UKCAA - Models, engines and schedules

[Steve Dunning]

I have taken it upon myself to propose the following:

Models

The list that KC did is a good starting point. In all of this I don't want to be too rigid, all that does is deflate interest and make things too exclusive. The whole aim is to appreciate the models that existed before 4 strokes and 2 metre models took over.

Basically, any model that is capable of aerobatics published (designed) prior to 1986 is allowed. For example, the Bullet or Jetta would not be a World Champs design but would give the club flier an excellent, economical model with which to enjoy the flying and even try one of the two proposed schedules.

We have to accept that building skills have to be learnt/re-learnt and therefore models such as the ARTF Pheonix 7 or using glass fuses or foam wings should not be frowned upon as they will assist in people taking part. This forum could be used to show construction of certain models. (Guess I'm putting myself up for one of these)

To sum up, flexibilty will allow more people to participate and not feel overawed by other models being used.

Engines

Engines used in the Classic period can be expensive. 60 size '90 engines provide more than adequate power on standard silencers and are far more economical (plus spares availability) to run than high nitro racing engines. That is not to decry the use of these, just suggesting a mor economical method in these economic times.

Electric should be allowed, as ably demonstrated by Stuart Foster at this years Festival of Flight, using this to power an Astro Hog, a Mike Birch Moonglow and an American design called the Nimbus II (Tom Brett design).

Schedules

I have two proposals, not to say that we are looking for an all out competitive association, they just give people something to aim at to improve their flying. Both are non -turnaround type.

Novice

Take off (not scored)

Two Inside Loops (U) K3

Straight Inverted (D) K2

Square Loop (U) K2

2 Consecutive Rolls (D) K3

Double Immelman (U) K2

Slow Roll (D) K3

2 Turn Spin (U) K3

Landing (not scored)

Expert

Take off (not scored)

Double Immelman (U) K2

Slow Roll (D) K3

2 Consecutive Loops (U) K3

2 Consecutive Rolls (D) K3

Top Hat with Half Rolls up and down (U) K3

Two Outside Loops (D) K4

Square Loop on Corner (U) K3

Inverted Flight (D) K2

Stall Turn ¼ roll up and down (U) K2

Cuban Eight with Half Rolls (D) K3

Two Turn Spin (U) K2

Landing (not scored)

Please note that all the above is up for discussion but failure to start now would mean that the winter building season is lost. I look forward to hearing peoples feelings regarding the above.

Steve

[scott finnie]

im lost maybe just too late for me

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

I suspect it relates to the Welcome to UKCAA thread, Scott. Not very clear from the title though.

[Bob Cotsford]

"Square Loop on Corner (U) K3" - as in a diamond? Double Immelman - as an ascending "S"?

The rest sound ok - I'd better start practising my slow rolls, they got worse with the years, not better!

As for the models, there were glass fuselage/foam wing kits available in the later part of this period so I can't see a problem, besides which it allows for my Wega Blue Angel (currently half built).

Engines - I don't see any need for restrictions on make or model, certainly outside of an 'expert' class. Having said that, modern 60 2 strokes or 90 4 strokes are way better than the cross flow pre-80s stuff, but larger models from the later period may benefit from a 90 2s or 120 4s though (once model sizes started creeping up). My Marabu (~1970) is quite happy on an old cross flow Enya 60-III BB though the King Altair (1964 and 80" ) really needs everything it's MVVS90 can give, not that it's representative of the period. You've seen Paul's white Tornado being rung out by Ollie, that's an Evo 60 with standard silencer. It probably performs better than mine with a period OS 61SF.

My vote would be to leave engine spec open initially and see how it goes.

 

Oh yes, Ollie Witt is not allowed to compete!

Edited By Bob Cotsford on 15/12/2012 22:01:14

[Bob Cotsford]

Posted by Martin Harris on 15/12/2012 21:39:06:

I suspect it relates to the Welcome to UKCAA thread, Scott. Not very clear from the title though.

maybe the fact it's in the UKCAA folder is a clue Martin?

