News:


  • March 28, 2024, 01:46:43 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Cardinal Profile vs. Pathfinder Profile some of your thoughts please  (Read 6309 times)

Offline Skip Chernoff

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1445
I've got a very nice ST46 and a lovely OS 40 FSR (stunt modified) sitting in my engine bin and want to build a profile ship for Brodaks this summer. I'll be flying Advanced this year. I was looking at both the Pathfinder and Cardinal Profile models. Some of your thoughts on these two ships please.

Offline Walter Hicks

  • 2018 Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 375
Re: Cardinal Profile vs. Pathfinder Profile some of your thoughts please
« Reply #1 on: March 12, 2018, 09:58:04 PM »
A much better flying plane is the Imitation! Both the Pathfinder and Brodak Cardinal fly well the ARF planes tend to be heavy. But the Airfoils on the Cardinal and Pathfinder are good. The Pathfinder was designed by people flying at 4000+ altitude so you know it is designed well and has a bit larger wing than the Cardinal. The Imitation is 630 sq and can be built light using the new kits Mike Griffin has available. All are good Imitation is the best and easiest to fly.

Offline Dan McEntee

  • 23 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6824
Re: Cardinal Profile vs. Pathfinder Profile some of your thoughts please
« Reply #2 on: March 12, 2018, 10:09:41 PM »
  The Imitation is not a profile by most definitions. Build either of the models and practice with it. Built it straight and true and work at trimming it out, and then practice with it. When you think you are in the ball park, burn another gallon of fuel in practice. Then find yourself a good coach and practice some more.  don't depend on a specific airplane to improve your pattern. Pick the design you like, then YOU improve your pattern with it. If you see the improvement youare looking for, build another one of the same airplane and improve any shortcomings you think may be there.
   Type at you later,
  Dan McEntee
AMA 28784
EAA  1038824
AMA 480405 (American Motorcyclist Association)

Offline Balsa Butcher

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2357
  • High Desert Flier
Re: Cardinal Profile vs. Pathfinder Profile some of your thoughts please
« Reply #3 on: March 12, 2018, 11:08:20 PM »
Of the two choices I recommend the Pathfinder. I don't know anyone who has flown one that did not think it was a great flying model.  The Cardinal on the other  seems to generate more of a love it or hate it opinion. Looks wise, Pathfinder wins hands down IMHO (sorry Windy). Build the kit if you are flying in advanced. Stand by for the fuselage not stiff enough posts, you can look them up. The model seems to not be bothered by it much, at least the ones I have flown. Gordan has recommended shortening the empennage by 1/2", that ought to help.  8)
Pete Cunha
Sacramento CA.
AMA 57499

Offline Ron Varnas

  • 2018 Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 125
Re: Cardinal Profile vs. Pathfinder Profile some of your thoughts please
« Reply #4 on: March 13, 2018, 04:51:01 AM »
Either of the 2 Brodak kits Pathfinder or Cardinal would be fine, I'd lean to the Cardinal as I have a soft spot for anything from the stables of the Cardinal/Patternmaster era, 
if you go with the Cardinal kit suggest you pull up some of the build threads on here re- strengthening the fuze.

Dan's correct the Imitation wasn't a profile persay and as far as I know there's no current kit available for it in profile form.

Mike Griffin's currently taking orders for a run of full fuze 'Imitation' kits but not sure when they'll be available, orders only recently begun.
RJV Melb. Australia

Offline Perry Rose

  • Go vote, it's so easy dead people do it all the time.
  • 2015
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1654
Re: Cardinal Profile vs. Pathfinder Profile some of your thoughts please
« Reply #5 on: March 13, 2018, 05:10:29 AM »
I've built the Pathfinder kit and scratch built one. I built another plane using the Cardinal wing and that is the best flying plane I have. The Pathfinder nose wheel has saved a lot of props and is worth the price. If Windy designed the Cardinal, he lives in New Jersey almost at sea level.
I may be wrong but I doubt it.
I wouldn't take her to a dog fight even if she had a chance to win.
The worst part of growing old is remembering when you were young.

Offline goozgog

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 551
Re: Cardinal Profile vs. Pathfinder Profile some of your thoughts please
« Reply #6 on: March 13, 2018, 07:15:40 AM »
   I have built both and my choice would be the Cardinal.
Full disclosure. I have far more experience with Cardinals than Pathfinders.
  If you look at the picture of me in my AV, that's a modified Cardinal at my feet.
It is a very good flying plane with a PA .40.

  The Pathfinder flies well but the tricycle landing gear limits propeller choices
because of low ground clearance.  The Hershey Bar wing is easier to build
but the swept LE of the Cardinal is worth the extra effort.

   If I was building another Cardinal I would study the huge amount of information
about Cardinal modifications here at Stunthangar.
 Be sure to consider these mods.

-  Reduce the flap chord to 2" at the root by trimming the trailing edge and
   have the outboard flap with 5% more area.
   Lots of info available about this.

-  Add a substantial inboard cheek block that goes all the way back to the
   leading edge. This will dampen vibrations and give more consistent runs.

-  The stock Cardinal tail works well but I use a Vector 40 tail on my Cardinals.
   25" span and built up and sheeted to 3/8 thickness. A more modern configuration
   and IMHO an improvement.

-  Mount the tank on a plywood plate that can be raised or lowered.
   Start with the pick-up 1/8" lower than the N/V and adjust from there.

  Some things I have done but would not do again are making a wing mounted
 landing gear..  It looks good and didn't hurt, but it's not worth the effort.
I tried a forward lead out UP configuration. It made no difference that I could
detect.

BTW. Len Bourel flies a dead stock Cardinal in Expert and does well with it.
Brodak's is at 1,050 feet above sea level

Sorry about this obvious advise Skip but I just want to be specific.
I'm sure others will have lots more to say.

Cheers! - K

Keith Morgan

Offline Martin Quartim

  • 22 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 802
    • StuntHobby
Re: Cardinal Profile vs. Pathfinder Profile some of your thoughts please
« Reply #7 on: March 13, 2018, 07:56:11 AM »
When I started I had the same question. I picked the Pathfinder and I am glad I did. I used an Enya 45 6001 which is similar to ST 46. I fly at 2300ft but altitude density here average  4500ft during the summer.

I did very well in competition here in Brazil and IMO the Pathfinder seems to do better than Cardinal, Imitation and other profiles I have seen people use.

I stop following the news, but the Pathfinder used to do very well in Profile Competition in the US.

I felt the need to make my outside flap bigger, but that may have to do with extra tip weight I like to use.

I am not sure why Gordon Delaney recommend making the tail moment shorter. I have to try that to see for my self. Even though my engine and muffler is light, 10.4 Oz total,  I end up having to add 0.85oz of tail weight.  I like to believe the longer tail moment is the secret to make the Pathfinder better than others, but I may be wrong.

I have several videos flying the Pathfinder with different engines https://www.youtube.com/user/martinSOLO/videos   If you like the videos give me a thumbs up and subscribe to my channel.

