424 Unification  
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Tower Hobbies
Enter up to 4 keywords or Tower stock numbers
Logged in as Guest



Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
       



All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> Pylon Universe - RC Pylon Racing >> General Racing Discussion >> 424 Unification Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>  

Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
424 Unification - 8/15/2002 1:03:39 AM   
SSAN



Posts: 446
Joined: 1/19/2002
From: Queen Creek, AZ, USA
Status: offline 		PJ,

I got 17,400 RPM Peak on the ground for my TT Pro .40. Oh... Shhhhhh!!! Don't let anyone know.

Sam S.

_____________________________

SAM-RAI... The Ultimate WOOD Q-500!
www.Sam-RaiRacing.com

(in reply to PylonWorld)
       Post #: 76

424 Unification - 8/16/2002 8:38:38 PM   
PylonWorld



Posts: 1346
Joined: 12/29/2001
From: Monroe, NC, USA
Status: offline 		Stan,

That's a real good point about the props and taching engines. It makes the engine list even more important, because the props do vary significantly.

I heard a story at the NATS about someone using the tarmac to reduce the prop diameter so that the engine would turn a certain rpm. While the engine was running, they would hold the plane's nose down and scuff the tips, and measure the rpm's. They did it several times until they got the rpm's they wanted. I don't remember which event or where this took place.

< Message edited by PylonWorld -- Aug 16 2002 6:17PM >

_____________________________

Don Stegall
RCPRO Chairman of the Board

(in reply to PylonWorld)
       Post #: 77

424 Unification - 8/16/2002 11:41:06 PM   
PylonWorld



Posts: 1346
Joined: 12/29/2001
From: Monroe, NC, USA
Status: offline 		Stan,

I have found the occaisional flakes in tearing down GP-25's. Maybe they're on different assembly lines and the Pro series are handled better. The March 2001 MAN specifically commented on the cleanliness and precision of the TT Pro 40, so maybe I got some flukes.

>> By the way the main parts of the OS and TT 40 and Nelson for that matter are almost identical. I suspect you might be able to interchange the piston and sleeves of the TT40 and the OS. Maybe some other parts as well. They are after all clones of the same design. <<

Then why not let the O.S. 40 FX play? They are only $28-35 more than the TT Pro 40 and they are always in stock at Tower, usually at $104.99 or $109.99. If they are clones and the OS outperforms the TT (which I've only heard and not confirmed), then something is different.

I agree with Paul about the claiming rule at $100. I always put at least 3 hours into breaking in an engine. I'm buying a tent for the races and for breaking in engines because it get's hot out there running engines for many hours at a time.

My primary concern is about locking out manufacturers. Sure the rpm limit locks out the JETT's, unless you go way down in displacement, but I like choice. APRA does at least allow some choice. The APRA and Jim Allen and others have done significant testing. Maybe the other groups are only allowing one engine because they don't want to repeat the testing, or they count on a one engine event being sufficient. I would like to see the NMPRA endorse an engine list for 424, and possibly provide the engines for testing.

_____________________________

Don Stegall
RCPRO Chairman of the Board

(in reply to PylonWorld)
       Post #: 78

424 "unification" - 8/21/2002 7:37:19 AM   
CrashBevil


 

Posts: 29
Joined: 2/3/2002
From: Hurst, TX, USA
Status: offline 		O.K. I have actively read every post in this forum and now I have to have my minute on the soapbox.
I am sure that this will annoy the poop out of many of you, but hey, thats what I am best at.

First of all, I would be interested in knowing how many of you actually fly 424? I am betting that most of you prefer 428.

I just started AMA racing after flying and winning our local clubs races every year. (I'm not trying to brag, I just took it more seriously and spent more time practicing). I wanted to race against equals and get my feet wet in 424 before moving up to 428. I have joined the NMPRA and am in the process of joining RCPRO. Now that I have, I am more confused than ever before about legal engines, etc.
As I understand it from the AMA rulebook, it is up to the hosting club to set engine rules in advance of the event to keep it even. Pick an RPM limit or a claiming rule or whatever it takes to keep the field level and commit.

