Author Topic: Scale CL, Not much interest? (Read 2982 times)

Avaiojet · « **on:** October 26, 2011, 02:32:17 PM »

Unfortunately, it appears as though there's not a great deal of scale CL modelers. Any reason for that.

I like scale. Scale is good.

CB

Bill Little · « **Reply #1 on:** October 26, 2011, 02:42:39 PM »

Unfortunately, in the "Grand Scheme" of things, C/L modelers in general area tiny part of model aviation. Just the way things are.

Bill

John Rist · « **Reply #2 on:** October 26, 2011, 03:05:36 PM »

I fly both RC and UC. I was born in 1940 and learned to fly UC in 1953. Had I been born in 1960 and learn to fly in 1973 it would have been RC. So for me the reason I build and fly scale UC is because it is my first love. it was only by luck that I ran into a small group that still fly UC in Huntsville. Our club has 10 members and we fly wherever we can (mostly soccer fields). RC in Huntsville has two clubs with hundreds of members and two flying fields (one with paved a runway) . I guess my point is that UC is small because RC is big. Having done both I can see why - RC is closer to flying a full size airplane. The reason I flew UC in the fifties is because the transistor had not been invented yet!

This doesn't make UC any less fun for me but I do understand why my grand children perfer RC.

Fred Cronenwett · « **Reply #3 on:** October 26, 2011, 03:10:34 PM »

CL scale is well represented at the FCM contest (Muncie, Aug time frame) and at the Nats. Most of the time you will find CL aerobatics but CL scale is alive and well. There were 23 airplanes show up the FCM contest at Muncie this past Aug (Fellowship of Christian modelers). The Nationals had 26 models show up. The local contests are smaller but there is a active group of folks who fly CL scale.

Fred C.

Will Hinton · « **Reply #4 on:** October 27, 2011, 01:47:06 PM »

Then you have the folks in the southwest doing the 1/2A thing in scale, and in Missouri, so I think it's growing again and needs for people who like it to step up and step out where they can to promote scale. It CAN regain popularity.

Clancy Arnold · « **Reply #5 on:** October 27, 2011, 08:26:00 PM »

One way to start in CL Scale is buy a RC Scale kit and build it for Control Line.

A couple of things to watch out for is the recommended CG location will be too far back for Control Line flying. Make the CG at no more than 20 % of the wing cord.

Use a slight 2-3 degrees of engine out thrust. Add Tip Weight, also you can off set the ailerons to help with line tension. Not too much aileron as you want it to fly wings level at normal flight level.
Clancy

Allen Goff · « **Reply #6 on:** October 28, 2011, 10:06:11 AM »

I like Fred's comments, the FCM this year was a big suprise with the 23 airplanes that showed up. And the 1/2A that are competing now. ( 1/2 A scale will be an unofficial event at the 2012 Nats for the first time)
I see C/L scale starting to grow. Heck, buy a R/C ARF kit, put a three line bellcrank in it and in no time you have a C/L Fun scale ready to compete, how much simpler can it get? Come to the Nats next year and / or the FCM contest or the Brodak fly-in and fly with us. John Brodak and I are the Nats Scale event directors and we will do everything in our power to see that C/L scale grows over the coming years. That my story and I'm stoicking to it.

Blessings
Allen

John Rist · « **Reply #7 on:** October 28, 2011, 10:19:38 AM »

Allen,

I was at the 2011 FCM. It was GREAT! By the way is their any chance FCM will adopt the NATS 1/2A event?

I have started to design and build a 24" 1/2A profile of the DO335 for the 2012 NATS. It also fits the St Louis 1/2 A rules. It would be great if it could be flown at FCM.

Allen Goff · « **Reply #8 on:** October 28, 2011, 10:44:28 AM »

John, Yes we will be flying 1/2 A scale at next years FCM contest. Plan to stay two days that's how long it will take to run next years scale event. We are looking into two "Static" lines and two "flying" circles. It all depends if we have enough judges. 1/2 A scale will be judged on the same rules that the "Nats" will be judged on.

Blessings
Allen

Avaiojet · « **Reply #9 on:** October 28, 2011, 11:59:48 AM »

Quote

Heck, buy a R/C ARF kit, put a three line bellcrank in it and in no time you have a C/L Fun scale ready to compete, how much simpler can it get?

Allen,

That's exactly what I'm doing. I don't compete though. Well, maybe in tennis.

Allen Goff · « **Reply #10 on:** October 28, 2011, 12:38:16 PM »

WOW! That is one beautiful airplane, Bee Gee, right? Forget the R/C ARF, you can compete with that, Fun, Sport, or F4B. Keep us posted on your progress, lots of pic.

Blessings
Allen

ps, my daughter is head tennis coach of our high school, boys and girls, and my wife Jan is assistant coach. My grandson play #1 singles. And they play USTA league tennis, 5.0 and 3.5 respectively. I tried and tore my ACL a couple of years ago, no more tennis for me.

Avaiojet · « **Reply #11 on:** October 28, 2011, 03:45:55 PM »

Allen,

I taught tennis on and off for 35 years. One student played Virginia Slims. No she didn't smoke.

That Gee Bee. I have a NIB OS 80 in it. The old two plug engine. I'm Thinking of using my NIB OS 90 4S in it. Gotta through a good size prop or it will look lame.

Debating on what to cover it with and what paint products to use.

