Modern S-1 ringmaster

[DanielGelinas]

Hi all,

If one was to build a modern ringmaster today, with adjustable leadouts and weightbox,
would one need rudder and engine offset?
For OTS, would this be illegal?

Thanks,

-Daniel

[Steve Helmick]

Absolutely! The OTS rules say, essentially, that the exterior dimensions and aerodynamics have to be per the original, but about everything else can be changed. That means, no false ribs, no LE sheeting, the structure, if visible, has to look like the original, etc. Make the framework out of CF, 2 pc. wing if you want. But it has to have the appearance of the original S-1. The RSM S-1 kit has revised structure, but meets the rules perfectly.  Steve

[Terrence Durrill]

A QUESTION ABOUT OTS RULES AND S-1 RINGMASTERS:

In 1955, when I built my first S-1 Ringmaster, I built it exactly according to the kit plan.  I discovered a problem with the design that other fliers of my area confirmed had been a problem for them.....that was that the stabilizer/elevator assembly, when mounted on top of the fuselage is subject to being torn loose from the fuselage when being removed from the car at the flying site. It seems to want to get caught on the door frame.  I had it happen to me and when it happened, that spelled the end of flying for the day.  Others suggested and I agreed, that moving the stabilizer/elevator assembly a mere 3/8" down, mounted in a slot in the rear of the fuselage would strengthen the tail assembly and make breaking it on removal from the car less likely.  I have made that minor change in all S-1 Ringmasters I have built since 1955 and have never encountered the breakage problem again.  MY QUESTION IS:  WOULD THIS MINOR MODIDICATION, WHICH DOES NOT CHANGE THE AERODYNAMICS OR FLIGHT PERFORMANCE IN ANY WAY AND IS ALMOST UNNOTICEABLE, DISQUALIFY MY CURRENT TWO RINGMASTERS FROM OTS COMPETITION.  It seems to me that if weight boxes and adjustable leadouts are acceptable, this stablizer/elevator mount modification should not disqualify these S-1's.

Anyway, if this minor modification does disqualify the S-1's, I can always fly my Trixter Barnstormer......which is absolutely true to the Guillows kit plans, including stitched canopy, built up trailing edges, Veco tank, Veco wheels and Veco elevator horn           .

[DanielGelinas]

Thanks Steve,
OK, so with NO rudder and engine offset, it will NOT be OTS legal.
But, will it fly better??
Thanks!
-Dan

[Tim Wescott]

Define "better" 

[Brett Buck]

Thanks Steve,
OK, so with NO rudder and engine offset, it will NOT be OTS legal.
But, will it fly better??
Thanks!
-Dan

   Perhaps. There are a lot of other issues with it than that, and to me, they are a lot more of a limit to performance than the rudder offset.

  There are extensive previous discussions on this topic, for example:

http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php?topic=11168.0

    Brett

[Steve Helmick]

What I intended was to say that it was fine to remove the massive rudder offset and do what you want with engine offset. FWIW, if you put in a slight rudder offset and a bit of engine offset, it falls within the rules definitions about trimming and trimming aids (like tip weight box and adjustable LO's). Those sections in the rules would allow you to hinge the rudder and possibly even a Rabe Rudder.  Neither is worth anybody getting their shorts in a wad over. When in doubt, read the rules.

As for lowering the stabalizer in the fuselage...if you can document that mod with dated pictures, sure, no problem. Nothing wrong with a few round toothpicks to peg the stab into place, either. The FS suffers from the exact same problem, and most have figured out how to cure it without lowering the stab slot and having to bend the pushrod and make it flexy and sucky.  Steve

[john e. holliday]

Nothing like a few round toothpicks and 1/4 inch triangle stock to beef up the stab/elevator mount.   I did it from day one with Ringmasters.

[Bill Little]

Thanks Steve,
OK, so with NO rudder and engine offset, it will NOT be OTS legal.
But, will it fly better??
Thanks!
-Dan

Hi Dan,

You misunderstood Steve's notes.   Removing the rudder and engine offset does NOT make the S-1 "illegal".  I do like to include just enough of both to MAKE SURE I have no "in set".

BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM

[Mike Keville]

Just to clarify things a bit:

The OTS rules DO allow adjustable leadouts and tip-weight boxes....and there is nothing that says you can't delete the rudder or engine offset.

