RE: Two Day Warbird Race in Sacramento
I am hopeful they will be settled by the end of to this month. They will be posted on the RCPRO website and I will post a link here. They will not take affect until next season and the first race in Tucson. Blessings, Terry
Posted on: 11/17/2009 7:43 PM by Author "still4given" in the forum "Scale Racing"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9261208

RE: Two Day Warbird Race in Sacramento
I have asked around a bit and everyone pretty much said the same thing. The AMA has rules about how to deal with batteries. We will let those rules take care of it. Blessings, Terry
Posted on: 11/17/2009 1:05 AM by Author "still4given" in the forum "Scale Racing"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9259466

RE: Two Day Warbird Race in Sacramento
We already have the waiver and it is tied to the breakout times, not the wing area chart. That is what I verified with Ellis. Like I said, SAMS is free to make whatever restrictions they like. It is their race. No matter what they decide on, I would still like to come race there. I'm not opposed to building something that fits their rules. I am excited about the possibilities with our new rule changes. Anything being flown at SAMS, Madera, Morgan Hills, The Basin, and all of the current RCPRO warbird races should be able to come and compete. AWESOME!
Posted on: 11/16/2009 10:09 PM by Author "still4given" in the forum "Scale Racing"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9259124

RE: Two Day Warbird Race in Sacramento
[quote]ORIGINAL: MONGO44 Not to throw another thing in the mess, but since we have a lot of Arizona, Los Angles, Victorville, Hesperian, Sacramento , Madera and Morgan Hill Racers on here,   Can we work to establish some dates of races early on so we can get a schedule for those of us who want to travel to out of town races.   I know there was several conflicts this year.  I know it is tough to get things going, but I am looking to holding possibly a two day race in September/October/November at Madera and dont want to schedule it on top of someone elses race.   Do any of the CD's have an idea as to what months at least and then we can follow up with exact dates as we get closer to the year?    [/quote] RCPRO schedule as of now. We will most likely be adding a couple of dates for the Vegas/Utah guys once they have settled on them Feb 13, 2010 Tucson, AZ Mar 27, 2010 Speed World Phoenix, AZ Apr 24, 2010 VVRC Park, Hesperia, CA Sep 18, 2010 VVRC Park, Hesperia, CA Oct 16, 2010 Speed World, Phoenix. CA Dec 4, 2010 Tucson, AZ Blessings, Terry
Posted on: 11/16/2009 7:46 PM by Author "still4given" in the forum "Scale Racing"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9258742

RE: Two Day Warbird Race in Sacramento
[quote]ORIGINAL: Jimmy Skids [quote]ORIGINAL: still4given [quote]ORIGINAL: Jimmy Skids [quote]ORIGINAL: still4given Mongo, Thanks, you said it very well. The wing area chart doesn't stop anyone from building a weak airplane. Most of the guys who aim at flying in the gold class know they are going to have to go above and beyond to build an airframe that can take the stress of making turns
Posted on: 11/16/2009 7:31 PM by Author "still4given" in the forum "Scale Racing"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9258699

RE: Two Day Warbird Race in Sacramento
[quote]ORIGINAL: Jimmy Skids [quote]ORIGINAL: still4given Mongo, Thanks, you said it very well. The wing area chart doesn't stop anyone from building a weak airplane. Most of the guys who aim at flying in the gold class know they are going to have to go above and beyond to build an airframe that can take the stress of making turns at 140 MPH. IMO, the only thing the wing area chart has done
Posted on: 11/16/2009 6:48 PM by Author "still4given" in the forum "Scale Racing"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9258585

