New event proposal - Sub 600

[Bob Hunt]

Hi all:

I have an idea for a new event (yeah, I know, just what we need...). My working name for this event is "Sub-600," and that stands for sub 600 square inch airplanes.

Many of us enjoy flying the smaller, Classic-sized models, but they just don't seem to score well against the larger ships at contests. Smaller ships are easier to build, cheaper to build, cheaper to power, easier to transport and easier to finish as well. Also, many already have a Classic model that has less than 600 square inches of area and this would give those fliers another event in which those models could be flown.

Rules? Simple; just one rule: Less than 600 square inches of area. Power it with whatever you like; glow, electric, steam, diesel, nuclear, or two chipmunks on a turntable spinning the prop. Flight rules are the same as the regular AMA 322 event.

Please don't jump all over me if you don't like this idea, because it is just that, an idea. If no one wants to do it, than we'll just let it die. On the other hand, if it strikes a chord with you, let's see if we can't give it at least a try.

Later - Bob Hunt     

[Howard Rush]

I know you've been working on some products for this, but I don't think event proliferation is good for the sport.  Look what it did for racing and combat. 

I think such airplanes might compete in existing stunt on their own merits.  They are less work to build (or less money to buy), and may indeed be the optimal size for the circle we fly on. 

[Bob Hunt]

I know you've been working on some products for this, but I don't think event proliferation is good for the sport.  Look what it did for racing and combat. 

I think such airplanes might compete in existing stunt on their own merits.  They are less work to build (or less money to buy), and may indeed be the optimal size for the circle we fly on. 

Hi Howard:

Actually, no, I have no special products slated for smaller ships. I sell wings of all sizes and it really doesn't matter to me if they are sub 600 square inches or way more than 600 square inches. This was just a thought for those who enjoy smaller ships. Would I design a few more of these if it takes hold? Sure.

Later - Bob

[Gerald Arana]

Hi Bob,

I think this is a fine idea! Personally, my physical condition is limited and a 60 size ship is uncomfortable for me to fly. (I use a cane to stand up) I like the 25 event and this one would suit me fine!

Cheers, Jerry

[Ted Fancher]

While it's difficult to take a side between two modelers I hold in such high esteem (that is NOT said tongue in cheek), I've got to come down on the side of Howard on this one.  I've stated my case frequently in my usual verbose manner but never any more eloquently than did Howard in just a few words.  Event proliferation has proven itself to be the guillotine which severed the the head  (and souls) of many one time popular CL events.  We are, in my opinion, being drug into exactly the same quick sand as those events already by over-refining each and every one of our sustaining events by trying to make them more attractive to a, frankly, small number  who think providing more trophies per meet will turn us into the next NFL.  In my opinion stunt has remained popular far beyond its expiration date by its tradition and inherent demands for excellence.  Like new Coke, we tamper with that at our great risk.

Although we disagree on the merits of his suggestion, I know that Bob and I both believe that some of the best patterns we've ever seen flown were flown by smaller airplanes, classics by and large,  under conditions that allowed them to excel.   Like Howard, I believe that our restrictions (max length lines) lend themselves to better presentation of our tricks by smaller airplanes...and 600 square inches or so is as good a number as any to define them.  FWIW, I built one airplane over 700 sq. in. in my career and all the rest have been in a maximum of 650 to 660, for the very reasons Howard suggests.  

I believe all it it would take to re-energize interest in such airplanes would be an excellent adaptation of such a design to "modern" numbers to allow them to be competitive under all conditions with modern airplanes of greater size.  I've had such an airplane half built (for exactly those reasons) for several years and the completed wing and tail (and a fuse I would trash for a better suited one, were I to bring up the gumption to finish it) are about four feet over my head as I type...well aged balsa is lighter, right Bob.

It's a lovely .35 sized Silhavy Gypsy wing (with reduced chord and span flaps) and a "modern" era tail of 25% of the wing area.  The altered flaps and tail were the result of how pleased I was with the configuration of the wing (and my experience with the competitiveness of my Chizler) which made me decide to alter the build from a classic ship to what Howard is suggesting, a truly competitive airplane of smaller dimensions.  The fuse box, already complete, would need to be abandoned and a new one with an up to date extended tail moment built.  The plan was--and still is-to power it with a larger motor than traditional; originally an ultra-lite PA .40 with a header muffler but I would also consider a NIB Stalker .51RE I got from Kaz a number of years ago as a quintessential, uncomplicated, unpiped powertrain.  I've seen both engines run in a manner that I think would well suit the reduced needs of a traditional sized stunter to allow it to compete with anything the Harley IC guys (or the amped up Prius crowd) are running.

