Author Topic: 1/2A AT THE NATS ? (Read 3032 times)

Allen Goff · « **on:** July 22, 2011, 08:15:36 PM »

Just testing the waters. Would anyone be interested in 1/2A scale as an event at the Nats?

Blessings
Allen

roger · « **Reply #1 on:** July 23, 2011, 07:18:12 AM »

i would...

Clancy Arnold · « **Reply #2 on:** July 23, 2011, 08:12:51 AM »

Allen
Sure would be interested!!

That would give me a second event to fly in.

What rules? Sport, Profile or Fun Scale. I would recommend Fun Scale rules to get it started.
Clancy

Trostle · « **Reply #3 on:** July 23, 2011, 04:19:10 PM »

I would definitely be interested in a 1/2A scale event at the Nats.

I would suggest to use some form of existing Profile rules. The Fun Scale aspect might be OK, but there are already some 1/2A profile rules that seem to work OK. This includes what has been used in St Louis for the last two years at their Broken Arrow contest. It has some limiting aspects. Then there are the two classes used at the Tucson October contest for the past three or four years. One is a limited category with no in-flight options. The other is unlimited with up to three in-flight options. The Tucson rules are such that an airplane built under the AMA profile scale rules could be used in the Tucson contest. Also, both contests allowed proxy pilots. Some things to think about.

Keith

John Rist · « **Reply #4 on:** July 23, 2011, 08:25:59 PM »

The Broken Arrow contest requires a 1/2a profile twin. I flew one in it one year. Although I did a DNF I had a lot of fun. I would bring a 1/2A scale to the 2012 NATS if possible.

Allen Goff · « **Reply #5 on:** July 23, 2011, 08:31:28 PM »

Great feedback, we'll continue with this for a while.

Blessings
Allen

Clancy Arnold · « **Reply #6 on:** July 25, 2011, 10:32:43 AM »

Allen
here would be my 1/2 A entry, an Ansaldo SVA-5.
Clancy

Trostle · « **Reply #7 on:** July 25, 2011, 12:10:29 PM »

And some other things to think about for any 1/2A Profile contest at the Nats not mentioned in my previous post. Engines up to .061 (1cc) should be allowed. Also, why not require multi-engine models, with a bonus for more than two. The Tucson and St Louis contests have been fairly well supported for both being for only multi-engines.

Keith

Paul Smith · « **Reply #8 on:** July 26, 2011, 09:08:47 PM »

A 1 cc event is fine, just don't call it 1/2A. The term "1/2A" means something, and it's not 1 cc.

John Rist · « **Reply #9 on:** July 27, 2011, 10:15:31 AM »

Quote from: Paul Smith on July 26, 2011, 09:08:47 PM

A 1 cc event is fine, just don't call it 1/2A. The term "1/2A" means something, and it's not 1 cc.

What is true 1/2A Maximum displacement: 0.0519 cubic inch? If you have 2 1/2A engines can you no longer call it 1/2A? Call it what you want but I think a .061 limit is a good one. Allows more engines. I would suggest a "no throttle" rule and a set of contest rules that accommodates "no throttle" flying.

My DO335 from Broken Arrow contest.

Allen Goff · « **Reply #10 on:** July 29, 2011, 05:34:15 AM »

Keep the sencable suggestion coming. We will take a good look at them all. I will say one thing, don't get carried away and make this a big headache, this should be a fun event. John and I will be meeting Fri. night before the FCM contest to start the planning for the scale nats. We should have some ground work laid for everyone to look over. That's all for now.

Blessings
Allen

Trostle · « **Reply #11 on:** July 29, 2011, 04:45:01 PM »

Just to help digest what has already been suggested and if it has not been mentioned before.

You might want to review the rules for the Broken Arrow contest in St Louis I am not sure where a website is for this. The rules are fairly simple and intended to keep the airplanes fairly simple. .049 limit on displacement for each engine, no throttle control, no in flight control, exposed control system. They did have a weight limit of around 22 ounces, but they waived that last year. I am not sure how flight points were accumulated.

Mike Keville can provide all the rules for his Tucson contest. His announcement is at

http://www.clstunt.com/htdocs/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=849&mesg_id=849&page=

There are two separate events at the Tucson contest. One event is for "limited" designs - no throttle, no flight options. The other is "unlimited" which allows for up to 3 in-flight options. There is a bonus for more than 2 engines. Mike and others have been refining the rules for each of the events during the 4 years this contest has been run. There are some ideas there that you might find useful.

Keith

One factor that I think has been used in formulating these rules is that a model built that adheres to the AMA profile rules could be used for these events.

Allen Goff · « **Reply #12 on:** August 03, 2011, 09:09:27 AM »

Gentlemen;

What if we used profile rules across the board with the engine size limit at .061. No need to reinvent the wheel. One class. Talk to me.