CB

Fred Cronenwett · « **Reply #12 on:** October 28, 2011, 04:10:33 PM »

I just sold a 90 four stroke, great engine. I was flying my 90 four stroke with a 14" prop, the OS-91FX I pulled off my camera plane was flying with a 16-6 prop. I have since converted to electric for my new scale projects. The static prop size is the one that matters, for flying use what is ever proper for the engine. My Camera plane came in at 11.5 lbs and I had lots of spare power when I flew it with the 90 four stroke and the 91FX two stroke.

Consider Nelson Lite Fab for covering material, it goes down with a std Monokote iron and then you can paint with Latex house paint. Grant's Spacewalker was covered with Nelson lite fab (1st place FCM sport scale, 2011) and was also painted with latex house paint.

to make it fuel proof put on nelson clear with cross linker.

Google search for nelson hobby products and ask for nelson lite fab. they have the covering material, clear coat and cross linker.

I have several models painted with latex house paint and nelson clear for glow power operation with no problems. The paint is easy to get and apply. You can also get any color you want by having the paint store mix the exact color you need.

Land sofly,
Fred Cronenwett

p.s. - Allen I am building two new projects for FCM 2012 contest....it's going to be fun!

John Rist · « **Reply #13 on:** October 28, 2011, 06:01:24 PM »

The Nelson site didn't list Nelson Lite Fab. What is a good source for it?

http://www.nelsonhobby.com/

Avaiojet · « **Reply #14 on:** October 28, 2011, 06:18:50 PM »

I don't have confidence in water base paints.

CB

Fred Cronenwett · « **Reply #15 on:** October 28, 2011, 08:12:57 PM »

You have to call Nelson Hobby and ask for the Nelson Lite Fab, last time I checked he did not have it listed, but was getting some in stock.

As for the Water based paints I now have 4 models flying with latex house paint, the Giant scale guys are also using it. Really easy to use and comes out great. I first fiberglass the models, put down a white primer (lowes valspar spray can) to get a good base for the colors. Then spray the latex house paint with an air gun. Then put down a Nelson clear coat, decals, then a final coat of clear. You can brush or air gun the paint.

ROY VAILLANCOURT one the big names in RC giant scale uses this paint system. I first read this article and switched over to this system.

http://www.houstonhobbies.com/tips/painting/latex/spraying-latex.pdf

Land softly,
Fred Cronenwett

Avaiojet · « **Reply #16 on:** October 28, 2011, 09:53:55 PM »

Fred,

Have you ever gave one of your models the masking tape test? that is, you apply a foot of masking tape here and there, then yank the thing off quickly.

I've never had an issue with any of my painted models that actually go back to the 70's when I started using automotive paint.

I'm not one for taking or keeping photos, but I did take some shots of this model. Painted in the late 80's.

Glass and Polyester resin, auto primer, auto paint, One Shot sign enamel, brushing lacquer, 23K gold leaf, Dupont clear. There are no machine made graphics or decals on this model. Everything was masked or hand painted.

Fred Cronenwett · « **Reply #17 on:** October 29, 2011, 07:43:24 AM »

My spitfire was painted with latex house paint and has never peeled or come off. I haven't tried the tape test, but was able to paint the base color, mask for the 2nd color and then a third color with no problems using masking tape for the other colors.

I have been fiberglassing models, sand the fiberglass so that it's smooth, primer (thin coat) and then paint. I think the surface below the paint would make the difference on how it sticks.

I know that when Grant Hiestand Painted his 1/3 scale spacewalker (yes it's a CL model....17 lbs) he used the Nelson Lite Fab and latex house paint with great results.

I'll try the paint test on the spitfire when I get around to doing modifcations for conversion to electric power.

In the following picture is 4 models,
F6F Hellcat was painted with latex house paint, white stickers and nelson clear with cross linker
Spitfire with the same process
F4U with monokote that keeps peeling....it needs to be painted
F7F tigercat was painted 12 years ago with Sig Dope

One simple test you can do is take a piece of balsa, prep it with your favorite covering material and get a paint sample from Lowes (they sell small samples for homeowners to try colors) and see what you think.

Fred C.

John Kelly · « **Reply #18 on:** October 29, 2011, 09:06:36 AM »

1960 MIRROR MEET!

Fred Cronenwett · « **Reply #19 on:** October 29, 2011, 11:23:35 AM »

I just ran a the tape test on my paint samples and they passed. I always run a sample on a fiberglassed piece of plywood that matches the process to be used on the model and they passed.

Fred Cronenwett · « **Reply #20 on:** October 29, 2011, 06:56:42 PM »

I had a small piece of Nelson Lite Fab, so I made a sample part with solid basa and open frame work. The covering material irons to the wood with no problems and srhinks under heat. I like this better than Sig Koverall since you don't have to use Nitrate dope like with Koverall. Then I painted the sample with a quick coat of white primer from Lowes (Valspar primer in the spray can) and then put on a coat of coat of Yellow LustreKote paint. It came out great with no problems.

A friend of mine used this same material on his 1/3 scale spacewalker with latex house paint with good results.

I am ready to cover the AT-6 and paint it yellow....

Fred C.

Hoss Cain · « **Reply #21 on:** November 04, 2011, 11:27:33 AM »

Quote from: Avaiojet on October 26, 2011, 02:32:17 PM

Unfortunately, it appears as though there's not a great deal of scale CL modelers. Any reason for that.

I like scale. Scale is good.

CB

Back to this topic and not any painting stuff.

As one that has been more interested in the politics of rule making, I have this concept;

Scale CL has become just two much an event for those that want to win, who make rules through the Contest Boards (same people personalities) that restrict the every day scale lover and weekend Scale flier. Having a nice airplane that flies using only 2 lines and a bellcrank is totally at the bottom of the rung for scale competition of any kind.

