Author Topic: Is a Tall RD OK on Vector .40 ?? (Read 2336 times)

Rudy Taube · « **on:** September 25, 2007, 10:42:16 PM »

Hi Design team members,

I have made a few minor changes to Randy's outstanding .40 Vector. I am trying to make it look a little more like my exact scale 35% Extra 300L N123EX. It has the scale Red White and Blue trim paint scheme from the full scale A/C.

My question is: Will it do any harm to add approx 1 1/2 to 2" to the top of the stock Vector RD? This would help the scale look, but I don't want to mess up Randy's excellent design.
It seems to me that this small mod should be OK, but I wanted to check with you experts 1st. :-) TIA for any help.

Regards,

captcurt · « **Reply #1 on:** September 26, 2007, 07:47:57 AM »

First understand that this could possibly mess up the flight trim.

If you do it, be certain the fin is straight and add an adjustable tab so it can be dead straight or slightly off in or out to adjust trim. I would also make it symmetrical--no foil shape. (if making it taller)

It would really cause trouble if you fly with the plane yawed out--ie engine and rudder offset.

It could cause some roll trim issues (rudder-roll couopling) is not right.

Worst case is, you might have to remove some of it.

Just understand the possibility of trouble.

FWIW

Curt

Mark Scarborough · « **Reply #2 on:** September 26, 2007, 10:50:33 AM »

FWIW, I am a good example of kit bashing,, lol, just cant build anything stock ya know,,
not entirly true but some truth
as for the rudder, I think that the Vector rudder is short and long, if you were to calculate the square inchs and then make the new rudder somewhat the same square inchs you would probably not hurt much if anything with the design. my two cents worth. I dont think that having a touch more rudder would really effect the trim all that much

Rudy Taube · « **Reply #3 on:** September 26, 2007, 12:36:35 PM »

Thanks for your cautions guys.

Thanks Mark. I'm the same as you, I just can't resist making a few cosmetic changes! I should have mentioned that I planned to keep the RD area the same. My RD will be just a little taller, but not as long. ..... Since I was uncovering the whole plane ("Devolve it?" to meet the new BOM rule ;-) I decided to do the scale paint scheme, and thought I would make a few mods too. I will post photos of my new ECL plane soon. I will also include photos of the cooling ducting for my electric power system that you wanted to see. :-)

My guess is that Randy made the low, long RD in keeping with the lean aggressive look of the rest of the plane. The large amount of fuselage area in the rear makes up for not having a lot of RD area. Many CL planes seem to be OK with a taller RD, the Nobler, Ares, etc. come to mind. I will report back with the flying results.

Thanks again for all your input.

Bill Little · « **Reply #4 on:** September 26, 2007, 01:04:53 PM »

Hi Rudy,

I would just venture a guess that Randy would be able to give you the real skinny on this. Especially since he is a Moderator here!

No harm in asking the source. Randy has everything on *file* in his computer so changes can be easily identified.....

captcurt · « **Reply #5 on:** September 26, 2007, 01:19:30 PM »

Quote from: Rudy Taube on September 26, 2007, 12:36:35 PM

Thanks for your cautions guys.

....... Since I was uncovering the whole plane ("Devolve it?" to meet the new BOM rule ;-) ....

Thanks again for all your input.

My understanding of the current BOM interpretation is that an uncovered then recovered model does not comply. Has this changed?

Curt

Rudy Taube · « **Reply #6 on:** September 26, 2007, 01:48:05 PM »

Hi Curt,

Your question has been asked, and answered on the thread below. The intent and letter of the rule is very clear on this. If your plane is an ARC (at some point) then it meets the new RULE. Please read the new rule on the thread below, I think this will help clarify it for you. This is no longer an "interpertation". It is the only CLPA BOM RULE in the AMA rule book.

I have talked (in person, Ph and email) to many CDs about this. All are in agreement on this rule. Please don't misunderstand me, ...... I don't want to imply that they all "liked" the new rule

, but they all accepted it! .... And they all agreed that if someone goes through the trouble of striping off all the covering from an ARF before it is built, that they now had an ARC and if they completed all the final assembly and then covered it (paint or whatever) then it met the BOM rule. I have been a CD for over 30 years and I like to see the rules agreed upon by everyone BEFORE it gets to contest day. That is why I started the following thread. If you have any questions about this subject, after you have read the thread below, then please feel free to PM me and I will be glad to talk to you about it. :-)

For more info. on this subject Please read this thread on this site:

http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php?topic=6512.0

Regards,

Quote from: captcurt on September 26, 2007, 01:19:30 PM

My understanding of the current BOM interpretation is that an uncovered then recovered model does not comply. Has this changed?

Curt

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #7 on:** September 26, 2007, 03:58:08 PM »

RUDY:
If I understand you, are you saying you want to add a turtle deck and change the rudder on you Vector so it looks like an Extra? I'd make the changes you describe in a heartbeat and never look back - this just ain't that complicated! Might be better might be worse, more than likely you won't be able to clearly tell one way or the other.

Some folks cut the turtle decks off to make airplanes fly better. Some add turtledecks - for the same reason!

Randy's a fine designer

- and he'll forgive you... eventually!

CURT:
Regarding BOM: Point taken, but from a pragmatic standpoint, if you start with an ARF, then recover it NO ONE will be able to determine wheter it was an ARF or an ARC or a kit.

IF he restyles it, few folks may even be able to tell at a glance that it is even a Vector!

phil c · « **Reply #8 on:** September 26, 2007, 04:10:53 PM »

A tall, scale-looking rudder, say 1.5x the fuse height at the canopy and having area in the range of 40% or so of the stab can make the plane more sensitive to wind gusts. It will want to weathervane more. This is really only a problem in gusty winds though. Depending on how much wind, it can even help. Downwind the plane will want to turn in a bit and that counteracts some of the extra line pull from the wind. The opposite occurs upwind.

captcurt · « **Reply #9 on:** September 27, 2007, 08:03:24 AM »

Thanks Rudy...I DID read that thread, and have read the AMA rule as you have quoted it. The part I am concerned with is:

<(Control
Aerobatics additionally interprets that any model, that is
pre-covered in the box is excluded from competition).>

This is pretty clearly stated.

