high tech stuff and neophytes
I believe that Carrier might not die (that's what it's doing) if Profile did not allow sliders, reverse rotation and was flown on 10% fuel.
And the prop hanging, while a challenge, is a joke to most that might otherwise consider building a plane....

Well said - 100% True, correct, and on target.

skyshark58 · « **Reply #34 on:** December 31, 2006, 05:21:27 PM »

All control line is shrinking because kids have a lot of other things to do and also are not exposed to the hobby. It's not the rules or any other thing that is under our control. Someday in the not so distant future it will go away! Sad but it is true. Replaced by countless other hobbys

Enjoy it while you still can

Paul Smith · « **Reply #35 on:** January 01, 2007, 02:19:42 PM »

Quote from: Dave Rolley on September 12, 2006, 09:18:09 PM

Again, a small nit. The old scoring system favored low speed over high speed.

Low speed points were calculated as 3 times the difference between high and low speed. 90 MPH for High Speed and 20 MPH for Low Speed gave you 90 point for High Speed and 210 points for low speed. Landing was still 100 points. I'm ignoring scale points.

The current system would give you 90 points for High Speed. Low Speed points are calculated as 10 times the ratio of High Speed to Low Speed. In this case the ratio is 4.5:1 and the Low Speed point are 45.

Where this breaks down is extreme low speed (around 10 MPH for low speed). At 10 MPH the old system awards 240 points for low speed and the current system awards 90 points for low speed. Almost an even distribution between the component parts of the score for a Class 1 or Class 2 model (roughly 100 points for each part).

It can be fun.

Nothing could be more false than the above statement.

Under the old rules:
A model that goes 1 MPH faster got 4 more points, but
a model that went 1 MPH slower got only 3 more points.

Ergo, the rules favored keeping the difference the same and making both speeds higher.

The disasterous rules change was pushed through by people who never were able to go fast, so they inverted the system to make losers into winners.

The absence of sliders made prop-hanging impossible and forced models to actually FLY at low speed, thereby making low speed a genuine challenge.

Under today's rule, ANYBODY can hover, stop, or even back-up a model.
Low speed is a joke. You might as well have a B-Slob event with a National Record.

The only real test is how much cheating the center judge will tolerate. To even keep records of such an event is a mockery of competition.

Dave Rolley · « **Reply #36 on:** January 01, 2007, 07:04:01 PM »

To you the event will be whatever you want it to be. It can be fun. It can be a pain. You decide.

I don't fly the event today because I my son and I are chasing another event (F2C) and neither one of us has time for another event. My decision not to fly Navy Carrier is not because I think the rules are unworkable or need drastic change.

Believe what you want about the scoring. The purpose of the change and the affect of the change are two independent topics. I was flying the event when the rules changed. I've flown under both sets of rules. If you can win under one set, you can win under the other set.

BTW, the current rules still require the model to maintain forward motion in low speed. Stopping the model or backing up ends the low speed portion of the flight with a zero score.

Since the current scoring system has been in place for around 20 years, I doubt that it has kept many folks from flying the event. Otherwise it would have been changed by now.

I've known many Navy Carrier participants that have DQ'd their own low speed flight when they stopped or the model blew backwards or the hook touched the ground. All perhaps unnoticed by the contest officials. It is not the integrity of the contest official but of the individual modeler/competitor that matters.

Dave

Dick Byron · « **Reply #37 on:** January 02, 2007, 06:00:38 PM »

I flew carrier at the 1976 Nats. I had a Guardian that was 1/64" of an inch to short so I did not get scale points. I flew it, packed it up and never flew again. The jerk running the nats convinced me it was no fun.

skyshark58 · « **Reply #38 on:** January 02, 2007, 06:09:21 PM »

Too bad that happened! I would have protested it. A 64th" is well with in the 10% allowed.

Dave Rolley · « **Reply #39 on:** January 03, 2007, 12:30:56 AM »

Dick,

Yup, the officials can make it where you don't want to even come near the event. I quit flying Carrier at the Nats when they insisted that I use a starting procedure that I consider unsafe. That didn't stop me from flying the event, but I no longer have any interest in flying the event at the Nats.

