New event proposal - Sub 600

[Bob Hunt]

Hi Tim:

I'm not interested in an event that is engine specific (or displacement specific); I'm proposing just one rule: Less than 600 square inches. I'm also not so in love with this idea that I'm even remotely willing to fight, argue, and/or debate anyone about it. I just thought it would be an interesting event and spawn some new thinking. The .25 event leaves out electric power; the flapless suggestion leaves out, well, flaps! My event suggestion only restricts the wing area of the model. It leaves tons of room for interpretation. It make get the creative juices flowing. Then again it may just die an early death. I won't lose any sleep over it either way. I will, however, find a way to try it at least once.

I must be honest here; my infatuation with the E-Flite Power 25 motor had a lot to do with the suggestion. That motor coupled with a 4S 2500 mAh battery is just sweet. Some, on the other hand, with stuff a Stalker 61 in the nose of a small ship, like PJ did, and have a monster as well. Variety is the spice of life...  

Bob Hunt

[jfv]

I'm in. Just so happens my new design has 550 square inches.  Always like the way the classic sized planes fit the circle.

[Brett Buck]

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.

   First - I am a PARTICIPANT in Stunt 25, not the originator. Clint Ormosen is the inventor of that one, and an interesting idea it was. I have more later...

   Brett

[Jeff Traxler]

That's what the judgd is gonna tell my wife

[Steve Fitton]

Bob, let us know what East coast events you give the 600 class a test run at.

[Mike Keville]

<chuckle>...That's typical.  Offer something new, and right away you get (a) several suggestions on why it won't work, and/or (b) 450 different suggestions on how it should be run.....much like the many years we dealt with well-meaning (if often absurd) suggestions regarding the VSC.

(Sure am relieved THAT one's now in the hands of others!)

[Tim Wescott]

I'm not interested in an event that is engine specific (or displacement specific); I'm proposing just one rule: Less than 600 square inches. I'm also not so in love with this idea that I'm even remotely willing to fight, argue, and/or debate anyone about it. I just thought it would be an interesting event and spawn some new thinking. The .25 event leaves out electric power; the flapless suggestion leaves out, well, flaps! My event suggestion only restricts the wing area of the model. It leaves tons of room for interpretation. It make get the creative juices flowing. Then again it may just die an early death. I won't lose any sleep over it either way. I will, however, find a way to try it at least once.

I must be honest here; my infatuation with the E-Flite Power 25 motor had a lot to do with the suggestion. That motor coupled with a 4S 2500 mAh battery is just sweet. Some, on the other hand, with stuff a Stalker 61 in the nose of a small ship, like PJ did, and have a monster as well. Variety is the spice of life...  

Bob Hunt

Bob: I wasn't suggesting you limit displacement -- I was just reading all the comments about how 600 squares isn't really that small, and thinking that if you set your area limit to kinda-sorta match that event's "reasonable area" it may make more sense.  Then yours could be the "electric inclusive" Stunt 25.

My apologies to Clint Ormosen for the misleading comments about who's behind Stunt 25.

[Balsa Butcher]

I sense there is a misunderstanding of the Stunt 25 event. I don't consider it as potentially the Father of 600 stunt.  It is an attempt to commemerate the late-great "A" stunt class that was popular during the WAM (Western Associated Modelers) era in Northern California. This class allowed engines up to .20 to be used. In a nod to modern available engines we increased the displacement to .25. The unwritten intent was to have a class where entry level models like Flite-Streaks, Ringmasters and the like could compete. Not necessarily to encourage smaller high-zoot super stunters although I'm sure that will happen sooner or later.

Also, to allow beginners to compete with experts it has a built-in handicap system. Handicap points are awarded depending on the fliers skill class. Beginners get 75 points, Intermediates 50, Advanced fliers 20 points, Experts zero points. Anyone can win and all the trophies don't necessarily go to the top experts all the time as frequently happens in events run without skill classes. Some may not agree with this but it has worked for us.  

[Dennis Toth]

Bob,
I like the idea of smaller ships and the event. It seems we have been missing the real reason they are more fun to fly is that in general they are lighter and pull less. The reduced pull makes it easier for our aging pilots to fly comfortably. Several of us in S FL have been flying ships that are sub 45 oz and having lots of flying fun and do better patterns. Less pull allows you to lighten your grip and have smoother muscle movement even if you have some minor joint discomfort you can still fly.