Martin
Old Enya's never die, they just run stronger!

https://www.youtube.com/user/martinSOLO

Offline john e. holliday

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 22752
Re: Cardinal Profile vs. Pathfinder Profile some of your thoughts please
« Reply #8 on: March 13, 2018, 10:56:39 AM »
Love the videos of the different Pathfinders with various power plants.  Of course I can sit and watch planes fly all day if allowed too.  Thanks for the link.   You guys are lucky with where your circles are located but with the trees and obstructions I would guess it gets to be a challenge when the wind blows. H^^
John E. "DOC" Holliday
10421 West 56th Terrace
Shawnee, KANSAS  66203
AMA 23530  Have fun as I have and I am still breaking a record.

Offline peabody

  • 23 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2866
Re: Cardinal Profile vs. Pathfinder Profile some of your thoughts please
« Reply #9 on: March 13, 2018, 01:19:36 PM »
I assembled, covered and flew the Pathfinder ARC prototype, as well as an ARF. I built a Cardinal from a lit and flew Windy's prototype.
I enjoy the Pathfinder, and the trike gear is unique. It's big and needs at least an LA 46 to haul it....the best one I have seen fly has a ST 51 in it. A big plus is the doubled nose.
The minus on the Pathfinder is that the fuselage flexes A BUNCH, although glassing helps a lot.
I put a doubler onto the kitted Cardinal....

It's about a toss up, although the ST 46 would work a lot better in the Cardinal.

Have fun!

Online David Hoover

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 290
Re: Cardinal Profile vs. Pathfinder Profile some of your thoughts please
« Reply #10 on: March 13, 2018, 02:42:13 PM »
I think it's a case of you takes your money and you makes your choice.
Life is simple. Eat. Sleep. Fly!
Best, Hoovie

Offline rich gorrill

  • 23 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 392
Re: Cardinal Profile vs. Pathfinder Profile some of your thoughts please
« Reply #11 on: March 13, 2018, 04:00:08 PM »
Hi Skip, I also had thoughts of those two kits, had a Cardinal A.R.F. I purchased from Jack's estate wasn't too crazy about it, it went bye bye at Neshaminy Field to one crazy wind gust. I'm still looking at the Naughty Girl that Eric Rule offers at R.S.M. Got lots of good feedback about it. Mike Griffen now distributes for R>S.M. 10% discount.

Levittown Rich

Offline Skip Chernoff

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1445
Re: Cardinal Profile vs. Pathfinder Profile some of your thoughts please
« Reply #12 on: March 13, 2018, 04:37:05 PM »
Thanks Rich and Ty for your input. Tell you what, I'll look at that Naughty Girl as well.The Imitation doesn't fit the rules so I'm told.

One thing that I didn't mention is I've got some Caprice plans and some very good 1/2" x 4"x 48" wood(it's light and straight!)....A profile Caprice with either the FSR40 or ST46....might be nice???

Offline Dennis Moritz

  • 22 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2464
Cardinal Profile vs. Pathfinder Profile some of your thoughts please
« Reply #13 on: March 13, 2018, 04:40:30 PM »
Prowler. A light one would be overpowered by st 46. Not sure. We’ll see. I like Bob Hunt designs. Feel light on the controls.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: March 13, 2018, 05:03:43 PM by Dennis Moritz »

Offline Brent Williams

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1260
    • Fancher Handles - Presented by Brent Williams
Re: Cardinal Profile vs. Pathfinder Profile some of your thoughts please
« Reply #14 on: March 13, 2018, 05:09:49 PM »
The fuselage on the Pathfinder isn't any more flexy than any other big profile with a reasonable tail moment arm and a big tail.  A Cardinal will flex just as much as an Imitation as will a Pathfinder.  There are ways to mitigate flex on a profile and those methods should be employed on any of the popular profile selections.

If the discussion is Pathfinder or Cardinal then I would say Pathfinder.  Anyone who has been fortunate to fly Gordan's yellow profile will tell you the same.  I can state from experience that it's a fantastic flyer.  I have watched Gordan, Ray Firkins, Bart Klapinsky, Jim Rhoades and Norm Whittle burn in some absolutely smokin' patterns with that plane here at our high ~4500ft elevation (6000+DA).

Gordy's plane has the hinge to hinge measurement at 16".  LA46, 3 blade Eather prop, 44oz

The Pathfinder's 620 squares is nice for carrying extra weight, also, as I have seen 60+oz electric Pathfinders and Starfinders still fly well.
+ 40-50 sq. in over the Cardinal *(+80sq.in. over the BB mod Cardinal.)

I like the looks of the Cardinal as well, but if I were to build one, I would surely incorporate Brett Buck's/Ted Fancher's/Paul Ferrell's 3/4" flap reduction modification during the build.   https://stunthanger.com/smf/stunt-design/whats-eveyone-got-against-short-noses-anyway/



Super Tigre 46 Pathfinder - Red/white Roger Kramar

Paul Ferrell's modded LA46 Cardinal



« Last Edit: March 14, 2018, 12:25:53 AM by Brent Williams »
Laser-cut, "Ted Fancher Precision-Pro" Hard Point Handle Kits are available again.  PM for info.
https://stunthanger.com/smf/brent-williams'-fancher-handles-and-cl-parts/ted-fancher's-precision-pro-handle-kit-by-brent-williams-information/

Offline Skip Chernoff

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1445
Re: Cardinal Profile vs. Pathfinder Profile some of your thoughts please
« Reply #15 on: March 13, 2018, 06:00:55 PM »
That Pathfinder looks nice,has good proportions.

Offline B Norton

  • B-NO
  • 2019 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 111
Re: Cardinal Profile vs. Pathfinder Profile some of your thoughts please
« Reply #16 on: March 13, 2018, 09:25:13 PM »
I have built both and and like both .Both work great with LA46 .IMO the pathfinder is a much better and more stable flier and can handle weight better because of the size of the Wing(620in.).Make sure to build the nose stiff to stop vibration problems .The arf pathfinder nose tended to cause foaming fuel problems. Both are great designs and your going to like either .Good luck!

Offline Martin Quartim

  • 22 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 802
    • StuntHobby
Re: Cardinal Profile vs. Pathfinder Profile some of your thoughts please
« Reply #17 on: March 14, 2018, 09:07:55 AM »
Love the videos of the different Pathfinders with various power plants.  Of course I can sit and watch planes fly all day if allowed too.  Thanks for the link.   You guys are lucky with where your circles are located but with the trees and obstructions I would guess it gets to be a challenge when the wind blows. H^^

Hi Doc,

Yes, it is very hard to fly in that circle when the wind starts blowing. Now I am flying at an RC club that paved a new C/L Circle and this place has perfect conditions for C/L flying. I finally found a place with good people to enjoy exceptional C/L flying and started flying RC too. Just wish I had more time to enjoy this wonderful hobby! 

Glad you enjoy my videos!