I think such a rethinking of traditional approaches to CL stunt sized airplanes and power trains by a truly competitive flier is what is necessary to reinvigorate interest in the (as Bob rightly states) more manageable sized airplanes he champions rather than, what I believe to be, an event that risks more than it is ever likely to reward.

Just one old geezer's opinion.

Ted

[steven yampolsky]

add "flapless" and I'm in. My experiences with a flapless design last year made me re-think the status quo of flapped designs.



P.S. It is worth examining the reasons why none of the events introduced in the last 10 years did not take root.

[Randy Powell]

Well, my new plane is closer to 620 square inches so I guess I didn't make it. But I'm hopeful.

[billbyles]

<snip>
Although we disagree on the merits of his suggestion, I know that Bob and I both believe that some of the best patterns we've ever seen flown were flown by smaller airplanes, classics by and large,  under conditions that allowed them to excel.   Like Howard, I believe that our restrictions (max length lines) lend themselves to better presentation of our tricks by smaller airplanes...and 600 square inches or so is as good a number as any to define them.  FWIW, I built one airplane over 700 sq. in. in my career and all the rest have been in a maximum of 650 to 660, for the very reasons Howard suggests.  
<snip>


Ted

I have judged Bob's "Caprice" at the VSC several years running and that airplane puts up a great pattern compared to almost any airplane I have seen (of course, there was considerable talent at the other end of the lines as well.)  I agree with Ted re: bring the numbers (moments & horizontal tail sizes) up to modern standards & let the airplanes compete on their own merits rather than initiate another class just for that size.

[Howard Rush]

My notion that smaller may be better comes from Ted's and my mentor, Bob Emmett, who thinks that airplanes have become too big relative to the size of maneuvers.  Also, I came across something that Brett wrote awhile back that said, as I recall, that tail length doesn't scale with model size.  If the optimal tail length comes from the radius of corner being turned, then maybe the smaller model could enjoy the benefit of maneuvering stability that comes from having the tail length be big relative to the mean aerodynamic chord.  

Beats me why current stunters are the size they are, but my guess is that they are sized for the best available IC powerplants.  Electricity might change that, and it looks like Bob is once again leading the way.  

[Randy Cuberly]

I have mixed feelings about adding more events to be judged.

However I do not agree that event proliferation had anything to do with the demise of any CL events.  Most of the events that have fallen by the wayside have done so simply because most of the fliers that participated in them got too old and too fragile to fly them.
Rat Racing got too fast for just about anyone to fly it.  Fast combat got too fast for any old guy to fly without stepping on his tongue.  FAI combat is going the same way (in some ways it is quicker than fast).
Carrier has had a proliferation of events in the last few years and the participation there has actually improved.

Smaller airplanes with modern numbers and modern powerplants, and yes with pipes and electrics could be significantly easier to fly than the behemoths with 65's and 75's.

I agree that the smaller airplanes seem to be judged more harshly when flown against the larger planes...I think Jim Hoffman said it best "Big airplane, big score, little airplane little score".  Sad but true.

The current Classic event is very popular at most local contests and I don't think it's necessarily because they are "Old" designs it's simply because they are easier to fly for a lot of folks that are not as strong or healthy as they once were.

A sub-600 event could fill a niche very nicely and even possibly supplant some of the trend for airplanes and powerplants to get bigger (except for PJ of course who will likely fly a Nobler with a PA75).
Actually a slightly stretched Nobler with an ST46 is very, very effective.

HHHmmmmmm...

Randy Cuberly

[Ted Fancher]

snip
Actually a slightly stretched Nobler with an ST46 is very, very effective.

HHHmmmmmm...

Randy Cuberly

Exactly what I had in mind for my Chizler wing aging on the wing jig, Randy.

Ted

[Mike Scholtes]

A model that fits the bill and looks very Classic-y is the Oriental Plus, at 603 inches, piped PA40, long moment, 25% tail. So happens I have one waiting for trim colors. It is a laser kit from Eric Rule.

It also sounds like a Vector or Legacy 40 or Shark 35 would do well, plus any Nobler derivative. An Olympic VI with a larger tail area also comes to mind. All readily available as modern kits with good wood.

Another but unconventional is the Sakitumi in 25 or 46 sizes, flapless models that Steve Y will approve of. Also a laser kit, with electric version available, from Walter Umland.

[peabody]

I like it!