I don't disagree with the logic you cite --since you are re-ARC ing an ARF when you strip it...but the statement as written is clear in that regard..it says it doesn't comply.

Is there more?

I'm not trying to be beligerant, but agree with you about everyone being clear on the rules before hand.

Curt

Bill Little · « **Reply #10 on:** September 27, 2007, 09:45:26 AM »

Hi Rudy,

Too, I am not trying to argue, but trying to understand. How does removing the covering convert an ARF to an ARC, *by the rules*? I am totally confused by this. I cannot find where the actual rule address this activity. ??

Rudy Taube · « **Reply #11 on:** September 27, 2007, 01:44:29 PM »

Hi Bill and Curt,

"YIKES"!

I know that both of you are just trying to get this cleared up, and that your hearts are in the right place, so please forgive me if my frustration shows through. .... I thought this was all settled? I did not know there were still a few holdouts. I spent many hours working on this subject so that all of us CDs could move forward and not have this drag on and on and on forever. I wish you guys would have spoken up on the rule thread so it could have been addressed in the proper context with input from many other CDs.

RANT: CAUTION, PLEASE READ AT YOUR OWN RISK! .....

Please take your blood pressure MEDs before reading!!

You are both confusing the two SEPARATE parts of the rule. The part that mentions ARFs right out of the box clearly means that it is NOT allowed if someone takes the ARF out of the box and installs the engine and then goes and flys. ..... This was put in the rules to appease the group that still holds on to the cherished idea that CLPA flyers should PAINT (or at least cover) their own models before we are allowed to fly. And it does what this group wants, it forces everyone (whether they have the time and/or facilities for it or not) to put a FINISH on their model. This was a good compromise between the feelings of the two factions in our little hobby.

For the life of me I can not understand why you guys would want to PUNISH someone for going through all the trouble of creating an ARC so that they are allowed to fly by both the spirit and the letter of the rule. ...... Where is your logic on this?

??

Do you really think that the people who wrote the rule intended this? What if I ordered an ARC plane from my LHS and it was delivered to my LHS as an ARF by mistake (this is what happened to me) and that I took it home and striped it down so I could then have the ARC that I originally ordered, do you think the people who wrote our rules intended that now I could NOT fly it in competition?

?? If you think that, then you are insulting those who wrote this very good " best compromise" rule.

Ex: If someone starts a company that buys Nobler ARFs, (no mass market Nobler ARC avail yet), then STRIPS them and puts good controls in them, then sells them to the public as ARC Noblers (there is such a company out there) are you both saying that if I buy one of these ARC Noblers from my LHS (or have it delivered to my door) that it is NOW "ILLEGAL" because somewhere in its travels to me it was an ARF, and as a CD YOU will not allow me to fly this plane (that now has a very unique finish, put on by ME!) in your contest?

??

Where does the rule say "how an ARC is built?" It only says that when you "start" your final assembly and finishing with unfinished components you are OK.

On a personal note. I could have built TWO of the sacred, old rule, CLPA kits in the time I have invested in designing, building, carving a complete nose section, from the LE forward, building three hatches, building internal cooling ducts for my E-motor, ESC, battery., converting to ECL, THEN striping OFF the excellent covering job done by a professional, etc. on my ARC Vector/Extra. And now you are saying my plane is ILLEGAL, and as a CD you would NOT allow me to compete in your contest?

YIKES

...... And you guys wonder why CL is dying faster than it needs to!

I would have NEVER returned to CL if it were not for the ARF Flight Streak. I have four 35% IMAC planes to fly, but like many retreads I came back to CL from the "Dark Arts" part of modeling so that I could capture some of the fond memories from my youth flying CL with Dave Gierke and others in the 1950s and 60s. As a kid I always dreamed that someday I would be able to fly like Dave and compete in real CLPA contests. My guess is that many retreads have similar feelings.

I wanted a competitive model, so the 1st thing I did was find out who the best builder was. I sent a deposit to Tom Morris to build an ARC plane for me. (this was before any masmarket ARCs were available, and under the old rules). My friends told me that this ARC plane would be ILLEGAL and I would not be able to fly it in competition. I said: "wait a min., are you saying that at $1,000 each, Tom is selling hundreds of these to only sport flyers who do an occasional loop?

??" My friends answer was "Da".

You guys will some day have to come to the realization that CLPA is a dying hobby. It will soon be gone. I feel strongly that we should try and enjoy this wonderful revisiting of our youth as much as we can while we still are healthy enough to FLY, and while CL is still around. We can prolong this hobby for our ONLY growing segment of modelers and that is "retreads", by making it "easier" for them to reenter CLPA. NOT by trying to make it HARDER by putting up artificial hurtles to BLOCK them from reentering our very very very small part of the hobby world.

I am sorry if my rant offended you, that was not my intent. I am just very frustrated that there are still those that are trying to close our part of the hobby to others rather than open it up to them. I thought this topic was settled, obviously I was mistaken. :-(

My guess is that no amount of writing will convince the small minority of holdouts on this rule. I just have to learn to accept this fact. As a contestant I will learn to avoid any contests that have these few holdouts as the CD. And I will make sure the rules are clear for the contests where I am the CD.

If you have endured this long, my hat is off to you! ;-) ..... END OF RANT!

Regards,

Rudy Taube · « **Reply #12 on:** September 27, 2007, 04:33:46 PM »

Hi Dennis, and Phil C.,

Thank you for your very good input. I feel very lucky to receive tips from two very knowledgable sources!

Phil, your #s are spot on to what my mod ended up. In my case my "low" flying skills won't even notice any difference.

I am not at the 500 point level yet.

Thanks for the encouragement Dennis. I think the scale appearance will be worth it to me.