If you want to encourage new racers and make 424 a national event, do what the local clubs have been doing and what the AMA says to do in the rules: When (if) AMA makes 424 national, have them post whatever engine limits they are going to enforce somewhere public when they make the announcement to race.

In my opinion, the 5 pages of posts in this thread will do little or nothing to unify 424 and will do a lot to drive new racers away from AMA races and back to local events.

(in reply to PylonWorld)
       Post #: 79

424 Unification - 8/21/2002 8:02:15 AM   
CrashBevil


 

Posts: 29
Joined: 2/3/2002
From: Hurst, TX, USA
Status: offline 		FWIW, Back when our club was running local races, we allowed the .46FX with tuned pipes (I like going FAST). I had my Predator clocked by FWPD at 182mph sustained. We were all running our 2.5 mile course in 1:31. Now I am switching to 424 rules and this thing seems SLOW. I am running the 424 short course (1.6mi) in 1:41. (That has nothing to do with anything, I know).

The problem with a 16K limit is that technology is catching up with the hobby. 5 years ago, a 16K .40 was unheard of outside of racing. In todays world, EVERY bearinged engine will turn 16K with a 9X6 prop. Porting is more efficient, glow plugs are better, bearings are smoother, etc. If you insist on an RPM limit, the limit needs to match the times. I still think that a $100 claiming rule is the best way to prevent hot engines.
As far as Newbies being beaten by the experienced pilots;
If the only practice that the newbie is doing is during the race, he will always lose. The guys that practice, WIN. I burn at least 1 gallon of fuel a month running laps with my caller. With a meet coming up at the end of Sept., you can raise that # to 2 gallons a month.
As my old trumpet teacher told me:
"Practice does not make perfect, PERFECT practice makes perfect."

(in reply to PylonWorld)
       Post #: 80

424 Unification - 8/21/2002 10:08:21 AM   
daven



Posts: 7024
Joined: 12/7/2001
From: Andover, MN, USA
Status: offline 		quote

"I have joined the NMPRA and am in the process of joining RCPRO".

Well, at least with the NMPRA membership you will get an occasional newsletter. I have yet to see anything from RCPRO although I signed up nearly a year ago. Don't waste your time with RCPRO, that organization has done absolutely nothing that I am aware of to promote racing.

Considering the fact that the founder of RCPRO has decided to run for NMPRA president, I'm curious about his progress. What exactly has RCPRO done for anyone? Also, why would anyone elect this person for NMPRA president considering the lack of accomplishments made with RCPRO?

_____________________________

Dave Norman

klasskote.com
supertrc.com

(in reply to PylonWorld)
       Post #: 81

Re: 424 "unification" - 8/21/2002 7:00:03 PM   
kane


 

Posts: 255
Joined: 6/28/2002
From: Arlington Heights, IL, USA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by CrashBevil
As I understand it from the AMA rulebook, it is up to the hosting club to set engine rules in advance of the event to keep it even. Pick an RPM limit or a claiming rule or whatever it takes to keep the field level and commit.

If you want to encourage new racers and make 424 a national event, do what the local clubs have been doing and what the AMA says to do in the rules: When (if) AMA makes 424 national, have them post whatever engine limits they are going to enforce somewhere public when they make the announcement to race.

[/QUOTE]

Thanks for your input "CRASH",

Sounds good on paper, let the local clubs do what they are doing and have AMA publish new rules if and when 424 is run at the nationals.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. IF, 424 was run at the NATS, it would have to run as published in the rulebook. There is no National engine list, etc. This is a local thing. The national rules restrict engines per their given RPM.

All I have attempted to do was to gather input on an agreeable format for 424 in the AMA rule book. I am not trying to drive away "NEWBIES" what ever that means.

I hope that everyone understands that if 424 was to be run at the nats with the current wording, you could see Nelsons, Jetts (if they choose to produce a un-piped muffler) and composite airframes. Which to me says that if I was competing at a local level with my predator and TT40, I need to go buy the fast stuff to win. I don't want this to happen. It is supposed to be an entry level event without all of this other stuff (that is what 428 is for).