[Derek Barry]

My notion that smaller may be better comes from Ted's and my mentor, Bob Emmett, who thinks that airplanes have become too big relative to the size of maneuvers.  Also, I came across something that Brett wrote awhile back that said, as I recall, that tail length doesn't scale with model size.  If the optimal tail length comes from the radius of corner being turned, then maybe the smaller model could enjoy the benefit of maneuvering stability that comes from having the tail length be big relative to the mean aerodynamic chord.  

Beats me why current stunters are the size they are, but my guess is that they are sized for the best available IC powerplants.  Electricity might change that, and it looks like Bob is once again leading the way.  

I can fly a very competitive pattern with the Sweeper...

Derek

[Bob Hunt]

One of the reasons that smaller ships appear to fly better patterns is the fact that they are shorter than their larger cousins. They turn just as well or better and hence fly more of their own length in the legs of a square maneuver. We all know that it is the legs of the square maneuvers that make them look, well, square, and so a smaller model makes sense. Also, you can fly a smaller model with today's available potent power plants (electric and glow) on longer lines than they were flown on in the past when using rather anemic engines, making those square legs even longer. A small ship on fairly long lines presents a very appealing pattern. I always flew my Caprice on long lines and I believe that gave it an edge. Having let a number of other pilots fly it, and then being able to watch it from outside the circle, only reinforced that thought. 

Please understand that I'm not suggesting a "take over" by smaller ships; simply suggesting an additional, supplemental event in which classic type models could be flown, giving the owner one more place to fly them.

What I'm hearing from the above comments is a mixed emotion response. The main fear seems to be that another stunt event might "water down" the sport. Can't argue with that because I don't know for sure that won't happen. There is a safety net, however. If we try this event and see that it is detrimental, then we can cease to run it. I'm more of a glass half full guy and don't see a problem with doing a beta test. I'm going to suggest it to one of the Northeast clubs and see if we can't try it once and get some meaningful feedback. 

Derek: I was around when Windy was flying the original Sweeper in competition in 1964. It was indeed impressive. But, it always looked cramped, even on full 70 foot lines. In my mind's eye it barely got turned and locked onto a leg of a square before it had to turn again to make the next leg. This is a personal preference thing of course, I just prefer to see a model in the legs of the squares for much longer.

Many of the responses to this (or any...) thread are made by rather well known fliers. I'd like to hear from the target audience of those who fly in competition occasionally and for fun. Those who may only have a few models and may only have smaller ships. We need something to energize that group.

Again, if this doesn't get "legs" I'll just drop any further mention of it. But I think it fills a niche that many of us have overlooked. I also have no desire to hurt the event, only enhance it.

Later - Bob Hunt 

[Derek Barry]

Derek: I was around when Windy was flying the original Sweeper in competition in 1964. It was indeed impressive. But, it always looked cramped, even on full 70 foot lines. In my mind's eye it barely got turned and locked onto a leg of a square before it had to turn again to make the next leg. This is a personal preference thing of course, I just prefer to see a model in the legs of the squares for much longer.

Later - Bob Hunt 

I know Bob, I like to have fun with Howard. It's funny how you stated your comment because I use to joke that when I turned the nose up for a square the tail was at five foot and the nose was at 45 degrees. That is pretty much how it feels flying it.

As for your idea for a new event, I don't think anything bad will come of it, especially at the local level. The doom and gloom squad is in full force against anything new. I never understood the argument that adding events (especially those intended to be "fun") would hurt stunt. I say go for it and see what happens. Maybe I will build something small to compete with...

Derek

[Paul Smith]

Bad idea as a new event.

Good rule change for ALL existing events.

[Doug Moon]

Sounds like a good reason to hunt down a VF 25 and a small Randy pipe!  I always wanted one of those rigs, but never a had a reason to get one.

I like the large planes.  I think, when properly setup, they present a very distinct "stop turn."  Fly to a point, stop, rotate, fly away from that point. I also think the larger displacement motors on the pipe help this create the appearance that this is happening.  I have seen many good patterns with small planes. Yes they do appear to fit into the hemisphere real nice. A large plane flying at the "right" speed also appears to fit just fine as well.   But the smaller plane appears to fly through the corner more so than their larger bothers sporting larger engines.  That's just what I observed over the years.  Granted I have never been to VSC and seen the Caprice, the Vulcan, or the Snake Plane in full force.  But I also think if those planes really did fly a better pattern people would bring them to the competition.  I am not going to leave my best rig on the wall because I think this other one will score better.  The one I can fly the best shapes and bottoms with will be the one I fly.  In my case it's the one with the bigger engine as it can do it in all conditions.