Thanks for all your help.

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #13 on:** September 27, 2007, 07:49:24 PM »

Rudy:
Remember too, folks like Al Rabe, Bill Werwage, and others have had "some success" with fairly large scale looking vertical tails! Putting an Extra tail on it is not a lot different than putting a Mustang tail on it. I'm sure it will be fine. Visully the challange is usually to make the vertical tail the same "scale" as the oversized horizontal tail. Hard to do but if can make it happen the proportions look better.

BTW - you called that a RANT??? I've heard people get more excited flagging down a CAB!

All teasing aside you made some good points. Again, pragmatically, if you had never said anything about it ever being covered no one would have noticed, or even cared. Certainly by the time you finish no one will be able to tell. Kind of sounds like the old OLD days when countless "original" designs were built around Nobler wings! Sounds like the wing (and maybe the stab? are all that will be left of the original Vector. Again, keep the basic force arangement and go kick some tail!

Are you going to duplicate colors/makings of any particular full scale Extra?

Rudy Taube · « **Reply #14 on:** September 27, 2007, 09:23:39 PM »

Hi Dennis,

Your right, there are plenty of CLPA planes that have larger RDs. I have the plans for about 15 CL planes (so many planes, so little time! ;-) and like you have said, my mod should be just fine.

I asked the orig. question just to make sure there was not something I was missing in CL design. You and Phil, and others have made it clear that there are some side effects, but they are not enough to make much difference. When I helped Will Moore with his ECL Twin Bomber, I pushed for a BIG rudder. The small one we used in the beginning was not adequate in the sq. manovers and overhead in the wind. The BIG one on it now will keep it going where it is pointed.

I know our CL planes are thetherd and that makes a big difference, but the RD still has the job of keeping the plane arrow straight. With our very powerfull ECL power systems (and the powerful modern IC systems) we can just power through turbulence, as long as the RD is adequate back there to keep the pointy end going in the direction we want. At least that is my story, and I'm sticking with it!

Yes, sadly I lost control and posted a RANT. That is as harsh as I get. Here at the beach, that would be considered a very harsh RANT.

Thanks again for the encouragement. Your right about the Old days of Nobler "like" planes. I have a plan for one of my favorite warbirds. It is the Classic legal ME-109 plan. I put the wing over my Nobler plans and EVERY dimension, including the airfoil, is within 1% of each other.

RE: color markings. Yes, I am making the color scheme and markings just like my 35% exact scale Extra 300L. It is the beautiful Extra 300L N123EX "AERO SPORT" Red and White with dark blue trim color scheme. This was used in all the AERO SPORT company advertisements when they were the sole importer of all of Dr. Extra's planes. The company recently changed it's name, but I still like the original planes color scheme. As a side note: the 300L is a wonderful aerobatic plane to fly. It is so easy to fly and land, it is almost like cheating. My S2A was a pleasure to fly, but NOT to land, the 300L is a better plane, but the S2A still has a fond place in my heart. :-)

Thanks again for all your help.

Regards,

Bill Little · « **Reply #15 on:** September 28, 2007, 01:08:12 AM »

Rudy,

I just stated that *I* was confused over this. I understand your "frustration" (I think) but it was a legitimate question. My point is that the rule DOES NOT SPELL OUT whether or not you can turn an ARF into an ARC.

Not offended by 99% of your *rant*, but I raised a question that someone else might really be serious about, and as a CD you will have to give an answer if it comes to that.

The 1% (even less) I AM concerned over is lumping me (and Curt) into some *group* who want to exclude people from CLPA.

Quote

You guys (my emphasis since our names were called ) will some day have to come to the realization that CLPA is a dying hobby. It will soon be gone. I feel strongly that we should try and enjoy this wonderful revisiting of our youth as much as we can while we still are healthy enough to FLY, and while CL is still around. We can prolong this hobby for our ONLY growing segment of modelers and that is "retreads", by making it "easier" for them to reenter CLPA. NOT by trying to make it HARDER by putting up artificial hurtles to BLOCK them from reentering our very very very small part of the hobby world.

Now, where on Earth did you get that idea about me?? Nothing is farther from the truth! ARFS and ARCS are good for many people in *our* EVENT. They are here to stay, no problem with that, at all.

Coming from a background of having to follow RULES for over 50 years now, I KNOW that some will say "it isn't written...."

I have stated many, many times that a BOM rule is no longer enforceable, and hasn't been for a VERY long time. It all STILL comes down to *Interpretation* which can be a bunch of different ways.

I am not upset, I understand where you are coming from, but I know where I have been!

If it's about RULES, you gotta be prepared for every angle because there will be those who will be searching every angle if it is for no more reason than to *just do it*.

Bill Little · « **Reply #16 on:** September 28, 2007, 01:11:25 AM »

Now, concerning the rudder I still say, "Ask Randy"! He designed the plane and he is a World Renowned CLPA designer. He can tell you exactly what you really need to know, without *guessing* and would be glad to do it!

captcurt · « **Reply #17 on:** September 28, 2007, 06:37:01 PM »

Geez Rudy:

A few CD's get together on a forum and decide how to interpret the rules as supplied by the AMA?? That's what I got from your post.

I AM also a CD but never heard anything of the sort. You jumped to many generalizations and assumptions based upon legitimate questions from a couple of guys that are about as involved in this game as any.

Your "rant" is full of holes--but I can see we're not going to get a well thought out answer.

You wrongly concluded that by asking the question, I was somehow anti-arc/arf or whatever. Everything else after that point was pretty much garbage.

Curt

Rudy Taube · « **Reply #18 on:** September 29, 2007, 03:35:12 PM »

OK Curt,

You win. Your right, there were only 51 Replies, and 710 views on my Rules post (not counting Ph calls and PMs). As you said: "...just a few....", not hardly enough to draw any conclusions from.