IMO of some 60 years as a competitor - more a sport competitor than a must win personality and one who flew many events in CL and FF, before the RC bug caught me in the early '70s, I have considerable experience in the rule-making processes from the observer's view. As the top notch competitors will always rule the events through the Contest Boards, they need a number of items to make the competition stiffer for between themselves and to the Devil with the newbee wanna'bees.
An example is the requirement for a CL Scale model to sit alone at idle with no helper required. Right there is the requirement for a throttle control, not something a sport flier would probably have. In addition there has to be some method to be sure the airplane will be able to sit still on at minimum idle. Not easy for the sport flier. Heck many RCers cannot get their models to sit still on pavement, grass-not a problem but pavement is another story.
For Fun Scale, etc, the TO should be from a helper's release and smooth TO. THERE IS NO EVENT DESIGNED TO MOTIVATE THE SPORT FLIER TO COME TO COMPETITION EVENTS. With no motivation, there is nothing other than strict HOBBY to get the sport-flier to become a part of the overall event. Thank You Contest Boards.
I have heard a contestant claim that a judge had no idea about realism of flight. As CD, I informed him that judge flew P-47s and P-51's in WWII. After some "hurt" he was transferred to B-17s. Then, after the War, he was transferred to the Ferry Command where he flew everything in the Army Air Force for a couple years. Guess who I decided knew very little about Realism of flight.

Realism of Flight is an asinine item, brought into play many years ago by Dave Platt when he was Chairman of the Scale Contest Board. There is very little similarity between a toy model airplane and the real machine. While I read over the rules, I find that a number of the requirements were founded by those that have little understanding of realism as it pertains to those differences.

Now all this strict rule making designed, IMO, for the hard core competitors keeps the hobby-sport fliers out of the picture. As long as the hobby-sport fliers don't compete even at the local level, there will not be any events at the local levels. Without local interests, there will be very little new blood at the BIG EVENTs.

That is the reason that there is almost no interests in Scale. Now one more item: Look at CL Stunt. That event has its following. It gets the recognition. No big ground equipment to just go fly and fly and fly. While there are bigger and bigger planes to accommodate those selling bigger and bigger engines, there is very little advancement in the aerodynamics of the machine, almost none exist. As it was back in the late '50s through early '70s there were many "originals" yet when closely observed, a Nobler was a Nobler, if "ya git muh drift thar Ol Pard".

Oh yes there are advancements in materials and paint schemes but very little in significant aerodynamics of the breed.

Reference the Realism question, Do I have the right to express such an opinion? Maybe not, but I did spend some time in full size aircraft. Can I name a few? Yes, I can. T-37, T-33 (Instructor), T-38(Instructor), T-29, C-123, B-47, and Boeing 727, B-737, Douglas DC-8 and DC-10, and a Cherokee 140. I quit counting hours early on as the USAF recorded time and UAL kept the pay time very well. I estimate some 20,000 hours total.
Edited to add my favorite: Got my original ATP in a Lear 23. HA!

L0U CRANE · « **Reply #22 on:** November 04, 2011, 12:48:31 PM »

Hoss, I agree with you by and large, and offer a further thought...

Regardless of anything else, any two or more people who agree to try the same challenge will find that some do it better, and others don't.

Those who don't - at first- try to do better. And usually do. That's a challenge. As they improve, others just starting out have the knoweldge baseline available to improve; and they do.

Competition? It's natural. Just as natural is that it can lead to overly-technical specialized improvements. These can eventually price- or intimidate-out new entrants.

AMA Rat? .15 Goodyear? Precision Scale? Classes Carrier?

The winning equipment and techniques get developed by those who really want to win. And they can come to be the few people left who take part.

Simplified, sport events tend to become dead-end efforts. Where do you go after you improve? Or do you just settle for turning in noisy (or E-quiet) circles?

On top of all this, today we have a lot of people who don't want to wait, work and practice to reach high-level performance. Sort of like immediate gratification? So, they reach a high level quickly, then where do they go? What's the point if there's no visible gain anymore?

CL has the advantage of REQUIRING a local support-group. Friends to launch, retrieve and critique your flights, for whom you return the favor. Friendship is an essential part of CL flight.
The CLPA Stunt Pattern is a mountain that can never be totally conquered. That supports participation over a longer period of time because the companions you fly with face the same simple but impossible pursuit...

Other events involve more bench time, or less... Serious Scale, even for a standoff or fun-scale occasion is a good example. In serious racing events you don't waste engines and models in fun flying - practice and team training are too important.

Examples in the other events could be added, but I'll leave that to the individual.

But, cl flight in all its forms is personal, physical and enjoyable... or we wouldn't be discussing it here, would we?

Chris McMillin · « **Reply #23 on:** November 04, 2011, 01:33:54 PM »

Hi Capt. Hoss,
I seem to remember something you didn't mention in your very nicely put rules rant. There is now a minimum line LENGTH rule, essentially eliminating 1/2A's. My oldest son won Junior Sport Scale in 1991 with a Consolidated Typhoon powered with a Cox Babe Bee .049 with a Tee Dee cylinder and piston/rod. 35 foot lines, full power take off with me holding it until he signalled a launch. I guess that is not allowed now in C/L Scale.
Chris...

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #24 on:** November 04, 2011, 02:05:45 PM »

Is there a need for an in-district competition class, that takes away some of the high barriers?

Then if people want to move up to "real" scale they can.

I'm going to be building a plane for RCS (Really Crappy Scale). It's mostly for sport, and somewhat to give me lots of practice at takeoffs and landings for CPLA as I move up from beginner to intermediate. But I'm planning on competing in scale for whatever points I can get. The "start from no-roll" sounds -- harsh.