Just be certain of (a) no change to the original S-1 airfoil (e.g.: no LE sheeting), (b) no change to moment arms, and (c) no change to location of original landing gear placement.

You might also want to use the longest control horn available, rather than the stubby one on the original design.  (Great tip from Bart Klapinski, who once won Old Time at the VSC with an aged Ringmaster...and yes, that's allowed.)

[Steve Helmick]

FWIW, I have become convinced that a bit of right thrust (for CCW flying) is absolutely a good thing. It helps get the lines tight much quicker when they go slack. If you're flying CW, then left thrust...but in that case, with torque working for you much of the time, probably not needed, but I'm not 100% sure on that. Some of the electric guys that fly CCW with "pusher" props should be able to give a better opinion on that.

In theory, you would move your LO's forward a little to compensate for engine and rudder offsets, to get the plane to fly tangent to the circle.  Steve   

[Brett Buck]

In theory, you would move your LO's forward a little to compensate for engine and rudder offsets, to get the plane to fly tangent to the circle.  Steve   

   OY Vey!  As long as you never do any maneuvers, then yes. Unfortunately, as soon as you start maneuvering, the balance is lost and the airplane will start rolling and yawing all over the place. You never want the adjustments fighting with each other.

    Brett

[Steve Helmick]

   OY Vey!  As long as you never do any maneuvers, then yes. Unfortunately, as soon as you start maneuvering, the balance is lost and the airplane will start rolling and yawing all over the place. You never want the adjustments fighting with each other.

    Brett

I thought we were talking about a little right thrust and none to very slight rudder offset. I have no idea how much offset the Sterling S-1 plans would suggest, but that isn't going to work very well. I'd bet that the RSM S-1 plans would be a lot better and yet still show a little engine offset and a hint of right rudder. Do that! From there, adjust the CG and LO's to optimize.  Steve

[FLOYD CARTER]

The very best favor you could do to an S-1 is to change the internal construction to remove weight.  That means built up wing L.E. and T.E., build the fuselage from 3/8" sq. balsa and cover with 1/16" sheet, clear dope (no heavy paint ).

I have built the S-1 at 22 oz with no changes to overall dimensions, keeping it OTS-legal.

The one drawback:  you don't want to crash, because the pared-down structure doesn't survive a hard one!

Floyd

[phil c]

...........
You might also want to use the longest control horn available, rather than the stubby one on the original design.  (Great tip from Bart Klapinski, who once won Old Time at the VSC with an aged Ringmaster...and yes, that's allowed.)

Changing the horn is changing the exterior dimensions, per Steve H. above:
"
Changing the horn is changing exterior dimensions, pers Steve above:
'The OTS rules say, essentially, that the exterior dimensions and aerodynamics have to be per the original"

Seems to be a bit of variable interpretation going on here.

The tall horn is used to reduce control movement.  This can be done at the bellcrank as easily at the horn.  What the horn needs is a bushing for the pushrod , maybe a 1/4 in. piece of brass or plastic tubing, to keep the horn from wearing.  Use an inner hole on the bellcrank and you'll have both slower controls and correct appearance.

Phil C

[Terrence Durrill]

From what I read here, it appears that OTS has truly become a 'SCALE EVENT" where only the "professionals" can seriously build and compete.  It is a shame since this event, as I understand it, was originally conceived to be a fun event which would allow new people to get involved in stunt competition, but on a more relaxed level.  Now, it seems, first of all you must have a "SCALE" aircraft and then be prepared to fight it out with those who "want to win at any cost"........even if they have to get you disqualified because you didn't use the kit supplied plywood elevator horn, offset the rudder or some such nonsense.  I guess it is time to morn the passing of Old Time Stunt as originally conceived.  What a shame, but, that is the nature of competion, always getting more demanding, and more difficult, especially for new fliers who would like to take part.       

[Jim Hoffman]

Terrence  - OTS is NOT becoming a scale event.  It is as you described, a fun event , flying a less demanding pattern, using airplanes that might not be capable of the AMA pattern.  

Example - My Upstart has been on the southwest OTS circuit for at least 6 years.  It has an external plastic control horn on the elevator.  The plans show an internal elevator horn.  I have NEVER seen anything is minor as an elevator horn or rudder offset challenged in OTS.

