An OK idea, but I would say, change it to .25.  And say plain bearing, normal rotation while you're at it.

That would clearly open up the event to more people and make it substantially different and cheaper than Class I which was the original intent.

Either change would equally screw everybody who invested time and money into 36's.

You are correcto-mundo, Johnny, Profile could use an engine change.

With engines producing 2 to 3 times the power of when the rules were written, the LAST thing we need a change to a BIGGER engine.

Maybe if you want to standandize Profile and Class I, they could BOTH go to .25.  That would open up the narrow gap between I & II.

Wellll, "everybody who flys" is somthing like 10 guys.   Rather than a rule change that further entrenches the aging old guard, maybe it's time for a NEW rule that might bring in New people.  The OS 25RC is readily available, cheap, and throttles well. 

Increasing the engine size to give it over to $500 high performance racing 40's might do the near-impossible, make the event even smaller.

Before making any rules proposal make sure you consider all the pros and cons.   I too would love to see Profile Carrier go to a ready available engine.  Those in the know and have the cash can get Nelsons set up for todays PC.  Even tho left hand props are hard to come by. 

But, getting changes thru the top echelon is hard to do.  I have made suggestions on how to improve attendance only to be put down.  Fifteen carrier has not really caught on it seems to me.  The left hand engine availability again. 

I have several engines I have been using in Profile, but, they can't compare to a hinking left hand Nelson.  Maybe try a seperate event sometime with only the .25 size engine size limit, but, also maybe out law left hand engines.  Also remember to require mufflers and 10% fuel.  It is sad that with the new requirement the AMA has on pre entries deciding how many trophies can be handed out is pitiful.  Several events only had one trophy, First, to hand out. 

Anyway, I think we might get some youngsters envolved if we an engine that can be had without knowing somebody or a rich relative.  My take,  DOC Holliday

REALITY CHECK TIME!!!

I agree with Pete Cunha about the availability of good 36 sized engines. The Thunder Tiger 36 pro is a good engine and people have scored well over 300 points using it. They are inexpensive, I got one for $35 at a swap meet last year and Tower sells them for $81 new.

Someone wrote:

"Either change would equally screw everybody who invested time and money into 36's."

Is this supposed to be for the change or against it? It seems to me that if that is the case the event would loose competitors.

Other quotes:

"Wellll, "everybody who flys" is somthing like 10 guys.
Fifteen carrier has not really caught on"

If this is the case then why is the NCS top 20 full each year with at least 20 names. Look at the facts!

"This change would also put us in line with other countries that use the .40 in profile.

And what other countries would that be? Canada uses AMA regs, England has not engine size requirement, and on top of that I am not aware of any international carrier competitions. This point is mute.

  As for making .36 size engines obsolete, it has been my experience that there isn't really a lot of difference in performance between the two. Many competition engines use a .40 case with a .36 sleeve and piston so it would be easy to swap for a .40 if desired."


If there is little difference between the 36 and the 40 in performance tell that to someone in Class I that needs a motor!!!
So if a person wants to enter carrier and only has a 36 they have to spend money to upgrade it to a 40? That doesn't sound economical.

If there was a compelling reason to change the engine size I would support it but all of the arguments posted so far are pointless and would do nothing to draw new people into carrier and obsolete the equipment of those that do fly the event. The entry level for carrier, Sportsman Class, is still open to anyone who would like to try it without the need for a killer, lefthand, Nelson. Most people do not enter a new event with the idea of beating people who have flown the event for 5, 10 or 20 years. They just want to try something new. Changing the engine size is not the way to attract new participants at the expense of all those who have worked hard within the current rules to succeed.

I look at Mike's proposed change and I see an attempt, not to increase performance or drop performance or deal with a shortage of .36 engines, but to deal with a shortage of participants by opening the event up to an engine size that many folks already have and might be willing to use in an attempt to try the event.

Dave

     Let me get this straight, you want to fly and be competitive in profile carrier with your old G-21-35 and if you cant be competitive with that equipment then you don't want to fly profile carrier? Well would it be alright for me to say  (with a straight face) I would like to be competitive in stunt with my old johnson 32 but I guess it would take a modern stunt engine to compete so I guess I wont? I've heard so many excuses to not fly carrier and almost all of them come down to "I would fly carrier but I want to compete but I don't want to build a plane, perhaps buy an engine, practice and all the other things that a feller would have to do if he wanted to enter and compete in any other CL event".
     Another thing that gets to much press is the reverse crank excuse. Yes my engines have reverse cranks and my excuse for that is that when I started carrier flying I wanted to compete and win and I read that the reverse cranks make it easier to fly the event so as a beginner I bought engines with reverse cranks. Well guess who the guys are and what kind of crank shafts that they use that I have never come close to beating. First there is the late Bill Melton who was almost untouchable in all of the AMA events and now there is Pete Mazur who has been the man to beat in AMA carrier for the last few years. These guys don't fly with reverse crank engines because they feel that it would limit there choice of propellers there by handicapping them.
      To be competitive in AMA Profile Carrier you first have to have a plane that is proven to fly well (in most cases thats the MO-1) and then you need an engine that is proven to work well in carrier (there are a number of engines out there and there would be allot more if .40s were allowed) and to start off it doesn't have to be a Nelson because you will need to practice for a year before you can hope to be in a competitive position. Just like all the rest of the AMA CL events (the carrier event is probably the easiest or I wouldn't be flying it) that people seek out and then decide to compete in.
     Sign me up for a yea Mike. eric
     

Sorry I got to rambling there, so let me get back on-topic and answer Mike's original question. I would suggest not changing the Profile engine size to .40. Beginners have lots of options for obtaining low cost (less than$100) engines that will work very well for their first several years of competition, if not even longer. If they really want to use their old R/C .40, there is Skyray: Just get the local contest directors to hold the event. It really is fun and provides a good learning mechanism without a lot of investment, either time or money, in airplane or engine. Changing the event to try to snag a few beginners doesn't usually work and the unintended consequences sometimes result in the a few more of the regular Carrier guys dropping out, giving a net loss in participation.

Pete

Hi Joe, received the email, don't have the right software on this computer to open the attachment but will look at it tomorrow on my main computer. Thanks, you have always been most helpfull.