Standard vs. Expert  
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 >> Standard vs. Expert Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 6   next >   >>  

Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Standard vs. Expert - 8/8/2002 2:47:18 AM   
daven



Posts: 7026
Joined: 12/7/2001
From: Andover, MN, USA
Status: offline
In our area, we mix the experts with the beginners, and everyone flies against everyone.

At the end of the day, after all the points are counted. We seperate the Expert fliers from the beginners and award 1st, 2nd, and 3rd to each class.

This way, the beginners get to fly against the better pilots (which makes them better), but at the end of the day, they are only competing against the other begginer class fliers.

If we have a beginner that starts to dominate that class, we use the ol' peer pressure routine to get them to move up. It has never been an issue, and its usually pretty obvious when someone is ready to make the move.

_____________________________

Dave Norman

klasskote.com
supertrc.com
       Post #: 1

Standard vs. Expert - 8/13/2002 1:49:32 AM   
daven



Posts: 7026
Joined: 12/7/2001
From: Andover, MN, USA
Status: offline
I agree Dan.

We need to keep it simple. Get rid of the RPM rule and stick with an approved engine list. An RPM rule is too hard to enforce and will cause endless arguments in regards to how, when, and why it is checked.

Do we have an extra 3-5 minutes before or after every heat to check RPM readings? I don't think so.

_____________________________

Dave Norman

klasskote.com
supertrc.com

(in reply to daven)
       Post #: 2

Standard vs. Expert - 8/21/2002 10:08:21 AM   
daven



Posts: 7026
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 daven)
       Post #: 3

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



Posts: 7026
Joined: 12/7/2001
From: Andover, MN, USA
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.

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 daven)
       Post #: 4

TT 40 RPM - 8/16/2002 8:23:21 PM   
stand-RCU


 

Posts: 62
Joined: 12/28/2001
From: Austin, TX, USA
Status: offline
Make sure you use the same prop when making RPM comparisons. I have tested several 9x6 APC's on the ground and find there is a variance of at least 400 RPM between new from the bag APC's. I have subsequently marked one prop as my test bench prop and I always use it for testing TT 40's.

SD

(in reply to daven)
       Post #: 5

TT 40 - 8/16/2002 8:52:05 PM   
stand-RCU


 

Posts: 62
Joined: 12/28/2001
From: Austin, TX, USA
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by PylonWorld
Bill,

You seem to have missed some things. I haven't said bad things about the TT Pro 40 that aren't well known, and the only bad things I mentioned were the bearing problems and availability.

Plus, I'm talking about marketability. Ace R/C is not a top tier company that is a prime candidate for sponsorship. I'm thinking at a bigger scope than you seem to be.

I do own some Thunder Tiger engines and they are not as high in quality as the O.S. products I own. I always tear down the TT products before running them, and I usually just pop the backplate on the O.S. products, if that.
>>> I've been around TT Pro 40's, I just don't own one.<<<

Here's an O.S. 25 FX on the test stand just as of Saturday. All I did was pop the backplate, and it was as clean as it could be.
[/QUOTE]


There is NO TT40 bearing problem' none; that was fixed at least 2 years ago. I have never had a bearing failure in the 5 TT 40's that I own. I have had carb retainer screw problems which I fix by a rubber band around the carb and throttle arm. Recently I had a connecting rod failure on one of my 17,000 RPM engines.

I always pop the back plate on any new engine and I have yet to find any milling residue in my TT 40's. So I fail to get the tear down idea. Anyway the TT 40's are guaranteed and if you have ever sent one back you'll find that the response is fast and complete in replacing the engine. Why did I send one back you ask? Because the throttle retaining screw fell out and the engine ingested the spring damaging the crank shaft and case.

As for quality, I don't see the difference. The milling and boring appears to be the same. The metals appear to be similar, finish on the inside appears the same. Just exactly what is this quality difference?

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.

SD

(in reply to daven)
       Post #: 6

Standard vs. Expert - 8/23/2002 3:42:32 AM   
PylonWorld



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

The plane is nothing like a Racer II, except The Martin does have a pure MH-18B wing on it. The Smasher has a pure NACA 66-012 on it (fully symmetrical), at least for the time being.