People do watch for landing gear location and external shapes and areas.

Jim Hoffman

[Brett Buck]

From what I read here, it appears that OTS has truly become a 'SCALE EVENT" where only the "professionals" can seriously build and compete.  It is a shame since this event, as I understand it, was originally conceived to be a fun event which would allow new people to get involved in stunt competition, but on a more relaxed level.  Now, it seems, first of all you must have a "SCALE" aircraft and then be prepared to fight it out with those who "want to win at any cost"........even if they have to get you disqualified because you didn't use the kit supplied plywood elevator horn, offset the rudder or some such nonsense.  I guess it is time to morn the passing of Old Time Stunt as originally conceived.  What a shame, but, that is the nature of competion, always getting more demanding, and more difficult, especially for new fliers who would like to take part.        

   Don't base your opinion on anything in this thread. Other than attempting to minimize the gross deviations, the ridiculous nit-picking (i.e. external dimensions include the *elevator horn*!!) is essentially 100% an internet phenomenon never encountered in real life.

   Every OTS contest I have attended, judged, participated in was more-or-less a slightly more formal Fun Fly. Nobody cares very much about the outcome.  A very few people want OTS to be like the Finals at the Team Trials but I think you can count them on the fingers of one hand.

   As usual, just like BOM, OTS Rules and endless internet discussions and arguments are not reflective of real life stunt contests or problems. Build whatever you want and as long as you don't make an intentionally gross change to improve the performance, no one will know or care, just go fly it.

   Brett

[Steve Holt]

I have been flying Ringmasters for OTS for about 5 years now at contests that include VSC, Brodak, and the Ringmaster Round-up.  Never has anyone questioned the legality of my airplanes.  Differences from the original Sterling kit include:
1. Aluminum landing gear instead of the 3/32 wire.  Wheel location is per the original design and mine land just as badly as the originals.
2. Engine offset of 1.5 degrees using Jim Lee's tapered aluminum shims.
3. Rudder offset reduced to 1/16".
4. Stabilizer mounted to the top of the fuselage in the same location as the original but with 1/4" triangle stock under the stab on both sides for support.

I believe that the important parts are to use stock moments, wheel location, airfoil, areas, and outlines.  The officials at all the contests I attend have accepetd this as being a reasonable representation of a Ringmaster S-1.

I am certainly not some expert since I barely fit requirements for Intermediate.  

Steve

[Mike Keville]

. . . Build whatever you want and as long as you don't make an intentionally gross change to improve the performance, no one will know or care, just go fly it.

   Brett

What HE said.

No matter what sort of advice you see on these threads, there'll always be some 'guardhouse lawyer' itching to disprove it.

[billbyles]

Changing the horn is changing the exterior dimensions, per Steve H. above:
"
Changing the horn is changing exterior dimensions, pers Steve above:
'The OTS rules say, essentially, that the exterior dimensions and aerodynamics have to be per the original"

Seems to be a bit of variable interpretation going on here.

The tall horn is used to reduce control movement.  This can be done at the bellcrank as easily at the horn.  What the horn needs is a bushing for the pushrod , maybe a 1/4 in. piece of brass or plastic tubing, to keep the horn from wearing.  Use an inner hole on the bellcrank and you'll have both slower controls and correct appearance.

Phil C

What a load!  Maybe combat was easier for you.  Once again, you just have to split hairs ad infinitum with your "information" being way offbase.

[john e. holliday]

At VSC the spirit of 52 award is the one where the people who give it, scrutinize the airplanes.   I think one year it came down to having the period prop on for the official flights.   The VSC people can correct me if I am wrong.  But, I have not seen anyone stopped from flying because of deviations from the original like the control horn or even the wheels.  Yes, I know of one that looked hard for the old Banner wheels called for on the original.  Need to get out to the contests for Old Time and see what goes on.   

[RC Storick]

I have a S1 Kit I am going to build for the old time/classic NATS. Guess I better get started. LOL

[john e. holliday]

This is Tuesday and if you start now, should have test flights done Saturday.   Someone did that at VSC one year and only took three days.  No appearance points in Old Time, but his looked better than mine.