It has always been my wish that those planes, The Snake, Caprice, Vulcan, and several others would compete right inside Open 322 at Muncie so we can see once and for all when big and small are pitted against each other at random draw what planes really do fly better and what the judges think about it as well.  It is my belief our judges would have no problem awarding the proper score no matter the size of the plane.  

You don't actually have to have it as a new event flown at a different time.  Just mix the entries into the normal PAMPA classes and then separate it later on the score board....

[Doug Moon]

Bob,

How long are the lines on the Caprice?

[Bob Hunt]

Hi Doug:

I've flown the Caprice on lines as long as 66 feet (center of plane to center of handle), but in the last few years of its competitive life I shortened them to around 64.5 feet C to C. 

The small planes just appear like 1/2A models next to the large ships on an open field like at the Nats. At local fields with lots of clutter (trees, buildings, etc.) near the circle the small ships look more in scale to the surroundings and the large ships appear too big and awkward. At least that's my take on it...    

Later - Bob

[Dave_Trible]

I believe there is ( or was anyway ) a WOW factor that was obvious in the past.  I remember watching Bob Gieske fly incredible patterns with the last of his Fox .35 Noblers but wasn't getting the scores Jim Casale or Al Rabe were getting with the .60s and BIG,LOUD and in-your-face airplanes. Human nature I guess.  Bob went bigger.  Not sure what could be different now even though I'd agree the smaller ships may fly better in good weather.

Dave

[Hoss Cain]

Hi all:

I have an idea for a new event (yeah, I know, just what we need...). My working name for this event is "Sub-600," and that stands for sub 600 square inch airplanes.

Many of us enjoy flying the smaller, Classic-sized models, but they just don't seem to score well against the larger ships at contests. Smaller ships are easier to build, cheaper to build, cheaper to power, easier to transport and easier to finish as well. Also, many already have a Classic model that has less than 600 square inches of area and this would give those fliers another event in which those models could be flown.

Rules? Simple; just one rule: Less than 600 square inches of area. Power it with whatever you like; glow, electric, steam, diesel, nuclear, or two chipmunks on a turntable spinning the prop. Flight rules are the same as the regular AMA 322 event.

Please don't jump all over me if you don't like this idea, because it is just that, an idea. If no one wants to do it, than we'll just let it die. On the other hand, if it strikes a chord with you, let's see if we can't give it at least a try.

Later - Bob Hunt     

Bob, as I kind of grew up (centuries ago) with CL stunt (Kieth T. remembers me  ) but way too old and too much involved in other things at the moment, I still have that old thing down deep for the Stunters. It will always be there. SO here is a "proposal".

If you can start as someone above alluded to why not start with having regular Stunt Events have awards for the top 3 that fly such aircraft in the regular AMA Precision Aerobatic events. Time table is same and some be recognized for their efforts.
Now here is my offer. If you can get such allowed at next year's (2014) Nats, I will pay for 3 trophies in AMA Rulebook Open Stunt
and a Top place small model (less than 601 sq. inch wing area) in each of the Junior and Senior stunt classes.
 The catch is that the top three (3) placers in Open and the 1st placer in Jr. and Sr. will not be eligible for those awards. They get theirs by winning. The lessers have a chance to get an award not normally available to them.

You simply have to get AMA and the other NATs "ICONS"  to accept my offer. Awards are to be equal to (not greater than) normal size of regular event awards. It's up to you to have it completed in time for the NATs 2014. Any CL Stunter less than 601 sq. in. wing area. It will be a start for your event. Your call now! 

[Brett Buck]

Sounds like a good reason to hunt down a VF 25 and a small Randy pipe!  I always wanted one of those rigs, but never a had a reason to get one.

   Jim Aron's airplane (the 20 pointer) is 585 square inches and has a PA65. Dave could leave the wingtips off the Thundergazer and it would qualify and it has a PA75. If we are going to make airplanes less than 600 square inches better at least plan on a piped 40!

   Ted has it right above. The only reason that the smaller airplanes don't score as well is because they are usually classic airplanes as well. That causes two issues - first, they are limited to some extent by the lack of tail volume and generally "Nobler clone" performance. In ideal conditions (particularly with the definitely *not* classic engines/props) that's no impediment, and in fact the smaller size might actually be an advantage. Secondly, if you beleive in "impression points", all the head-to-head competition has been between "full tilt airplanes" and classic planes, and it looks like the guy flying the classic airplane looks like he is not serious about it.

