424  
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
Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>  

Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
424 - 8/22/2002 2:43:01 AM   
Bill Vargas



Posts: 1572
Joined: 1/6/2002
From: Team Coldies, CA, USA
Status: offline 		Regis, ok I just wanted to understand you,,, thats all.

Todays Sport engines are much better than what they used to be and I am sure you can admit to that as well. TT Pro 40 is in use every where and has been for a little while now. Its just that the RPM Rule is old and not up to date with todays engines.

I hardly doubt that 424 is going to go away with an increase/500 RPM Rule change. Its better to fix the old rule than make those with TT Pro 40's replace them with a lower RPM'd engine.

BV

_____________________________

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

(in reply to PylonWorld)
       Post #: 101

424 Unification - 8/22/2002 2:49:38 AM   
R.Bridge


 

Posts: 128
Joined: 3/22/2002
Status: offline 		Good point BV. Sounds like we could just update the old engine list (keeping the TT40 - only because it seems to be liked and used by most all) and update the RPM limit rule to better suit all the engines... problem solved?

Somebody better buddy up with Mike Condon to see if he will adjust the way the Nats is run to accomodate another class during the week....

RB

(in reply to PylonWorld)
       Post #: 102

The Butter on - 8/22/2002 2:59:25 AM   
Bill Vargas



Posts: 1572
Joined: 1/6/2002
From: Team Coldies, CA, USA
Status: offline 		YO Mikey, I love you man

BV

_____________________________

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

(in reply to PylonWorld)
       Post #: 103

424 Unification - 8/22/2002 3:02:53 AM   
R.Bridge


 

Posts: 128
Joined: 3/22/2002
Status: offline 		maybe a box of cigars......he went through a few smokes at the Nats this year..

RB

(in reply to PylonWorld)
       Post #: 104

424 NATS - 8/22/2002 3:53:36 AM   
Bill Vargas



Posts: 1572
Joined: 1/6/2002
From: Team Coldies, CA, USA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by kane
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 does not like to deviate from the rules.

I spoke to Steve Kaluf and he felt that the precedent for having a approval list has been set with the airframe process in QM40. Therefore, we could have a committee generate an approved engine list for 424. However, this is not in the current wording.

Regis, I hear what you are saying! However, the 16.5K rule is unclear and this still does not prevent any engine Mfg from entering the game at the NATS. This is what I want to prevent. This is the exact reason 428 is what it is. As to wood vs. composite, I will agree that the advantages are minimal. The problem is with perception. If a New person sees someone flying and winning with a composite the perception is that a composite is needed to be competitive. In turn, spending X$$$ to compete. This should not be in the equation for 424. If a composite plane was offered at a reasonable price, I would say let it in.

The biggest question to all of this is how to fit it into the NATS?? [/QUOTE]

Granted, the Pylon NATS is a busy runway for the week of,,, while running 428 and 422.

Whats the possibility of holding a NATS 424 Race at a location other than Muncie? East coast one year and West coast the next?
Good Idea-Bad Idea???

BV

_____________________________

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

(in reply to PylonWorld)
       Post #: 105

424 Unification - 8/22/2002 6:22:35 AM   
regis



Posts: 74
Joined: 1/7/2002
From: La Plata, MD,
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Regis, I hear what you are saying! However, the 16.5K rule is unclear and this still does not prevent any engine Mfg from entering the game at the NATS. [/QUOTE]

What part of the 16.5K provision is unclear? I don't see any wiggle room at all. As for "... does not prevent any engine Mfg from entering the game at the NATS." Why do you want to [COLOR=green]prevent any engine from entering the game at the NATS[/COLOR] that fully meets the AMA 424 specs? The 16.5K provision levels the field but restricts no engine otherwise legal - not even the TT40 (in my opinion, I have a couple) providing. All this whining about the 16.5K provision makes me wonder about the motives. (If you have an engine that performs up to spec (16.5K) then there is no incentive to 'work on it'. I want to see 424 at the nats, but believe any effort to change the current NMPRA blessed rules, will only delay the work and planning needed to see it happen.

_____________________________

Regis 0o

(in reply to PylonWorld)
       Post #: 106

424 Unification - 8/22/2002 6:55:49 AM   
PylonWorld



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

What do your TT Pro 40's turn an APC 9x6 Sport prop at when peaked or pinched?

_____________________________

Don Stegall
RCPRO Chairman of the Board

(in reply to PylonWorld)
       Post #: 107

424 at the Nats - 8/22/2002 8:24:30 AM   
daven



Posts: 7023
Joined: 12/7/2001
From: Andover, MN, USA
Status: online 		All this talk is great, but unless someone gets approval from Mike C. it will never happen. The fact is, Mike has worked his butt off the past few years putting this thing together. I know he stated earlier that there just wasn't time to get it done, and I kinda agree with him. We were blessed with pretty good weather this year. It only takes one bad weather day to throw the whole schedule off.