[Randy Cuberly]

This is Tuesday and if you start now, should have test flights done Saturday.   Someone did that at VSC one year and only took three days.  No appearance points in Old Time, but his looked better than mine.

Hey Doc...
Don't forget that in one of the early years (I think it was the first one held in Tucson but not sure) there was a fellow that built a Ringmaster from a Sterling kit on the tail gate of a truck in one day and flew it the next.  No it didn't look very good but it did fly.  He borrowed an engine and lines etc. to fly it.
I can't remember the guy's name but he was a "moving party" and let nothing stand in the way of having fun!

Randy Cuberly

[Heman Lee]

Others suggested and I agreed, that moving the stabilizer/elevator assembly a mere 3/8" down, mounted in a slot in the rear of the fuselage would strengthen the tail assembly and make breaking it on removal from the car less likely.  

Even though you are not changing the flight performance significantly, you are changing the design.  Therefore, your eligibility may be in question.    A number a years ago, I saw a Ringmaster with extra ribs, maybe about 1" apart.  I did question  that persons OTS eligibility.  Granted at most local contest, no one is going to get out their ruler or protractor.  Rudder offset, engin offset, adjustable lead-out, control horn, etc, are all trimming enhancement which are allowed.

Also, following the original kit pattern does not make model more OTS legal because the kitted version does not always represent the original drawing.

[Brett Buck]

Also, following the original kit pattern does not make model more OTS legal because the kitted version does not always represent the original drawing.

  I *think* I know what you mean but it could be interpreted incorrectly.

    The "As Kitted" part of the rule makes the period kits or direct copies definitively legal. If it is just like it came out of a box before the end of 52, it is legal for OTS, with no equivocation or debate.  Whether or not it matched the original design as drawn by whoever.

    What you may be getting at is that some kits produced AFTER the beginning of 1953 may not be direct copies of the period plans, and original period design, or a period kit, and therefore may or may not be legal.

    Brett

[Heman Lee]

[quote author=Brett Buck link=topic=27080.msg262165#msg262165 date=1340155039

    What you may be getting at is that some kits produced AFTER the beginning of 1953 may not be direct copies of the period plans, and original period design, or a period kit, and therefore may or may not be legal.

    Brett
[/quote]
h
I was also referring to, for example kitted version of "Baby Flitestreak" had a shorter wing span from George's original plan, although both are "legal".  Maybe because it had to fit in the box? I am sure there were many examples of that during this time period.

[Brett Buck]

I was also referring to, for example kitted version of "Baby Flitestreak" had a shorter wing span from George's original plan, although both are "legal".  Maybe because it had to fit in the box? I am sure there were many examples of that during this time period.

     The Baby Flite streak came out far after the OTS cutoff. But for classic, it's the same thing - if it came out of a kit box, it's legal, period, whether it was what George Aldrich drew or not. Many if not most kits have some changes for production but by definition if it was a kit it is legal.

    Brett

[Steve Helmick]

Changing the horn is changing the exterior dimensions, per Steve H. above:
"
Changing the horn is changing exterior dimensions, pers Steve above:
'The OTS rules say, essentially, that the exterior dimensions and aerodynamics have to be per the original"

Seems to be a bit of variable interpretation going on here.

The tall horn is used to reduce control movement.  This can be done at the bellcrank as easily at the horn.  What the horn needs is a bushing for the pushrod , maybe a 1/4 in. piece of brass or plastic tubing, to keep the horn from wearing.  Use an inner hole on the bellcrank and you'll have both slower controls and correct appearance.

Phil C

[Brett Buck]

<<apt social commentary>>

   Precisely.

    Brett

[Douglas Ames]

  <snip> Don't base your opinion on anything in this thread. Other than attempting to minimize the gross deviations, the ridiculous nit-picking (i.e. external dimensions include the *elevator horn*!!) is essentially 100% an internet phenomenon never encountered in real life.
Brett

That's funny.  
_______________

I think the Spirit of `52 Award should be for those guys wanting to build a Concours ~Period correct~ Stuntship.

OTS should remain as a Fun fly. It's neat just to see those old timers flying regardless of the powerplant or accessories.

There's a current trend in vintage musclecars to modernize the brakes ,suspension and sometimes an engine swap. That still doesn't take away from the aura of the vintage car, it's lines and visual appeal.