   The first problem can be overcome by designing a smaller airplane specifically for the event, incorporating our current knowledge. No matter what anyone might say, there have been very significant improvements in the airplane design in all areas since people stopped flying these smaller models. And, we have very much better engines that classic planes don't fully take advantage of. The second is solved (if you think it should be solved) by designing and building a dedicated airplane, meaning you are no longer appearing to be goofing around with a classic plane in real stunt.

     Brett

[Tom Niebuhr]

Bob Hunt and I have discussed downsizing a little in the past but without specific area requirements.

When Lew McFarland had the Shark at the ’61 Nats many said that the airplane was too big for the circle. And then Windy came out with the Sweeper!  The airplanes were starting to grow. I can remember  Bob  Gieseke’s little Nobler under the wing of Windy’s  giant Mig  at a Westover Nats.
Richie Tower and Bob Hunt were now introducing pipes and people started to realize that the behemoths were under powered! Even the Sharks are now flown with 60s.  I personally had some successful large piped airplanes, but more recently I have added power (.46) and line length (65’)  to John D’Ottavio’s “Jerseyan”.  The airplane came alive. The “Jerseyan” was way ahead of its day. It had a larger tail volume  and longer moments. Appearance wise, you either like it or not. But with the larger engine it is the easiest airplane to fly that I have ever had.
The major problem with the “Classics” is that while the added power is a vast improvement. The “perception” is that when they follow one of the behemoths, the pattern looks different than the new norm. This resulted in lower scores.

Many new airplanes are in the 620 sq. range, so going “down” to 600 Sq. is not really much of a change.  These airplanes will definitely be more comfortable to fly and have a great “presentation”.

I agree with Ted that an “upsized Classic” is the ticket. We have learned much about the aerodynamics of stunters. We just have to apply it.
I don’t necessarily feel that this requires a new category, and certainly does not need new rules . The death of the “behemoth” is being ushered in by $20 per gallon fuel.

[Robert Redmon]

FWIW (I feel immeasurably inadequate in such august CLPA company.) But here goes, anyway.

1. In this part of the country (Southwest), flagging participation would most likely not support another class of CLPA.
2. I personally enjoy flying <600 sq. in. airplanes MUCH more than larger ones. I had already decided that this was my last season flying the bigger ones. I made the same decision last summer.....maybe it will stick this time. I succumb to conformity too easily.  
3. It is almost always windy and turbulent here in NW Texas, and my 550 sq. in. planes always seem to handle such conditions more readily than my 700 sq in planes. Also, a 65oz, 700 sq in plane in 15-20 mph winds is a real handful for an old fogey like me.(And yet, I still fly the big planes during contest season....regardless? I am beginning to feel ashamed of my clearly mindless behavior.)  
4. The most impressive patterns I have ever seen flown were flown with "classic" size planes. I suspect the pilots had something to do with that.
5. For such thinking to prevail, and for any possible judging bias to be erased (This may not actually exist, but if we believe it does, it will influence our behavior.), one or more of you champions and past champions will have to show the way....give the idea credibility.    

[John Rist]

Haven't flown much stunt - I mostly fly scale.  I wonder if a two day weekend contest will support another stunt event time wise.  Besides aren't most OTS and Classic ships under 600 sq in.   I just finished building an electric 576 Ringmaster.  I plan to use it to learn to fly stunt. At 576 sq in it is about as big as I would want to deal with.  <600 isn't a bad idea I just don't think we have enough time and manpower to add another contest to a two day weekend.

[john e. holliday]

Just at the NATS we have Jr, Sr, Op, beginner, intermediate, Old Time, Classic and now expert stunt.   In one area add 25 stunt.  Another we have P-40.   Which in another area evolved into profile with any size engine.  Also VSC is adding Super 70 to their agenda of Old Time Ignition and Old Time plus Classic.   If an area can handle it with support go for it.

[Allen Brickhaus]

Bill Zimmer once suggested that we have a Fox 35 event. Thus you can fly anything you want as long as it is powered by a Fox .35.

[Brett Buck]

Bill Zimmer once suggested that we have a Fox 35 event. Thus you can fly anything you want as long as it is powered by a Fox .35.

     That would make a good replacement for Classic. It would certainly be more like 1969 than classic is now!

    Brett

[john e. holliday]

Then we can add the Veco group along with the Johnsons, McCoy and K&B.