Avaiojet · « **Reply #25 on:** November 04, 2011, 06:27:23 PM »

Quote

you can compete with that, Fun, Sport, or F4B.

Allen,

Thanks for that reply.

I should read about Semi-scale, or playful scale rules.

What's F4B?

That Gee Bee Z, I'm undecided with a covering, so I'm at a standstill. I just got a U/Tronics throttle gismo.

My still use three lines.

CB

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #26 on:** November 04, 2011, 06:37:36 PM »

I have been away from scale competition for quite a while for reasons that I have mentioned earlier. The "start from no roll" edict was the biggest change that I noticed in a decade of absence. In my opinion, it is not really a big deal, just tighten up your outboard wheel collar a bit.

I have noticed another change that I find much more disturbing. When I was originally introduced to this website, I was very much impressed with its reach and how much information could gleaned from it. However, I also notice that all that is needed is for someone to say "rules". That statement immediately brings forth so much angst and anger that one must assume that this hobby is no longer fun. I have a different viewpoint. I remember the fun of learning control line in 1950, and it has been nothing but fun for me ever since. I love to build. I will sit in my basement and attempt to build unusual scale subjects, and have fun doing it, even if the "rules" and AMA go away. Why, because it is what I enjoy. If I choose to compete at sanctioned events, I simply will have to recognize that I will have "rules" to follow, just like the rest of the competitors. Maybe I absorbed the last half-century differently, but I hold no anger towards others in this hobby. I consider them more my friends.

I'm gonna go downstairs and work on my next subject.

Jim Fruit

Hoss Cain · « **Reply #27 on:** November 04, 2011, 10:35:06 PM »

Quote from: Tim Wescott on November 04, 2011, 02:05:45 PM

Is there a need for an in-district competition class, that takes away some of the high barriers?

Then if people want to move up to "real" scale they can.

In the local area situation a club, CD or whoever sponsors the event can set any rules that they wish. Just write it up in the sanction application and the advertisements for the event. That is not a problem.

The problem is somewhat 2-Fold. (1) Local area rule events do not exist outside of the local area and thus do almost nothing to promote the SPORT (to me) and/or Hobby (to most). Therefore if one, you or me, needs to voice something so that many people get to thinking about what they would like to see changed and then just maybe the (2) Contest Board members would listen to something besides the upper classes. Takes time and effort which can be very demanding on one's persona.

Quote

I'm going to be building a plane for RCS (Really Crappy Scale). It's mostly for sport, and somewhat to give me lots of practice at takeoffs and landings for CPLA as I move up from beginner to intermediate. But I'm planning on competing in scale for whatever points I can get. The "start from no-roll" sounds -- harsh.

Sounds good. Hang in there.

Hoss Cain · « **Reply #28 on:** November 04, 2011, 10:57:37 PM »

Quote from: Chris McMillin on November 04, 2011, 01:33:54 PM

Hi Capt. Hoss,
I seem to remember something you didn't mention in your very nicely put rules rant. There is now a minimum line LENGTH rule, essentially eliminating 1/2A's. My oldest son won Junior Sport Scale in 1991 with a Consolidated Typhoon powered with a Cox Babe Bee .049 with a Tee Dee cylinder and piston/rod. 35 foot lines, full power take off with me holding it until he signalled a launch. I guess that is not allowed now in C/L Scale.
Chris...

Chris, maybe I am missing something else, however the current scale rules in the AMA web site allow 35 ft. lines for up to 1.5 pound aircraft. I really have no idea how much the typical scale model, 1/2 A would weigh. More than the 1.5 lb. requires 52' lines. That does seem somewhat extreme. Right now, I've been away from that stuff a long time, so I know NOT. Maybe this is time for all of us to take a leap into the pot and fire in some rule change applications.

Hoss Cain · « **Reply #29 on:** November 05, 2011, 12:26:10 AM »

Quote from: L0U CRANE on November 04, 2011, 12:48:31 PM

Hoss, I agree with you by and large, and offer a further thought...

Regardless of anything else, any two or more people who agree to try the same challenge will find that some do it better, and others don't.

Those who don't - at first- try to do better. And usually do. That's a challenge. As they improve, others just starting out have the knoweldge baseline available to improve; and they do.

Competition? It's natural. Just as natural is that it can lead to overly-technical specialized improvements. These can eventually price- or intimidate-out new entrants.

Examples in the other events could be added, but I'll leave that to the individual.

But, cl flight in all its forms is personal, physical and enjoyable... or we wouldn't be discussing it here, would we?
//SNIP//

All your items, Lou, are good points. I'm just a bit turned off when the rules REQUIRE too much. I can understand being detailed in most rules, however that should be a deduction of points rather than "YOU MUST ..."

4.3: Takeoff (Mandatory). The model must stand still on the ground with engine(s) running and without being held by a helper. As the throttle is advanced, the model should roll smoothly at an increasing realistic speed along the ground, then rise smoothly into the air,.....
That kind of stuff is to me a bit sad. Same for retract gear demands 20 points while other items get 10 points. All maneuvers should be same points. The guy flying a Stuka has to find another maneuver to compete with a gear going up and down. TOO RESTRICTIVE and aimed at the top notch fliers rather than promoting the Sport, or Hobby if you prefer.