For those of us that have traveled to fly both 428 and 422, we are already spending 5-6 days to get in a maximum of 30-35 minutes each of actual flight time. And thats considering you make the finals in both classes. Although I agree 424 should be flown at the nats, who is willing to step up, organize, and run this class. In my opinion, it should not interfere with the current schedule, as I truely don't believe there is enough wiggle room to get it done (even with trolleys) under the current hectic schedule.

The 424 event could be hosted by 424 fliers, obviously they would not want current 428 fliers to fly? As to the RPM limit, the only reason I was against it, was because it was so hard to police. I have NEVER seen an engine tached after a race because someone thought it was too fast. I wouldn't know how to modify an engine if I tried. Even at the nats, I have never seen an engine torn apart due to extreme speed.

I'm not trying to name, names but there was one plane at the Nats this year that was extemely fast, although it seemed to be all over the course. I don't think I had ever seen a quickee that fast as compared to the rest of the field. And no, it was not a Vortex, and that is all I will say. I don't believe that engine was looked at, and to be honest I haven't seen an engine looked at closely in the past three years. Not sure if that is right or wrong, but maybe someone else can elaborate on weather engines are spot checked???

_____________________________

Dave Norman

klasskote.com
supertrc.com

(in reply to PylonWorld)
       Post #: 108

Rules - 8/22/2002 9:30:30 AM   
Bill Vargas



Posts: 1572
Joined: 1/6/2002
From: Team Coldies, CA, USA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by regis


What part of the 16.5K provision is unclear? I don't see any wiggle room at all. As for "... does not prevent any engine Mfg from entering the game at the NATS." Why do you want to [COLOR=green]prevent any engine from entering the game at the NATS[/COLOR] that fully meets the AMA 424 specs? The 16.5K provision levels the field but restricts no engine otherwise legal - not even the TT40 (in my opinion, I have a couple) providing. All this whining about the 16.5K provision makes me wonder about the motives. (If you have an engine that performs up to spec (16.5K) then there is no incentive to 'work on it'. I want to see 424 at the nats, but believe any effort to change the current NMPRA blessed rules, will only delay the work and planning needed to see it happen. [/QUOTE]

Regis, In reference to the above and your #108 post above this,,, The 16.5k rpm rule is old. Most of all the new engines out there can turn or are rated for 17k. The engines I looked at tonite were the TT pro, OS, MDS and the Magnum,,, All rated at 17K with the exception that the Magnum is rated for 17.5k on the Towerhobbies tech notes page,,, so we won t go there and the engine you question is the TT Pro 40.

So what you are telling me is,,, everyone thats running an engine thats rated at 17k(TT Pro 40), has to go out and buy a new engine to meet the 16.5 k rpm limit? Kind of silly to do that when all thats needed is a simple number change/rule change to read 17,000 vice 16,500 rpms.

Checking the rpm's of an engine while pinching the fuel line is not a good thing,,, you'll cause the engine to lean out and heat up,,, everyone knows that you don t launch at peak rpm's because the engine will go lean within 2 laps and you'll end up cooking the engine.

It should also be understood that checking the rpm's is with the needle valve only,,, not by pinching the fuel line.

The last time I read the NMPRA rules, they were the same as AMA,,, I could be wrong so I will go and check

The Motive, to have the old removed and the engine of Today Incorporated into,,, so that it will be legal for a 424 NATS Race one day

I need two (2) more signatures on a rules change proposal.

BV

< Message edited by Bill Vargas -- Aug 22 2002 6:02AM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to PylonWorld)
       Post #: 109

424 Unification - 8/22/2002 11:20:45 AM   
MDP


 

Posts: 116
Joined: 2/12/2002
From: Phoenix, OR, USA
Status: offline 		Regis ......There were two pilots with two new TT Pro's this week getting ready for the Medford race. After running eight tanks of fuel each, & pulling out the head shim, one turned 16,200 & the other 16,400, dead lean, with APC 9-6"s, & 15% Power Master fuel. These engines are AMA 424 legal. You can add, or subtract as many head shims you like, & this is also AMA 424 legal.

(in reply to PylonWorld)
       Post #: 110

424 Unification - 8/22/2002 5:33:19 PM   
MikeyD


 

Posts: 72
Joined: 4/19/2002
From: Indianapolis
Status: offline 		All this talk is great, but unless someone gets approval from Mike C. it will never happen. The fact is, Mike has worked his butt off the past few years putting this thing together. I know he stated earlier that there just wasn't time to get it done, and I kinda agree with him. We were blessed with pretty good weather this year. It only takes one bad weather day to throw the whole schedule off.