Please enlighten us with your ideas on how the CDs in the CLPA comunity should communicate with each other to resolve this issue in a timely manner? Since the rest of us have done such a poor job of working on this issue, please tell us how we should do it. We look forward to your guidance.

Since my view is "garbage", then Please enlighten us with YOUR view on this issue. For some reason you seem to be keeping your views a secret. ...... So that I don't jump to any conclusions, make any generalizations or make any assumptions, please tell us specifically how you would handle this issue. If you have the fortitude to tell people where you stand on an issue, then maybe they won't have to guess where you stand.

Since you are a CD, please tell us how you are going to handle this issue at the contests you will CD in 2007 or 2008? If someone shows up at YOUR contest with the scenario I described in my "garbage post", please tell us exactly what you would do. And please be sure to give us your enlightened reasoning for your decision. This will help us all in our humble quest for enlightenment. Please be very clear, so someone with my lower intelligence will be able to understand your reasoning. I am sure we will all benefit from your belated wisdom. We all look forward to your enlightened reply.

BTW, I was wondering, if you feel so strongly about this topic, why didn't you have the vigor to post your strong feelings on the Rules thread? I would have liked to see the feedback when you used your "garbage post" comments on the many others who agreed with my "garbage post" conclusions. Where were your enlightened ideas when the Rules post was active?

You could have saved us all a lot of trouble if you would have just told us where YOU stand on this issue from the beginning, and the reasons for your stance. Your "Drive by" tactics only cloud the issue and foster ill will, not enlightenment.

The DESIGN section of Sparky's excellent forum seems like a strange place for you to attack/flame someone about your sacred BOM rule?

If your goal is to warmly welcome people returning to CLPA, then you have failed miserably. If your goal is to drive people away and prevent them from returning to CLPA, then you have succeeded with high marks.

In case you did not realize it yet, I am very offended by your rude, flaming post. If this is the way retreads, who try to contribute, will be treated by the CLPA comunity then maybe CLPA will die even sooner than I thought.

Rudy Taube · « **Reply #19 on:** September 29, 2007, 04:39:29 PM »

Hi Bill,

Thank you for your polite, and clear post.

Your right, I misunderstood your post, I apologize for my mistake.

You make a very good point that we CDs have to be prepared for any misunderstanding of the rules. This is exactly why I spent so much time on the RULES post several weeks ago. It may have been naive of me to think that the issue had been cleared up?

IMHO: I think we now ALL have an understanding that the old BOM rule has now been REPLACED with the new BOM rule, as shown on the AMA RULES website.

IMHO: I think we are all in agreement about ARCs being legal, and that they get the full appearance points on a par with ALL other CLPA models who get appearance points.

IMHO: I think that we all agree that ARCs are LEGAL at the NATS (AKA North East Regional Championships?) as well as all local contests that follow the AMA CLPA RULES.

IMHO: I think that "MOST" CDs agree "that no matter how an ARC is created", if the modeler who is going to fly it in competition "evolves, devolves, makes, buys, creates, etc." and has the plane in ARC (or less) form, at some time in it's life, then assembles and covers/paints/films it him/herself, then it is a LEGAL plane and meets the present rule.

My goal was to try to get as many people (CDs) as possible to 1. READ the NEW BOM RULE, in the AMA rule book, and 2. agree on ONE interpertation so that we would not have any misunderstandings during a contest (IMHO: at the contest is the WORST possible place to have this rules discussion).

As in any RULE, it is almost impossible to address every specific possible use of the rule. Any rule tries to address the "idea" and tries to make its intent clear enough so that the enforcers of the rule (in our case CDs) understand how to address each individual case where the rule applies.

Everyone I talked to, with rare exception, (I know I have not talked to all those involved, that is why I tried using this excellent forum) now understands that the part of the rule making ARCs LEGAL also covers (no pun intended ;-) the ARF to ARC to RTF transition. And the section of the rule that covers ARFs is very clear that it applies to ARFs going directly to RTF status, NOT back to ARC then assembled, then covered/painted etc. then to RTF status.

I do wish you would have brought this up when we had the rules thread going. Maybe I should repost this ARF to ARC issue again on the rules thread, and see if it is still misunderstood by anyone who is an active CL CD?

Thanks again for your clarifying post, sorry for my misunderstanding.

Regards,

captcurt · « **Reply #20 on:** September 29, 2007, 04:44:24 PM »

Excuse Me?

All I did was ask a question as to how or when a WRITTEN rule had been changed.

You need to switch to decaf sir.

Curt

captcurt · « **Reply #21 on:** September 29, 2007, 05:58:27 PM »

Quote from: Rudy Taube on September 29, 2007, 03:35:12 PM

OK Curt,

You win. Your right, there were only 51 Replies, and 710 views on my Rules post (not counting Ph calls and PMs). As you said: "...just a few....", not hardly enough to draw any conclusions from.

I never said anything about conclusions. I think it was fine to discuss the rule. It was a good thread. But it WAS NOT OFFICIAL in any sense of the word. Sure it could change the way CD's interpret the rule--that was the whole point of my original benign question--in my opinion, the rule, as written, is pretty specific about the eligibility of ARCs/ARFs. While I can certainly understand the need to address the issue, as written, I have no need to interpret it--its pretty damned clear. Sorry but I can't accept any number of postings or readings as anything more than unofficial discussion--and I have seen no evidence of any other rule output from the AMA.

Please enlighten us with your ideas on how the CDs in the CLPA comunity should communicate with each other to resolve this issue in a timely manner? Since the rest of us have done such a poor job of working on this issue, please tell us how we should do it. We look forward to your guidance.

Again, I never made any such claim. If the CD's have such an issue, they should bring it to their competition board members in their district. AS a CD, you know as well as I do what the proper channels are.

Since my view is "garbage", then Please enlighten us with YOUR view on this issue. For some reason you seem to be keeping your views a secret. ...... So that I don't jump to any conclusions, make any generalizations or make any assumptions, please tell us specifically how you would handle this issue. If you have the fortitude to tell people where you stand on an issue, then maybe they won't have to guess where you stand.