In RC we had for a number of years going with a non-AMA event which was Scale War Bird Racing. 50% stand-off scale static and 50% racing. Great Fun. In those days the Scale Contest Board had jurisdiction over any event with static scale judging. I submitted proposal after proposal, requesting just to get it into the book as a Provisional or Supplemental Event. NO, NO, NO! Heck I doubt 1/2 the SCB even knew what a supplemental or provisional event was or is. Had the SCB allowed the event to be in the book, then I believe the event would still be active. Just now the thought comes, "Why not a CL event for that?"

Four .40 size warbirds on 60 ft lines all in a circle.

These Racers were all fun, but that Hurricane was the most. Not competitive with a .40-.50 engine but it was built from an Easy Built rubber kit and raced with a .28 sport engine. Like most of my ships, it too tried to share a small amount of airspace in a big sky. My Stuka from Megow rubber plans, also a 50" w/s is far too slow with its .28, but fun to fly.
CL could do the same. Guess there is another project if I could wean myself off this dad-burn confuser!!!!

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #30 on:** November 05, 2011, 11:06:10 AM »

Quote from: Avaiojet on November 04, 2011, 06:27:23 PM

Allen,

Thanks for that reply.

I should read about Semi-scale, or playful scale rules.

What's F4B?

That Gee Bee Z, I'm undecided with a covering, so I'm at a standstill. I just got a U/Tronics throttle gismo.

My still use three lines.

CB

CB:

I think what you may be referring to is not "semi-scale", but rather "fun scale". It has similar rules to the other scale events except that the emphasis is not so much on appearance, but rather on flying. Details are in the AMA website.

F4B is the numerical definition of the FAI control line scale event. Not really a beginner event.

The covering that I use (specifically for medium to larger models) is super coverite. It is iron-on, goes around compound curves like a balloon and is very durable. I would not want to use it on an ultra-light model due to it's weight, but it has suited me well. It is completely sealed and accepts many paints well.

If you have one of Clancy's U-tronics units, you will not have to use three lines. Two insulated lines will take the signal from your handle to a throttle servo in the plane if you have an IC engine or to your ESC if you are electric. A lot less drag with just two lines.

Hope this helps.

Jim Fruit

Avaiojet · « **Reply #31 on:** November 06, 2011, 08:10:04 PM »

JIm,

Thank you, it does help.

And I appreciate the info you're giving up.

CB

Trostle · « **Reply #32 on:** November 06, 2011, 11:46:55 PM »

Quote from: Hoss Cain on November 04, 2011, 10:57:37 PM

Chris, maybe I am missing something else, however the current scale rules in the AMA web site allow 35 ft. lines for up to 1.5 pound aircraft. I really have no idea how much the typical scale model, 1/2 A would weigh. More than the 1.5 lb. requires 52' lines. That does seem somewhat extreme. Right now, I've been away from that stuff a long time, so I know NOT. Maybe this is time for all of us to take a leap into the pot and fire in some rule change applications.

Hello Hoss,

It has been a long time since we flew together.

Your comment about line lengths and weights for the 1/2A scale models caught my attention.

I am glad you clarified that the smaller airplanes, up to 4 pounds and .099 cu in total displacement can use lines as short as 35 feet per the AMA rules..

There have been several contests over the past years for 1/2A multiengine profile scale. (Five years here in Tucson and I think three years in St Louis.) Here in Tucson, 35 foot lines are allowed for these models using 1cc motors (0,061 cu in) though it would be more practical to use longer lines like up to 42 or 45 feet or even more. Line requirements here for the Tucson (Class C) contests are well within reasonble requirements.

The weights of the 1/2A twins have been in the below 16 oz range (like all sheet balsa - "slabs") to some as much as 30 oz due to needing a lot of extra nose weight. My Bear was over 60 oz with four Norvel .061's. But these larger and heavier 1/2A's can handle 42 to 45 feet of lines. My Bear used 52 foot lines.

Some of these models can be seen in the Contest Results section of this forum.

Keith

Hoss Cain · « **Reply #33 on:** November 07, 2011, 11:56:21 PM »

Quote from: Trostle on November 06, 2011, 11:46:55 PM

Hello Hoss,

It has been a long time since we flew together.

Your comment about line lengths and weights for the 1/2A scale models caught my attention.

I am glad you clarified that the smaller airplanes, up to 4 pounds and .099 cu in total displacement can use lines as short as 35 feet per the AMA rules..

//SNIP//

Keith

Yes it has been a long time Keith. Thanks for not showing up at the 1967 USAF World Wide meet. I got first in stunt there plus a 1st in C Free Flight. Then in Feb. of '68 I headed for UAL. My stunting around Chicago was very good until in 1972 I got into RC and CL waned away. My last big FF event was in Sep. '68 when I won the Class C at the Chicago Aeronuts AAA at Bong Field WI.

Now here you go confusing me all over again. You say, ".... smaller airplanes, up to 4 pounds and .099 cu in total displacement can use lines as short as 35 feet per the AMA rules.."

Now I see that the book states:

CL Sport Scale 509 Par. 3
............
Models weighing 1.5 pounds or less must use a minimum line length of 52’-6 unless the total engine displacement is less than .100 cubic inches, or the displacement of each engine of a multi-engine model is less than .0504 cubic inch. In such cases, minimum line length may be 35 feet.

1.51-2.50 requires a minimum of 52.5 ft.

So where is the 4# rule that you speak of?

You guys have these rules almost as difficult to get everything straight as the Infernal Revenue Shi,,, er,,, uh Service.

Thanks for stopping by. Hope to catch you next year along the trail.

Trostle · « **Reply #34 on:** November 08, 2011, 02:06:23 AM »

Quote from: Hoss Cain on November 07, 2011, 11:56:21 PM

Now here you go confusing me all over again. You say, ".... smaller airplanes, up to 4 pounds and .099 cu in total displacement can use lines as short as 35 feet per the AMA rules.."