For those of us that have traveled to fly both 428 and 422, we are already spending 5-6 days to get in a maximum of 30-35 minutes each of actual flight time. And thats considering you make the finals in both classes. Although I agree 424 should be flown at the nats, who is willing to step up, organize, and run this class. In my opinion, it should not interfere with the current schedule, as I truely don't believe there is enough wiggle room to get it done (even with trolleys) under the current hectic schedule.

This year at the Nat's there was nothing scheduled Friday and Saturday? Not to say that would be the same for next year, but that should address the wiggle room ??


Obviously put Kane on it. He seems to have the drive to get this going and get it going NOW. He is very familiar with the voting process and his opinion should be heard on all issues concerning this matter.

RB


I'm with Randy on this. Likewise if I can help let me know


Mike DeNeve

(in reply to PylonWorld)
       Post #: 111

All Composite Quickee under $200.00 - 8/22/2002 5:45:20 PM   
MikeyD


 

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

I've got a Quickie that Kangke Industrial is planning to produce for under $200 in all molded composite. Actually there are two of them. One is a low end model with external linkages and an easier to fly wing and the other one is The Smasher with all internal linkages. They already produce the F3D/30 in all molded composite for $157.77 retail and it's just a little smaller than a Q-40.

Do you have a pic of this quickee? I did not see it on the WEB site? What is there definition of an all molded composite aircraft?
(Hmmm...that could be a whole other discussion). I did not see the type of construction on the WEB site for the F3D/30.


Thanks
Mike DeNeve

(in reply to PylonWorld)
       Post #: 112

424 Unification - 8/22/2002 6:22:54 PM   
regis



Posts: 74
Joined: 1/7/2002
From: La Plata, MD,
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]. I understand the TT 40 is allowed (right?) and I actually like the engine. But my engine will easily run 17K+ on the ground with a 9X6 prop. [/QUOTE]

MDP, I don't know if your blowing smoke or what. If you are right then we have no problem and there is no need to change the 16.5K limit . As for 16.5K being [COLOR=purple]old[/COLOR] , well I guess you could say the ten commandment are [COLOR=purple]old[/COLOR] too. I do not have a precision tack - and would like you to be right. But that means a lot of us have very bad tacks. But if I am right, a change to 17K doesn't cut it - some TT40 will still exceed 17K. Anyway, let's push forward for the 424 at the nats (and let chips fall were they may ). I lot of us have had erroneous assumptions about 424 rules. This 'discussion' has cleared up a lot of misconceptions (thanks Don) and hopefully enlighten us all). Nobody reading this thread should get blind sided down the line. And let us all keep in mind that 424 racing is sport racing. Let's keep it that way and make FUN for ALL .

_____________________________

Regis 0o

(in reply to PylonWorld)
       Post #: 113

424 Unification - 8/22/2002 6:27:00 PM   
kane


 

Posts: 255
Joined: 6/28/2002
From: Arlington Heights, IL, USA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by regis


What part of the 16.5K provision is unclear? I don't see any wiggle room at all. As for "... does not prevent any engine Mfg from entering the game at the NATS." Why do you want to [COLOR=green]prevent any engine from entering the game at the NATS[/COLOR] that fully meets the AMA 424 specs? The 16.5K provision levels the field but restricts no engine otherwise legal - not even the TT40 (in my opinion, I have a couple) providing. All this whining about the 16.5K provision makes me wonder about the motives. [/QUOTE]

The part that is "UNCLEAR" is 16.5K checked on the ground. What does that mean in your mind? "PEAKED", "PINCHED", "SANDBAGGING", "I DON'T KNOW", "HMMMM, SOUNDS GOOD TO ME", "LOOK MY TACH SAYS 14.2", AND SO ON.

I don't want any engine mfg entering the game at the NATS, because I feel the engine should be tested first to see if it is an appropriate choice for 424. Also, I would like to keep the expense of the event down to a minimum. So if the 16.5K is appropriate for sport engines and not HIGH performance engines keep and a clear up how it is checked. Make it cut and dry, "SIMPLE".

My "MOTIVES".....I am secretly plotting to rule the world, whowhooHAAAAHAAAAAA! I am going to build the bestest, fastest, coolest, betterest 424 model in the world and I will dominate the 424 scene. SHHHH, I will do all of this by making it look like a TT 40, that turns 16.5K on the ground.

Who is WHINNING? I am not a WHINNER, just ask. Honestly, I don't whine. Why are you guys picking on me??

As to The MASTER, Randy, I spend lots of money, Bridge, I would graciously accept the responsibility of 424 coordinator for the NMPRA, I think it should be counted seperatly anyway.

As to the NATS, I agree with Mike there is wiggle room to run 424 in its current format. We just need to beat up on Mike Condom until he says yes. I will also take on that responsibility!

Last but not least, NMPRA rules and AMA rules are two different animals.

Least, Don give a sneak peak at the composite quickee, please!!!!

_____________________________

Dan Kane

(in reply to PylonWorld)