I believe the article that Charlie sent to you actually states that the XF5U-1 did become airborne during a taxi test.  That means it had a pilot in it and it flew.  WW II ended before the airplane could be shipped to California for its flight tests.  It was never flown again after that taxi test where it became airborne.

The rules for CL Scale state:

"A scale model shall be a replica (copy) of a heavier-than-air, man-carrying aircraft. Only prototype aircraft that actually made flights can be selected as subjects for competitive modeling. ... The Contest
Director may disqualify any entry which, in his opinion is not a bonnafide scale model."

Charlie has flown his model of this aircraft in several scale contests and the contest management has accepted the written/published account that the full size aircraft was flown.  The airplane was flown and it satisfies the rules to be eligible for CL scale.

The CL Carrier rules state that for a model be be eligible for scale bonus points:

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

So here we have an aircraft that was designed to operate from a ship, (which could be but not necessarily a carrier), it was flown, but never actually took off or landed on a ship.  Personally, I would find that the documentation provided in that article provided by Charlie is sufficient to comply with the intent of the carrier rules.  However, that is just my own personal opinion which probably means something approaching zero.  A possible solution to the matter would be to put your justification material in a letter addressed to the CL Carrier Contest Board with an information copy to the AMA Technical Director and get a signed "Opinion Letter" from one or the other source or both where hopefully the decision would be that this model would be eligible for the CL Carrier scale bonus points.  (Actualy, this will give the Contest Board something to do officially for you as an individual AMA member.)

Here are some pictures of Charlie's model that has flown successfully at several contests, including the famous 1/2A Multi-Engine Profile Sale contests here in Tucson.  (Note that the engine nacelles are scale and are in compliance with the profile width limitations for CL Scale models.)

Keith

Well.... ... it was designed for operations from Naval ships. As I understand it, it didn't need a hook. It was meant to be able to fly very slowly but I don't think the idea was to do precisely vertical take-offs and landings.

But if the original didn't have a landing hook, is the model allowed to have one?

edit:
or did it have a hook?
Drawings show an "Auxiliary hoist" and "Auxiliary hoist pivot (arresting hook in ventral position)"

link to a pretty big cutaway drawing:
http://references.charlyecho.com/Aviation/Vought/XF55U-1/Cutaway/Xf5upiston.jpg

Since it was designed to fly off a ship and to land without a carrier hook, that is the way IMO it should be flown.  With the planform it should not be too hard to slow it down enough, nearly hover, then plunk it on the deck.

Of course, I wouldn't try it.

Just as an aside, I've always thought that a "fantasy scale" event would be fun, at least for the spectators (well, for guys who read about contests in magazines, which is usually where I get my scale itch scratched).

Basically, eligibility would include any published comic-book airplane, whacko concepts from Popular Mechanics, all of the "what were the Nazis smoking" concepts from WWII, mockups or prototypes that never made it off the ground, etc..  "Scale documentation" would be illustrations from period publications.

Any airplane that actually flew would, of course, be ineligible.

Perhaps a special trophy to the whackiest airplane at any given contest.

But was the hook actually installed for the flight tests?

Heaven knows, I've certainly been on field tests for equipment that didn't quite match any known drawing.

In my opinion, accidentally 'hopping off the ground' and being successfully flown are not the same.  Somewhere I have a reference to those taxi tests in which the pilot "didn't consider it a 'controlled flight'..." and no other document that I'm aware of states that there was any further 'flying' of that plane.

(Clip)

Please explain.  If an airplane is moving forward and for some reason, it becomes airborne, whether completely controlled or not, it is in the air.  Is that not flying?  It the pilot didn't consider it a 'controlled flight'", how did he get back on the ground without a crash?  He must have had some control.  But the question is, when is being airborne with forward speed not a flight?

A decision by the Contest Board/AMA Technical Director would settle this matter as well as the tail hook question, regardless of how long this or any other forum drags out the discussion.

Keith

Tim,

Ok, I know you are having fun, but I am a little slow ----

The question remains, when is being airborne with forward speed not a flight?

Keith

Tim,

Ok, I know you are having fun, but I am a little slow ----

The question remains, when is being airborne with forward speed not a flight?

Keith

I hesitate to answer because I'm not sure that I'm qualified, because I'm afraid it'll hijack David's thread, and because I'm afraid that I'll just feed an argument.

But, what the heck:

I think that this is a case that really highlights the fuzzy nature of any human language.  I think it's more pertinent to ask yourself what the answer is to "yes, but is that really flying?".  If I put a rock in a trebuchet and let it fly, we say the rock is in flight.  But if I clip a Piper Cub's wings to a 10 foot span, hook it to the sling of a trebuchet, and let it fly, can I enter it in a scale competition in it's nearly-wingless form on the basis of it having flown through the air?

More to the point, if I build a homebuilt airplane that is inherently unstable, or not powerful enough to rise it's own wingspan off the ground, or is otherwise incapable of rising off the ground at airport A, flying through the air in a safe and controlled manner, then landing at airport B so that I can buy a $100 hamburger, have I built an airplane that is capable of really flying?

If I take said "airplane", and I manage to wrestle it off the ground a foot or two and then land it, without ever deviating from a straight flight path or leaving the confines of the airport, has it really flown?  Or is the flight only slightly more "real" than my hypothetical nearly wingless Piper Cub being flung by a trebuchet?