[Don Hutchinson AMA5402]

Randy- How's this? Tony Lang, from East coast, musician, wrote "Stuka Stunt Blues". May have flown a Still Stuka in classic, hence the song. Plus of course the building of a Ringmaster at the flying site. The old memory ain't what it used to be so don't bet the farm on this.

[Steve Helmick]

I wrote this quite a few years ago, when Matt Neuman's Stuka exploded. Don't recall if it was at a NATS or Team Trials, but it was not at the East Podunk Stunt and Balloon Bust Championships.    Steve

            "Well, I woke up in the mo'nin',
            climbed up outa bed,
            tried to find my shoes,
            with cotton in my head.
            Went on down to Muncie,
            and flew the first and second rounds,
            but when I flew the third,
            my Stuka wound up dead.
            Oh, I gots the blues,
            the Stuka foldin' blues.
            Ain't no competition,
            what make me feel so down,
            as the blues,
            the Stuka foldin' blues..."

           Author:    Steve  Helmick

(second verse, same as the first...etc.)

[Randy Cuberly]

Randy- How's this? Tony Lang, from East coast, musician, wrote "Stuka Stunt Blues". May have flown a Still Stuka in classic, hence the song. Plus of course the building of a Ringmaster at the flying site. The old memory ain't what it used to be so don't bet the farm on this.

You got it Don...as for memories your certainly trumps mine.
Thanks,
Randy C.

[Terrence Durrill]

Herman Lee wrote:
"Even though you are not changing the flight performance significantly, you are changing the design.  Therefore, your eligibility may be in question.    A number a years ago, I saw a Ringmaster with extra ribs, maybe about 1" apart.  I did question  that persons OTS eligibility.  Granted at most local contest, no one is going to get out their ruler or protractor. Rudder offset, engine offset, adjustable lead-outs, control horn, etc, are all trimming enhancement which are allowed."


Herman...it seems to me that the modifications you cite can be seen, at even a casual glance, as NOT BEING TRUE TO THE ORIGINAL DESIGN AND STRICTLY SPEAKING, NOT BEING TRULY OLD TIME STUNT AUTHENTIC EITHER.  Would you challenge the one almost unnoticable modification I made on my OTS S-1 Ringmaster, as I have described above  (on a Ringmaster built in 1975 and transported 75 miles one way to fly in your OTS Contest)?  It seems to me that adjustable lead-outs, rudder and engine offset changes would also be "CHANGING THE DESIGN"  and MORE IMPORTANTLY, THEY ARE MADE TO IMPROVE PERFORMANCE OVER THE ORIGINAL DESIGN.  My mod does not, an any way, change flight performance!.......WHERE DOES THIS STUFF STOP?                                    

[Steve Helmick]

This is a good place for it to stop! If for no other reason than it's HEMAN LEE, as in Super Hero. Really.  Steve

[Brett Buck]

.WHERE DOES THIS STUFF STOP? 

It's all a non-problem in real life.

   Brett
   

[Andrew Hathaway]

Would you challenge the one almost unnoticable modification I made on my OTS S-1 Ringmaster, as I have described above  (on a Ringmaster built in 1975 and transported 75 miles one way to fly in your OTS Contest)?

If you intend to drive 75 miles one way to compete in a contest, maybe you should just save yourself the trouble, and build a plane that follows the rules? 

[john e. holliday]

Well most people I have met and competed against in Old Time, have built their own plane as close to the original as they could.  Have not seen one entry turned away for a minor infraction.   All mine have weight box in outboard tip.  Adjustable leadouts on the inboard.  Uni-flo fuel tanks and modern wheels on the landing gear.  Top it off, with dress fabric for the covering on the wings and tail.  The fuselage/rudder is Brodak dope.   

[billbyles]

Herman Lee wrote:
"Even though you are not changing the flight performance significantly, you are changing the design.  Therefore, your eligibility may be in question.    A number a years ago, I saw a Ringmaster with extra ribs, maybe about 1" apart.  I did question  that persons OTS eligibility.  Granted at most local contest, no one is going to get out their ruler or protractor. Rudder offset, engine offset, adjustable lead-outs, control horn, etc, are all trimming enhancement which are allowed."