RE: Two Day Warbird Race in Sacramento
Mongo, Thanks, you said it very well. The wing area chart doesn't stop anyone from building a weak airplane. Most of the guys who aim at flying in the gold class know they are going to have to go above and beyond to build an airframe that can take the stress of making turns at 140 MPH. IMO, the only thing the wing area chart has done is stop folks from using large two strokes because the size of the required airframe made it too difficult to benefit from it. I don't doubt that we may need to make some adjustments once we get underway with the new rules. We are open to that. We will be watching things closely to watch for problems but I must admit, I don't expect to see many. What I do think we will see is more .60 Size aircraft and certainly some electric power. My biggest hope is that we will simply see more guys getting involved now that the requirements are less stringent. Blessings, Terry
Posted on: 11/15/2009 8:04 PM by Author "still4given" in the forum "Scale Racing"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9256124

RE: Two Day Warbird Race in Sacramento
[quote]ORIGINAL: Tommy_Gun Really, ''almost settled''? Where are these discussions? I see no real action on them in here. http://www.rcpro.org/net/Forums.aspx?forumid=1901 Is there a secret RCPRO rule making group out there? The elimination of the chart would lead to more problems than it would solve IMO. And the inclusion of a powerplant that does not have the limitations of ''starting problems'' at the beginning of a race are like mixing oil and water at this point in time. [/quote] Yes there is a secret group. :D They are the CD's from all of the RCPRO racing venues. All of us have been discussing this for quite some time and most of us have presented the new ideas to our clubs and those who have participated at our races. So far, no one has had a problem with any of the rules. As far as starting the engines before a heat, I don't see that as a problem. I have never used that as a means of eliminating a pilot. The reason for that rule is mainly to keep things moving. It is not designed to make things difficult for anyone. I have held off the countdown several times to allow someone to change a glow plug or something else that can be quickly remedied if it will help them takeoff. I'm not suggesting that SAMS follow us. Sorry if it seemed that way. As far as we are concerned, the wing area chart was written in an attempt to equalize all of the planes when at the time, they all ran head to head. We now have brackets with breakouts, so all that is necessary now is to build something that will run in the bracket you hope to compete in. For a long time, we have looked for a way to include electric power, but with the wing area chart, it was too difficult to match them up with the nitro engines. Now with no wing area/engine requirements, there is no reason not to allow electric. They will be restricted by the same breakout time that everyone else is. I know that some folks who already have a setup that they are happy with, and especially if they have been dominant with it, will feel a little resistance to change, but I feel that a change has been long over due and since YS has come out with yet another change that has made the wing area chart still more out of date, it seemed like a good time to address it. Once all of our CD's have had a chance to speak with the folks in their area, we will formulate a final version and present it. I showed some of the ideas here because I am interested in feedback and this is a good place to get feedback from warbird racers. I appreciate your input. Blessings, Terry
Posted on: 11/15/2009 2:11 AM by Author "still4given" in the forum "Scale Racing"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9254623

RE: Two Day Warbird Race in Sacramento
I think Iron Man described a fairly typical Gold class race and even a lot of Silver races. One guy who likes to fly fast and long and another who prefers to build his plane to fly a tight course and just make breakout. That's warbird racing. You can't find that in other styles because the planes are all too similar. I guess warbird racing isn't for everyone. Whether you want to build a 12lb bomber with two big nitro breathing 4 strokes or a super light fighter with a screamin' two stroke or something in between, in warbird racing, you are more than welcome. I wouldn't have it any other way. The present wing area chart doesn't stop anyone from building an unsafe airplane. Everyone needs keep safety in mind when putting something together. It is almost settled in RCPRO that we will be dropping the wing area chart. We will have a minimum wing area since some feel that the judges will have a tough time seeing smaller planes, and a maximum weight to stay out of the Giant Scale realm. We will also be allowing electric power now that the engines aren't tied to wing area. If our guys want to race at SAMs or some of the other venues, they may have to build something special for that, but anyone with a warbird should be able to come race with us. Most of our Gold racers will not make only changes at all since they are happy with what they have. I do think we will start seeing more round nosed planes now that they can stick a big enough engine in them to make them competitive. Blessings, Terry
Posted on: 11/14/2009 2:02 PM by Author "still4given" in the forum "Scale Racing"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9253324