Martin


Old Enya's never die, they just run stronger!

https://www.youtube.com/user/martinSOLO

Offline Martin Quartim

  • 22 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 802
    • StuntHobby
Re: Cardinal Profile vs. Pathfinder Profile some of your thoughts please
« Reply #18 on: March 14, 2018, 09:33:45 AM »
My Pathfinder is an ARF and the tail section of the fuselage is hollowed and sheeted. Different from the kit that has a solid 1/2" balsa. The ARF stab/elev does twist quite a bit, but that seems only a problem if you push very very hard on the corners. 

In this video, I was flying very fast (problem with fuel foaming) and as you can see I was doing some decent sharp corners and the Pathfinder ARF structure held pretty well.



Martin

Old Enya's never die, they just run stronger!

https://www.youtube.com/user/martinSOLO

Offline Vincent Judd

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 222
Re: Cardinal Profile vs. Pathfinder Profile some of your thoughts please
« Reply #19 on: March 14, 2018, 03:09:45 PM »
Just wondering.  Now that I'm almost 2/3 finished with my new Imitation PROFILE kit, why would it not be legal for competition in the profile class? I'm sitting here looking at the fuselage and it sure looks like any profile I've ever seen.

Is there some rule that states a profile is not a profile because it has................what?

The Imitation profile has a 1/2" wide fuselage.  OK, it has cheek cowls, but then I'm looking at pictures of the Pathfinder, and guess what, it has cheek cowls also.  If I build it without the cheek cowls, would that change things, or is there some other reason?

So what's the deal?  I really was hoping to compete in the profile class this summer with my new Imitation.

Props to Mike Griffin and Eric Rule, excellent kit, thanks.

Vince
« Last Edit: March 14, 2018, 05:17:16 PM by Vincent Judd »

Offline Steve Helmick

  • AMA Member and supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 9920
Re: Cardinal Profile vs. Pathfinder Profile some of your thoughts please
« Reply #20 on: March 14, 2018, 03:37:21 PM »
Vincent Judd...Because Profile is an unofficial event, there are various rule sets around the USA and elsewhere. What one set of rules allows, others do not...it's that simple. You really need to check the rules where you are likely to be flying in contests. Engine size also started out at .40 cu.in., but some wanted to use the .46's, and so ours was changed to allow any size that is allowed in PA, which is 15cc or .91 cu.in.  Your rules may be different on engine size and other details.  H^^ Steve
"The United States has become a place where professional athletes and entertainers are mistaken for people of importance." - Robert Heinlein

In 1944 18-20 year old's stormed beaches, and parachuted behind enemy lines to almost certain death.  In 2015 18-20 year old's need safe zones so people don't hurt their feelings.

Offline Mike Griffin

  • 2018 Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2754
Re: Cardinal Profile vs. Pathfinder Profile some of your thoughts please
« Reply #21 on: March 14, 2018, 04:28:00 PM »
Since Vince brought this up,  I remember a conversation I had with my friend Allen Brickhaus several years ago.  I was in the process of kitting Dick Mathis's Coyote and the question of whether it was considered a profile came up in the discussion.  The Coyote, in case someone doesn't know, has 1" blocks on each side of the nose.  I am NOT an expert at all on AMA competition rules on profiles but it seems like I remember Allen telling me that since the profile measured 1/2" at the trailing edge of the wing, that is should be allowed in profile events. 

To Steve's point, it seems that this has been a gray area and depends where you are and what their local rules allow or do not allow.  This is just strictly my own personal opinion so please do not start some huge argument on the thread over this but based on the fact that the Coyote and the Imitation are both 1/2" thick at the trailing edge of the wing, they would both be considered as profiles and allowed to fly in profile events. 

Vince, thank you for the compliment on the Imitation Kit. 

Mike

Offline Dan McEntee

  • 23 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6824
Re: Cardinal Profile vs. Pathfinder Profile some of your thoughts please
« Reply #22 on: March 14, 2018, 05:26:22 PM »
Just wondering.  Now that I'm almost 2/3 finished with my new Imitation PROFILE kit, why would it not be legal for competition in the profile class? I'm sitting here looking at the fuselage and it sure looks like any profile I've ever seen.

Is there some rule that states a profile is not a profile because it has................what?

The Imitation profile has a 3/4" wide fuselage.  OK, it has cheek cowls, but then I'm looking at pictures of the Pathfinder, and guess what, it has cheek cowls also.  If I build it without the cheek cowls, would that change things, or is there some other reason?

So what's the deal?  I really was hoping to compete in the profile class this summer with my new Imitation.

Props to Mike Griffin and Eric Rule, excellent kit, thanks.

Vince


    This has been argued more times than Carters has little liver pills. The generally accepted definition of a profile stunt model is that it has a shape when looked at from the side ( it's profile), and when from the front you see see much of a shape and the engine is mounted on it's side, or often referred top a a sidewinder mount. Profile models have been traditionally produced with slab fuselages and engine mounted sideways to allow rapid construction. The list of model kits that have been designed and produced in this fashion is a mighty long one, maybe at least a hundred different designs. So no  one could argue what the basis of a profile model should be. SIG really got the ball rolling with a defined set of rules for a profile event, intending it to be something the lesser skilled modelers can enter as a way to fly more at a contest besides the established skill classes. The event was called P-40 (or Profile .40) stunt, and the basic rules were any airplane with a profile fuselage, with the engine mounted on it's side, a maximum engine size of a .40, and a no flap bonus of 10 points.  Rabe style noses that had the engine mounted upright or inverted were not allowed and NO tuned pipes. The reason behind the rules are simple: this forum, as an example, has COUNTLESS threads and posts from people having problems getting a proper engine run on a sidewinder mounted engine. Mounting an engine in this manor can be a challenge but is far from impossible. The no flap bonus was included to encourage new comers to try the simple designs that have no flaps and avoid the complexity that can be encountered getting a flapped model trimmed properly. The .40 size engine limit was used because this is the "small block Chevy" of the model engine world and there are plenty of these types of engines around to provide power plants at a reasonable price. Also, no tuned pipes were allowed to eliminate this extra expense for those that can't afford it. And in short, these types and sizes of models have been around since the Dead Sea was sick, and there is no shortage of models and designs to choose from. This size of model is what C/L stunt was built on and still stands on today. As time went by, the trophy chasers started whining about being allowed to fly their special built Belchfire design with a Rabe nose and tuned pipe, but was 1/2" behind the trailing edge so it MUST be a profile! Some clubs started to make exceptions to rules and things got out of hand. What started as an event to give guys something else to fly and new comers a little bit more level playing field ( or flying field) and hopefully increase their confidence and skill levels. I think what dictates a profile is what goes on in FRONT of the leading edge, not behind the trailing edge. There are designs out there that have really narrow fuselage behind the trailing edge but are full fuselage and they can  meet that criteria, There are a lot of designs and kit bashed models with built up and hollow slab fuselages, which is a built up technique, but they are still legal for profile. So what REALLY dictates what is or isn't a profile is the sidewinder mounted engine. I have no problem with doublers tripler, quadrupaler, cheek cowles or whatever. It should at least have a sidewinder mounted engine to fit the spirit of the event, which, like I said, was based on the millions of kits that have been produced with the slab fuselage. sideways mounted engine, and is what almost ALL of us honed our skills with and learned the pattern with. It is that simple
  Type at you later,
   Dan McEntee
AMA 28784
EAA  1038824
AMA 480405 (American Motorcyclist Association)

Offline Skip Chernoff

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1445
Re: Cardinal Profile vs. Pathfinder Profile some of your thoughts please
« Reply #23 on: March 14, 2018, 06:21:25 PM »
Dan thanks for sharing the info regarding the history behind the profile "rules" or lack thereof.
In any case, I just spoke with Mike Palko and he informed me that traditionally at the Philly meet we don't enforce the 3/4" rule or engine size rule. So......