[Bob Hunt]

I'm not for anything that excludes any power system or brand. Besides, we already have an event for old models. In fact we have two of them... Let's consider an event that promotes the development of smaller models beyond the constraints of the rules of Classic or Nostalgia 30.

Brett points out most correctly that many already have models that are sub 600 square inches in wing area that are being powered by very large engines. I'm all for that; it's called progress. I'm for a "run what you brung" event for smaller ships; not for just another event that uses the same, tired, anemic, and increasingly unobtainable old engines (although, if you choose to use them in the Sub-600 event, that's fine...). Bill Zimmer's above mentioned concept not only limits the event to a specific ancient engine, but also excludes electric power, which, like it or not, is here to stay.

There seems to be enough people here who are at least of the "Let's try it and see" mindset to give it a trial. I'm going to offer to sponsor this event on a local level here in the East and see how it goes. If it is a dud, then I'll let it die. You never know what idea will be the catalyst to energize this sport. Again, the event I'll sponsor will have only one rule that is different than event 322 in the rulebook; the models entered must have less than 600 square inches of wing area. Other than that, anything goes!

Later - Bob Hunt   

[Dave_Trible]

Sounds like I'll have a good use for that new PA .51 I have..........

Dave

[Dean Pappas]

I believe there is ( or was anyway ) a WOW factor that was obvious in the past.  I remember watching Bob Gieske fly incredible patterns with the last of his Fox .35 Noblers but wasn't getting the scores Jim Casale or Al Rabe were getting with the .60s and BIG,LOUD and in-your-face airplanes. Human nature I guess.  Bob went bigger.  Not sure what could be different now even though I'd agree the smaller ships may fly better in good weather.

Dave

Hi Gang,
The funny thing from where I sit is that this BIG,LOUD thing was what spurred the tuned pipe development back in '86. Werwage returned from Hungary and recounted the discussions with judges from other parts of the World in which it was explained to him that BIG,LOUD wasn't selling ... at least to that audience. Rich Tower, Bob and I had ourselves quite convinced that a moderately sized airplane looked "righter" on a 70' hemisphere anyway. Now, the 64 ounce line-size break puts a design sweet-spot somewhere between 650 and 750 squares depending on powerplant, which adds to the set of compromises.

I guess that my point is: is the perceived disadvantage real, or mass hypnosis?

take care,
  Dean Pappas

[RogerGreene]

I like the idea of the sub-600 suggested by Bob.  But how to measure a 600 sq in wing area that is like a Thunderbird or Smoothie. I would suggest a max wing span of 56"....

My 2¢

Roger Greene

[Tom Niebuhr]

I am with Bob all the way. We tried Fox .35 stunt 20 years ago and it was a dud. This is just too restrictive.

While most of the Classics are sub 600 Sq." the purpose is to encourage creating NEW DESIGNS. In fact I will be slightly downsizing a new airplane that I have on the drawing board.

If you want to fly a Classic or 70s airplane using period engines that is fine too.

These new designs will fit new engines and motors, will be more comfortable for many to fly, and will fit the circle better.

Roger,
Restricting to 56" is like saying that only a Classic can be used, and is overly restrictive.  You can guarantee that if you calculated wing area to 600 sq." like it had a square tip, the elliptical tip or other shaped tips will be well under 600 sq.". Keep it simple. Then again, if you want to use equations to calculate... be our guest.

[RogerGreene]

OK then, a Sub-600 is just a figure. The Thunderbird was 610 sq in a Classic plane but would not be allowed? 600 is restrictive.

[Dave_Trible]

OK then, a Sub-600 is just a figure. The Thunderbird was 610 sq in a Classic plane but would not be allowed? 600 is restrictive.

It wouldn't be hard to nibble that 610 down below 600- remember you can fly classics but the concept would be about new designs under 600 without time period constraints.

Dave

[Brett Buck]

OK then, a Sub-600 is just a figure. The Thunderbird was 610 sq in a Classic plane but would not be allowed? 600 is restrictive.

   The whole point is to put on a restriction, so yes, 610 is greater than 600. And it's not even much of a restriction. Most of our airplanes have been somewhere slightly above 600 to maybe 650 for literally decades. Not classic planes, the full stunt planes!  I think the plane Ted Fancher flew at the 89 or 90 NATs (that died in the flameout) was 610, and I assure you that it would still be competitive in full-up stunt. Might even be better than most, to be honest with you. A 630 square inch airplane WON THE WC in 2008.