RE: Two Day Warbird Race in Sacramento
I only mentioned the Sundowner as an example of the power difference between the Moki and the YS 1.70DZ. The point I was trying to make is that as the engines get larger, the difference in power between the two gets smaller. I could easily see someone using the 2.10 in a .90 size warbird. Probably not in Gold, but maybe Silver of Bronze.It just opens up some more possibilities. It is beginning to look more and more like we will drop the wing area rule in RCPRO and just rely on the breakout times to control the speed. This will allow the use of electric power as well. Very exciting! We will still be keeping an eye on what the SAMS guys come up with, as I know that a few of us are still looking forward to racing there. Blessings, Terry
Posted on: 11/4/2009 9:16 AM by Author "still4given" in the forum "Scale Racing"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9227321

RE: Two Day Warbird Race in Sacramento
Hi Jimmy Thanks for looking over the chart. Again, it is for discussion and I'm glad it is causing that. I'm not so sure that the AMA waiver has a problem with a Moki/Mark 2.10. It allows a 2.40 4 stroke. I know a couple of weeks ago they held a USRA GS race at Rabbit Lake here in the Victor Valley area. They have an entry level class with the 81" Hanger 9 Sundowners. The engine of choice seems to be the Moki 2.10, but Richard Verano flew in it with a YS 1.70 and set a new course record. If we have a slot for the YS 1.70, why not the Moki 210. It has been my experience that the larger the engines get, the less difference in power between the 2 and 4 strokes. You might want to use it in a big Sea Fury or Corsair and why not? Those round nose planes need a big prop. :) As far as using current engine sizes, you are right. I did keep that in mind when building the chart. Made more sense to me than the chart that Mark listed which had a lot of sizes that don't even exist. We could just as easily call them a range as in (not larger than). Then if an engine is larger than the size listed, it has to go up to the next size. We could add as many lines as we think necessary. If you think we need to go every .05 CID for each we can do that. The chart just gets a little longer. The chart is really just a guideline anyway. To really equalize the chart you would have to list specific manufactures because a Saito 1.80 is not as strong as a YS 1.70 but stronger than a Magnum 1.80. We have to stop somewhere. The wing area minimum is really not important to me. The Model Tech Me-109 I listed above was flown in the Kingman race. It was fine. If folks have a problem with it, let's forget I suggested it. Those size planes probably wouldn't be used that much anyway. I had been asked to include them so I did. No big deal. Thanks again, Terry
Posted on: 11/3/2009 12:22 PM by Author "still4given" in the forum "Scale Racing"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9225132

RE: Two Day Warbird Race in Sacramento
The truth is, Bert and Marty, who are working to develop RCPRO Warbird racing in the Las Vegas/Lower Utah area are both GS racers. They have been dabbling in our warbird racing and are hooked. I don't know how many guys we will see from the Q40 and Q500 crowd, but my point was that not all folks who are looking at getting involved in our races are novices. Some of them will be looking at the Silver and Gold classes as a place to get involved. I have no idea what "Minis" are. My example of a .25 size bird is the [link=http://www.hobbypeople.net/gallery/123610.asp]Model Tech Me-109[/link]. John Buckner flew on with an OS .25 at the last Kingman race and it did just fine and it was not noticeably smaller than the other planes in the heat. This is not a big deal to me, just an attempt to give more options to newcomers. We are currently having a discussion between the CD's of the various RCPRO Warbird events about this very thing. Doing away with the wing area chart all together and relying on the breakout times is even on the table. That is opening up some other interesting prospects such as electric power. Silent power. imagine how that would have helped our pilots in WWII. :D Blessings, Terry
Posted on: 11/3/2009 10:52 AM by Author "still4given" in the forum "Scale Racing"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9224942

RE: Two Day Warbird Race in Sacramento
Both Marks chart and mine allow a .75 on a WM P51. The WM p51 has 585 squares. Marks chart allows a 1.05 two stroke and mine allows a 1.08.
Posted on: 11/2/2009 11:15 PM by Author "still4given" in the forum "Scale Racing"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9224060