Blessings
Allen

John Rist · « **Reply #13 on:** August 03, 2011, 09:46:07 AM »

Quote from: Allen Goff on August 03, 2011, 09:09:27 AM

Gentlemen;

What if we used profile rules across the board with the engine size limit at .061. No need to reinvent the wheel. One class. Talk to me.

Blessings
Allen

The only problem with that is throttle controll. In profile scale the flight plan is the same as stand off scale and fun scale. Takeoff, 6 options, landing, realism in flight. Withought throttle touch-and-go (counts as two options), missed approach, taxi, and throttle options would not be possible. This represents 5 of the 6 options just about all profile scale fliers use. Not to mention take off is a low score because of a lack of a gradual roll out with slow acceleration to lift off. Withought these it is almost impossible to come up with 6 options unless the scale model is a good stunter. Then you could do loops, wing over possibly inverted flight. But these maneuvers are limited to fully acrobatic aircraft such as a P-51 or an Extra 300S. Don't know what the answer is but using standard profile rules would almost assure that the top contenders would have throttles.

PS Flight scoring should be best single flight - same as fun scale.

Allen Goff · « **Reply #14 on:** August 03, 2011, 05:22:31 PM »

I will be taking a look at the Tucson rules.

Blessings

Mike Keville · « **Reply #15 on:** August 03, 2011, 06:19:39 PM »

Quote from: Allen Goff on August 03, 2011, 05:22:31 PM

I will be taking a look at the Tucson rules.

Blessings

============================================================

Allen phoned a while ago, requesting info on our successful series. As I explained to him, I feel we may have unnecessarily complicated the event somewhat, yet agreed to provide a copy of our rules....adding "feel free to adopt, copy or discard" any portion thereof.

When I first flew this event (1976) is was more of a "Beauty" event....models being required to fly only a minimum of ten laps to qualify for judging. As it turned out, that was fortunate for me since my entry, a Fokker T.V (pic attached) attained a scale speed of about 2,000 mph thanks to a pair of Tee-Dees.

Anyone wishing to have a copy of the current Tucson rules may request those from vsc-guy(at)cox(dot)net. Next contest here will be October 8-9, 2011.

Larry Lindburg · « **Reply #16 on:** August 04, 2011, 09:15:48 AM »

Hopefully attached are the 2009 St. Louis Half-A twin scale rules for reference.

Allen Goff · « **Reply #17 on:** August 04, 2011, 02:39:10 PM »

Thanks Larry for the rules for St.Louis.

I have been on the phone for the last three days seeking wisdom and advise, thanks to the help of Mike Keville, Will Hinton, Keith Trostle and others I think we have come up with something that will work. The main thing here was to keep it simple and fun We did it without a lawyer too. Attached are the documents I came up with. I hope 2012 will be the bigest scale nats ever.

Blessings
Allen

Trostle · « **Reply #18 on:** August 04, 2011, 03:22:44 PM »

Allen,

I guess this is nit-picking. It might be written in your rules or maybe it is implicit, but I missed it. The rule shows that the maximum displacement is 0.061 cu in. I am sure you mean each engine is limited to that, but some might argue that the way the rule is written that the total displacement (for all engines combined) can be no more than 0.061 cu in.

In other words do your rules allow multi engines, each limited to a maximum of 0.061 cu in, or is the total combined displacement 0.061 cu in.

More later.

Keith

Allen Goff · « **Reply #19 on:** August 04, 2011, 05:20:48 PM »

Keith, simple is the key word here. Two , three, or four engine aircraft .061 each.

Blessings
Allen

John Rist · « **Reply #20 on:** August 04, 2011, 06:02:02 PM »

Love the rules - count me in! If I make the 2012 NATS I will bring a 1/2 a twin.

Allen Goff · « **Reply #21 on:** August 04, 2011, 06:08:55 PM »

Thanks John.

Blessings
Allen

Will Hinton · « **Reply #22 on:** August 04, 2011, 07:30:01 PM »

Any one for a Spruce Goose?!

Mike Keville · « **Reply #23 on:** August 04, 2011, 08:18:37 PM »

Quote from: Will Hinton on August 04, 2011, 07:30:01 PM

Any one for a Spruce Goose?!

---------------------------------------------------

If you think you can handle it, go for it! Just be sure to keep 'em ALL running for at least 10 laps.

bob whitney · « **Reply #24 on:** August 04, 2011, 09:51:53 PM »

Allen . i just looked over your 1/2 A rules and noticed that you say profile or full body fuse and then further down you say fuse 1 in max . it cant be both, also there is nothing about throtles ,yes or no?? Bob Whitney

Allen Goff · « **Reply #25 on:** August 05, 2011, 06:05:24 AM »

Will, you are just the man for that project, do it.

