The Brodak Junior Lightning Streak has worked well for me.

The rules are good in that they "only" allow the movement of throttle, elevator and hook.

You could win with just about any old combat engine - unless there is somebody in your area who exploits the two giganitc lookholes - reverse rotation and electric motors. 

There is no such thing as an "electric 15".  With unlimited powere and no chance of flaming out on low speed, the electric motor is a whole 'nother ting.  I go to The Nats every year and could easily enter, but never will while the guy who craves the win continues to muscle his elecric into the 15 event.

I don't have the technology to make a reverse crankshaft, either. 

This could be a BIG event if a few guys in power chose to plug their loopholes.

Now you kind of know why I have lost interest in carrier.  Electric should have it own event.  I too am still waiting on a reverse rotation .15.  My Fox .36 left hand will not run for me in a typical profile ship.  Upright on the bench it is one sweet engine with plenty of power and throttle control.  Turn it on its side and all it wants to do is scream with no throttle control.  DOC Holliday 

If you want to fly NCS Carrier .15 Profile, it's really tough. You have to bolt on a .15 with a throttle , MVVS, Fox, LA, whatever, rig it up and fly it. There are plans available for the "winningist" .15 ever, the Sniper, by Bill Bischoff, give him a call. (Somewhere on this forum are a couple of pictures of a Sniper, it isn't all that pretty, but can easily be made to look like anything, Seafury, Hellcat, Guardian, etc.) It has been a while, but Bill, myself and Mike Greb went 1-2-3 at the Nats with Snipers, maybe we shouldn't be doing that, it's an entry level event? Guess what? Now there are two levels of participation, if you score above 200, you're in the upper echelon, "expert" if you will....below 200 and your a "Sportsman". So there are prizes to go around. Electrics don't automatically win, I'll bet BFrog a dinner at the Texas Roadhouse in Muncie my Irvine (not reverse rotation) Sniper can beat his electric one! I'd make the same wager with Pete, but he can beat me with an electric or an IC motor, probably could with a few strands of Pirelli and a rubber motor, too!

 There is a problem, though, and the real Navy Carrier pilots have solved it- you gotta overcome obstacles along the way- a motor that won't run, a sticky bellcrank, an arresting hook that goes up instead of down, a whining noise in your ears. If you can't solve it, then ask someone, there are lots of folks willing to help. If one gives up easily, then just maybe he just isn't that interested in the first place. That's the satisfaction inherent in Carrier, engineering solutions and solving problems.  

Wichita just had Carrier included in their contest, set up the deck, timers and pit crew at the ready, and three entries showed up, make it four, I entered, too. The Seaton family did all the hard work, just wish we had more to show up to fly. Tough competition or tough rules are not deterents to Carrier, participation is. Carrier will be flown at Albuquequequereque this weekend, hope a bunch show up......dg:)

Whew, left out the answer to the question, sorry. I recommend the Irvine 15. Mine easily makes the speed limit, runs smoothly on Ritch's Brew 25% nitro, and uses the easily available APC 7x4 prop. But be careful, they sometimes start without a battery connected.

If you want to fly NCS Carrier .15 Profile, it's really tough. You have to bolt on a .15 with a throttle , .....  fly it.

Good post, Dale.  Unfortunately, there are those few who take every opportunity to whine incessantly with the same old complaints - I consider all the comments about personal opinions of what should or should not be legal to be off topic -  the original poster asked three very pointed questions which were only partially answered.  One of the replies included what can only be described as a personal attack on Bob Frogner, since he has the only electric .15 in existence.  As far as I know, Bob pulled no strings nor 'muscled' his way into any event - official or unofficial.  Yet, thread after thread garners the same tired whining (Is that too strong a description?  I think not) in off-topic replies.

I very much wish that I could make Wichita, but I'm afraid that it is a little out of my range.  At the contests that I do make or have in the past, my experience is much like yours - those who do well are those who actually make the effort to build and fly the event (well, DUH!).  Those who want to improve find that practice and paying attention to those who do better will ALWAYS improve. As I recall, those who don't enter, but constantly complain never win, and very quickly lose any sympathetic ear.  Just MHO --

So to the original post - my own .15 is very similar to the Sniper - a shoulder-wing built from a foam 1/2A combat wing.  Think of something between 200 and 250 sq. in.  My Fox. .15 schneurle is somewhat a disappointment, but is available without going to Ebay.  I would steer clear of USED f2d combat engines as the ones that I have seen have been run hard and put up wet and if they still ran right, they wouldn't be available.  The new ones might do OK, but they are NOT cheap .  A better route to go might be converting an RC Car .15 to an airplane engine - I believe that at least one of those is currently flying.