Dave

Dick Byron · « **Reply #40 on:** January 03, 2007, 05:14:45 PM »

I now know I should have protested. It was my first nats. I entered carrier, stunt, 1/2a stunt and scale. I watched scale and learned trhe most. The rest is history. I did just buy some 10/8W REV UP,s today.

Melvin Schuette · « **Reply #41 on:** January 08, 2007, 08:04:31 PM »

Dave, Bob, Rich and all other interested parties,

I got involved in Carrier in 1981, just at the time that ball bearing engines were allowed. From what I ca gather Navy Carrier was an event designed to appease the navy who happened to sponsor the Nationals at the time. The planes used have always been given bonus points for planes that in the judges opinion looked like a real plane that was intended to be used as a carrier plane, and even with the low turn out the scale points can mean the difference between 1st and last place and it is easy to build an MO-1 that will fly at 60 degrees. Take a look at the stunt circles, even though there is a trend for more semi-scale looking stunt planes what percentage of them are patterned after real planes, and when was the last time you sale a real airplane fly anything that resembles the AMA pattern, but do you ever hear anybody complain that it doesn't look scale? The 60 degree nose high attitude prop hanging is the challenge of Carrier. With practice landing become second nature, what we brag about is landing without breaking a prop. Take low speed away and you have another scale class where the type of airplanes used and manuvers are specified.

The use of left hand engines has not been a determent to the event, if they were then more people would be using them. I can think of only 4 people in the country whoare currently using them and we get beat on a regular bases. Both Skyray Carrier and 15 Carrier have prov en that outlawing line sliders doesn't make it easier to fly the event. what we have found is that you adjust the leadouts for low speed and get out the checkbook for a motor. Then how do we get Carrier back to the popularity that it once achieved? The only way that I can see it happen is to make it a video game. the biggest problem I see with Carrier at the Nationals is not the equipment or the flying style, it's the people who fly it. We have to wake up to the idea that we are bunch of men out playing with toy airplanes, and that we are doing it because we enjoy it, the winner doesn't take home a million dollars and the guy who finishes last isn't shot.

Dave, if you use the reasoning given that prevented you from starting your engine on the deck causes too much oil to build up on the launching area of the deck, then we should outlaw the use of side exhaust engine. One setting there running dumps almost as much oil on the deck as starting on there. I have seen an engine restarted on the deck and no one said a thing against that.

OK enough said.

Melvin

Dave Rolley · « **Reply #42 on:** January 11, 2007, 07:56:29 AM »

Melvin,

The funny thing about the whole issue is it wasn't my OPS 65 or even my K&B 5.8. It was Charlie's Wildcat with a ST C-35 on it. That poor engine can't move as much fuel running as I use as a prime on the OPS. The plane still hangs in my basement.

But the unwritten rules used at the Nats are rules just the same and the logic or lack of the same associated with the approved approach has nothing to do with the issue. The official's ruling was upheld through the protest process all the way to the AMA Technical Director. I do want to make it clear that the deck judge was following the guidance of the event director.

That was Charlie's last year as a Senior and he had been practicing. With all the discussion that was going on and the raised voices (probably including my own), he was the one that that kept sight of the issue involved and said to remove his model from the deck. He has not flown the event since. And I don't need to fly the event at the Nats. Especially when they make up unsafe rules in the name of safety.

The only reason I hold on to the story is to use as an illustration that the folks "in charge" of Navy Carrier, at east at that time at that Nats, cared more for enforcing the unwritten rule that they did for participation of some kid in the event. Since I see the same group of folks every year at the Nats and the same method is in use, my conclusion is that nothing has changed.

I did learn two things from that incident (like I didn't already know them). Challenge authority at your own risk and, if there is not a clear cut rule that the officials have stepped outside of, the superior organization will side with the event officials even if it doesn't make any sense.

Dave