    I have multiple potential counterpoints/objections to the idea (event proliferation being at the top of the list) but the most compelling is that 600 square inches is essentially no restriction, or not nearly small enough to make any difference. I can scale the original Infinity plans down by a mere 3.6% in terms of linear dimensions and it makes it. And the wing loading would likely go DOWN.  Given the amazing control we have over the engine run you wouldn't even bother with different engines, I would still stick a RO-Jett 61 in it with no changes. So what does it accomplish, ultimately? It's the same event, unmodified classic planes will be eaten alive in anything other than perfect conditions.

   I would suggest that 550 or even 525 might be the break point where you actually have to do something consequentially different (like switch from a VF, 61/65/76 to an AeroTiger) and make significant design changes like changing the proportions (i.e. make the tail moment proportionally longer). At 600, I could plunk my (slightly scaled down) current airplane down in the pits at the regular NATs and no one would even be able to tell it was different just by looking, paint it white and it would still look bigger than an SV-11 or similar

     Brett

    

  

[Bob Hunt]

I have no objections to reducing the wing area restriction to, say, 560 or 570 square inches. I was just wanting to keep as many of the Classic designs in the mix as possible. If everyone agrees on another size formula, that's okay by me. 

Bob Hunt

[Hoss Cain]

Rules? Simple; just one rule: Less than 600 square inches of area. Power it with whatever you like; glow, electric, steam, diesel, nuclear, or two chipmunks on a turntable spinning the prop. Flight rules are the same as the regular AMA 322 event.

Why all the Nit-Picking?    You guys soumd like a bunch of Club Officers, and/or the AMA EC.

Let the man run with his plan. See where it goes. After all he has an offer to furnish the awards if the 2014 NATs Generals would allow the proposed event to be flown in with the regular AMA Stunt Events.

Go for it. No one gets hurt and a trial base is available.

The Thunderbird wing area is mox-nix. Heck, all one has to do is clip the wing tips and there goes the 10 ". Can YOU do that without directions or a kit for it? If not, maybe you can find an ARF to suit you.

[Bob Hunt]

Thanks, Horace.

I don't take any offense at suggestions; that's why I posted the idea here. There are a lot of good thinkers on this forum, yourself included.

Also, I have no wish to approach the Nats planners about this event; it's really just meant to be a non-official, fun event for local contest menus. If they run Classic and also Sub-600 (or whatever number we choose...), many of the contestants could fly in more than one event. With the dwindling numbers at some contests, this might just be a drawing card. It would fill the club coffers just a bit more as well...

Like I wrote above, I'm going to give this a try at a local meet here in the East. Like all elephants, this one needs to be eaten one bite at a time...

Later - Small Bob (Perhaps that's not such a good nickname...) 

[Brett Buck]

I have no objections to reducing the wing area restriction to, say, 560 or 570 square inches. I was just wanting to keep as many of the Classic designs in the mix as possible. If everyone agrees on another size formula, that's okay by me.

    Understand that I am not complaining about any of your requirements, just pointing out some likely outcomes from an outside/objective view.

    I get the impression you want to make it so you can put a decent tail on your classic airplane and call it good. Or just fly it as it is without the perceived "hit".  It seems to me you can already do that. It's my considered opinion that the size itself has absolutely nothing to do with the "impression" issue.

  What might be more likely is that flying a classic plane in real stunt makes it seem like you are not serious regardless of how large it is. Same thing seems to happen, perhaps, with large classic planes as well. That issue can be solved by building a classic plane with your own modern-looking fuselage and paint job, and no one will know any better.

   My point is that limiting it to 600 seems to accomplish none of the objectives:

   If classic planes are currently getting "hit" for impression (for whatever reason) they will still get hit in Sub-600 when someone shows up with a 96% Infinity or 98% ThunderGazer - or a 100% Temptation with 1/2" shaved off each wingtip. You won't even be able to tell, it will look and perform like the regular model. The Classic will still look like a classic plane.
   If you are concerned with the actual performance, same problem.
   If you think the performance is the same, and there is no impression issue, then there's no reason not to fly it in regular stunt.

   Brett

[Howard Rush]

I understand that the Nobel committee is thinking of adding a new physics prize to be awarded to physicists less than 1600 mm tall.  There are and have been a lot of great physicists less than 1600 mm tall.

[Doug Moon]

I like the idea of the sub-600 suggested by Bob.  But how to measure a 600 sq in wing area that is like a Thunderbird or Smoothie. I would suggest a max wing span of 56"....

My 2¢

Roger Greene

This is a very good question.....