Like every other CD out there, I am charged with running events according to the rules as they are written. I have the ability to change certain rules (like the BOM or appearance point use) for an event as long as I give proper notice of same. I have run events without the BOM requirement because I think that is a good thing. I also run standard CLPA events WITH the BOM applied per the rules because I think THAT is a good thing too. If someone shows up and says his plane was covered when it came from the box, then he isn't going to get appearance points in my BOM event. If he says it was an ARC, then he does get points. Its as simple as reading the rules--no interpretation necessary.

And BTW, I never said your VIEW was garbage--but the contents of your post were.

You jumped right out there like every other politician on a bandwagon and made it seem that this issue somehow would keep people from competing--that their plane would be INELIGIBLE for competition. This is simply not so--except in Jr. Sr Open at the Nationals. To my knowledge, that is the ONLY PA competition on the planet that REQUIRES an entrant to be the BOM. You can compete in every other event--perhaps without appearance points, but certainly not ineligible. That kind of mis-information is why I called it garbage.

Since you are a CD, please tell us how you are going to handle this issue at the contests you will CD in 2007 or 2008? If someone shows up at YOUR contest with the scenario I described in my "garbage post", please tell us exactly what you would do. And please be sure to give us your enlightened reasoning for your decision. This will help us all in our humble quest for enlightenment. Please be very clear, so someone with my lower intelligence will be able to understand your reasoning. I am sure we will all benefit from your belated wisdom. We all look forward to your enlightened reply.

There you go again, pulling words out of thin air. See the above for my approach. The one thing I try to never do as a CD or judge--let my personal feelings affect how I run an event, treat a competitor, or score a flight. You have tried to create a convoluted scenario to test the use of the rules. Its simple. The rules didn't tell me to trace every step of a planes life from tree to customer. Just determine (by taking the entrants word by the way) whether it was covered when it came from the box. I get an answer and then decide ACCORDING TO THE WRITTEN RULE if it complies or not.

BTW, I was wondering, if you feel so strongly about this topic, why didn't you have the vigor to post your strong feelings on the Rules thread? I would have liked to see the feedback when you used your "garbage post" comments on the many others who agreed with my "garbage post" conclusions. Where were your enlightened ideas when the Rules post was active?

Where? Probably out there running an actual event--or competing, or judging. You know, I've competed in events all over the US (E of the Big River) and have never been at an event where this has been an issue, yet you make it out like there is some kind of emergency communication required to solve this rampant problem. Is this all a figment of your paranoid imagination? Are a few of us part of some secret enclave? Yeah that must be it.

The fact is, there wasn't any need for me to participate in that discussion. As I said, I had no issue with what came from that--un-official as it was. CD's can run their events as they see fit. My question in this thread was based upon your inference that there had been some official change in the way the rules were to be applied--this is clearly not the case.

You could have saved us all a lot of trouble if you would have just told us where YOU stand on this issue from the beginning, and the reasons for your stance. Your "Drive by" tactics only cloud the issue and foster ill will, not enlightenment.

Even being from Detroit, one can generally ask a question without it being classified as a drive by--seems you have a real case of paranoia in this regard.

The DESIGN section of Sparky's excellent forum seems like a strange place for you to attack/flame someone about your sacred BOM rule?

Again, I will say this---READ MY LIPS: READ MY QUESTION AGAIN!!! NOTHING I asked even hinted at being either pro or con for the BOM rules. You have just jumped off the deep end thinking I was somehow attacking the use of ARFs.

If your goal is to warmly welcome people returning to CLPA, then you have failed miserably. If your goal is to drive people away and prevent them from returning to CLPA, then you have succeeded with high marks.

Rubbish.

In case you did not realize it yet, I am very offended by your rude, flaming post. If this is the way retreads, who try to contribute, will be treated by the CLPA comunity then maybe CLPA will die even sooner than I thought.

Are you sure you aren't in politics? You seem to loose track of what the issue is? Are you tryng to convince people I'm a bad guy? Anti retread? Now Its about the CLPA "community"? Are you writing this stuff from an un-pressurized cockpit at FL 18??

If you choose to dish it out like you have, then:
1. I suggest you get your facts correct and,
2. Standby for whatever comes back at you.

I AM a retread...and a volunteer, and a Judge...and a CD. You obviously haven't figured out who the good guys are yet--If I were you, I'de just sit down and shut my pie hole.

Thanks for asking.
Curt

Rudy Taube · « **Reply #22 on:** September 29, 2007, 06:59:51 PM »

Curt,

You still don't get it. You say the rule is clear, but then you state that you are sticking to your minority opinion on how you are going to interpert this rule as a CD. Your correct, as a CD you have the right, but if the majority of people interpert a rule opposite of you then we have set up a problem at a contest. I'm surprised that you don't see this as a problem. Soon there will be many more ARFs out there than there are now, and more will be ARCed by the pilots to meet the new rules.

You still have not given us any "reasoning" for your minority stand. Telling us YOU think the rule is clear does not help us much.

It is obvious that you would rather argue than reasonably discuss this issue. The original rule post was a good example of how productive Sparky's forum can be, there were no insults and no flames. The rules thread you started here however is an example of how bad it can get when someone starts flaming others posts with rude insults.

I give up. You win. You will have to find someone else to argue with. ...... I hate to argue, I'm done.

I am VERY sorry I ever even mentioned my Vector RD on this innocent design part of the forum, it is way to hot in here for me.

Please do not bother responding. I have already wasted way more time on this than I should have.

captcurt · « **Reply #23 on:** September 29, 2007, 07:45:35 PM »

Quote from: Rudy Taube on September 29, 2007, 06:59:51 PM

Curt,

You still don't get it. You say the rule is clear, but then you state that you are sticking to your minority opinion on how you are going to interpert this rule as a CD.

No...my position is I don't HAVE to interpret the rule..that has already been done...by the guys that made the rules.