I agree with Brett on this one for size, if you keep it to 500 -525 sq in it will keep the weight down and more fliers will enjoy flying it. There are plenty of Classic ships that fit this if one wants to do double duty. I think some of the visual tricks need to be applied to get these smaller ships to appear larger (paint schemes) and that fill up the air space to present the pattern similar to a larger ship (shorter lines to give the same maneuver perspective). Just need to do some work on the presentation aspect.

At the very least I'd like to see a ground up new small 500 sq in ship designed with current numbers tailored to this size and campaigned at some major event. Seems the size creep came as the top fliers just saw some guys  winning who tried the big ship (remember the white pants), well if some top guys start flying smaller stuff everyone will think its OK and try it.  For and electric it would be great to be able to use say a 2100 mah 4S1P  pack which would be in this size range also would keep battery cost down, design this one Bob.

Best,       DennisT

[Bill Ervin]

Li'l RB-1 had a super short career involving two crashes and one trophy.  It's been 23 years, maybe time for a reprise and a chance to acquit itself.  Still have it in a shoe box somewhere.

500 sq. inches,  25% stab/elev,  39oz.

[Bob Hunt]

I just noticed that this thread has more than 1,100 hits in but a few days. That could mean that this idea is intriguing to many.

I've studied the posts on this thread - pro and con - and still feel that it is worth a try just as I originally suggested. Look for this event on a contest menu next year here in the East.

I've just finished converting the Gene Schaffer-designed Stunt Machine 1 (the one before the published one) that I built last year to electric power and it flies great. Trouble is, it has 620 square inches of area. I guess I won't be able to use it in this new event... That's okay, I've also just finished re-designing the Caprice into what I call the Caprice Extreme. It's now not Classic legal, but it sure looks swoopier... And, it has around 560 square inches of area. Guess I'll have to go ahead and build it...

Bob Hunt

[john e. holliday]

Like Clint Ormosen back west with his .25 event,  go for it.   It may take off after a couple of years and also may be a big hit the first year.  Look at what Mike Keville did with Classic and Old Time out in the far west.

[Airacobra]

Bill, Build that LB again, great looking plane and would love to see a set of plans for that one!

[peabody]

Upon further thought, maybe "sub 500" might be the plan?

Have fun!

[Randy Cuberly]

I just noticed that this thread has more than 1,100 hits in but a few days. That could mean that this idea is intriguing to many.

Bob Hunt

Bob,
You are definitely one of the most "positive thinking" friends I've ever had!

For me...being the "Crotchety" old guy that I am, I think it's just because a lot of people like to attack anything new...especially anything new in CL Stunt!!!

I'm really glad there are guys like you around to keep things intresting.

I for one really like the idea and have already started laying out a "shrunk" Saturn for an ST46.

Randy Cuberly

[phil c]

But Dean - .......   
   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

I can't see putting new restrictions on the planes just to add another event.  One of the attractions of most CL events are the minimal restrictions on planes.  Slightly smaller planes right now can, as Bob Hunt pointed out, fly patterns every bit as good as a bigger plane.  There are some differences in trimming a smaller plane to fly on longer lines.  Why not fly a smaller plane if you want to?  Nothing prevents it now, and the smaller planes can fly as well as larger ones.

As far as the judging goes, the last 10 years has seen a big improvement in judging. The NATS does an especially good job, but it's spreading to more local contests. I just got back from the Brodak Fly In.  They were using experienced flyers as judges in other classes.  Looking at a number of score sheets they did an excellent job across the board judging everything from Fox 35 classic planes to 75 powered Impacts and the like on the same circle. 

[Tom Niebuhr]

I will definitely be going electric. I have a brand new design in my Skunk Works that will be very different. I talked to Buddy Wieder this morning and he convinced me that I should bite the bullet.  The airplane will even have retracts, so I will be taking a big risk and bite a very big bullet.

With an A/R of 5.6, it will have 598 sq", and span of 57".

I will not give any details for quite a while, but there is NOTHING like it out there, and it will look very real.

[Sean McEntee]

I will depart from what seems to be the majority and say "go for it", not just for Bob's event but for any ideas thereafter.  OTS and Classic were one of those "wouldnt it be neat if..." concepts once upon a time. 

  A CD having options as to what events are flown would make it more interesting, perhaps a little more fun to go fly an event that only a few clubs/contests put on. The idea isnt to have EVERY existing stunt event out there at one contest. A CD just has to plan carefully and not over-schedule.  Even at my age (younger than the average), 2 events in a day is very managable as long as one has his act together.  3 events start to get tough.  I've never flown 4 events and I dont think I would ever want to try.  Having said that, put it up to a club vote, have the event at a local contest for a year or two and see if it catches.  If not....oh well.