[scott finnie]

Yeah sorry guys didnt look what folder for the first time so it seemed confusing to the eye for me haha

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Well yes Bob - that's how I worked it out but not everyone looks at that when scanning through threads and I do think the title could do with a little more info. Scott's confusion was testament to this...

[Bob Cotsford]

that's one of the drawbacks of checking 'latest posts', it throws up all sorts. Maybe Steve or the Mods could amend the title or desription? I suspect it would have to be a mod by now.

[Tony Bennett]

sounds daunting to a poor flier like me.

i can do the take of and landing bit ok.

[Bob Cotsford]

Tony, to date these do's have been fly-for-fun get togethers. I'm no great shakes on the sticks (to be accurate shakes may be quite appropriate to my flying) and will be along for the fun element rather than competition. I'll have a go, if only to show how not to do it. The hardest one listed to my mind is the slow roll, not easy to fly accurately. The rest are just loops and rolls or parts thereof.

[Steve Dunning]

The schedules were there just to give people something to try, not what they had to fly at future meets. If people want the meetings next year to be as per Paul's Sleap 'do's' then that's fine. I think everybody agrees on the model types expected and construction methods have developed anyway. Don't worry Bob, you continue with your Blue Angel, will love to see that!

We all seem to agree on the spirit of the idea so let's go along with that. I remember at the first Sleap event people were slipping on the drool left as the models were looked at. That's what it's all about.

Hope this clears things up a little.

Steve

[kc]

The one fault I find with Steve's 'rules' is that he mentions ARTF will be allowed. In my view this destroys the whole thing - if you allow ARTF then someone will find a model that is eligable --and the whole thing becomes an ARTF monopoly with the mentality -if its destroyed I just go & buy another one- instead of the careful approach needed if you have put months of work into building. It will all become like the indoor flying ---it's only foam it's expendable and I only have to go and buy another tomorrow so whats it matter if I crash. Wrong attitude!

In my view for Classic you build your own model then fly it. Otherwise there is no point.

My comment on Bob's posting is that pre 86 is was maximum .61 engines ( I think ) so that should be the limit. No allowance for 4 strokes- they are .61 maximum too ( i.e not worthwhile as not competitve in larger model) Needing big and expensive engines is what we want ot avoid isn't it?

[Andy Green]

I have an OS 80 four stroke for my curare. Doesn't look like it will be eligible..

Andy

[Bob Cotsford]

erm - aren't these supposed to be guidelines? My view is that we want to encourage participants, not discourage them with a load of rules. Where do you draw the line? I'd still say anything within the spirit goes, with maybe stricter controls for 'expert' class models. No ARTFs? What about second-hand models? To quote from Steve's original post "To sum up, flexibilty will allow more people to participate and not feel overawed by other models being used.".

Andy, I'm currently building a glass and foam Blue Angel, the original was all built up so does that mean that would be ineligable too? My King Altair has a 90 in it, another one out. The Marabu was second hand and has a foam wing - one more gone. That leaves me with the Tornado with it's OS61SF, but wait - the tuned pipe is a modern quiet design so is that out too?

KC, I understand your point of view, but SC and ASP 4 strokes costs are similar to OS 2 strokes aren't they? Certainly they are cheaper than NovoRossi or Jett 60s. As for second hand prices for something like a Hanno - forget it! I actually think that 4 strokes aren't an easy fit in a lot of classic models as the U/Cs don't allow for the bigger prop sizes. I'm struggling to get the Blue Angel to take a 12" prop let alone the 13 or 14" a 4 stroke would run. The typical 11*7.5 that used to be run is just not practical these days, they're far too noisy.

[minty morton]

If were not careful we'll be using 'old' radio---I don't think so! It's difficult to know where to draw the line and I think steve is trying to get into the spirit.

[Phil Green]

Posted by minty morton on 16/12/2012 21:56:05:

If were not careful we'll be using 'old' radio---I don't think so!

We wont ALL be using period radio, but you can bet that plenty will! (on 2.4 of course)

Fewer rules = more fun, fewer restrictions = more entrants

Cheers

Phil

[jeff2wings]

Well I have a O.S. Max 80-H that I was thinking would go nicely in a Dennis Hammant Warrior ( RM 59 ).........