Both are based on a design I created a year ago based on the Lancair 320/IV/Columbia and the Cirrus SR20 and SR22. The V-tail placement is higher than any of your planes I've seen and is based on the Beech Bonanza V-35 tail placement relative to the thrust line. The fuselage design was tested using Martin Hepperle's airfoil tools and is aerodynamically sound for the Reynolds numbers for the speed range of 150-200 mph. Considering that the fuselage accounts for 75% of the drag in straight and level flight for a Q-500, I am proud of the design. It took a lot of work. Some will say it looks like a Neme-Q, however, it is significantly different, especially aerodynamically.

The tail is bolted on like a Neme-Q and the Texas Consortium Q-500 (aka the Wreaked'em). The tail is in the 69 square inch area, which is a little larger than most Quickies other than the Neme-Q at 76.

I compiled a spreadsheet that has most of the dimensions of most of the current Quickies, so that I could be sure the things I'm doing fit into the parameters of known performance.

A person who saw it this past weekend said it looked like a V-Vector. A lot of people will say it looks like "so and so" because there's only so much you can do within the Q-500 rules. I can guarantee you and everyone else that it is not a copy of anything.

I guess I'll have to post some pics now ... I wanted it to be a surprise.

_____________________________

Don Stegall
RCPRO Chairman of the Board

(in reply to daven)
       Post #: 7

424 Unification - 8/7/2002 12:24:37 AM   
PylonWorld



Posts: 1346
Joined: 12/29/2001
From: Monroe, NC, USA
Status: offline
The general consenus from the 426, aka Q-500 Intermmediate thread seems to be that we should promote 424 heavily at the local level.

However, every time a newcomer shows up here, we seem to have to tell them to check and see what 424 variant rules are being run in their area. This is not a good thing, as has been pointed out many times before.

The two areas of variance are the engine restrictions and the airframe restrictions.

The most common engine allowed is the Thunder Tiger Pro 40. This engine is not a high quality engine, and from the information I have, APRA allows the bearings to be changed because the stock bearings are marginal, or at least were marginal in the past. NEPRO and now SEMPRA only allow the TT Pro 40 in 424.

Marketing of pylon racing has been brought up as an issue, too. What sense does it make to lock O.S. out of the game? Many, many sport flyers love the O.S. engines because they can take them out of the box, put them on the plane, run a tank of fuel through them, and go flying. The O.S. quality allows for this. The lower end engines require cleaning, etc, before being ready to run. MDS is also being locked out of the game. O.S. is the Great Planes/Hobbico in-house and premium line and MDS is Horizon Hobby's primary line. From a marketing perspective, allowing only the TT Pro 40 is a major problem.

The airframe restrictions some(many?) groups are using also limit marketing potential. It is easier to mass produce a decent bolt on V-tail in composite materials than with wood. I've heard the argument that as soon as a low cost composite Q-500 airframe is available, the wood wing / wood tail restrictions may/will be lifted. Is this true? Should it be true?

_____________________________

Don Stegall
RCPRO Chairman of the Board

(in reply to daven)
       Post #: 8

Standard vs. Expert - 8/7/2002 2:34:05 AM   
PylonWorld



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

The airframe and engine passage in the 424 rules is included below.

[COLOR=crimson]16.3.1. Airframe.The airframe specifications
for this event are identical to those for Quickie 500
(Event No. 428).

16.3.2. Powerplant
a. Engine.

1) Maximum displacement:0.403 cubic inch.

2) Configuration:Stock, commercially available,
front-intake, side-exhaust.

3) Intake:A single carburetor, as supplied by
the manufacturer of the engine being used,
with a maximum inner diameter of 0.325 inch.
The carburetor shall be fully functional and
shall be stock, except for longevity-enhancing
modifications as follows:

(a) Adjustment screws and idle needle valves
may be held in place with commercially
available thread locker, epoxy, or other adhesives
and safetied with rubber bands, wire, or
plastic ties.

(b) Barrel retaining screws or pins may be
replaced with commercially available screws
or pins of harder material and may be held in
place with commercially available adhesives.
Barrels may be deburred for smoother movement
and may be safetied with rubber bands,
wire, or plastic ties.

(c) Throttle arms may be modified or
replaced.