Now I see that the book states:

CL Sport Scale 509 Par. 3
............
Models weighing 1.5 pounds or less must use a minimum line length of 52’-6 unless the total engine displacement is less than .100 cubic inches, or the displacement of each engine of a multi-engine model is less than .0504 cubic inch. In such cases, minimum line length may be 35 feet.

1.51-2.50 requires a minimum of 52.5 ft.

So where is the 4# rule that you speak of?

You guys have these rules almost as difficult to get everything straight as the Infernal Revenue Shi,,, er,,, uh Service.

Thanks for stopping by. Hope to catch you next year along the trail.

Hello again,

I was was looking at the previous rulebook. You are correct in your cite of Sport Scale Paragraph 3 which expands on the line size and pull test chart in that same section. So, my reference to the rulebook was dated and incorrect. Thanks for showing that.

I agree with your earlier comments that the scale rules are not conducive to promote participation in the event. The rules seem to be set up for the really serious builder/competitor but are discouraging for those more at the entry level or not so serious about building really detailed scale models. I think the muffler requirement is unnecessary. Yes, some fields my requirem mufflers, but that should not dictate mufflers for all scale models. The requjirement for a pilot figure is also unnecessary. This is a model event, not a doll contest. The penalty for non retracting gear when the full size aircaft had a retracting gear is counter productive to our event. At least there is still a CL event for detailed scale models in our AMA rulebook. This was adopted after CL Precision Scale was eliminated and only FAI CL scale rules were used for events run for the detailed models.

One of the problems in CL Scale is that the scale rules are determined by the AMA Scale Contest Board which governs both CL and RC. At least the Board Chairman, Mike Gretz, has experience in CL Scale, but most of the other members have little background or show little interest in CL scale. If it had not been for some extraordinary actions by a handfull from our CL Scale community and support from Mike during the last chang cycle, there would have been some changes to our CL events that would have been very detrimental. As a result, our CL scale rules are in better shape than they have been for a while, but some improvements can certainly still be made.

The deadline for change proposals for this cycle in March 31, 2012.

Keith

Allen Goff · « **Reply #35 on:** November 08, 2011, 05:51:12 AM »

The penalty for non retracting gear when the full size aircraft had a retracting gear is counter productive to our event. At least there is still a CL event for detailed scale models in our AMA rulebook. This was adopted after CL Precision Scale was eliminated and only FAI CL scale rules were used for events run for the detailed models.

Keith; There is going to be a proposal made soon to eliminate the retract penalty rule from "Fun Scale", (this rule will not be used at the Nats next year) and may take a look at the "pilot" rule for "Fun Scale" too. Some are wanting to drop Precession, & Designer scale from the rules book. Over the last 14 years they averaged less than one competitor per year at the Nats.We have separated "Fun Scale" into two classes for the 2012 Nats, plus added 1/2 A Scale to the Nats schedule. Some of us are trying to bring C/L Scale along. Sport and FAI will remain the same for now. FYI

Blessings
Allen

p.s. Keith, I used one of your picture in the FCM newsletter and you can see it on our web site, click on "Crosswinds". www.fcmodelers.com

Trostle · « **Reply #36 on:** November 08, 2011, 09:15:32 AM »

Allen,

Thanks for the comments and information.

That picture you used was from the Tucson 1/2A Multi-Engine Profile Scale contest last year.

http://www.fcmodelers.com/PDF/Crosswinds2011/CrosswindsNov2011.pdf

More pictures from our last 1/2A MEPS contest are below in this section and in the Contest results section.

There are two categories in this contest. Limited which has no throttles and essentially no in-flight options (might change next year) and the unlimited category which allows throttles and any other inflight options. There is also a special award for the best "slab" model which is one made entirely from sheet balsa or in other words, no built up wing structure and essentially a thin sheet for the fuselage (much like some of the all sheet Scientific kits). I know that there are several very interesting models planned for next year.

Keith

Keith

This contest allows models to be proxy flown. Some of these proxy flown models have won trophies.

Bob Heywood · « **Reply #37 on:** November 08, 2011, 01:45:29 PM »

Some thoughts from a 5000 ft view:

No where, that I can find anyway, in the AMA Competition Regulations for Scale is there a statement-of-purpose or vision statement that defines the objective of scale competition. It is only implied by a series of rule details. Volume F4 of the FAI Sporting Code does have such a statement ~ The aim of scale contests is to recreate the accurate appearance and realism of the full size aircraft as best appropriate to each model aircraft class. That statement is important, for every detail rule should be tested against the vision to see if it supports the vision. I guess my point here is that Scale modelling is really a pretty basic concept. You can't change much if you still want a Scale event.

Our world has enjoyed more than 65 years of relative peace and prosperity since WW II. Talented modellers have used that opportunity to advance the state-of-the-art in "recreating the accurate appearance and realism of the full size aircraft" to a fantastic level. From my perspective, the regulations have changed to try and keep pace with the ability of the contestants. Unfortunately, as the development curve grows steeper, fewer and fewer people are willing to expend the resources to make the next incremental change. The other thing that comes into play, as noted in post # 23, is that you can't really regulate away the human competitive spirit.

From what I read here there seems to be desire to turn back the clock. As a point of reference check out page 28 & 29 in the August 1960 American Modeler. There are a number of really nice models. I've seen the work of William Ogden, Joe Coles, Jerry Worth and others. In the day they were the standard of competition. Make no mistake, their stuff was not some simple sport model. They gave the rest of us something to aspire to. I also got out my copy of Building And Flying Scale Model Aircraft by Walter Musciano. It was published in 1953. All of the stuff shown would fit the notion of a nice scale model with no working features.