Try explaining to a traffic cop that the MAJORITY of the people out there INTERPRET a stop sign to mean almost stop...how far would that get you?

Now, if you a lot of people together, of one mind, and followed the proper procedure, you MIGHT get the law changed. But saying it is so does not change it.

Your correct, as a CD you have the right, but if the majority of people interpert a rule opposite of you then we have set up a problem at a contest. I'm surprised that you don't see this as a problem. Soon there will be many more ARFs out there than there are now, and more will be ARCed by the pilots to meet the new rules.

Rudy, you are right, but it is a what-f right now...like I said, I have NEVER seen this as a problem. If it IS a problem, now, in your events, I would start the discussion with your competition board member.

Do I see it as a POTENTIAL problem? perhaps...but not today.

You still have not given us any "reasoning" for your minority stand. Telling us YOU think the rule is clear does not help us much.

It really doesn't matter if it is a minority stand or not. One does not need to take a stand to apply a clearly written rule. It does not seem to be confusing language; If it becomes a problem in our area, my Comp board member will be the first to hear about it.

Are you saying that the rule is so confusing that it cannot be applied? If not. then you are saying that it needs to be changed. I would agree that, to avoid any future confusion, it SHOULD be. Change it so it can be applied directly without individual interpretation, like it is now--but do the job right if you insist.

It is obvious that you would rather argue than reasonably discuss this issue. The original rule post was a good example of how productive Sparky's forum can be, there were no insults and no flames. The rules thread you started here however is an example of how bad it can get when someone starts flaming others posts with rude insults.

My friend, the worst insult one could possibly make is to misrepresent someone else's position and incorrectly
bash them for asking a reasonable question--look in the mirror.

I give up. You win. You will have to find someone else to argue with. ...... I hate to argue, I'm done.

I am VERY sorry I ever even mentioned my Vector RD on this innocent design part of the forum, it is way to hot in here for me.

Please do not bother responding. I have already wasted way more time on this than I should have.

Well, the most reasonable thing you've said in a while. I guess I got an answer to my question.

Whatever has been said here, I can say one last thing...you are always welcome to any event I run. I will do my utmost to clearly and conciisely apply the rules as they are written. Your ARF/ARC/or BOM plane will be among many others that have always found a fair event here.

Curt

Steve Helmick · « **Reply #24 on:** September 29, 2007, 10:06:24 PM »

I'm still wondering what a Tall RD is. So much typing, yet the words FIN and RUDDER are just too much fingerwork?

I am also a CD, Stunt Judge and volunteer, and I can't bring myself to have a problem with taking an ARF and changing it into an ARC and rebuilding it into something much nicer. I still can't really say that I'm comfortable with the redefining of the BOM, but I'm fine with the PAMPA rule of no appearance points for models I didn't build (which is most of them, for now).

I'd suggest reading "Circular Airflow" by Frank Zaic to answer your question. Position of the rudder/fin area has considerable effect on flight characteristics of any airplane with a propeller, unless they're counter-rotating. More important for FF or R/C models, but some effect might be noticed on a CL stunter. Some time spent with an HLG will bring much knowledge. Reduce the fin area, or increase the dihederal and find out what "Dutch Roll" is, for instance.

Steve

captcurt · « **Reply #25 on:** September 30, 2007, 06:31:29 AM »

Hi steve:

Well I don't have a problem with it either--fact be told. I never did. It just hasn't been a problem out here...yet.

But to me, the rule as written is pretty clear. It would be a pretty simple wording change to make an uncovered ARF equal to an ARC under the rules.

Is this practice becoming widespread in your part of the country yet?

Curt

Circlejerk · « **Reply #26 on:** September 30, 2007, 06:55:33 AM »

Curt, I don't understand your logic. As an example, suppose I buy an ARF Cardinal and an ARC Cardinal from Brodak. I then strip the covering from the ARF Cardinal and set it side by side with the ARC Cardinal. Please tell me what the intrinsic difference is between the two that would give the stripped ARF an advantage or make it different in any manner from the ARC?

In order for a "rule" to be a good one, it must be logical and clear... your interpretation isn't logical and the rule isn't clear.

john e. holliday · « **Reply #27 on:** September 30, 2007, 08:32:56 AM »

To all I have been through this and did not argue with the CD. An ARF that had been rebuilt three times before being completely stripped and rebuilt, then recovered was not allowed in appearance judging at VSC. I agreed with the CD that I had not built the plane from a kit or plan. There were several that did get through, but, that is up to the individuals. Besides to me at the level I am at, ten or twelve points doesn't mean anything. Still have not seen any of the proposals yet, but, I commend the CD's that do away with appearance points and have a trophy for the contestants to decide who has the best looking plane. Have fun, DOC Holliday

captcurt · « **Reply #28 on:** September 30, 2007, 10:05:36 AM »

Quote from: Circlejerk on September 30, 2007, 06:55:33 AM

Curt, I don't understand your logic. As an example, suppose I buy an ARF Cardinal and an ARC Cardinal from Brodak. I then strip the covering from the ARF Cardinal and set it side by side with the ARC Cardinal. Please tell me what the intrinsic difference is between the two that would give the stripped ARF an advantage or make it different in any manner from the ARC?

In order for a "rule" to be a good one, it must be logical and clear... your interpretation isn't logical and the rule isn't clear.

There IS no difference--I never said there was. My point has always been that I would Apply the rule as written. (That's what a CD is for) I'm not supposed to pick which rules I think aren't logical and "interpret" them how I see fit--even tho there is precedent for this being done, it still is not the correct way to do it.

I never disagreed with the ARF/ARC position but with the way the written rule seems to have been "ignored" because of a "majority opinion" thought it is wrong/illogical/not enforceable.

Like all other AMA rules, if it doesn't make any sense, lets correct it the proper way.