The real question is should 424 be run at the NATS??? I say yes. If NO, you are correct this was a waste of time.

_____________________________

Dan Kane

(in reply to PylonWorld)
       Post #: 82

Neophyte Question on Rules - 8/21/2002 7:21:29 PM   
MikeyD


 

Posts: 72
Joined: 4/19/2002
From: Indianapolis
Status: offline 		Danny

There have been allot of people very passionate on this subject. I too would like to see a beginner class at the NAT's, but I agree with you on the current rules as they are written.

Here's my neophyte ??, can't a proposal or addendum be submitted to tighten the wording on the current rules. Engines and the type of airframe seem to be the pivot point of this becoming a NAT's event.

1. How long does an approval process take. (Votes Etc..)

2. If a proposal was done today and passed, would it be eligible for next years Nat's? (Condon would include this wouldn't he?)

3. Could this be considered an Urgent proposal.

Thanks
DeNeve

(in reply to PylonWorld)
       Post #: 83

424 Unification - 8/21/2002 7:57:04 PM   
MDP


 

Posts: 116
Joined: 2/12/2002
From: Phoenix, OR, USA
Status: offline 		DAN.........You are right. Nelsons, Jetts, & composite aircraft, would kill 424 quick. This equipment would bump up the speed to 140/150 mph, & $500 airplanes. Thats why NEPRO spell out TT Pro, & no composite airframe. Thats why APRA has an engine list, & no composite airframe......AMA needs to confront these issues in order for a national unification for 424...... NEPRO, APRA, etc, have been succesful for many years with their system. An engine list, and no composite aircraft, unless there was a composite aircraft available for around $150.00 would work. Keeping the cost & speed down is what does the trick.......

(in reply to PylonWorld)
       Post #: 84

424 Unification - 8/21/2002 8:50:59 PM   
regis



Posts: 74
Joined: 1/7/2002
From: La Plata, MD,
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]I hope that everyone understands that if 424 was to be run at the nats with the current wording, you could see Nelsons, Jetts (if they choose to produce a un-piped muffler) and composite airframes. Which to me says that if I was competing at a local level with my predator and TT40, I need to go buy the fast stuff to win. I don't want this to happen. It is supposed to be an entry level event without all of this other stuff (that is what 428 is for). [/QUOTE]

Everybody, please re-read the current AMA 424 rules. Several years ago, a NMPRA team spent more then a year "[COLOR=seagreen]unifying[/COLOR] " the the rules and that is what we have now . 424 has picked up since then. AMA can not make a list. (keep in mind that there is a two year rules cycle .) The predator and TT40 are as competitive as your abilities - against any other [COLOR=red]AMA legal [/COLOR] 424 plane/engine combination (bar none). Composite airframes have no advantage over a well crafted woodie. The single most effective restriction is the 16.5K rpm limit. Remove (or even modify it) and "Katey bar the door" - forget 424. Are the 424 rules perfect? Are the 428 rules perfect? Are any rules perfect? (Well maybe the ten commandants!) The current rules can support 424 at the nats and should be used just as they are. Just put enough shims in the head to preclude exceeding 16.5K (on the pinch). Don't weld your stock non-tuned muffler closed and make sure the stock carb is legal and use whatever .40 engine you desire. If you want to spend $300 dollars on an engine and $400 on a composite plane, fine with me. I am confident that my TT40 woodie (in the right hands ) will be just as competitive. Remember, we are talking about AMA Nationals - not local racing. 16.3.3.b. provide the rule variations that work well for local racing (and are AMA sanction-able) - thanks to the NMPRA team's efforts. Finally, if RCPRO has done nothing for you, then I guess you haven't been using this forum or any of the informational pages Don has authored. In the past year, Don through PylonWorld's web site has done more to promote pylon racing then any one else.

P.S. Mike, Are you saying that your wooden plane are not competitive against the composites?