[Fred Underwood]

I must be honest here; my infatuation with the E-Flite Power 25 motor had a lot to do with the suggestion. That motor coupled with a 4S 2500 mAh battery is just sweet.
Bob Hunt

Bob, I like the sub 600 concept and size and have used the E-Flite 25 a bit.  What prop, line length, lap time allow that combo and how many mah used, or replaced on charge?  We seemed to use a bit more battery using the 25 on a 650 square and 64 -65 ft lines, but the regular 12x6 EP.  The 25 was also at the top of RPM range, so not much head room for gain.  The 12x6 f2b seems to act more like 12x6.6 - 12x7 in actual pitch-rpm-lap time or speed in ft/second.   

[RC Storick]

Not that I count but I think the 40 oz airplane flies better. For some odd reason even though I can see it people think bigger is better. I guess some need more powerful glasses.

I say good Idea! The only thing absolutly that has progressed from the 60 tys is the drive train. The airplanes are the same. Only so many ways to atach a wing to a fuse. Flame on

[Ted Fancher]

Oh, what the heck. 

Why not a class for sub 500, sub 400 and sub 300 square inches while we're at it.  I think an equally good case could be made for a monoline stunt event, a throttled J-Roberts three line event, three sizes of electrics (don't know much about them...how about 60 watt, 100 watt and 150 watt, like light bulbs).  How about monokoted airplanes only events and/or designs using only foam wings or Detroiter wings?

Each of those suggestions could be supported by the same rationale as championed on this thread for the sub 600 square inch event.  Each would provide an event catering to narrowly defined specific groups.  Each would also, however, require all of the support staff, time, circles and trophies to be demanded from those willing to put on a contest.  You'll argue that no CD has to hold every event but my response to that would be...which ones would the CD leave out?  What if he picks the wrong events and ends up with two circles and ten trophies going to waste while people who decided to try out event B find that only event C was  going to be held so they stay home.  How many entries in any of the proliferated events will constitute success?  If that "success" is achieved at the cost of fewer entries in other events will that be considered a positive or a negative result?

Guys, a discussion of additional events "MUST" include consideration of the potential negative aspects of an unending spiral of unique, narrowly defined, concepts that sound cool to those that want to fly them but must be supported by those willing to host them.  If you end up with 10% more fliers at a contest but administration of the contest requires 50% more effort and resources; is that a good thing?  Do 15 fliers flying 10 events make for a better contest than a dozen flying one?

We can point fingers at age and old timers for the demise of other events but you can't do so without recognizing that pretty much all of them tried to "save" the event through proliferation and/or simplification.  More than any other CL even stunt has militated against both (including a particularly unappetizing debate over "ultimate" simplification in the recent past) and has continued to flourish.  To suggest that consideration of those historical aspects are not worthy of discussion with respect to more and/or simpler events is burying our heads in the sand.

I restate my belief that airplanes such as Bob suggests can be fully competitive with the best there are out there now if modern powertrains and design optimization are utilized (neither of which is against the current rules).  All it takes is the desire on the part of competitive fliers to do it and lead the way.

Ted

[Randy Cuberly]

Oh, what the heck. 

Why not a class for sub 500, sub 400 and sub 300 square inches while we're at it.  I think an equally good case could be made for a monoline stunt event, a throttled J-Roberts three line event, three sizes of electrics (don't know much about them...how about 60 watt, 100 watt and 150 watt, like light bulbs).  How about monokoted airplanes only events and/or designs using only foam wings or Detroiter wings?

Each of those suggestions could be supported by the same rationale as championed on this thread for the sub 600 square inch event.  Each would provide an event catering to narrowly defined specific groups.  Each would also, however, require all of the support staff, time, circles and trophies to be demanded from those willing to put on a contest.  You'll argue that no CD has to hold every event but my response to that would be...which ones would the CD leave out?  What if he picks the wrong events and ends up with two circles and ten trophies going to waste while people who decided to try out event B find that only event C was  going to be held so they stay home.  How many entries in any of the proliferated events will constitute success?  If that "success" is achieved at the cost of fewer entries in other events will that be considered a positive or a negative result?

Guys, a discussion of additional events "MUST" include consideration of the potential negative aspects of an unending spiral of unique, narrowly defined, concepts that sound cool to those that want to fly them but must be supported by those willing to host them.  If you end up with 10% more fliers at a contest but administration of the contest requires 50% more effort and resources; is that a good thing?  Do 15 fliers flying 10 events make for a better contest than a dozen flying one?