Curt

PS: What part of the rule is it that you don't think is clear? Because I don't think I AM interpreting the rule--only applying it as written. ( I suppose it is semantics whether anything can truly be applied without interpretation or not--obviously we are decyphering the words into some physical model) But I see no confusion in the rule as written. It may be illogical, misguided, not in the best interest of the event, or whatever--but it is very clear and easy to apply. JMHO

Mark Scarborough · « **Reply #29 on:** September 30, 2007, 11:12:54 AM »

Gee, I thought this thread was about changing the shape of a rudder on a Vector,, guess that shows what I know huh!

Steve Helmick · « **Reply #30 on:** September 30, 2007, 09:28:31 PM »

It just occurred to me this week that Daniel D. Dirt has been flying "TWMLIFSARF" (or something like that) for some years now, and we've never given him appearance points for it, AFAIK. Nor has he ever asked why not. I think he likes it better when he can get whupped by a Bruce Perry or Bob Parker, who've hardly flown his loaner, and probably don't even like the thing. I flew it once, and didn't like it. Luckily, I've gotten away without having to fly it in a contest, and intend to keep it that way.

Steve

Leo Mehl · « **Reply #31 on:** October 02, 2007, 08:09:24 PM »

Quote from: Mark Scarborough on September 30, 2007, 11:12:54 AM

Gee, I thought this thread was about changing the shape of a rudder on a Vector,, guess that shows what I know huh!

Rules formulated by AMA are rules to be followed. How they are interpeted is of concequest of the contest director and not the judge. How this ever got into an ARF discussion is beyond reason.

EddyR · « **Reply #32 on:** October 04, 2007, 07:00:14 PM »

Rudy I to am a CD now for 42 years in FF, RC ,CL. I didn't read your thread on ARF's because I could see where it was going.You have made a lot of request of Curt so how about you showing us the huge long list of CD's that made this momentous decision about ARF's. I have been part of the Huntersville contest now for 5 years and I have told many people that if they have a problem come and talk to me. Don't wait until months later to bring it up. We have been none BOM now for years so it is a none issue. Most modelers could modify a ARF so no one could tell so why get upset over it. I would feel foolish showing up at the Nats with a ARF. Since I would not win even with all those pretty points why worry about it. As far as the future of CL goes I have not seen any growth since the ARF's have come out. Our club has a list of everyone who has flown at Huntersville for the last 5 years and I don't see any growth that has any thing to do with ARF's. The growth has been in combat! We are now all waiting for your list.
EddyR

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #33 on:** October 04, 2007, 07:56:46 PM »

ENOUGH!

Folks, this started off as an innocent enough thread, but has been getting out of hand. Now a lot of my FAVORITE people here in the Hanger are starting to get a little carried away, frankly its getting a little too abusive for otherwise civilized folks.

I would like to ask that you (we) all just WALK AWAY from the ugly parts of this discussion - before the dialog gets any worse.

Please?

captcurt · « **Reply #34 on:** October 05, 2007, 08:32:04 AM »

Quote from: Dennis Adamisin on October 04, 2007, 07:56:46 PM

ENOUGH!

Folks, this started off as an innocent enough thread, but has been getting out of hand. Now a lot of my FAVORITE people here in the Hanger are starting to get a little carried away, frankly its getting a little too abusive for otherwise civilized folks.

I would like to ask that you (we) all just WALK AWAY from the ugly parts of this discussion - before the dialog gets any worse.

Please?

Hi Dennis:

I thought we did.

Ted Fancher · « **Reply #35 on:** October 07, 2007, 10:50:02 PM »

Quote from: Rudy Taube on September 29, 2007, 03:35:12 PM

OK Curt,

You win. Your right, there were only 51 Replies, and 710 views on my Rules post (not counting Ph calls and PMs). As you said: "...just a few....", not hardly enough to draw any conclusions from.

Please enlighten us with your ideas on how the CDs in the CLPA comunity should communicate with each other to resolve this issue in a timely manner? Since the rest of us have done such a poor job of working on this issue, please tell us how we should do it. We look forward to your guidance.

Since my view is "garbage", then Please enlighten us with YOUR view on this issue. For some reason you seem to be keeping your views a secret. ...... So that I don't jump to any conclusions, make any generalizations or make any assumptions, please tell us specifically how you would handle this issue. If you have the fortitude to tell people where you stand on an issue, then maybe they won't have to guess where you stand.

Since you are a CD, please tell us how you are going to handle this issue at the contests you will CD in 2007 or 2008? If someone shows up at YOUR contest with the scenario I described in my "garbage post", please tell us exactly what you would do. And please be sure to give us your enlightened reasoning for your decision. This will help us all in our humble quest for enlightenment. Please be very clear, so someone with my lower intelligence will be able to understand your reasoning. I am sure we will all benefit from your belated wisdom. We all look forward to your enlightened reply.

BTW, I was wondering, if you feel so strongly about this topic, why didn't you have the vigor to post your strong feelings on the Rules thread? I would have liked to see the feedback when you used your "garbage post" comments on the many others who agreed with my "garbage post" conclusions. Where were your enlightened ideas when the Rules post was active?

You could have saved us all a lot of trouble if you would have just told us where YOU stand on this issue from the beginning, and the reasons for your stance. Your "Drive by" tactics only cloud the issue and foster ill will, not enlightenment.

The DESIGN section of Sparky's excellent forum seems like a strange place for you to attack/flame someone about your sacred BOM rule?

If your goal is to warmly welcome people returning to CLPA, then you have failed miserably. If your goal is to drive people away and prevent them from returning to CLPA, then you have succeeded with high marks.

In case you did not realize it yet, I am very offended by your rude, flaming post. If this is the way retreads, who try to contribute, will be treated by the CLPA comunity then maybe CLPA will die even sooner than I thought.

Whooo! Rudy.

A bit sensitive aren't you?

I pretty much read your initial posts on this thread as pretty vehemently putting down those that don't agree with your personal opinion regarding what is a very sensitive issue in the world of CL Stunt. Pretty much the same way Curt appears to have taken them.

