stunthanger.com
General control line discussion => Open Forum => Topic started by: Bob Hunt on June 12, 2013, 05:54:28 PM
-
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
-
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 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
-
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
-
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.
-
Well, my new plane is closer to 620 square inches so I guess I didn't make it. But I'm hopeful.
-
<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.
-
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 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
-
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
-
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.
-
I like it!
-
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
-
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
-
Bad idea as a new event.
Good rule change for ALL existing events.
-
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....
-
Bob,
How long are the lines on the Caprice?
-
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 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 R%%%%) 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" y1 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! #^
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
Then we can add the Veco group along with the Johnsons, McCoy and K&B.
-
Sounds like I'll have a good use for that new PA .51 I have..........
Dave
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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? mw~ 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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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!!!
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
I'm in. Just so happens my new design has 550 square inches. Always like the way the classic sized planes fit the circle.
-
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
-
That's what the judgd is gonna tell my wife y1 y1 y1
-
Bob, let us know what East coast events you give the 600 class a test run at.
-
<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!)
-
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 8)
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.
-
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. 8)
-
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
-
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.
-
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. D>K
-
Bill, Build that LB again, great looking plane and would love to see a set of plans for that one!
-
Upon further thought, maybe "sub 500" might be the plan?
Have fun!
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 8)
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.
-
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 f~ j1
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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. H^^ H^^
-
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!
-
Is the Crossfire an under 600 model. Finished 3rd last NATs. Definitely competitive. Would not be news to Bob.
-
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! LL~
Randy Cuberly
-
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! LL~
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
-
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. LL~
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. S?P
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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..."
-
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
-
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. :o 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. S?P LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~
-
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
-
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.
-
Hi Tom, Bob called it a new event in his first sentence.
John
-
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.
-
Maybe instead of saying new event, he should say new idea. S?P
-
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.