So where am I headed? Why not something called Nostalgia Scale. Set the purpose to define what is trying to be achieved and craft some simple rules to make it work.

Respectfully, Bob Heywood

Hoss Cain · « **Reply #38 on:** November 08, 2011, 06:57:31 PM »

Mr. Heywood:

Your post is very thought-provoking. I find it very stimulating. Thoughts will be forthcoming.

Thanks for a very fine post. Agree or not, your topics provide one with something to compare and evaluate one's own thoughts.

Very nice.

Chris McMillin · « **Reply #39 on:** November 09, 2011, 02:32:05 AM »

Quote from: Hoss Cain on November 04, 2011, 10:57:37 PM

Chris, maybe I am missing something else, however the current scale rules in the AMA web site allow 35 ft. lines for up to 1.5 pound aircraft. I really have no idea how much the typical scale model, 1/2 A would weigh. More than the 1.5 lb. requires 52' lines. That does seem somewhat extreme. Right now, I've been away from that stuff a long time, so I know NOT. Maybe this is time for all of us to take a leap into the pot and fire in some rule change applications.

Aha!
Thanks for finding that, Cap. I skimmed the high points and haven't given the rules a serious read in a long time. My mistake there.
Chris...

Chris McMillin · « **Reply #40 on:** November 09, 2011, 02:56:05 AM »

Quote from: Bob Heywood on November 08, 2011, 01:45:29 PM

Some thoughts from a 5000 ft view:

No where, that I can find anyway, in the AMA Competition Regulations for Scale is there a statement-of-purpose or vision statement that defines the objective of scale competition. It is only implied by a series of rule details. Volume F4 of the FAI Sporting Code does have such a statement ~ The aim of scale contests is to recreate the accurate appearance and realism of the full size aircraft as best appropriate to each model aircraft class. That statement is important, for every detail rule should be tested against the vision to see if it supports the vision. I guess my point here is that Scale modelling is really a pretty basic concept. You can't change much if you still want a Scale event.

Our world has enjoyed more than 65 years of relative peace and prosperity since WW II. Talented modellers have used that opportunity to advance the state-of-the-art in "recreating the accurate appearance and realism of the full size aircraft" to a fantastic level. From my perspective, the regulations have changed to try and keep pace with the ability of the contestants. Unfortunately, as the development curve grows steeper, fewer and fewer people are willing to expend the resources to make the next incremental change. The other thing that comes into play, as noted in post # 23, is that you can't really regulate away the human competitive spirit.

From what I read here there seems to be desire to turn back the clock. As a point of reference check out page 28 & 29 in the August 1960 American Modeler. There are a number of really nice models. I've seen the work of William Ogden, Joe Coles, Jerry Worth and others. In the day they were the standard of competition. Make no mistake, their stuff was not some simple sport model. They gave the rest of us something to aspire to. I also got out my copy of Building And Flying Scale Model Aircraft by Walter Musciano. It was published in 1953. All of the stuff shown would fit the notion of a nice scale model with no working features.

So where am I headed? Why not something called Nostalgia Scale. Set the purpose to define what is trying to be achieved and craft some simple rules to make it work.

Respectfully, Bob Heywood

Hi Bob,
Jerry Worth's P-26 was simply awesome. I remember him flying it and he really had his hands full as it was a bit tail heavy and had too quick of an elevator response, but he kept it looking good, and with some great landings. That was at the Navy Nats in the 60's. It may have been Olathe, pretty windy too. My memory says the model was near perfect in shape and proportion, and the finish was like a Stunt ship. The details and panel finish were pretty nice too. It'd do well today.

Nostalgia Scale, I'm in. I've got some great old kits to build, they're smaller than modern stuff, easy to transport, use 35's or 40's, could just use a 3-line system or nothing but a 2-line, and could be an easy-going Scale, like the 1/2A Multi-Engined Profile Scale contest. Lot's of old time Scale kits... one's designed by Jerry Worth!
Chris...

Bob Heywood · « **Reply #41 on:** November 09, 2011, 05:36:56 AM »

Chris,

My vivid memory of Jerry Worth's P-26 was at an early 60's Chrysler meet in Kokomo, IN. You're right, it was a handful. My best guess is that it had a horrible wing loading, The whole flight looked like a crash waiting to happen. The model was stunning.

I was the buzz box guy that day for Ervin Gregory's Dyna-Jet powered F4D Skyray. He placed 2nd to Worth. The Skyray had retracts. He had to do it with electric motors, micro switches, little sprokets, and dog collar chains. Robart wasn't even a name yet. The plane was absolutely perfect.

Look at Joe Coles' FJ Fury. He reproduced every stencil used on the plane. There were no computers or fancy graphics packages available.

All these guys worked hard to make beautiful models. I guess, to do Scale right, the hard work part can't be regulated away either.

Chris McMillin · « **Reply #42 on:** November 09, 2011, 12:35:34 PM »

DynaJet Scale ships. Now you're taking me back.
I still have one from my Dad. A Lockheed F-90 with aluminum aft fuselage and cherry everything else. Some guys drew it up and a Japanese kit manufacturer cut up kits for it near Atsugi NAS where Dad was stationed then. Neat model.
Chris...

Tom Niebuhr · « **Reply #43 on:** November 09, 2011, 04:38:52 PM »

Avaiojet, CB?

? I thought we were supposed to us our real names.. I have no idea who you are.