However , I agree with most of what KC said ,I was showing some real interest in this until e.p. and artf where brought into the equation ,and If you are going to have a schedule for those that want to have a competitive element to their flying , then maybe one that was more decade appropriate ,60-70 ,70 -80,80 + ??

I know the idea is for a “fly-in “ with like minded people interested in these old aerobatic models ,but they are ( were ) made for completion , so it should be possible to include this in the days event ? Otherwise I may as well just continue fling my mustfire and swinger at my club site and save on travel cost !

BTW Tony,if you could put down your balsa knife for more than 5 mins you might improve your flying skills LOL !

[Tony Bennett]

but if i put down my balsa knife i won't get time to build my patern ship.

just need to find myself a nice plan. or build a wing for this.

[jeff2wings]

Ah ! the old "catch 22" conundrum

[Martyn K]

As a total newbie tocompetitive aerobatic flying, the Novice Schedule gives me something to practice against and doesn't look too onerous.

A couple of questions.

1. Why not score take off and landings (and approaches). I think they used to be scored at the time.

2. Is a slow roll a 5 second roll?

3.What do'U' and 'D' mean - I presume up and down - is that wind direction or vertical direction? Or is that a stoopid question?

4.What is meant by non-turnaround?

Cheers (and Merry Christmas)

Martyn

[Bill Michie]

Hi Martyn, I'll try answer some of your quessies.................

1. Good idea in principle though it may detract from the scoring of the "aerobatic" content of the whole flight. But agree nonetheless, with K factor of ONLY 1! You could also/alternatively, score takeoffs & landings ONLY, up to/ below say, 6ft...............

2. I think "in t' old days", it was 3-5 secs long. Longer is better, up to 5-6 secs.

3. "U" means "UPwind", ie into wind; "D" DOWNwind.............

4. It means all marked manoeuvres are done as centre ones, so you turn around however you wish (eg variations of half Cuban 8's, flat turn, stall turn, or whatever floats yer boat!); proper "turnaround" schedules mean ALL manoeuvres are specified & marked, including all turnarounds; additionally, all MUST be flown inside an imaginary "Box", 60deg either side of the centre. So the era we're talking about is "Pre-Turnaround" (AKA "Ballistic style"

 

Hope this helps

 

Looking forward to getting into this for old times' sake!

 

Regards & Happy Noo Yer also!

 

Bill

 

Edited to add: you'll also notice in general, looping manoeuvres mostly done into wind (outside loops/bunts from the top generally used to be started downwind IIRC), rolling manoeuvres downwind...............

Edited By Bill Michie on 31/12/2012 13:45:38

[Martyn K]

Thanks Bill
Now fully understood..

Martyn

[Steve Dunning]

Sorry Martyn for not replying to your questions and thanks to Bill for doing so. With the potential interest that has been shown, everything bodes well for some good meetings in 2013. Just waiting for confirmation of dates before publishing the first ones.

Happy New Year to all

Steve

[jeff2wings]

 

This is the aerobatic F.A.I schedule for ’66-’67 and if you can fly this using only reeds........

Never been able to do the figure M , and I have tried ,oh how I have tried lol

1.Take-off

2.Double stall turns (fig M )

3.Double Immelman

4.Three inside loop

4.Three inverted loops

5.Three rolls

6.Slow roll (min 5secs)

7.Rolling circle

8.Tail slide

9.Horizontal eight

10.Cuban eight

11.Vertical eight

12.Inverted straight flight

13.Inverted eight

14.Top hat

15.Three spins

16 Rectangular approach

17.Landing

Happy New year and patten pounding to you all

 

 

Edited By jeff2wings on 31/12/2012 19:33:58

[Martin McIntosh]

Hey, count me in on this lot, I didn`t build that Curare (see my photos) for nothing. I published a schedule typical of the mid to late 70`s on the GBRCAA forum site last year (or was it the year before?) but do not know if it is still there.