Herman...it seems to me that the modifications you cite can be seen, at even a casual glance, as NOT BEING TRUE TO THE ORIGINAL DESIGN AND STRICTLY SPEAKING, NOT BEING TRULY OLD TIME STUNT AUTHENTIC EITHER.  Would you challenge the one almost unnoticable modification I made on my OTS S-1 Ringmaster, as I have described above  (on a Ringmaster built in 1975 and transported 75 miles one way to fly in your OTS Contest)?  It seems to me that adjustable lead-outs, rudder and engine offset changes would also be "CHANGING THE DESIGN"  and MORE IMPORTANTLY, THEY ARE MADE TO IMPROVE PERFORMANCE OVER THE ORIGINAL DESIGN.  My mod does not, an any way, change flight performance!.......WHERE DOES THIS STUFF STOP?      

It apparently stops when you can no longer split a hair any further!  By the way, how many angels CAN dance on the head of a pin?  You need to get over yourself.

[L0U CRANE]

TD,

I agree that the stab and rudder break off easily, but it isn't a Ringmaster S-1 if you move the stab down in the fuselage.

If your first one with the lowered stab was in 1955, that's after the OTS era had ended. Even a dated photo from 1955 would not qualify the model as OTS eligible. If it existed in 1952, and you had a dated photo showing it, I don't think there'd be an OTS judge or competitor anywhere who would object.

The change you made, sensible as it is for the durability of your model, is glaringly evident from just about any distance. There've been other (positive) suggestions throughout this thread for improving the ruggedness of the tailfeathers, without changing the Sterling S-1's general outline and configuration.

Actually, the S-1 is quite a decent flier, box-stock, considering it first came out 60 years ago. With dowel bracing (toothpicks?) and triangle stock under the stab, the tail pieces are much stronger. If you'd like to fly in an OTS Event, you could always try it that way. It will fly as well as your modified model.

[Bill Little]

HI Lou,

I built a Sterling kit Ringmaster (a Father's Day present from my sons) about 20 years ago now.  I just built it per plans and even used the box top paint scheme of Diana Cream, Red and black. I originally powered it with a McCoy .35RH.  Then I picked up a Allyn/Veco .35.  It DOES fly a very good OTS pattern (if someone good flew it it would fly much better! ).

Now I am going to scratch build a "lite" from Pat Johnston plans and laser cut parts.  It will have adj. everything and be powered by a .25LA.  It will be interesting to see just how much better it can be trimmed to fly.  Of course the weight will be a plus, I am sure!  Never weighted the stock Sterling one.

And what's funny is that I (and everyone else) was beat at a meet in Advanced by a box stock Ringmaster! strange.......................

BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM

[Phil Hawkins]

I wrote this quite a few years ago, when Matt Neuman's Stuka exploded. Don't recall if it was at a NATS or Team Trials, but it was not at the East Podunk Stunt and Balloon Bust Championships.    Steve

            "Well, I woke up in the mo'nin',
            climbed up outa bed,
            tried to find my shoes,
            with cotton in my head.
            Went on down to Muncie,
            and flew the first and second rounds,
            but when I flew the third,
            my Stuka wound up dead.
            Oh, I gots the blues,
            the Stuka foldin' blues.
            Ain't no competition,
            what make me feel so down,
            as the blues,
            the Stuka foldin' blues..."

           Author:    Steve  Helmick

(second verse, same as the first...etc.)

Ah Ha! Good one Steve! I sang it to the tune of "The Ballad of Curtis Lowe" by Lynyrd Skynyrd... wasn't pretty but I got it done...

[Terrence Durrill]

TD,

I agree that the stab and rudder break off easily, but it isn't a Ringmaster S-1 if you move the stab down in the fuselage.

If your first one with the lowered stab was in 1955, that's after the OTS era had ended. Even a dated photo from 1955 would not qualify the model as OTS eligible. If it existed in 1952, and you had a dated photo showing it, I don't think there'd be an OTS judge or competitor anywhere who would object.

The change you made, sensible as it is for the durability of your model, is glaringly evident from just about any distance. There've been other (positive) suggestions throughout this thread for improving the ruggedness of the tailfeathers, without changing the Sterling S-1's general outline and configuration.