I don't have many 35% IMAC models in the garage so I lack that qualification, but I have built a lot of CL Stunt airplanes over the years and have contributed more than a little effort to helping our event survive very nicely. I have, by the way, been attending nats on an almost continuous basis since I met our apparently mutual friend Dave Giereke at the '67 nats. The stunt event (BOM, Appearance points and all) has continued throughout those 40 years to be a robust, well attended and competitive event. I can't, however, say as much for the many events in which the BOM has been abandoned in search of "simplifying the event" to appeal to more competitors.

Your snide and repeated comments disparaging those who differ with your (self described "retread") point of view are the clear catalyst for posts from modelers such as Curt and now me. We, like you, have a perfect right to our point of view (one which, I repeat, can stand some pretty pointed scrutiny as to the BOM's effect on the event) and can hardly be expected to simply sit on our hands while you take your flaming pot shots at facets of the event we feel are demonstrably valuable to its existence and preservation. If your skin is too thin to accept that everyone isn't going to agree with your demeaning accusations, you probably need to rethink the wisdom of "ranting" in public.

It's a little hard to warmly embrace someone who starts out a relationship by demeaning the efforts of those who were responsible for making the activity appealing to him in the first place.

Ted Fancher

Ted Fancher · « **Reply #36 on:** October 07, 2007, 11:21:41 PM »

Rudy,

Re the rudder on the Vector.

Taller vertical stailizers are, by definition, higher aspect ratio lifting surfaces than the shorter ones from which they were derived. Higher aspect ratio lifting surfaces are more effective at producing lift for a given angle of attack. As a result, the ability to precisely trim the angle at which the surface interfaces with its operating environment will be more critical than the more common low aspect ratio vertical stabs seen on most stunt ships (like the vector).

Thus, if you choose to make a tall vertical stabilizer be sure to make the rudder portion thereof ground adjustable so as to refine the yaw trim. Yaw, per se, isn't a huge factor for tethered flight because the tether itself pretty much controls yaw if the relationship between the leadout guide, the CG and the angle of attack of the vertical stabilizer/rudder offset are properly adjusted. By using the higher aspect ratio rudder the last of those parameters will be more critical.

Get it right, however, and it will be essentially a non-issue. Start out with the leadouts centered about one inch aft of the CG (at the wingtip) and the entire vertical surface as close to zero offset as you can measure. Don't change the rudder offset unless there is some overriding reason to do so (lack of line tension is not such a reason).

Ted Fancher

Bradley Walker · « **Reply #37 on:** October 08, 2007, 04:20:50 AM »

What ever happened to the days when people took a Nobler kit and bashed it into 7000 different designs without worrying about the tiny effects of the change?

I say bash away... It is a good start to coming up with your OWN design.

If you think about it, how many people are designing their own planes? Even bashing other designs would count. Not very many.

I think ARF bashing, if people actually took the time to do it, could be very interesting.

Bill Little · « **Reply #38 on:** October 08, 2007, 04:54:51 AM »

Quote

I think ARF bashing, if people actually took the time to do it, could be very interesting.

Hi Brad,

Tha reminds me of Ty's Arf Nobler. I was at Huntersville a couple years ago, and Ty had an ARF Nobler done up in late WW II three color navy paint scheme. He had recovered it all, built a nose structure like the green Box kit's, and it didn't look like an ARF at all!

He put '57 Arf (or something similar) sorta like the serial number of the vertical stab. The appearance judges were arguing, somewhat, that it wasn't an ARF! He had to convince them it was........

Dies Top Flite make the wing available, seperately? It would be a great place to start a WHOLE lot of Classic planes. Since we all replace the controls, and changing wingtips is a piece of cake, something like a Chizler, or early Olympic, would be a snap! A friend drew up a full fuselage for the Brodak P-40 Arf, the ideas are limitless! How about Windy's "20 Pointer" using the Strega wing?? Or the Tsunami, or.......

With the new rule, it could really save a lot of cionstruction time for the up and comer, especially, since a good wing is a whole lot of the battle in getting a good flying plane.

Just IMHO.

Bradley Walker · « **Reply #39 on:** October 08, 2007, 09:14:59 AM »

Quote from: Bill Little on October 08, 2007, 04:54:51 AM

Dies Top Flite make the wing available, seperately? It would be a great place to start a WHOLE lot of Classic planes. Since we all replace the controls, and changing wingtips is a piece of cake, something like a Chizler, or early Olympic, would be a snap! A friend drew up a full fuselage for the Brodak P-40 Arf, the ideas are limitless! How about Windy's "20 Pointer" using the Strega wing?? Or the Tsunami, or.......

Right!!!

It would be like the 1960's all over again.

captcurt · « **Reply #40 on:** October 08, 2007, 11:54:41 AM »

Hi Brad:

I'm with you all the way on bashing away...

I hope no one took my initial comments back regarding the taller tail as a stance against doing it..I was simply trying to explain what types of trim it might affect in so doing.

I think its cool to take a common plane and make it look different--but one will ultimately learn that certain features that show up on one plane, or a full size plane, are not only ineffective, but can be detrimental to PA performance.

Not to say that it WILL in this case, but it MIGHT.

Curt

Leo Mehl · « **Reply #41 on:** October 25, 2008, 03:44:22 PM »

Quote from: captcurt on October 08, 2007, 11:54:41 AM

Hi Brad:

I'm with you all the way on bashing away...

I hope no one took my initial comments back regarding the taller tail as a stance against doing it..I was simply trying to explain what types of trim it might affect in so doing.

I think its cool to take a common plane and make it look different--but one will ultimately learn that certain features that show up on one plane, or a full size plane, are not only ineffective, but can be detrimental to PA performance.

Not to say that it WILL in this case, but it MIGHT.

Curt

Yup, I am into doing all the bashing you want to and then let us know how good the bashing works, I think we all are too concerned about things we should not be too concerned with. Like they used to say, " give em Hell Harry".!