I have entered many a wing plan forms into autocad over the years and the acutal "picked" area is less than the avereaged area using general calculations.

Example, on my current plane if i use root plus tip / 2 x lentgth I get about 705-710, cant remmeber right off the top of my head. In the cad program picked point by point and run the area I get 685.  I tend to think Cad is more correct.  when I draw out an acutal 710 sqr inch wing it is FREAKING MASSIVE!!!

[Randy Cuberly]

Hi Gang,
The funny thing from where I sit is that this BIG,LOUD thing was what spurred the tuned pipe development back in '86. Werwage returned from Hungary and recounted the discussions with judges from other parts of the World in which it was explained to him that BIG,LOUD wasn't selling ... at least to that audience. Rich Tower, Bob and I had ourselves quite convinced that a moderately sized airplane looked "righter" on a 70' hemisphere anyway. Now, the 64 ounce line-size break puts a design sweet-spot somewhere between 650 and 750 squares depending on powerplant, which adds to the set of compromises.

I guess that my point is: is the perceived disadvantage real, or mass hypnosis?

take care,
  Dean Pappas

Well Dean,
At least around these parts the score sheets verify that it's real.  It has been the topic of many "quiet" discussions between local experts in this area.
I don't think it's necessarily always the deciding factor but it is often enough to present a problem for the smaller ships.

Randy Cuberly

[Brett Buck]

Now, the 64 ounce line-size break puts a design sweet-spot somewhere between 650 and 750 squares depending on powerplant, which adds to the set of compromises.

But Dean - most of the most successful airplanes in the last 25 years or so have tended to the bottom of that range or below. The largest very successful design is the Impact and that is 700 and doesn't look very big. Just about everything else had been in the 650 range or less. 750 is the sort of monster ST60 plane like the Patternmaster that never had that much success and was passed by in the mid-80s (largely made obsolete by your own efforts). And not very many people are building 750 square inch airplanes below 64 ounces, and if you do, you sure don't want to fly them on .015s! Not to mention you don't want to build a 750 square inch airplane at 64 ounces for performance and durability reasons.

   That's what makes this proposal so strange - it's not really a separate event or it's certainly not different enough to trigger any significant change. People are already trending in this direction for performance purposes without a separate event. It's a simple matter to put nearly as big an engine as you want in a 600 square inch airplane without encountering any real difficulties, so the regular event is already nearly there. We know that wing loading is not a concern within reason and we can control the power well enough to make it work.

   BTW I certainly agree that 700+ is getting too big for the 70', that was obvious a long time ago. They aren't going to get any bigger than that.

   When people can enter a new category with their existing full-tilt airplanes or tiny alterations of them, I have to wonder why you need a new event. In a few years just about everybody will be in the same ballpark if you do nothing at all.

    Brett




   

[EddyR]

I remember the first year that Bill Rich flew his first SV-11 at the Nats and most people made the comment that it seemed to small for a ST/60. Bill and I practiced together for many years and it did seem small compared to his Big Jim models that he had been flying.
Ed

[RogerGreene]

It seems to me after reading all that has been said here, and Bob's original idea, is a plane that had a .35 engine to power it through the maneuvers. So instead of having the wing area govern this event the engine size should. Most Classic-sized planes in the beginning of that 'era' were powered with a .35 engine. So I say for the "Sub-600" let it be governed only by a engine of .35 or smaller.

Again my 2¢

Roger

[Bill Little]

This event would seem to be going toward the Vector 40 size of stunter, unless I am missing something.  Randy has designed several models in the ."40" range.  Windy designed a few models based on his other designs in the same basic size.  Robby Hunt's Europa might fit in.  With it being proved that a Stalker .51 will nicely fly a Nobler, engine size can always be played with.  It does seem easier to fly the smaller models, of course this is just a perception made by a less than stellar pilot.  But I see no hang ups in designing for this "class" with today's parameters fora good stunt ship.........

Will it fly as a separate "event"?  That is really hard to predict, but the general trend to smaller models may continue enough that it isn't necessary.

Bill

[Tim Wescott]

No one's mentioned it yet, but Bob's proposal seems on the face of it to be similar to the "Stunt 25" event that Brett and crew put on down in California, with the big difference being that the planes are bigger and the restriction is on wing area and not engine size.

So Bob -- how about asking Brett what's the average (or maybe "best maximum", whatever that means) wing area that's working for the Stunt 25 event, and choosing that?  Then after your event starts sweeping west and Brett's starts sweeping east, they'll easily merge at the Mississippi.