As for what it takes to be competitive, that depends on who you compete against.  For a first venture into any class, it is more important to get SOMETHING flying that to wait around trying to gather up equipment.  By the time you get it accumulated, you may have waited too long.  If you can't quite make the speed limit, you are still going to beat everyone who didn't get a landing .. if you consistently get a high speed, a low speed and a landing score, you are going to do well no matter what the others do.

If I recall right there were no electrics in 15 carrier at the nats and all of the other electrics have there own classes except the skyray 35.  Even though they are combined in skyray there is still a speed limit  so I really see no advantage to electric or disadvantage to gas.The skyray that my brother flew has a stock os 32 that with a knicked and beat up master airscrew 9-5 will do the speed limit. and not to mention that the plane is at least 10 years old with a warped wing. Guess what else IT DOESNT HANG and he got 3rd with it at the Nats, I came in second with it at Polk city and he won with it at SIG.

........


 It is kind of sad to say that if you have a high, low and a good landing then you will probably be competitive.

And how about a little credit to the original builder here?      (except I don't think it originally had a warped wing  )

And you are correct -- that is kind of sad  

(BOB F. - you have a PM)

Wouldn't it have been nice if the Navy had flight tested the XF-5U ! Then we would have really known it's performance.    Mike

Bob,

Here's a couple of thoughts from my experience with 15 that might be of interest.

Make the leadouts adjustable, not in the air but so you can try different placement on the ground. You want to be able to have as much rake as possible and still be able to fly high speed.This also means the the landing gear needs to be skewed a bit so the plane doesn't crab on take off. This is a trade off with where the CG is too, so being able to adjust the CG is important. I find that I fly the 15's with the CG back farther than I would normally expect it to be.

Put in lots of motor offset (I probably have 5 degrees or more). The little planes tend to drift in on you going cross wind. Off set doesn't affect high speed all the much and makes low speed much less spooky (the farther back the leadouts are also helps here).


Have plenty of elevator surface. I find in with both glow and electric that in low speed I am giving up elevator to keep the tail down. More surface area really helps (just be careful in high speed!!!).

My personal preference is to have a fairly long moment from the wing to the tail. Short coupled planes are way too sensitive and difficult to balance properly.

Post a picture of what you build. Everyone likes to see new equipment.

Good luck.

Bob

I'm just teasing  .   I was very happy to see you guys doing so well and look forward to seeing you again next summer.  After all, a Skyray is a Skyray is a Skyray

Again, thanks for the information.

The XF5U-1 lends itself to the trim Bob suggested. There is little fuselage side area and the wing won't know if is going straight or not.

David: The 300 sq.in. version flew quite well although not without a couple of quirks. I only had a Mc Coy .35 Red Head so it didn't match the speed of the ST C35 guys.

Bob - that was the first 'Carrier' plane I ever saw - back in 1973 in Sioux City, Iowa.  I don't know what motor it had on it but it was the first time I was ever aware that the Carrier event even existed.  I would very much like to build one of the 300 sq. in versions for Nostalgia Profile - can you suggest a source for the plans?

Thanks in advance.

As a slight follow on to Bob F's trim suggestions, let me add this:  Add tail weight until the model gets squirrely on high speed, then remove the last bit you added.  Then add tip weight until the model is yawed out no matter how high the nose gets - you will be surprised at the amount of weight you end up with in both these extremities, but also how easy it is to set up and fly slow.  Also, as Bob suggested, use lots of engine offset (5 degrees sounds about right to me, too) and sweep the leadouts as far as you can without giving up too much high speed (up to the maximum allowed) -- that is the mis-calculation with the 'speed limit' events.  It doesn't limit the advantage of more horsepower - it makes it MORE important.

Everyone wants to know, can I be competitive? In 15 carrier the scores are generally very tight and no, you don't have to hit 70 MPH to do well. Below I charted the NCS Top Twenty for 2008. I also built a chart for scores starting at 60 mph high speed up to the max, 70 mph and from 2 minutes low to 4 minutes low speed. If  you look at the chart and compare the scores to the top twenty it shows that you don't have to fly 70mph or even do a 4 min low speed to get a good score.

Example: Say you have a 30sec  high speed (60 mph). This should be attainable without having an exotic engine. If you can fly a 2 min low speed your score is 200 points. That would be good enough for 13th on the list for all of last year.

If you could increase your low time to 3 minutes (180 seconds) that would give a score of 220 points or 5th on the top twenty. Very respectable.

If your plane is fast and can hit 26 seconds for high speed, just under the 70mph max then using the last two examples the scores jump to 215 and 238 respectively or 8th and 4th on the list. Not too shaby.