We can point fingers at age and old timers for the demise of other events but you can't do so without recognizing that pretty much all of them tried to "save" the event through proliferation and/or simplification.  More than any other CL even stunt has militated against both (including a particularly unappetizing debate over "ultimate" simplification in the recent past) and has continued to flourish.  To suggest that consideration of those historical aspects are not worthy of discussion with respect to more and/or simpler events is burying our heads in the sand.

I restate my belief that airplanes such as Bob suggests can be fully competitive with the best there are out there now if modern powertrains and design optimization are utilized (neither of which is against the current rules).  All it takes is the desire on the part of competitive fliers to do it and lead the way.

Ted

Ted,
While I tend to agree with your general idea that total extension of the concept of change and proliferation of events is not a good direction.  I think using this concept of smaller that 600 sq in. serves to make more people aware that the smaller airplanes can be competitive.

I do not believe for a moment that the bigger is better attitude among a lot of judges is not real.
Just look at the results from the last several VSC's.  Discounting wins by folks like Bob Hunt and Paul Walker the top 20 there is mostly dominated by Big airplanes.  The smaller "classic airplanes" seem to be relegated to the hands of mostly less than "Expert" fliers that are not really there for competitive reasons.  Certainly there's nothing wrong with that and in fact is where the real fun and charm of VSC lies.
However, I have trouble believing that most of the top 20 fliers there fly bigger airplanes because they think the small ones have a better chance of winning  .
I would like to see if that concept could be changed or if in fact scores would drop if everyone flew smaller airplanes.
Personally I doubt that would happen.  That might change the concept of some judges that bigger is better...in spite of any percieved Halos!!!
No I really don't think halos exist but I think some judges think they do!  Fear of ridicule can be a very powerful force.
Personally I don't care if the sub 600 class becomes a reality or not...I'm going to try it for at least a couple of airplanes to see if in fact it is viable.

Randy Cuberly

[Bob Hunt]

Oh great... Now I've pissed off a Nats judge...

Guys: I never meant for this to become a serious debate; it's a proposal for a non-official fun event. If this is going to drive yet another stake between us, I'll just drop the whole thing. It's not worth it for me to cause any more strife in an already strife-filled event. I was just trying to do something that might energize some people who's interest might have been waning and give them something new to try. Hey, I've been wrong before...

Bob

[Derek Barry]

Oh great... Now I've pissed off a Nats judge...

Guys: I never meant for this to become a serious debate; it's a proposal for a non-official fun event. If this is going to drive yet another stake between us, I'll just drop the whole thing. It's not worth it for me to cause any more strife in an already strife-filled event. I was just trying to do something that might energize some people who's interest might have been waning and give them something new to try. Hey, I've been wrong before...

Bob

Hey Bob,

I didn't get "pissed" of or even "mildly upset" out of Ted's post. I think he was just pointing out some of the potential problems with adding any new event. As much as I respect Ted's point of view I think it is a little extreme in this case. I think, at a local level as you suggested for your event, it can't hurt too much. It is my understanding that back in the old days of stunt, (no offence old guys) that people flew many events. Combat, carrier, stunt, racing, not to mention the fun stuff like balloon pops and trash can ditch. I think variety is a good thing and for the contest that are held twice a year they could even offer different events at each one to keep it interesting.

I can understand Ted,s view, I only fly Expert at contests so personally I do not need any other event to fly. I also can understand that everyone does not have the same goals in stunt that I do, some people fly just for the fun of it and those people may enjoy events that some others see as unnecessary.

Another fun fact: We do not have a Stunt 25, Fox Hurl, or a Specific ARF event here on the east coast so why couldn't we add another event just for the fun of it?

Again Bob, I say go for it.

Derek

[john e. holliday]

Oh great... Now I've pissed off a Nats judge...

Guys: I never meant for this to become a serious debate; it's a proposal for a non-official fun event. If this is going to drive yet another stake between us, I'll just drop the whole thing. It's not worth it for me to cause any more strife in an already strife-filled event. I was just trying to do something that might energize some people who's interest might have been waning and give them something new to try. Hey, I've been wrong before...

Bob

Bob, you've been a judge at the NATS yourself, so let the water flow off the back.   This is your idea and project.   Give it a go and you may surprise yourself.   The first year may not be much, but the years after may go like great cars or fizzle out.   You never know until you try.  I myself like the Nobler size planes.