Vince build that Imitation and bring it to our meet. Can't wait to see it.....PhillySkip

Offline phil c

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2480
Re: Cardinal Profile vs. Pathfinder Profile some of your thoughts please
« Reply #24 on: March 14, 2018, 06:52:05 PM »
Re the "profile problem" make sure the flap horn and the elevator are as close to the fuselage as practical.
A friend built a very nice Cardinal.  We spent a LOT of time debugging it.  Narrower flaps helped, but it still would often develop a glitch in the square corners.  Watching closely, we saw any number of times that the fuselage and stab would twist as much as 30 degrees, particularly on a bottom inside corner.

He'd beautified it by carving the rear fuselage into a nice tear drop shape and faired into the fin.  That probably lost a fair amount of stiffness, but even putting carbon fiber on the rear fuselage didn't help.

He'd place the flap horn over an inch from the fuselage to accommodate "pro" hardware.  The pushrod force, especially with the big flaps over turning the plane, was more than enough to twist the tail.
Once the tank height was set we never had any problems with an LA 46 engine run.
phil Cartier

Offline Vincent Judd

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 222
Re: Cardinal Profile vs. Pathfinder Profile some of your thoughts please
« Reply #25 on: March 14, 2018, 07:45:26 PM »

    This has been argued more times than Carters has little liver pills. The generally accepted definition of a profile stunt model is that it has a shape when looked at from the side ( it's profile), and when from the front you see see much of a shape and the engine is mounted on it's side, or often referred top a a sidewinder mount. Profile models have been traditionally produced with slab fuselages and engine mounted sideways to allow rapid construction. The list of model kits that have been designed and produced in this fashion is a mighty long one, maybe at least a hundred different designs. So no  one could argue what the basis of a profile model should be. SIG really got the ball rolling with a defined set of rules for a profile event, intending it to be something the lesser skilled modelers can enter as a way to fly more at a contest besides the established skill classes. The event was called P-40 (or Profile .40) stunt, and the basic rules were any airplane with a profile fuselage, with the engine mounted on it's side, a maximum engine size of a .40, and a no flap bonus of 10 points.  Rabe style noses that had the engine mounted upright or inverted were not allowed and NO tuned pipes. The reason behind the rules are simple: this forum, as an example, has COUNTLESS threads and posts from people having problems getting a proper engine run on a sidewinder mounted engine. Mounting an engine in this manor can be a challenge but is far from impossible. The no flap bonus was included to encourage new comers to try the simple designs that have no flaps and avoid the complexity that can be encountered getting a flapped model trimmed properly. The .40 size engine limit was used because this is the "small block Chevy" of the model engine world and there are plenty of these types of engines around to provide power plants at a reasonable price. Also, no tuned pipes were allowed to eliminate this extra expense for those that can't afford it. And in short, these types and sizes of models have been around since the Dead Sea was sick, and there is no shortage of models and designs to choose from. This size of model is what C/L stunt was built on and still stands on today. As time went by, the trophy chasers started whining about being allowed to fly their special built Belchfire design with a Rabe nose and tuned pipe, but was 1/2" behind the trailing edge so it MUST be a profile! Some clubs started to make exceptions to rules and things got out of hand. What started as an event to give guys something else to fly and new comers a little bit more level playing field ( or flying field) and hopefully increase their confidence and skill levels. I think what dictates a profile is what goes on in FRONT of the leading edge, not behind the trailing edge. There are designs out there that have really narrow fuselage behind the trailing edge but are full fuselage and they can  meet that criteria, There are a lot of designs and kit bashed models with built up and hollow slab fuselages, which is a built up technique, but they are still legal for profile. So what REALLY dictates what is or isn't a profile is the sidewinder mounted engine. I have no problem with doublers tripler, quadrupaler, cheek cowles or whatever. It should at least have a sidewinder mounted engine to fit the spirit of the event, which, like I said, was based on the millions of kits that have been produced with the slab fuselage. sideways mounted engine, and is what almost ALL of us honed our skills with and learned the pattern with. It is that simple
  Type at you later,
   Dan McEntee

Thanks for taking the time to respond Dan, much appreciated.  Your explanation makes perfect sense.   It's a shame that some folks would take advantage of a "fun" class just to win a trophy.  I only fly for fun, my serious side is reserved for my golf game and the pistol range.

I'm going to have to get in touch with Mike Griffin and figure out how to make my Cobra motor a sidewinder.  Maybe I can just turn it 90 degrees.  Oops, forgot to mention, I only fly electric these days.  Never had a bad motor run.

Thanks again for your response.  I hope we can agree to disagree and have some fun doing it.

Vince

Offline Steve Helmick

  • AMA Member and supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 9920
Re: Cardinal Profile vs. Pathfinder Profile some of your thoughts please
« Reply #26 on: March 14, 2018, 08:32:50 PM »
A few details need correcting, IMO.

1) The event started out as P.40 and was never "P-40".

2) The event is not an AMA event, official or unofficial.

3) The Dick Mathis designs...Excalibur, Cherokee, Stuka and Coyote...use 1/2" slabs on both sides of the nose, not 1".

 H^^ Steve
"The United States has become a place where professional athletes and entertainers are mistaken for people of importance." - Robert Heinlein

In 1944 18-20 year old's stormed beaches, and parachuted behind enemy lines to almost certain death.  In 2015 18-20 year old's need safe zones so people don't hurt their feelings.

Offline Dan McEntee

  • 23 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6824
Re: Cardinal Profile vs. Pathfinder Profile some of your thoughts please
« Reply #27 on: March 14, 2018, 08:52:31 PM »
Thanks for taking the time to respond Dan, much appreciated.  Your explanation makes perfect sense.   It's a shame that some folks would take advantage of a "fun" class just to win a trophy.  I only fly for fun, my serious side is reserved for my golf game and the pistol range.

I'm going to have to get in touch with Mike Griffin and figure out how to make my Cobra motor a sidewinder.  Maybe I can just turn it 90 degrees.  Oops, forgot to mention, I only fly electric these days.  Never had a bad motor run.

Thanks again for your response.  I hope we can agree to disagree and have some fun doing it.