Obviously the top scores are very good and hard to attain. They were flown by experienced people with well setup planes in ideal conditions. The fact of the matter is that a top 10 score is very reachable by someone who is starting out if they get the plane setup well and put in some practice time.


   NCS Top 20
   for 2008
1   262.09
2   260.8
3   251.2
4   224.9
5   218.7
6   217.89
7   216.13
8   213.5
9   211.9
10   211.76
11   208.22
12   201.13
13   199.35
14   197.75
15   196.71      
16   196.69      
17   194.5      
18   191.05      
19   190.02      
20   189.3      

High speed         Low Speed (Sec)            
                       120      140         160       180       200     220        240
25.7                 216.73   224.51   232.30   240.08   247.86   255.64   263.42
26                   215.38   223.08   230.77   238.46   246.15   253.85   261.54
27                   211.11   218.52   225.93   233.33   240.74   248.15   255.56
28                   207.14   214.29   221.43   228.57   235.71   242.86   250.00
29                   203.45   210.34   217.24   224.14   231.03   237.93   244.83
30                   200.00   206.67   213.33   220.00   226.67   233.33   240.00
                                     Scores assume 100 pt landing                  


I hope this makes sense. If you have any questions please let me know.

Bob

Bob - that was the first 'Carrier' plane I ever saw - back in 1973 in Sioux City, Iowa.  I don't know what motor it had on it but it was the first time I was ever aware that the Carrier event even existed.  I would very much like to build one of the 300 sq. in versions for Nostalgia Profile - can you suggest a source for the plans?

Thanks in advance.

Mike,

Plans are available from AMA Plans Service. The model is listed as Vought XF5U by Frank Scott, AMA # 32545 / Pond # 93D3. The cost is $ 8.00 + postage. http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/plans/pdfs/v-plans.pdf

Shoot me a PM with your mailing address and I'll send you a copy of the magazine construction article.

Bob

Mike,

The model was originally published in American Aircraft Modeler, June 1972. It does qualify for the Historical Bonus.

The Span is 19-3/4 in (across the main lifting surface). The Length is 23-5/8 in (spinner tip to rear of elevator). The area is 300 in. sq.+. It is a legal Profile Carrier model. I have a blueline taken from Frank's original tracing as well as a copy of AMA # 32545. I assure you that they are the same plan.

Now, someone published another model of this plane at a later date. As I recall it had a much thinner wing. To tell the truth I didn't give it much of a look. I'll do some research to see if I can identify the thing.

Dick Perry and I have been having running dialog on this plane for some time. He kind of has me thinking that a 300 sq. in. version built as lightly as possible may have merit as a .15...

I'll get the article off to you in the next day or so.

Mike,

The model was originally published in American Aircraft Modeler, June 1972. It does qualify for the Historical Bonus.

The Span is 19-3/4 in (across the main lifting surface). The Length is 23-5/8 in (spinner tip to rear of elevator). The area is 300 in. sq.+. It is a legal Profile Carrier model. I have a blueline taken from Frank's original tracing as well as a copy of AMA # 32545. I assure you that they are the same plan.

Now, someone published another model of this plane at a later date. As I recall it had a much thinner wing. To tell the truth I didn't give it much of a look. I'll do some research to see if I can identify the thing.

Dick Perry and I have been having running dialog on this plane for some time. He kind of has me thinking that a 300 sq. in. version built as lightly as possible may have merit as a .15...

I'll get the article off to you in the next day or so.

OK - so the main confusions is only due to my rather fuzzy memory.  The '20 inch' version IS the one I saw and therefore all the other makes sense now - and you meant that you would have it scaled DOWN to .15 size.  I would agree that you probably should scale it down to something in the 220 sq. in. range - as I recall it isn't going to be the fastest even if built to the bare 300" min. for profile.  Isn't  the wing rather thick pretty much over all?

Thanks for the historical info, as well as the memories --

 I've got video cam of it. Also, Charlie Reeves has a Half A version. You all know Charlie, he's that Stunt guy who ushered in the MO-1 for the Carrier event.

dg
[/quote]

Sorry, Reeves was not the first to have the MO-1. that was Mr. Gerber.  I have a copy of all three of his endevors, Profile and Classes 1 & 2.  He recently passed away in Florida.
Joe

This is the V-173, which was not designated as a carrier plane but was a test aircraft to prove the concept so no scale points. The aircraft that was to be a carrier aircraft, the XF5U-1, never officially flew so it is not eligible for scale points. (Rumors that it lifted orr once during a taxi test, if they could be substantiated, would allow it to be qualified for scale points.) So here are two interesting subjects that might be fine for Nostalgia Profile, for example, where there are no scale points in any case.
Pete

According to pictures I have seen of the MO-1 landing there were hooks attached to the main landing gear.  As such there was not an arresting hook as we know it today unless it was added later.  I think Art Johnson has the most comprehensive documentation on Navy Carrier Aircraft.  Its supposed to be fun,  DOC Holliday

STAND BY!