What about hovercraft, that "fly" inches above the ground without ever (necessarily) touching it?  Are they "really flying"?

What about those Soviet ground-effects "airliners" that fly across huge lakes without ever being capable of getting more than a few tens of feet above the water?  Are they "really flying"?

Or those weirdo Iranian "patrol seaplanes" that also can't get out of their own ground effects for any length of time?  Are they "really flying"?

On the other hand, there are innumerable examples of machines that can be taken off from the surface in a safe and controlled manner, utilizing the reaction of the air against their flying surfaces, that can be flown in any arbitrary flight path (within their range and altitude capabilities), and landed safely from altitude back to the surface.  These are real aircraft, and no one is going to argue that what they are doing is really flying.

For example, the Wright Flyers and other early machines did demonstrate that ability -- even though some of them were so rickety, underpowered, and inherently unstable that they stayed above ground by luck and phenomenal piloting ability.  Those were "real airplanes" that "really flew", even if the FAA would never sign off on one even as a homebuilt.

So I would say that not only did the XF5U-1 not demonstrate "real" flight (because it was just a hop), but that you couldn't use it as a scale subject on that basis (pending, of course, a decision on what the rules really mean by someone in authority).

Had the thing taken off, climbed more than its wingspan above the ground, circled the airfield, then landed, I would definitely say that it really flew.

At this point it's just a fun conversation for me.  I fly neither carrier nor scale, so I don't have a dog in the race.  Moreover, if I did fly either event I'd probably place a higher weight on keeping the peace (and therefore keeping my mouth shut) than making waves.  I suppose that if the only thing between me and a trophy I felt I really deserved was some aircraft that I didn't feel was eligible I'd lodge a protest -- but even then, one says one's piece to the guy in charge, then one shuts one's mouth and accepts his decision.

Pulling in the Piper Cub and the trebuchet into the discussion was just for the purposes of shining a light on the issue from a different angle, basically in an attempt to find some intermediate steps between something that's clearly acceptable (i.e. an F8F) and clearly not (i.e. a rock, or a grand piano).  If you consider those intermediate steps, then it helps you figure exactly where you would draw the line, which in turn helps you apply it to the problem at hand.

If this bird somehow is deemed legal for Class I & II Carrier, I know of sevral other designs that should be counted legal even tho they never had a carrier hook.   One I think of is the Cessna push/pull plane they had flying.   It was capable of easily landing and taking off a carrier deck.   That big C-130 also did take offs and landings with no hook.   The MO-1 got by with photos of it taking off and landing on a deck of a ship.   If you look close at photos, the hooks were attached to the main laning gear.   It did not have an arresting hook as I know a hook should be.   All I will say in closing, is if you show up with one for scale carrier, you better have plenty of proof if I ever am an event director for carrier at a NATS again.  

As I said, this plane DID have a tail hook - it was designed as a carrier plane for the Navy.  I would venture that ANY plane designed for the Navy to operate off carriers after WWII would have had to have a tail hook, but I'm sure someone would be able to point out an exception.  At any rate, here is a drawing from Naval Fighters #21 -
As you can see, the tail hook is as goofy as the rest of the plane.

  Some pretty reasonable logic there.

  All I know is that if someone actually built one and showed up at a contest and would want to fly it in Carrier, it would be pretty lame if he/she was turned away.

And as mentioned before, any controversy regarding if this airplane is compliant with the carrier rules regarding if it flew (which it did) and if it had a tail hook (which it apparently had or provisions for such) and even if it did not, it was still designed to operate from a platform on a ship at sea; that controversy could be easily settled by a signed statement from the Carrier Contest Board and/or the AMA Technical Director.  Such action would either approve the design for Class I/II competition or they could rule against it.  Case settled.  (Though it would still be fun to prolong this rather senseless discussion.)

Keith

A long, long time ago, I was considering this endeavor for carrier and could not find the documents as the "cloud" did not exist. Now, there is so much info!
Here are a couple of links that could solve the ambiguity. I do not want to end the topic though... Too much fun reading!



http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f5u.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_XF5U
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=f5u+photos&qpvt=f5u+photos&FORM=IGRE# The photo that has the aircratf on horses has the hook deployed.

And if you have time… a paper model out of your printer!!!

http://www.scribd.com/doc/22662446/Chance-Vought-XF5U-1-Flying-PanCake


 

It says it later .. you have to read the whole set of rules.

Same debate with the Kingfisher, but that's all been hashed out over the years also.

It's shame this concept wasn't resurrected in the 50's with twin Turbo-props. I think the vibration issue that plagued the prototype would have been solved. I wonder if it could have given the Skyraider a run for it's money.

There you go, David!  If Dick Perry is OK with it, then who am I to disagree?   Bring it to Des Moines this year.   

I wouldn't put in for vacation at the usual Sig Contest time if I were you.  I have it from Bob Nelson that the control line contest is off.  We are still waiting to get Mike G to confirm.

There will be no Sig contest this year. (And, I believe, in years after.) I confirmed it with Mike Gretz.
Pete

Good point Keith.   I remember the year someone wanted to fly an Auto-Gyro in profile.   Even tho, if you figured up the disc that was well over 300 square inches while spinning.   Even had some stub wings, but it was deemed not to meet the rules for Profile Navy Carrier. 

Let's not bring THAT up again!

Look at post #19 --