Vince

      Hi Vince;
     Sure, we can agree to disagree, but in the spirit of full disclosure, and seeing as you fly electric and brought it up, when our club has the P-40 event offered, we impose a 10 point penalty for electric models. That is NOT intended as a dig or discriminatory against electric models, but we came to this conclusion on two points:
   1) The engine displacement rule. There is no set in stone way to determine was a ".40" size electric motor is. So many combinations of motor and battery are possible.
   2) As you point out, how do you mount an electric motor in a sidewinder configuration? Since an electric flyer has this advantage ( and I believe it is a distinct advantage) we decided to assess the penalty points. To even things out, a person can elect to build one of the several fine flying flap-less designs that are out there. This gets back to the level playing field (or flying field) that I mentioned before.
   I would like to reiterate that I am NOT anti-electric. I own and have flown many electric R/C models on my past, and as a member of the Mississippi Valley Soaring Association, helped put on two of the first major electric model airplane events in the country. The first was the US FAI F3B team trials to select the first US FAI electric competition team to compete in the first F#B World Champs held in Belgium in 1986. The second event was the second all electric World Championships held at Park College in Cahokia,IL in 1988. But when it comes to C/L stunt, I'm an old school gear head. With my job situation over the last 25 years or so, IC flying has worked best for me. When I had a chance to fly, I could just grab a model off the model, fuel it, flip it and fly it and not have all the worries about battery condition, charge level land such. Like you, I fly mainly for fun and not having to learn a whole new technology kept the fun in it for me and I can make use of all the hardware I have collected over the years  and not re-invest in new equipment.
   Type at you later,
    Dan McEntee
AMA 28784
EAA  1038824
AMA 480405 (American Motorcyclist Association)

Offline Steve Helmick

  • AMA Member and supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 9920
Re: Cardinal Profile vs. Pathfinder Profile some of your thoughts please
« Reply #28 on: March 14, 2018, 09:11:45 PM »
Calling the event "P-40" has caused folks to think that their profile is not allowed, which is usually NOT TRUE. It is, or was, "P.40". It is short for "Profile .40". NO HYPHEN!!!

One of the major good things about losing the engine displacement rule is that the electric "problem" is neatly side-stepped, and since we don't have the "40" anymore, we can just call the event what it is..."Profile" (or "ProVile" to the JCT).   R%%%%  Steve

"The United States has become a place where professional athletes and entertainers are mistaken for people of importance." - Robert Heinlein

In 1944 18-20 year old's stormed beaches, and parachuted behind enemy lines to almost certain death.  In 2015 18-20 year old's need safe zones so people don't hurt their feelings.

Offline Mike Griffin

  • 2018 Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2754
Re: Cardinal Profile vs. Pathfinder Profile some of your thoughts please
« Reply #29 on: March 14, 2018, 09:48:11 PM »
A few details need correcting, IMO.

1) The event started out as P.40 and was never "P-40".

2) The event is not an AMA event, official or unofficial.

3) The Dick Mathis designs...Excalibur, Cherokee, Stuka and Coyote...use 1/2" slabs on both sides of the nose, not 1".

 H^^ Steve

Steve I dont know about the Excalibur, Cherokee, and Stuka but the plans for the Coyote that were traced by Al Novotnik designed by Dick, call for 2 side blocks, one on each side of the nose.  Each block measures 1" x 3" x 12"  See attached PDF off the plans.

Offline Brent Williams

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1260
    • Fancher Handles - Presented by Brent Williams
Re: Cardinal Profile vs. Pathfinder Profile some of your thoughts please
« Reply #30 on: March 14, 2018, 10:17:21 PM »
Disallowing the Imitation or Rabe Mustunt for their more sensible engine mounting arrangement and dinging the points of the electric crowd seems a rather Quixotic approach to event purity if you ask me. 

They are very obviously profile planes. 
Laser-cut, "Ted Fancher Precision-Pro" Hard Point Handle Kits are available again.  PM for info.
https://stunthanger.com/smf/brent-williams'-fancher-handles-and-cl-parts/ted-fancher's-precision-pro-handle-kit-by-brent-williams-information/

Offline GERALD WIMMER

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 622
    • Auckland Free Flight Club
Re: Cardinal Profile vs. Pathfinder Profile some of your thoughts please
« Reply #31 on: March 14, 2018, 10:46:21 PM »
Hello

Honestly thought that P40 profile was a one model event,  like Phantom or Flitestreak racing,  ...till I read more

Regards Gerald
 
PS are Side mounted motors today still disadvantaged?

Offline Dennis Moritz

  • 22 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2464
Cardinal Profile vs. Pathfinder Profile some of your thoughts please
« Reply #32 on: March 15, 2018, 01:06:23 AM »
I believe the imitation originally used a radial RC mount. The front end built up to accommodate. Potentially a better vibration dampening system. Perhaps this is the issue. Electric profiles, if allowed, make the engine mounting system moot. Amp up, if concerned. I don’t remember a radially engine mount profile competing in the East. Electrics are more and more common.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Offline Dan McEntee

  • 23 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6824
Re: Cardinal Profile vs. Pathfinder Profile some of your thoughts please
« Reply #33 on: March 24, 2018, 08:20:11 PM »
Disallowing the Imitation or Rabe Mustunt for their more sensible engine mounting arrangement and dinging the points of the electric crowd seems a rather Quixotic approach to event purity if you ask me. 

They are very obviously profile planes.

     I will agree that the Rabe nose and the Imitation have "more sensible" nose construction, I own both types of models, but will not enter them in a profile contest.. They were designed to address what was perceived to be a short coming of the typical profile kit, and that was getting a good engine run from a side winder mounted engine, but this is NOT and huge insurmountable  issue. They came about to help the lower rung contests flyers deal with this situation in a contest setting, as was the addition of fuselage doublers and triplers and such. It was NOT done to meet any specific contest requirements as there was no "profile" event a the time they came about. Learning to get a good engine run on a side mounted engine is much easier these days with new materials and new construction techniques to make the nose more stiff. The P-40 event ( and I will continue to use this title for the event, because that is the way it was billed at the SIG contest where it was first presented, and the way it is referred to on the box cover of the SIG Primary Force) came about as another event to fly when we all gathered at SIG field for their annual C/L contest. It was conceived by Mike Pratt and Mike Gretz. The rules specifically stated that the engine must be sideways mounted and was intended to help modelers to take advantage of the many, many PROFILE kits that were on the market, were continuing to come on the market, and were already hanging in a lot of guy's garages all over the country. I have covered the other rules several times in the past. Before this, I don't think there was any kind of profile event in any contest I ever entered or remember seeing advertised. It was a resounding success, with some editions of the contest only being able to get one round in due to the great numbers of entries.  Other clubs took up the event with the same rules. Then, like any other fun type or entry level contest, the trophy hounds descended on the event, and rather having a model that fits the rules that were established, they demanded that the rules be changed to fit their models. The event then became very fragmented and convoluted and local clubs made up their own rules. And this is fine with me. The down turn in club memberships, modelers dying off, people leaving the hobby, all added up to smaller entries and clubs made even further allowances to encourage entries. In our club, we have held to the original concept and rules. That is the way we fly it so if you come to our contests where we have the event, you had better have a model that conforms to the rules, including the no flap bonus and the penalty for electric models, or you will not be allowed to fly it. The advance of electric power plants was, in our discussions, a definite advantage over the competition using the rules as they were presented, so that was the origin of the electric penalty, as I have explained many times, and the club was unanimous in voting it in. I would wager 100 bucks that 95% of the models entered in profile contests around the country today, are true profiles as they were originally conceived and produced, and I can NEVER recall seeing an Imitation or a model with a Rabe style nose being presented and entered at a contest for the profile event. So for me, the answer lies in what shows up on contest day and what is being sold in the market place. Hundreds of kits in true profile style and named accordingly, and only one kit (the Imitation) with a modified nose, and without the efforts of Mike Griffin, that would not be available. That, in my opinion is the precedent that should be taken into account as to what is and is not, a profile . The models in question in the original post, the Cardinal and the Pathfinder, are both models that meet the main principle of the rules and that is the sideways mounted engine. The cowl cheeks, doublers, or whatever are and have been a common modification and included in production kits for a long time and should be allowed. The only time I have ever heard of fuselage thickness  anywhere along the length of the fuselage in in C/L profile scale and I believe there is a dimension listed in the rules in the AMA rule book. And this is THE ONLY official AMA profile event of any kind. It is all really that simple. But with people being what they are, I now FULLY expect someone to show up here at our contest with a built up fuselage model and a sideways engine mounted in it and will try and enter P-40 with it!!!
  Type at you later,
   Dan McEntee
AMA 28784
EAA  1038824
AMA 480405 (American Motorcyclist Association)