[Doug Moon]

I say go for it too.  I would think you would need to get it on a calendar now so the selection and building can begin on some event specific models for those who are open for a new model to be built.

As far as Admin of it you could have it flown right inside the regular PAMPA classes all mixed in the flight order.  

Then you just separate it on the scoreboard.  No need to run separate rounds and separate judges etc.  The thought is smaller is just as good or better than big then have it fully integrated on the Sunday PA schedule and see how it works out.  

Separating the event will only further cement the smaller class as a NON-Premeir event.  If you run it all together only separated by skill class then you are getting away from Ted's ideas that proliferation will eventually hurt the event.  

The only question is will the flyer enter the big hi-zoot model or the sub 600 giant killer  Decisions Decisions!

Go for it!!!  I think you will have a good turn out. There is certainly an electric setup that will fit this bill perfectly as you can stay away from the heavier battery needed for 60 models and get the lighter smaller rigs really working!

[Dennis Moritz]

Is the Crossfire an under 600 model. Finished 3rd last NATs. Definitely competitive. Would not be news to Bob.

[Bob Hunt]

Hi Guys:

I guess you know I was just joking about pissing off Ted. He and I have been great friends for many years and I was just tweaking his mustache...

I will probably try the event at least once next near, but I might do as Doug suggested and put it inside the regular stunt event entries and separate the scores on the board.

Dennis: The Crossfire is around 635 square inches...Later - Bob 

[Randy Cuberly]

Hi Guys:

I guess you know I was just joking about pissing off Ted. He and I have been great friends for many years and I was just tweaking his mustache...

I will probably try the event at least once next near, but I might do as Doug suggested and put it inside the regular stunt event entries and separate the scores on the board.

Dennis: The Crossfire is around 635 square inches...Later - Bob 

If anybody pissed off Ted it was me...I always seem to have that effect on him. 

In actuality I think Ted has a very thick skin and doesn't "@#$% off" very easily.

Even if he did He'd get over it!  Uhhh...I think! 

Randy Cuberly

[Ted Fancher]

If anybody pissed off Ted it was me...I always seem to have that effect on him. 

In actuality I think Ted has a very thick skin and doesn't "@#$% off" very easily.

Even if he did He'd get over it!  Uhhh...I think! 

Randy Cuberly

All right, guys. 

No!  I'm not pissed off at anyone.  I count myself lucky to be friends with both Bubba and Randy.  Disagreeing on things as minor as what we think is best for stunt hardly constitutes the basis on which to blow up friendships.  I have "opinions" (I know, big surprise) and enjoy sharing them.  Even more I enjoy debating the merits of differences of opinion.  If only one side of an issue is examined it is hard to make rational judgements about the best course of action, whether the matter under consideration is political ideology or whether wings of one size deserve their own event separate from wings of another size.

Besides, Bob has never seen fit to change his opinion based on my opinion.  Many would be amazed at our differences of opinion over the years...none of which has done our friendship any harm.  As a result, however, debating him can never be anything more than an exercise in typing skills.

Ted

[RC Storick]

  As a result, however, debating him can never be anything more than an exercise in typing skills.
Ted

And from past reading experience you are both well tuned into the keyboard. 

[john e. holliday]

As far as getting P****d off, it happens.  Some it is a way of good debate and all is forgiven.   My Brother Bob used to say,  "You can get unmad as fast as you get mad".   But, he was big enough to back it up.   Very seldom seen him get upset at any one and my Brother Bill always told me I didn't want to see him, Brother Bob, get mad.

[Steve Fitton]

I'm confused about weight .  If this exercise is about more planes with the eflite 25 and the 4s battery, how much does that combination weigh?
If the optimum weight for the 630 square Crossfire is 62 oz, could one reasonably expect to get a Vector 40 (sub 600) sized plane much lighter than that with the same power 25 system?  Did I miss something here?

[Dennis Moritz]

My Vectors weigh somewhat bellow 50 ounces. Powered by LA 46s or FP/Tower40s. I don't think they'll carry more weight. Actually, the bow wow I fly weighs in at 48 ounces. My 36 ounce flapped and modded Magician does a much better corner.

[Perry Rose]

Instead of "Sub 600" which would be kinda tough to police with a scratch built model, how about a wing span limit? Most of my planes are 55" and below so I propose "Sub 55". And don't forget the builder of the model rule.

[john e. holliday]

Enough now guys.  It is time for Bobby to come up with a set of rules so we can start drawing the plane on the napkin while having our donut plus coffee.   Being lazy I would probably go with one of the current kits on the market that fits the rules.   