RE: Two Day Warbird Race in Sacramento
I tweaked my chart a little. Again, keep in mind, while I certainly don't want to hurt the gold class, my main goal is to fill all three classes. Blessings, Terry
Posted on: 11/2/2009 10:04 PM by Author "still4given" in the forum "Scale Racing"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9223920

RE: Two Day Warbird Race in Sacramento
Hi Guys, Again, most of the guys chiming in here run in the gold class. While I love the gold class, my biggest concern being a race promoter is drawing new people into the sport. Keep in mind that while many of them will be non racers looking to become part of it, some will be folks who have racing experience in Giant scale racing, Q40, Q500 etc. No matter how much we talk about drawing new people into the sport, it keeps going back to whether someone can be competitive in gold. I keep hearing the guys who basically run only Gold class, and only run Silver if there is no Gold class, saying don't worry about the bronze and silver classes, they have plenty of options. Well that's not what I hear from the guys I have approached about joining in to the warbird racing. I certainly wasn't thinking about the gold class when I suggested that we allow .25 two strokes. That was to help folks get involved in the Bronze class. Give the newcomers a lot of choices and and the chances are that they can join in using something they already have. How does this hurt us? Blessings, Terry
Posted on: 11/2/2009 9:46 PM by Author "still4given" in the forum "Scale Racing"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9223878

RE: Sky Raider Mach II
That snap you are experiencing is the same thing I get with one of my Phoenix Models Stregas. If I have the elevator set up too sensitive it will snap up and out of the turn just as you described. That is what I was picturing from your earlier description. My GS Sundowner does it too. If I tone down the rates, it turns fine. Some folks have suggested using a heat gun and twisting a little washout into the wing, then tighten the covering with a heat gun or iron. I haven't tried it yet. Maybe the lighter engine is letting the the plane turn sharper and causing the snap. Try backing off the rates a little at a time and see if you can still get a tight enough turn without the tendency to snap. Just for kicks, you might try adding a little nose weight to see if that helps. Blessings, Terry
Posted on: 11/2/2009 11:47 AM by Author "still4given" in the forum "Club 40"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9222431

RE: Lipo Powered Starter
I've been using a Thunder Power 2200 ma on my starter for quite some time. No problems.
Posted on: 11/2/2009 1:15 AM by Author "still4given" in the forum "General Racing Discussion"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9221754

RE: Sky Raider Mach II
You say it doesn't turn left. Does it turn right normally? Does it turn left if you don't turn hard? Could be a bad servo, loose servo lead. FM, DSM? I had a bad elevator servo that didn't show up until it was in the air. Somehow it affected the other servos when it would act up. Not sure how that worked, but once I replaced it I had no more problems. Do you have some spare servos you could swap in. SMRII are known to get loose where the torque rod fits into the aileron. You could check that too. From what you have told us, I'm betting on a servo. Blessings, Terry
Posted on: 11/2/2009 1:10 AM by Author "still4given" in the forum "Club 40"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9221751

RE: Sky Raider Mach II
[quote]ORIGINAL: JWQ500RC Guys I went down in power. I went from a ST40 to a OS40LA. Plane is not warped it flew fine one week ago with the ST40 on it. All I did was switch engines, nothing else. [/quote] Doh, I should have read more closely. Barry's right. You are probably tail heavy.
Posted on: 11/1/2009 1:14 PM by Author "still4given" in the forum "Club 40"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9220207