Offline Tim Wescott

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12804
Re: Cardinal Profile vs. Pathfinder Profile some of your thoughts please
« Reply #34 on: March 24, 2018, 09:23:20 PM »
... The generally accepted definition of a profile stunt model is that ...

The generally accepted definition of a profile stunt model around here is what matches the rule book we fly under around here.  Maybe things are different around where you live, but before you start going on about "generally accepted" you need to make sure you're familiar with what all the population thinks. 

Around here -- an Imitation would be perfectly acceptable, and quite welcome.
AMA 64232

The problem with electric is that once you get the smoke generator and sound system installed, the plane is too heavy.

Offline Dan McEntee

  • 23 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6824
Re: Cardinal Profile vs. Pathfinder Profile some of your thoughts please
« Reply #35 on: March 24, 2018, 10:46:43 PM »
The generally accepted definition of a profile stunt model around here is what matches the rule book we fly under around here.  Maybe things are different around where you live, but before you start going on about "generally accepted" you need to make sure you're familiar with what all the population thinks. 

Around here -- an Imitation would be perfectly acceptable, and quite welcome.

    A quick check of the link you provided shows that " any profile airplane is allowed." but does not give a definition of what a profile airplane is. It pretty much leaves it all up to the contestant. Kind of like bringing a full blown NASCAR race car to a street stock class road race. "Well, it's a stock car with lights on it!"  The rules drawn up by the folks at the SIG contest give a simple definition on what a profile is and still leaves some room for some modifications to help with the engine run. And I will stick to my belief of what is "generally accepted", by what is sold in the market place and flown at the contest field all across the country. Check the contest results. And that is what the public thinks. Brodak, RSM, SIG, Walter Umland, Mike Griffin, Sterling, Carl Goldberg,Midwest Models,Berkeley, Enterprise, and countless magazine plan construction articles all have presented profile models as airplanes with slab fuselages and sideways mounted engines. That is not ME saying what is generally accepted, that is the paying public. That is pretty hard to refute. Any other definition is just an opinion, in my estimation. The Imitation and the Rabe Mustunt, (where the Rabe style nose came from) were not present as profiles, but in answer to the "problem with profiles." And as far as I can remember, the only two designs to be presented that way. And I'm not counting the beginner models that had slab fuselages with radial mounts to accept the Cox .049.  You can do as your see fit in your club and I'm fine with it, as I have stated. Just like we do in our club. Just don't anyone look down their nose at us for keeping our rules true to the origins of the event, which was called P-40 Profile, engines with sideways mounts, .40 maximum displacement, no tuned pipes,10 point no flap bonus and our recently added 10 point penalty for electric models to help keep the playing field level.
  Type at you later,
   Dan McEntee

   PS to add: I just rechecked the rules you posted, and you do have subheading with details on what is determined to be a profile. But with all of those added in, especially the 3/4" width behind the trailing edge, why even have the class. There are built up models that can be built to those specs.
AMA 28784
EAA  1038824
AMA 480405 (American Motorcyclist Association)

Offline Brent Williams

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1260
    • Fancher Handles - Presented by Brent Williams
Re: Cardinal Profile vs. Pathfinder Profile some of your thoughts please
« Reply #36 on: March 25, 2018, 03:29:05 AM »

     I will agree that the Rabe nose and the Imitation have "more sensible" nose construction, ... They were designed to address what was perceived to be a short coming of the typical profile kit, and that was getting a good engine run from a side winder mounted engine, but this is NOT and huge insurmountable  issue.

They came about to help the lower rung contests flyers deal with this situation in a contest setting, as was the addition of fuselage doublers and triplers and such.  It was NOT done to meet any specific contest requirements as there was no "profile" event a the time they came about.

Learning to get a good engine run on a side mounted engine is much easier these days with new materials and new construction techniques to make the nose more stiff. 

Should those advanced materials and techniques then be outlawed in true P40 competition because they may or may not have not been available or possible 4 decades ago and may or may not constitute a performance advantage?

Quote
Ted Fancher's Imitation Article circa 1979https://www.scribd.com/document/24098001/Imitation-Article
ie, 4 decades ago!....
(the) planform which would, as nearly as possible, display the characteristics of a state of the art competition stunt plane. Such a combination would have to include: An inverted engine with an appropriately located fuel system, i.e.directly behind the engine and adjustable in the vertical to allow trimming for consistent engine runs.

In addition, it should be possible to easily interchange engines to explore potential replacements for the venerable ST46.

The nose construction on an Imitation sure doesn't cancel out the other common ills that are inherant to profile planes, namely flex in the aft section.  The Imitation used the RC mount as a means to facilitate the testing of many different engines, not necessarily for some perceived engine run advantage.  Testing multiple different bolt pattern and weight engines was a nearly impossible task with a sidewinder arrangement.


The P-40 event ( and I will continue to use this title for the event, because that is the way it was billed at the SIG contest where it was first presented, and the way it is referred to on the box cover of the SIG Primary Force) came about as another event to fly when we all gathered at SIG field for their annual C/L contest. It was conceived by Mike Pratt and Mike Gretz.

The rules specifically stated that the engine must be sideways mounted and was intended to help modelers to take advantage of the many, many PROFILE kits that were on the market, were continuing to come on the market, and were already hanging in a lot of guy's garages all over the country. I have covered the other rules several times in the past.
  Type at you later,
   Dan McEntee


Dan, Please note, I'm not directing the thrust of these comments at you, just to the overall principles of the discussion.  I hope it isn't taken as a personal affront, as I do like your posts.  Your opinion and preference is just as valid as mine.