Bob, you have some good points there. Revised doc. attached.

Blessings
Allen

pat king · « **Reply #26 on:** August 05, 2011, 11:00:44 AM »

I have four designs for 1/2A to 1cc profile twins. They are: F 82 Twin Mustang, A26-A Counterinvader, F7F Tigercat, and OV 10 Bronco. I can supply plans, laser cut kits or laser cut short kits. The A26-A and the F 82 have competed at Tucson.

Pat

Ron Duly · « **Reply #27 on:** August 05, 2011, 02:11:37 PM »

The "requirement" of having four color pictures is quite limiting. There are some really wierd "must build" planes that might not even have one color picture available. Also, the "full fuselage" allowance defeats the idea of a simple event. Just my thoughts. Throttle control is fine so maybe two divisions: one with and one without? Way back when the SoCal event started there weren't many good .049's with throttles (except for Medallions) so it wasn't a factor. We were just happy to get them to fly 10 laps! Progress has been made and good .061's with throttles are now available. My first twin was an ARADO-232 with a zillion wheels down the center. The OK Cub .049's vibrated so badly that they shook the necalles off. Next plane used Testors .049's and they were fine. This can be a very interesting and fun event, especially if there are multiple classes to suit various levels of skill.

Fred Cronenwett · « **Reply #28 on:** August 05, 2011, 03:11:01 PM »

I have similar comments regarding the docucmentation, it should reflect the current ama requirements that allow for one picture mabe even black and white photograph. Ron is right a lot of aircraft were never photographed in color and getting 4 color pictures is impossible with some subjects.

The other item is the requirement for a color chip, for a fun event, a color picture or written description should be good enough. At the 1993 Nats I had a judge require a color chip for a red spot the size of a postage stamp in Profile scale. My point is that maybe a color chip should be expected in sport scale, FAI and Precision, but in a fun event like this one, drop the requirement for a color chip and allow judges to decided if the color is correct based upon a color photograph (if available) or other sources.

Land Softly,
Fred Cronenwett

Allen Goff · « **Reply #29 on:** August 05, 2011, 05:23:57 PM »

So what does everyone think about droping the color chip?

Key word; simple. One class, no throtle.

Blessings
Allen

pat king · « **Reply #30 on:** August 05, 2011, 05:29:08 PM »

I agree that the event should be simple and FUN. If it is one class without throttle it stays less complicated.

Just my 1/2 cent worth, Pat

Allen Brickhaus · « **Reply #31 on:** August 05, 2011, 06:07:29 PM »

So what does everyone think about droping the color chip? Drop color chip.

Key word; simple. One class, no throtle.

Blessings

Allen Brickhaus

John Rist · « **Reply #32 on:** August 05, 2011, 06:15:31 PM »

Quote from: Allen Goff on August 05, 2011, 05:23:57 PM

So what does everyone think about droping the color chip?

Key word; simple. One class, no throtle.

Blessings
Allen

Have you priced a set of color chips? Drop the color chip!!!

Mike Keville · « **Reply #33 on:** August 05, 2011, 06:50:27 PM »

Allen Goff: See your e-mail.

pat king · « **Reply #34 on:** August 05, 2011, 07:07:32 PM »

Drop the color chip. It is less complicated without it.
The A26 is Mike Keville's
The F 82 is Bob Whitely's

Pat

Will Hinton · « **Reply #35 on:** August 05, 2011, 07:28:00 PM »

Dropping the color chip gets my vote, also. On the subject of throttles, how about just making it pilot's choice, in other words, use it if you want/have it, but not required. I know this can complicate the scoring, but?

?

Allen Goff · « **Reply #36 on:** August 05, 2011, 11:27:12 PM »

Thanks for your input guys.

Color chip dropped.

Blessings
Allen

John Rist · « **Reply #37 on:** August 06, 2011, 01:11:57 AM »

1/2 A electric?

Allen Goff · « **Reply #38 on:** August 06, 2011, 07:14:45 AM »

New doc.

John Rist · « **Reply #39 on:** August 07, 2011, 05:32:55 PM »

I don't understand the scale doc wording.

Scale documentation required, three view drawings, paint scheme, all in a three ring binder. Minimum 4 pictures and a maximum 4 pages. (if they exist)

Min 4 pictures + 3 view + title page = more than a max of 4 pages. I would perfer:

Scale documentation required - three view drawings, and paint scheme documentation. Paint scheme can be documented by one or all of the following, Color photo's', description, and paint chips. A maximum of 6 pages will be allowed and shall be presented in a three ring binder.