RE: Sky Raider Mach II
[quote]ORIGINAL: nitro-pilot The elevators on these are like 1'' similar to any trainer. They don't snap. Most run these in novice pylon races due to their easy flight characteristics. [/quote] The elevator is plenty big enough to cause the plane to stall a wing if turned hard enough. Without seeing his fly, it is hard to tell. I have two SRMII's and an LA Racer with TT 40 Pros on them. The reason I suggested it might be snapping is because he went up on power. I started with the Thunder Tigers and have mine setup for a full pull on the turns. Next time I fly one I'll set it up for more elevator and see how much elevator it takes to make it snap. It is probably a combination. The plane is probably warped some place and the extra power showed it up. You might try adding weight to the tip of one of the wing and see if it improves or gets worse. Most guys just tape coins under the tip.
Posted on: 11/1/2009 11:24 AM by Author "still4given" in the forum "Club 40"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9219959

RE: Sky Raider Mach II
I have planes that will snap like that if I pull too hard in the turn. They will snap to the right. How hard are you turning? Maybe you have it setup with too much elevator.
Posted on: 10/30/2009 12:36 PM by Author "still4given" in the forum "Club 40"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9215099

RE: Problem problem problem
The needle valve location is not going to matter. All it is is a valve. The relation of the spray bar in the carb and the center-line of the tank is what is important. Almost every person here has suggested that you switch to a smaller prop, yet if haven't seen in any of your posts that you have. This may be the single most important thing and easiest to try, Have you done it yet? You said the engine is used. It may just not have enough compression to create good enough fuel draw to pull the fuel straight up. Especially if you tank is not right behind the engine. Did you check to see if the clunk line has come undone inside the tank? Very common.
Posted on: 10/30/2009 12:28 PM by Author "still4given" in the forum "Glow Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9215083

RE: ROSSI 45
[quote]ORIGINAL: Flyboy Dave .....the first prop I tried was a 10-6 APC....14,000. ....what a dog prop. [:@] FBD. [:D] [/quote] My Jett 50 turns an APC 10x6 at 16,800 ground.
Posted on: 10/30/2009 12:04 PM by Author "still4given" in the forum "Extreme Speed Prop Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9215028

RE: Two Day Warbird Race in Sacramento
For starters http://airborne-models.com/html/productdetails.asp?ProductID=145 http://www.nitroplanes.com/ww2jamia6mze.html http://www.nitroplanes.com/sp4041nigasg.html http://www.nitroplanes.com/pth40.html http://www.nitroplanes.com/pwa60arfaufu.html http://www.nitroplanes.com/cmpp40wa5054.html
Posted on: 10/30/2009 11:01 AM by Author "still4given" in the forum "Scale Racing"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9214873

RE: Two Day Warbird Race in Sacramento
[quote]Gents, Here is a comparison of the current rules with the 115 4c added (straight linear interpolation) versus a 1.5x multiplier on the 2c displacements. I rounded to the nearest 1/100th of a cu. in. This makes the 2c have 75% of the displacement of the 4c. Maybe there could be a grace year so the 115 4c would be legal in airplanes with 513+ wing areas or we could slide the wing area scale to accommodate them. Not sure how the formatting will come thru until I post this. Here goes. Mark Current rules with 115 added Proposed 1.5x incr to 2c disp 2c disp 4c disp Min sq. in. 2c disp 4c disp Min sq. in. 0.40 0.80 400 0.60 0.80 400 0.45 0.90 438 0.68 0.90 438 0.50 1.00 475 0.75 1.00 475 0.55 1.10 513 0.83 1.10 513 0.58 1.15 532 0.87 1.15 532 0.60 1.20 550 0.90 1.20 550 0.65 1.30 567 0.98 1.30 567 0.70 1.40 585 1.05 1.40 585 0.75 1.50 602 1.13 1.50 602 0.80 1.60 620 1.20 1.60 620 0.90 1.80 650 1.35 1.80 650 1.08 2.16 700 1.62 2.16 700 1.20 2.40 735 1.80 2.40 735 [/quote] Hi Mark, I tried doing something similar to what you did when I first tried to tweak the existing chart. Here are some of the problems I saw when I did this. 1) The 2 stroke chart ends up with a lot of weird displacements that aren't represented in popular, available engines. 2) We would now have the lowest 2 stroke as a .60 and it is on a 400 square inch wing. .40, .45 .50 & .55 would all have to run in the same plane as a .60 3) The smallest 4 stroke on the chart is an .80 on a 400 square inch wing. That means a .52, .60, .63, .65, .70, .72 would all have to run as an .80 I also find it interesting that Saito has had a 1.15 on the market for quite some time. Now that YS is bringing one out, it becomes important to give this displacement it's own slot on the chart. Saito has also had a 1.25 for quite some time with no slot to run in. So who is this new slot for the 1.15 going to benefit? Most likely only the Gold class. No matter how much we say we are not worried about the Gold class racers, they are the ones driving this change. I would like to list the criteria I had in mind when attempting to come up with a new wing area chart. 1) Try to equalize the power of the 2 stroke vs 4 stroke 2) Give the 4 stroke guys some concessions, like reducing the wing areas slightly, so they would not be so resistant to the change 3) Allow a bigger range of engine sizes to help folks who are joining in, to use what they currently own. 4) Allow a little smaller wing area for the smaller engines. I know my chart is not prefect, but I believe it goes a long way to achieving the above criteria. I would love to hear from folks who have some additional criteria that I didn't think of. Blessings, Terry
Posted on: 10/30/2009 9:49 AM by Author "still4given" in the forum "Scale Racing"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9214740