All this historical backstory regarding what constitutes a profile plane could also be viewed as a subtle brand protective ploy by Sig to sell more of the kits they had available for sale at their sponsored event.  I would imagine that the event organizers were also hoping that folks would want to purchase and thus advertise those Sig products by creating rules favorable to their products.  It would be good for the advertising budget to encourage people to show up with Sig products and fly them at a Sig event.   Could be construed potentially, as a rather savvy way to sell more Primary Force, Twisters and Banshees.  Perhaps? Maybe? Too much conjecture? Or am I just way overthinking this and taking this thought exercise too far? n~

Just my opinion here, which isn't worth much, but IMO the continuation of these Sig inspired Profile event rules just seems kinda outdated and protectionist against the inclusion of a (perceived) illicit other that is being portrayed as a "ringer" or  rule breaker that may or may not actually have any run advantage based on the actual skills of the builder/flier. 
Approaching 40 years old and still in contest exile is a nearly biblical length of time.  I say let that Imitation plane fly.  Amen.

This regionally specified profile class rules discussion is starting to feel like the historically entropic futility of a BOM discussion.  Perhaps we need a Pampa sanctioned "Council of Nicea" to determine what constitutes a true profile airplane and to hopefully finally determine how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

This thread has gotten pretty far afield of the intent of the original poster's questions about the viability of two good airplanes.  I'll stop digging deeper now regarding contest rules discussions, as:
1. It's a totally moot point around where I live.
2. Any contest in driving distance from me would accept that design in profile competition.
3. Unfortunately, we really don't even have enough regular fliers for a proper contest around Utah. 

Run your local events as you see fit.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2018, 05:04:29 AM by Brent Williams »
Laser-cut, "Ted Fancher Precision-Pro" Hard Point Handle Kits are available again.  PM for info.
https://stunthanger.com/smf/brent-williams'-fancher-handles-and-cl-parts/ted-fancher's-precision-pro-handle-kit-by-brent-williams-information/

Offline Tim Wescott

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12804
Re: Cardinal Profile vs. Pathfinder Profile some of your thoughts please
« Reply #37 on: March 25, 2018, 05:24:20 PM »
PS to add: I just rechecked the rules you posted, and you do have subheading with details on what is determined to be a profile. But with all of those added in, especially the 3/4" width behind the trailing edge, why even have the class. There are built up models that can be built to those specs.

Folks regularly fly Sportsman profile (restricted to those who fly Beginner-Advanced in PA) with "SIG-legal" profiles, and do well.  I've been flying in Expert Profile with a Fancherized Twister with a 3/4" wide fuselage but the stock wings, and doing well.

Why bother with the class?  Because the "Engine hanging out in the air" requirement plus the narrow fuselage pretty much means that a built up plane is pure craziness (although some do it).  If I were going to add any restrictions to the list it would be an external control system.
AMA 64232

The problem with electric is that once you get the smoke generator and sound system installed, the plane is too heavy.

Online Dave_Trible

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6133
Re: Cardinal Profile vs. Pathfinder Profile some of your thoughts please
« Reply #38 on: March 25, 2018, 05:53:00 PM »
Some of these newer profiles are pretty large and are going with .45-.60 engines.  Thicker fuselages or extraordinary structural stiffening is required to keep these tails from twisting in flight. Could be some choices may need to be made to allow a little more width or limiting engines. 

Dave
AMA 20934
FAA Certificate FA3ATY4T94

Offline Steve Helmick

  • AMA Member and supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 9920
Re: Cardinal Profile vs. Pathfinder Profile some of your thoughts please
« Reply #39 on: March 25, 2018, 07:33:48 PM »
It's pretty clear that some definitions need to be written into the rules, right? Fact is, the NW Profile rule of 3/4" thickness aft of the wing TE actually came from the AMA rules for Profile Scale. Of course, being a retired machinist, I'm wondering what the + tolerance is on that, but I'm known to be a troublemaker.  :-[ Steve
"The United States has become a place where professional athletes and entertainers are mistaken for people of importance." - Robert Heinlein

In 1944 18-20 year old's stormed beaches, and parachuted behind enemy lines to almost certain death.  In 2015 18-20 year old's need safe zones so people don't hurt their feelings.

Offline Dan McEntee

  • 23 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6824
Re: Cardinal Profile vs. Pathfinder Profile some of your thoughts please
« Reply #40 on: March 25, 2018, 08:12:56 PM »

Dan, Please note, I'm not directing the thrust of these comments at you, just to the overall principles of the discussion.  I hope it isn't taken as a personal affront, as I do like your posts.  Your opinion and preference is just as valid as mine.

All this historical backstory regarding what constitutes a profile plane could also be viewed as a subtle brand protective ploy by Sig to sell more of the kits they had available for sale at their sponsored event.  I would imagine that the event organizers were also hoping that folks would want to purchase and thus advertise those Sig products by creating rules favorable to their products.  It would be good for the advertising budget to encourage people to show up with Sig products and fly them at a Sig event.   Could be construed potentially, as a rather savvy way to sell more Primary Force, Twisters and Banshees.  Perhaps? Maybe? Too much conjecture? Or am I just way overthinking this and taking this thought exercise too far? n~

Just my opinion here, which isn't worth much, but IMO the continuation of these Sig inspired Profile event rules just seems kinda outdated and protectionist against the inclusion of a (perceived) illicit other that is being portrayed as a "ringer" or  rule breaker that may or may not actually have any run advantage based on the actual skills of the builder/flier. 
Approaching 40 years old and still in contest exile is a nearly biblical length of time.  I say let that Imitation plane fly.  Amen.

This regionally specified profile class rules discussion is starting to feel like the historically entropic futility of a BOM discussion.  Perhaps we need a Pampa sanctioned "Council of Nicea" to determine what constitutes a true profile airplane and to hopefully finally determine how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

This thread has gotten pretty far afield of the intent of the original poster's questions about the viability of two good airplanes.  I'll stop digging deeper now regarding contest rules discussions, as:
1. It's a totally moot point around where I live.
2. Any contest in driving distance from me would accept that design in profile competition.
3. Unfortunately, we really don't even have enough regular fliers for a proper contest around Utah. 