Trostle · « **Reply #40 on:** August 07, 2011, 06:36:09 PM »

Quote from: Allen Goff on August 06, 2011, 07:14:45 AM

New doc.

Your "New doc" states this is for profile or full body fuselage models. Does this mean than profiles will be competing with full fuselage scale models? That will sort of rule out anybody seriously thinking about competing with a profile model.

Rule states that this is for models of heavier than air aircraft. Will models of drones (unpiloted aircraft) be allowed? There are some really neat looking drones out there. Will models of jet powered aircraft be allowed?

The wording still implies that maybe each engine is not to exceed .061 cu in. But the statement "Engine size not to exceed .061" could be interpreted that total displacement is not to exceed ".061" if more than one engine is to be used. Will extra points be given for more than one engine?

Are line lengths and line diameters to be those specified in the CL scale rulebook? Or something else?

How many points for "static appearance"? "craftsmanship"? and "detail"? What is the difference between "detail" that appears on the model and "static appearance"?

How many points for "realism of flight"?, "take off"?, "10 level laps"?, and "landing"?

I apologize if I sound like nitpicking. That is not my intent. I understand that you are trying to keep this simple. However, based on some sad experiences here in Tucson about rules for unofficial 1/2A scale CL contests, I can recommend to minimize or avoid ambiguities.

Keith

Allen Goff · « **Reply #41 on:** August 08, 2011, 08:45:31 AM »

Scale documentation required - three view drawings, and paint scheme documentation. Paint scheme can be documented by one or all of the following, Color photo's', description, and paint chips. A maximum of 6 pages will be allowed and shall be presented in a three ring binder.

John, we've been over the color chip, it's out. Like the Nats, the three view drawings (two sets) are not part of the bound notebook. They are loose so each judge has their own to look over. Maybe the competitor could put more than one picture to a page.

Blessings
Allen

Allen Goff · « **Reply #42 on:** August 08, 2011, 09:01:49 AM »

Keith;

You don't think the two could compete on a level playing field?
How about we state "pilot figure in or on the aircraft"?
Jet powered, if someone wants to try a ducted fan 1/2A aircraft, that's their headache.
How about wording it, "not to exceed .061 each"?
I put it on the flight sheet but not the rules document. 5 bonus points per engine over 1.
Lines per AMA rules.
Scale outline 0-40 points.
Color, finish, markings, craftsmanship 0-40.
Quality of flight (realistic take off, level flight, & landing) 0-40
Ten level laps,1 point per lap max 10 points.*engines running.

I understand it's hard to cover all the bases, all black and white with no gray area, I don't know if that is realistic but we'll try. Thanks for your help. I will give you a phone call later today and maybe we can make things happen quicker.

Blessings
Allen

John Rist · « **Reply #43 on:** August 08, 2011, 10:04:12 AM »

Quote from: Allen Goff on August 08, 2011, 08:45:31 AM

Scale documentation required - three view drawings, and paint scheme documentation. Paint scheme can be documented by one or all of the following, Color photo's', description, and paint chips. A maximum of 6 pages will be allowed and shall be presented in a three ring binder.

John, we've been over the color chip, it's out. Like the Nats, the three view drawings (two sets) are not part of the bound notebook. They are loose so each judge has their own to look over. Maybe the competitor could put more than one picture to a page.

Blessings
Allen

Cool! I understand and agree.

Allen Goff · « **Reply #44 on:** August 08, 2011, 05:48:02 PM »

There can be no more rules, no room left on the paper.

I have spent many hours on the phone seeking counsel from 4 other people and I believe this to be the best set of rules we can have. I realize this could grow into a national health care document, but I won't let it. Again, this event is meant to entice the beginner and yet bring in the advanced to a simple and fun event. I am tired, been here since 9:00 o'clock this morning, getting out of the office now and maybe watch a baseball game.

Blessings
Allen

John Rist · « **Reply #45 on:** August 09, 2011, 07:19:36 AM »

Allen,

Rules well done! Is this fore sure going to be an event at the next NATS? Will it be in the preregistration packet?

How does a new contest for the NATS like this all work?

Allen Goff · « **Reply #46 on:** August 09, 2011, 10:54:04 AM »

John;

I just talked with Randa at AMA and she tells me that bringing 1/2 A scale into the "Nats" as an unofficial event will have to go through our "Sig" and presented at the "Nats" planning meeting the 24th of Sept. She said it should be just routine. So to be sure, we'll have to wait till Sept. 24th. I will keep everyone up to date on this project.

Blessings
Allen

john e. holliday · « **Reply #47 on:** August 10, 2011, 10:43:50 AM »

You might contact our catagory manager for control line on this also ahead of time. You should know Brenda Schuette by now as she was trained a few years ago by another great lady, Bev Wisniewski(spelling).