_____________________________

Regis 0o

(in reply to PylonWorld)
       Post #: 85

424 Unification - 8/21/2002 9:28:43 PM   
PylonWorld



Posts: 1346
Joined: 12/29/2001
From: Monroe, NC, USA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by daven
quote

"I have joined the NMPRA and am in the process of joining RCPRO".

Well, at least with the NMPRA membership you will get an occasional newsletter. I have yet to see anything from RCPRO although I signed up nearly a year ago. Don't waste your time with RCPRO, that organization has done absolutely nothing that I am aware of to promote racing.

Considering the fact that the founder of RCPRO has decided to run for NMPRA president, I'm curious about his progress. What exactly has RCPRO done for anyone? Also, why would anyone elect this person for NMPRA president considering the lack of accomplishments made with RCPRO? [/QUOTE]

Dave,

Actually progress is being made on RCPRO. The auto responder is not working yet because I've been busy. I've been building the communications infrastructure which includes a mail server so that all members will have well known and permanent email addresses and the ability to perform membership votes. The date for free memberships is coming up. RCPRO has been in membership drive mode and quite a few people have signed up for it. I've been working on the AMA SIG requirements and defining the infrastructure that I envision so that the infrastructure committee will have my vision as a guide when things get started. I've been talking about the concept and getting feedback from NMPRA members. That qualifies as promoting the concept and I have been getting stuff done.

Yes, I am running for [URL=http://www.pylonworld.com/organizations/nmpra_elections/don_stegall/don_stegall.htm]NMPRA President[/URL], and one thing that I discussed with the NMPRA membership at the NATS is whether or not the RCPRO concept should be part of the NMPRA or not. About half said yes, and the other half said no. If I'm elected, one of the first things I will be doing is conducting a membership vote on ths subject.

I work very hard on things before they become reality. I like to do things right the first time. Like the all molded composite plane that I have been working on. When you see it, it will be ready for prime time.

I just bought an 11 acre field behind my house. I'm going to have electric racing, 25 sized AT-6 racing, and 25-28 sized Q-500 Novice (aka Slow Quickie) at the field which is primarily going to be electric except for pylon practice. The field is big enough for the long course, but I don't want to hold 422 and 428 races here, although I will use it for 424/428 practice.That has taken up some time.

I'm acquiring molds for some existing airplanes right now. I get a lot done, but I don't spout off everything I'm working on to everyone because people want to talk about it and that takes up time.

At the NATS, I was extremely in demand during processing. So many people wanted to talk to me about PylonWorld that I could hardly make it through processing.

I could say some nasty things about you too, but we don't do that in these forums, and I am going to leave it at that.

_____________________________

Don Stegall
RCPRO Chairman of the Board

(in reply to PylonWorld)
       Post #: 86

The Dead Dog - 8/21/2002 9:36:26 PM   
Bill Vargas



Posts: 1572
Joined: 1/6/2002
From: Team Coldies, CA, USA
Status: offline 		Regis, are you a Disgruntled Pylon Racer? You seem to keep beating up a dead dog here by complaining about the TT Pro 40. After Reading your postings about it,,, they seem to be working ok in your neck of the woods.

I vote for a BOX Stock Sport Engine List, to include the TT Pro 40 (engine example lists are the nepro and apra), A rule change proposal for the RPM limit to 17k and everything else to remain the same and Lets Race

BV

_____________________________

If it ain't leaking oil, then something's wrong,,, USMC, RETIRED!

(in reply to PylonWorld)
       Post #: 87

424 Unification - 8/21/2002 11:18:23 PM   
kane


 

Posts: 255
Joined: 6/28/2002
From: Arlington Heights, IL, USA
Status: offline 		If a proposal is written as "URGENT" and passed the contest board, the NATS could be run using this new rule. How long will this take??? If it was initiated now it "could" be down prior to the NATS next year.

If the proposal was written to fall into the normal 3 year rule cycle, the rule would not take affect until the completion of this time period.

As to running the NATS with a deviation from the published rules. It is not out of the question but is highly unlikely. There is a long process and the AMA