Run your local events as you see fit.
[/quote]

     Hi Brent;
    I'm not taking any personal offense and trying not to come off sounding that way. I just want to put in my 2 cents worth on how I think every effort should be made to keep the event as it was intended. I'm sure one could see the possible intent for SIG to sell more kits, that is just the American way! But know Mike Pratt and Mike Gretz personally, I doubt that was a high priority to them. It had nothing to do with increasing entry fees because SIG didn't charge ANY entry fee back when Hazel and Maxey still ran the show. The early discussion brought up the idea of how many profile models were hanging in basements and garages and could be put to use. You have to keep the time frame this all occurred in. Brodak was in business at that time and they were coming out with a new profile model every month it seemed at the time, along with RSM. Keeping the engine limit to .40 was a natural element, seeing as that almost ALL of the kits and plans for profile models were designed for engines up to .40 size, with precious few exceptions. It was almost like coming up with an IROC style event, but not possible to provide everyone with an identically prepared models.  With all skill classes bundled up, it was fun watching guys fly models that they were not quite 100% in tune with, and this gave the underclasses of flyers, who flew their models a lot, a chance to pull up even or near them. There were some pretty close contests in those days, and they were a blast. I just want to try and preserve that. It helps with the old model budget also. As far as the Northwest Profile rules or anyone like them, does anyone really fly a .91 engine in their classes? Or tuned pipes?  Again, for the most part, almost all of the models I see at the contests I get to attend are (as Tim put it) SIG rules legal profiles, and I'll bet 98% of the profile entries across the country are also, judging from what I can see in published photos and contest results. So, really, it's easy to make the ruling and limitations.  They have been playing professional baseball for well over 100 years, and the rules are still basically the same, and they still use wood bats and horse hide covered baseballs. There have been some changes to concede things to modern times, but the basics are still there (I still don't like the automatic 4 ball intentional walk!) They still draw about 3 million a year here in St. Louis to Cardinal games. I think that people will still enter the event, no matter what,  because almost everyone has some sort of "pukey profile" hanging around. As far as having PAMPA forming a committee to specify what is a profile, I can again just point out current and past entries to illustrate that it is already common knowledge what a profile model really is. There are just one or two guys that always want to push the issue In this day and age of things declining in the hobby and event, I think the simplification of anything to do with rules of any event will be helpful, and the P-40 Profile event can still do what it was intended to do and that is help draw new blood into the hobby and simple competition. I have presented the idea to our club, that maybe we should reduce the number of events due to declining entries, and P-40 may be one of them, but that is a whole 'nother issue. Again, this is just my observation from flying contests from Arizona to Indiana and participating in C/L stunt in all classes since 1987. I came up from the beginner ranks just like all of you, and it took me 17 years to get to the Expert ranks and win my first Expert contest. I had a ton of fun along the way, met a whole hoard of great people, and would not change anything about the process. I think keeping Profile class to the SIG rules and favoring typical profile models will a help with the enjoyment level of those that do come along after us.
   Type at you later,
   Dan McEntee
AMA 28784
EAA  1038824
AMA 480405 (American Motorcyclist Association)

Offline Tim Wescott

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12804
Re: Cardinal Profile vs. Pathfinder Profile some of your thoughts please
« Reply #41 on: March 25, 2018, 08:14:48 PM »
Some of these newer profiles are pretty large and are going with .45-.60 engines.  Thicker fuselages or extraordinary structural stiffening is required to keep these tails from twisting in flight. Could be some choices may need to be made to allow a little more width or limiting engines.

I think the best limit is if we keep the attitude that profile is a "fun" class and PA is the "real" class.  Any event that tries to use rules to limit the amount of money or effort spent to get just a bit more competitive is doomed to failure.  Just look at all the "Formula This, Formula That" club race events in SCCA (I'm thinking specifically of Formula V and Formula 440, but it's been a long time since I dabbled in racing).
AMA 64232

The problem with electric is that once you get the smoke generator and sound system installed, the plane is too heavy.

Offline Dan McEntee

  • 23 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6824
Re: Cardinal Profile vs. Pathfinder Profile some of your thoughts please
« Reply #42 on: March 25, 2018, 10:43:51 PM »
I think the best limit is if we keep the attitude that profile is a "fun" class and PA is the "real" class.  Any event that tries to use rules to limit the amount of money or effort spent to get just a bit more competitive is doomed to failure.  Just look at all the "Formula This, Formula That" club race events in SCCA (I'm thinking specifically of Formula V and Formula 440, but it's been a long time since I dabbled in racing).

    I am in complete agreement with you Tim about keeping it fun. The SIG rules just clarified things but really just describe a typical profile stunt kit, without going all the way to requiring a kit be kept "stock" or making specific restrictions about construction. I'm all for kit bashing as long it fits the rules and that is easy. Add whatever doublers and cheek cowls you want. Do what you want of have to to keep things stiff and straight, that adds some challenge and teaches building techniques. It would be difficult if there were rules about moments, airfoils and such as in Classic stunt, but there are none, or even a B.O.M. or appearance points. In my view it just doesn't get any easier or more simple, just a simple .40 ( or less)  powered profile model.
  I just wish real warmer spring weather would get here so we could fly some of these beauties! The weatherman tonight called for three straight days of cold, rainy weather! That's what we've had for the last week!
  Type at you later,
   Dan McEntee
AMA 28784
EAA  1038824
AMA 480405 (American Motorcyclist Association)

Offline Dennis Moritz

  • 22 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2464
Cardinal Profile vs. Pathfinder Profile some of your thoughts please
« Reply #43 on: March 26, 2018, 12:40:47 AM »
Danny will beat you with a Ringer Dinger, anyway, powered by a Fox 35. Didn’t Joe Gilbert win Expert at Brodak flying something that looked like a Profile Ringmaster? Definitely a profile winning against full fuselage competitors. Best flying profiles I experienced were Danny Banjock’s 27 ounce Ringmaster, my light cheater Magician and a porky 10 dollar flea market Prowler. Danny liked the Magician.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: March 26, 2018, 01:03:42 AM by Dennis Moritz »

Offline john e. holliday

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 22752
Re: Cardinal Profile vs. Pathfinder Profile some of your thoughts please
« Reply #44 on: March 26, 2018, 11:08:33 AM »
Look at what Joe Gilbert did at VSC.  I too think the P-40 event should have been you fly regular PA or P-40, not both.  But I guess some guys like collecting dust collectors.  I should talk as I flew carrier, combat, rat race, balloon burst and stunt at a contest.   Was much younger also. H^^
John E. "DOC" Holliday
10421 West 56th Terrace
Shawnee, KANSAS  66203
AMA 23530  Have fun as I have and I am still breaking a record.

Offline Steve Helmick

  • AMA Member and supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 9920
Re: Cardinal Profile vs. Pathfinder Profile some of your thoughts please
« Reply #45 on: March 26, 2018, 01:08:25 PM »
P.40!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NOT P-40, not now, never was!!!!!!!!!   R%%%%  Steve
"The United States has become a place where professional athletes and entertainers are mistaken for people of importance." - Robert Heinlein

In 1944 18-20 year old's stormed beaches, and parachuted behind enemy lines to almost certain death.  In 2015 18-20 year old's need safe zones so people don't hurt their feelings.

Online Mike Haverly

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 844
Re: Cardinal Profile vs. Pathfinder Profile some of your thoughts please
« Reply #46 on: March 26, 2018, 02:46:42 PM »
I've had three profile Cardinals.  This one was the best flying by far.  Tail was enlarged to 24% and the flaps reduced as suggested previously.  It had a Magnum .36 on a Aero Products "quiet pipe".  The motor was on RC radial mount.  Probably not profile in some parts of the world, (USA). 
Mike


Advertise Here
Tags:
 


Advertise Here