As a stunt flier, I am an outsider looking in, but I remember the days like the pictures by John Kelly and meets like Union NJ, where scale was very well attended. It was normal to see 25 entries. . I loved seeing those events. I am increasingly more and more impressed with the details scale people thrive to achieve.

My late good friend George Gaydos introduced Profile Scale to try to encourage mare scale entries.

Over the last few years Uncle Mikey got multi engine 1/2A going and the Indianapolis guys are seeing more entries. From what I am seeing scale interest is on the up trend. I hope that I am correct.

Clancy Arnold · « **Reply #44 on:** November 12, 2011, 08:27:05 PM »

Hoss and Company
During the last Rules cycle I read the Scale Rules for CL & RC Fixed wing aircraft, RC Helicopter Scale and FF Outdoor and Indoor Scale. I submitted 23 Rules Change Proposals plus three pages of Typos that would not require a RCP to correct.

Let me give you an example from my experience that should give you a clue of the problem Hoss is talking about.

Two of my RCP's were for Indoor Free Flight Scale.
The reason for the proposed change: The Rule book for Indoor FF Scale calls for a Judges Score sheet but none is shown. They use the same ones that are in the Outdoor FF Scale rules. My proposed rules change was to add a sentence that said "The Judges Score sheet is shown in the Outdoor FF Rules." That way a new contestant could find the rules he would be competing under.

They both failed to pass! WHY?

There was another RCP submitted that abolished the events in favor of using FAC club rules. Their reasoning was that the AMA Rules were too hard to change or correct.
Clancy

Trostle · « **Reply #45 on:** November 14, 2011, 04:06:36 PM »

I can appreciate Clancy's frstration. I know that he worked long and hard during the last change cycle to make a number of improvements/corrections with little to now results.

Now, if I am looking at the current AMA rulebook wrong, the only scale free flight rules in the rulebook are for rubber indoor scale. And no sample score sheets are shown. I cannot find any rules for indoor our outdoor peanut scacle or for outdoor scale either for rubber or power (electric or gas or CO2). What am I missing here? Is this the way the FF crowd wants it? Or has the Scale Contest Board totally lost any vision of what FF scale was, or is or should be?

Keith

Mike Gretz · « **Reply #46 on:** November 14, 2011, 06:35:32 PM »

Clancy and Keith,

The Scale Contest Board has not had jurisdiction over the F/F scale events for many years. Clancy, it was the Free Flight Contest Board that defeated the two proposals you are talking about. Not the Scale Contest Board.

And yes, it evidently is the way the free flight guys want it. Only FAC free flight scale events have been run at the Nats in recent years. The old AMA F/F Scale events are dead and gone.

And no, I'm not happy about that.

Mike Gretz

Dennis Saydak · « **Reply #47 on:** November 26, 2011, 11:12:15 AM »

Nostalgia models seem to be in vouge these days with SAM events, various nos stunt events, nos carrier, nos speed etc, so why not nos scale? There were many gorgeous C/L specific scale designs published over the years in addition to those mentioned above such as an E111, B-25, Marauder, Piper Apache to name a few. Perhaps the word "competition" is scaring people off because of the skills of a few very talented builders/flyers?

I've always had an interest in building a scale model but never got my but in gear to do it and the time clock is ticking away. However, I'd be in for a sort of informal postal scale model building event and perhaps one day the participants could get together to fly them in mass? We could communicate over the Internet as to what projects are underway and their current status. I have a Dyna Jet and a Tiger Jet sitting in my display case just itching for a ride. I also have plans for several scale aircraft that could be shared if there is any interest. I have a fairly extensive magazine collection so if anyone needs a certain construction article, please let me know.

Mike Keville · « **Reply #48 on:** November 26, 2011, 07:41:38 PM »

We're missing the obvious here. Yes, I'm an old "fahrt", and yes, I'm about to recount the Good Old Days when CL Scale was popular. WHY was it popular? Simply because it was a BEAUTY event. It didn't involve "standing starts" or two-speed engines or retracts or 2.4 radios or (gag) electric power. All the models had to do was prove they could fly...usually for a minimum of ten laps. Judging was up-close-and-personal (none of that "stand-off" stuff). After the points were assigned, all they had to do was FLY.

Occasionally, some contests awarded bonus points for aerobatic maneuvers. One such memorable meet was at Millville, NJ in 1950 -- where I saw a couple of entries splattered on the apron while attempting loops and/or eights. As I recall, the winner there was a Cleveland Stinson Station Wagon. Also represented were beautiful examples of Sterling SE-5s, Wacos, a Mr. Mulligan, and a gorgeous Miniature Aircraft kit of the F2G Corsair. (Amazingly, there was also a Monogram Speedee-Bilt "Long Midget" powered by a K&B .020.)

CL Scale was once highly popular when the only requirment besides accurate supporting documentation was the ability to complete ten-or-more laps then land smoothly. What killed it was the creeping insistence by some on "prototype" functions.

Chris McMillin · « **Reply #49 on:** November 27, 2011, 01:46:41 AM »

Hi Mike and all,
Certainly those creeping prototype functions were increasingly realized through the 60's and 70's, but the event remained quite popular.
Even in the early nineties in SoCal the event was well attended. We could count on a dozen competitors entering multiple events, as in Profile, Sport and Precision Scale.
However many of us moved away and live across the country even now. Nowadays St. Louis and Arizona seem to have a good turnout if one keeps the perspective of a build-up of Scale to return it to viability. Los Angeles is trying with several contests that had devolved into Stunt only now offering Scale.

One needs to see the problem of participation, address it by participating, and then we can possibly create a stir within even more builder/flyers.
Chris...