[Tom Niebuhr]

There is really nothing complicated about it. 600 sq." max. This includes most of the stunters designed in the past with the exception of the Goliaths.

The best thing is that it opens up the possibility of new airplanes, along with upgrade mods to older airplanes.

I have taken upon myself, the challenge to design a new airplane with an A/R of 5.6, it will have 598 sq", and span of 57".  It will be realistic and have retracts.

The "600" airplanes will fit the circle better, yet will not appear too small.

[dirty dan]

This proposal is the result of a smart guy putting forth a dumb idea. I agree that more events is no answer at all to whatever is seen to be ailing in CL Stunt.

It's the same situation we had here in the NW a few years ago. There was pressure to add Profile Stunt to an already full dance card. My view was that such a move could take place. But only if we dropped an event in order to make room for the new. That I lost the argument hardly means I was wrong.

But we can make this a shorter discussion by quoting a favorite line from a favorite movie: "I fart in your general direction."

Dan

[Tim Wescott]

There was pressure to add Profile Stunt to an already full dance card. My view was that such a move could take place. But only if we dropped an event in order to make room for the new. That I lost the argument hardly means I was wrong.

I like NW Profile stunt.  Granted, a quick glance at the current standings will tell you that there's obviously something seriously wrong with the way points are calculated, but I like the event.

[Steve Fitton]

This proposal is the result of a smart guy putting forth a dumb idea. I agree that more events is no answer at all to whatever is seen to be ailing in CL Stunt.

It's the same situation we had here in the NW a few years ago. There was pressure to add Profile Stunt to an already full dance card. My view was that such a move could take place. But only if we dropped an event in order to make room for the new. That I lost the argument hardly means I was wrong.

But we can make this a shorter discussion by quoting a favorite line from a favorite movie: "I fart in your general direction."

Dan

"perhaps if we built a 600 square inch wooden badger..."

[dirty dan]

I like NW Profile stunt.  Granted, a quick glance at the current standings will tell you that there's obviously something seriously wrong with the way points are calculated, but I like the event.

Indeed. And I like Profile Stunt as well, not having said anything against the event.

The issue is staging three or four events at our contests. For many years we have flown OTS and Classic on Saturday. PA is flown on Sunday. Now we add a fourth event and it goes into Saturday's schedule.

I fail to see how this adds to our weekend's enjoyment, what with the schedule getting kinda tight at times. Which is why my position, since getting some push-back, was to add an event but to keep schedule more easily workable by dropping an event. (I would have voted for OTS as at the time it was suffering from low numbers.)

Of course this discussion doesn't have much to do with Bob's proposal.

Dan
 

[Jim Thomerson]

Bob may not realize this, but I think he was subconsciously affected by judging my Jr. Flite Streak with TD 09 at one of the hurricane VSCs.  I'm building my first RC airplane and am no longer a CL nemesis, but there are others out there who design and build very capable small airplanes. So maybe Bob is, without realizing it, really trying to protect the fliers of monster airplanes from small agile competitors. 

[John Leidle]

   Again,, a long time ago I read an article by John Thompson in Model Builder mag.  This subject was on  he said something on the order of  if you delute Stunt with extra events you will weaken the focus. If you don't believe it look at has happened to racing. He mentioned how deluted racing had become with too many events. John is a CL Race guy BTW. This was back around 1990,,,I never forgot it & believe it has merit. I am against any more splits of any kind.
     John

[Tom Niebuhr]

John,
I don't look at the "600" being another added event.

 It doesn't have to be a separate event.

 It is more a suggestion on size. I absolutely feel that this will encourage people to design and fly new airplanes. That is simply an evolution of the airplanes. In this case to get away from the behemoths and using  an airplane that fits the circle better. This in no way changes the stunt event any more than pipes did. Use what you like.

[John Leidle]

   Hi Tom,    Bob called it a new event in his first sentence.
                          John

[Tom Niebuhr]

John,
Yes he did. But, he does not say it has to be. He wants to try it, but it could simply be part of a standard event.

[john e. holliday]

Maybe instead of saying new event, he should say new idea.

[jfv]

Here's my idea to give it a try.  The Middlesex Modelers, New Jersey stunt contest will be held on August 4th and I'm the CD.  You can fly for overall bragging rights with any size plane you want.  We will also provide a separate "class" award in advanced and expert for sub 600 planes.  Similar to auto racing where multiple classes race together.  You could potentially be overall winner as well as sub 600 winner.  Should be fun to see what happens.