RE: Two Day Warbird Race in Sacramento
Hi Guys, Sorry if I helped take this off subject. But then, I guess talking about wing area charts is actually off subject. ;) I did some thinking about the SAM rules and it dawned on me that the CD for the event has an agenda. He has a certain type of plane that he want to see at his events. That's cool, so do I at my events. It's OK if we differ. If I come to fly at SAM, which I hope to do someday, I'll know what I need to bring. As far as the wing area chart, I thought it would be cool to have similar charts so that it would be easy for someone who flies in RCPRO to fly at SAM, but that is not as important to me as getting it right for RCPRO. I have enjoyed hearing from all of the folks who care about this, an now believe I have a better grasp on what is important to some of the contestants. I am in no way trying to tweak the charts for my benefit. I love to experiment with different setups, so no matter what we end up with, I will enjoy tinkering and tweaking to see what I can come up with that will be competitive. Many of the ideas I have put forth here have been a result of talking with many perspective racers as well as seasoned warbird racers. Folks have been talking about the inequities in the wing area rules since I have been involved and I'm sure, long before that. I don't blame the guys who have winning setups for not wanting to change things. That's just human nature. This is a contest and the goal should be to win. Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this discussion. It has provided a lot of food for thought. Blessings, Terry
Posted on: 10/29/2009 10:07 AM by Author "still4given" in the forum "Scale Racing"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9211979

RE: Two Day Warbird Race in Sacramento
[quote]ORIGINAL: Tommy_Gun OK I have just looked at the rules for the SAMs Warbird racing and the RCPRO rules for the same. http://www.sacramento-rc-flyers.org/documents/SAM_Warbird_Racing_Rules.pdf http://www.rcpro.org/html/rules/warbird_racing/warbird_racing_rules.htm I see NOTHING that says you can't use a high performance ( Jett, Nelson, etc. ) two stroke in either set of rules. There is only the idle rule which is a safety consideration. As some of you have pointed out. There are regular sport four strokes and then there are YS four strokes. In that same vein, there are sport two strokes and then you have the other brands of more powerful two strokes. So.....whats all the deal?! I agree that the chart can stand a little tweaking as Skids has suggested . But drastic sweeping changes are to be avoided in my opinion. [/quote] The rule that an engine has to idle "IS" what says you can't use a Nelson, Jett. Tell me, was there an actual incident with a warbird that would not idle that set that rule in motion? I can show you video of a SAMS race where the guys are holding a YS powered plane as the pilot runs it up to full throttle before releasing it and planes landing dead stick because they would be too fast to land if running, How is this different from a plane with a Nelson that is released full throttle and the engine killed before landing. They can hide behind the "safety" statement, but from what I can see, that rule was imposed to keep out Q500 and Q40 engines. It's no surprise that most of the folks who are suggesting that we don't make sweeping changes are currently flying YS engines. If we are going to fix this, let's fix it, not just put a band-aid on it. Having a wing area chart that gives a huge edge to one brand of engine is not in the spirit of the fairness. Blessing, Terry
Posted on: 10/28/2009 2:39 PM by Author "still4given" in the forum "Scale Racing"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9209572