Thought this might be a good time and place to announce a new ARF for Carrier.  We will be producing on a limited basis two ARF carrier planes intended NOT TO BE COMPETITIVE, but to enable a club (our primary target) to get and have available a Carrier type of plane that can be used for instruction, creating interest in possible carrier competition, or just plane fun.  Two sizes will be available, a .15 and another designed around the popular LA or FP .25 or similar size engines.  The planes will have removable wing (foam cored)  the body on both sizes will comewith bellcrank installed under the body, tip weight and manually adjustable leadout guide installed.  As the original part of the "Ukey" series of ARF's the design will incorporate many of the methods and manufacturing methods of this series of planes. We will also make available with the planes the buyers choice of including a news simple type of adjustable 3-line handles we have developed over the past three years.  COST?  Somewheres around $60 with postage paid to US sites.  Planes will be available soon. Pictures soon.

Joe Just

Mike,

The model was originally published in American Aircraft Modeler, June 1972. It does qualify for the Historical Bonus.

The Span is 19-3/4 in (across the main lifting surface). The Length is 23-5/8 in (spinner tip to rear of elevator). The area is 300 in. sq.+. It is a legal Profile Carrier model. I have a blueline taken from Frank's original tracing as well as a copy of AMA # 32545. I assure you that they are the same plan.

Now, someone published another model of this plane at a later date. As I recall it had a much thinner wing. To tell the truth I didn't give it much of a look. I'll do some research to see if I can identify the thing.

Dick Perry and I have been having running dialog on this plane for some time. He kind of has me thinking that a 300 sq. in. version built as lightly as possible may have merit as a .15...

I'll get the article off to you in the next day or so.

Bob - You have a PM -- (maybe more than one)

I would not attach the landing gear to the spar as per the plans. The first landing I did with mine tore the gear completely out of the wing. I found the best way was to screw some aluminium stunt plane gear to the fuselage center, that took care of the weakness and no further gear problems happened.The airplane was neither fast(Fox 36) nor slow but was fun to watch.Another thing, the booms broke off very often and I think removable ones for flight might be a good idea.   Mike

My original model had the gear attached to the spar with standard nylon lg clips. There was never an issue with the gear.

As for the prop booms, there were some issues. Mainly it had to do with harmonic vibration. I think some of that pre-preg sheet stuff Sig had did the trick as a reinforcement. I forget the name but you soaked it in dope thinner and molded it in place.

Bob

Bob -

Received the packet from you and the plans from AMA - Thanks much.

I'm actually about 1/2 finished building it already - a very simple to build model with easy to fabricate parts.  One caution - the "C" rib is mis-drawn on the plans.  If you are building from the AMA/Pond plans, measure the portion forward of the main spar on both the top view and the profile view of the ribs.  The top view dimension is correct.  I had to make a new 'nose' for the C ribs and install it after the ribs were glued to the spar.  Simple but it took me a while to figure out where the error was.

Mine will be powered with an old plain-bearing Max-III .35 that runs pretty good but dates back to before the original Skimmer was published.

Thanks again -

MIke,

It looks like Frank drew the "C" Rib error on the original tracing. We built the original from that drawing. Haven't a clue now how we fixed the problem.

Back to the LG. By the time the spar / doublers, LE, and LE Planking are all done that corner is pretty well boxed in. If the LG is solidly attached to the spar there shouldn't be a problem.

Bob

Another problem I had with the XF5U was hook location. The plans don't mention a hook and one isn't visible in the photos. If you put it in the normal position it blocks down elevator movement. I ended up pivoting mine forward so it would be out of the way.
                                                                                                                                                                 Mike

Frank's original had a short forward stowed hook. I went with a longer one and just let it hang free so it wouldn't foul the elevator. Didn't seem to cause any concern.

Bob

Frank's original had a short forward stowed hook. I went with a longer one and just let it hang free so it wouldn't foul the elevator. Didn't seem to cause any concern.

Bob

I am going with a longer, free hanging hook and I have in mind a method to fold it forward and use a rubber band or some kind of latch to hold it up.  At a contest or off a deck, I will let it hang down - at the practice circle or off grass, I will latch it up.  I would have just made it removeable but that would require more engineering than this.  There sure is LOTS of room in this model for this sort of thing.