Actually, the S-1 is quite a decent flier, box-stock, considering it first came out 60 years ago. With dowel bracing (toothpicks?) and triangle stock under the stab, the tail pieces are much stronger. If  you'd like to fly in an OTS Event, you could always try it that way. It will fly as well as your modified model.

THANKS LOU, FOR YOUR STRAIGHT FORWARD ANSWER WHICH MAKES IT CLEAR THAT I MIGHT AS WELL KEEP MY OUTLAW S-1's RINGMASTERS AT HOME AND FLY THEM IN THE LOCAL SCHOOLYARD.  AT LEAST I WON'T MAKE THE MISTAKE OF DRIVING 50-120 MILES TO AN OTS EVENT THINKING THAT I COULD FLY THEM IN THAT EVENT.  MY TWO NOTORIOUS S-1'S ARE 37 AND 26 YEARS OLD AND ARE BOTH STILL IN EXCELLENT FLYING CONDITION.  I HAVE NO DOUBT THEY WILL CONTINUE TO BE GREAT SPORT, EVENING AND WEEKEND FLIERS, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE NOT WELCOME AT OTS EVENTS ACROSS THE COUNTRY........TD   

[Brett Buck]

THANKS LOU, FOR YOUR STRAIGHT FORWARD ANSWER WHICH MAKES IT CLEAR THAT I MIGHT AS WELL KEEP MY OUTLAW S-1's RINGMASTERS AT HOME AND FLY THEM IN THE LOCAL SCHOOLYARD.  AT LEAST I WON'T MAKE THE MISTAKE OF DRIVING 50-120 MILES TO AN OTS EVENT THINKING THAT I COULD FLY THEM IN THAT EVENT.  MY TWO NOTORIOUS S-1'S ARE 37 AND 26 YEARS OLD AND ARE BOTH STILL IN EXCELLENT FLYING CONDITION.  I HAVE NO DOUBT THEY WILL CONTINUE TO BE GREAT SPORT, EVENING AND WEEKEND FLIERS, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE NOT WELCOME AT OTS EVENTS ACROSS THE COUNTRY........TD   

   I don't know how to explain it any better, if you want to be angry at someone, far be it for me into interfere. But you likely won't get DQed at one of our contests, or in fact any other contest I am aware of.

   Brett

[john e. holliday]

First you have to show up at a contest to get DQ'd.

[EddyR]

I wish I had a contest to go to that was only 50-150 miles away. I do have Huntersville that is very close but I have worked at judging there for 10 years. The next close one is 300 miles and the next after that is 500 miles. I would be happy drive 150 miles to a contest. I have judged old time since it started and your Ringmaster is a non issue. No one would ever notice it unless you make a big fuss about it. Unless you are the top dog and someone protest you. I have let a lot of models go that were a long way from the old time rules as the flyers are not anywhere near the top flyers. I have seen guys show up the first time with models that were not even old time models and then place last. As the next contest they had a true old time model as they now were into doing the old time thing and they wanted to compete not just get in a flight. As one gets better at old time stunt then the build it stock thrill kicks in.
Ed

[Bill Little]

Hi Ed,

As you well know, the plane I fly in OTS makes absolutely no difference in my placing.

Y'all should have been there for my FIRST contest OTS flight!  Man, that 4th inside loop was very hard to recognize.  I came out of the third loop and immediately started into inverted flight.  Hey, that was what we ALWAYS do, right?  Well, I managed to realize during my exit that I had to fly two more loops.  I didn't crash and only missed the "tracking" maybe 10 feet.........

BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM

[Phil Hawkins]

Just to clarify things a bit:

The OTS rules DO allow adjustable leadouts and tip-weight boxes....and there is nothing that says you can't delete the rudder or engine offset.

Just be certain of (a) no change to the original S-1 airfoil (e.g.: no LE sheeting), (b) no change to moment arms, and (c) no change to location of original landing gear placement.

You might also want to use the longest control horn available, rather than the stubby one on the original design.  (Great tip from Bart Klapinski, who once won Old Time at the VSC with an aged Ringmaster...and yes, that's allowed.)

 

(c) no change to location of original landing gear placement.

Hey Mike, or anyone else... what is the proper location? I am just about to finish a RSM kit and it shows two options for the LG. The kit also has aluminum gear supplied, no wire. Looking at the plans I think I am close, but for VSC how critical is this?