RE: Two Day Warbird Race in Sacramento
Hi Tony, You are always able to say what I'm trying to say with so much more clarity. Hi RocketRob, I wasn't trying to pick on what you suggested, just used it to help make my point. This discussion about wing area in this thread, was started because someone, (Jimmy?) created a chart revision to give a slot for the new YS 1.15 to run in so that they didn't have to jump up to the 1.20 size wing, which is where it would have to run with the current rules. He also changed some of the 2 stroke sizes while he was at it. Since a few of us at RCPRO have been discussing this issue, I jumped in and made some suggestions because I think it would be cool if RCPRO and SAMS were using similar charts so those who would be interested in flying at both venues could use the same planes. While my main concern is to try and give newcomers as big a selection as possible to help them get started, as a racer, it is hard not to keep the Gold class in the back of my mind. While the Bronze class is there to give folks who are new to racing a place to start, there are also a lot of guys who already have a lot of racing experience in AMA and other styles, who are looking at the Silver and Gold class as a place for them to get involved. I believe, that since we have breakout times controlling each of the classes, that the wing area chart shouldn't need to be so restrictive. As Tommy Gun brought up earlier, he feels the need to run a bigger engine in his radial engine planes than he would if he were flying a pointy nosed model. I say, why not? We have a breakout time anyway. If a guy tries to put too big of an engine in a plane, it is not going to fly right anyway. There is limit to what someone can do and still have a manageable plane. Anyway, this is great discussion, and once we decide on how to deal with the wing area rules, this thread will help folks understand how we got there. Blessings, Terry
Posted on: 10/28/2009 10:00 AM by Author "still4given" in the forum "Scale Racing"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9208893

RE: Two Day Warbird Race in Sacramento
[quote]ORIGINAL: JPGale Just to be clear, I was not racing a WM mustang with 75 at sac, I was indeed flying a pheonix spit with a YS91 on it, but I am now familiar with both in racing action (I fly (read crash) in the bay area series). [/quote] Hi James, Thanks for clarifying that. I know a couple of guys running the PM Spitfire with a YS .91. That is a very potent combination. As a matter of fact, Carry Buschbaum is leading the Silver class in RCPRO with that very setup. I found a website that lists the engine performance of many of the engines we have been discussing. I though it might be interesting as it applies to the comparisons between some of the larger 2 and 4 stroke engines. http://rcfaq.com/RPMSTATS/RPMBYCC2.HTM Blessings, Terry
Posted on: 10/27/2009 1:42 PM by Author "still4given" in the forum "Scale Racing"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9206221

RE: Two Day Warbird Race in Sacramento
[quote]ORIGINAL: RocketRob A little something for everyone! 90 - 140 - 550 with .1% fudge factor Bit smaller wing for 4strokers 1.5ish displacement bias for 2 strokers [/quote] Let's see, a PM Strega has 550 squares. I'm picturing one with a YS 1.40 on it. Hmmm? It seems to me that if we reduce the wing area for the current 4 strokes, we are doing nothing to help the newcomers in the sport. Except for the Gold class, almost everyone running a 4 stroke is already running more wing than necessary based on the chart. How is reducing the wing area for the 4 strokes going to encourage more folks to get involved? I don't own a .90-.91 2 stroke. Aside from a DF engine, can they really compete with a YS 1.40 on the same plane? Blessings
Posted on: 10/27/2009 11:42 AM by Author "still4given" in the forum "Scale Racing"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9205872