4) Exhaust system:The engine shall be
equipped with an expansion chamber muffler or
zero-boost muffler as provided by the manufacturer
of the engine being used, and having a single
exhaust outlet with a maximum outlet area
of 0.0621 square inches (equivalent to the area
of a round hole measuring 9/32 inch in diameter).
The distance from the center of the piston
to the centerline of the muffler shall not exceed
2-3/4 inches. The overall length of the muffler
shall not exceed 7-1/4 inches, measured from
the front of the header to the back of the exhaust
outlet. The outside diameter shall not exceed
1-3/4 inches. No modifications to the muffler
are permitted except that the muffler may be
tapped for a pressure fitting to supply pressure
to the fuel system. Tuned mufflers and tuned
pipes are prohibited.

5) Fuel feed:Other than muffler pressure, no
fuel system pressurization is permitted.

6) Power output:Sport Quickie is intended as
an entry-level event for pilots who are new to
racing. As such, it is not a suitable event for the
use of engines that come with tuned mufflers or
otherwise are capable of turning a stock 9 x 6
APC propeller at over 16,500 rpm on the
ground. If engines more powerful than this are
to be used at a contest, the contest should be
sanctioned as Quickie 500 (Event No. 428), not
Sport Quickie.
[/COLOR]

_____________________________

Don Stegall
RCPRO Chairman of the Board

(in reply to daven)
       Post #: 9

Standard vs. Expert - 8/7/2002 7:09:48 AM   
PylonWorld



Posts: 1346
Joined: 12/29/2001
From: Monroe, NC, USA
Status: offline
Should the 424 rules be changed to allow only wood wings and wood tails since that is the common airframe restriction? I don't know of any rulebook events that prescribe the materials for planes, but if this is a big issue, maybe 424 should be changed to match the intent.

Should the NMPRA test engines and create a recommended engine list for 424? Should the task be delegated to a group such as APRA?

I personally don't like monopolies. Thunder Tiger currently has a monopoly on 424 engines. They have been consistently into backorder status at Tower Hobbies over the last 6 months. I don't feel that it makes sense to depend solely on a second tier producer.

Barry, what does it take to get a new engine tested and approved for APRA? Bill Vargas did finish 10th in 428 at the NATS with a wood fuselage and wood tail plane, but it had a Vortex wing on it.

_____________________________

Don Stegall
RCPRO Chairman of the Board

(in reply to daven)
       Post #: 10

Standard vs. Expert - 8/8/2002 10:49:36 PM   
PylonWorld



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

I think some new engines need to be tested and added to the master 424 engine list. Only two engines on the pre-2002 APRA engine list are still being manufactured. And the 2002 APRA engine list only has three engines on it. And one of those, the [URL=http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p.pgm?Q=1&I=LXBUX5&P=0]Magnum XLS-40 BB ABC FSR[/URL], is questionable since it is a new version that is supposed to be improved. Magnum has been cloning the OS FX engines and coming out with new engines. The Magnum 32 is an exact clone of the OS 32 SX and the Magnum 36 is a bored out OS 32 SX clone.

I got a couple of TigerShark 40 engines and was going to send one out to Jimmy Allen for testing, however, it has a different size backplate, and I thought that would rule it out. But Kangke may do a backplate mount for it. So I'm going to run one today and see how they do. They retail for $57.77.

I think the current production Magnum, MDS, and OS engines should be tested. Perhaps a new officer in the NMPRA is warranted: Q-500 Sport Coordinator. This person could be responsible for testing of engines and other duties.

As a beginner, I wouldn't mind flying with the experts. I like Dave's input about awarding separate trophies (or places at least). The trick is figuring out how to score it properly. If I fly against two experts in a heat and come in third, I should get just as many points as someone who flies a heat against one expert and comes in second. You could use heat times and do it FAI style so that you are effectively competing against the clock, but still racing to win heats for pride and joy. That would seem very equitable.

_____________________________

Don Stegall
RCPRO Chairman of the Board

(in reply to daven)
       Post #: 11

Standard vs. Expert - 8/9/2002 12:29:04 AM   
PylonWorld



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

I don't want to re-invent the wheel, but if there is some way the whole country can benefit from the APRA experience, and we can formalize it, why not? Formalization would help bring order, and shouldn't reduce flexibility too much with the right formula.

I don't intend to sound critical. I'm trying to find a middle ground that is marketable to sponsors, and to newcomers.

_____________________________

Don Stegall
RCPRO Chairman of the Board

(in reply to daven)
       Post #: 12

Standard vs. Expert - 8/9/2002 6:19:53 AM   
PylonWorld



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

...

How every one has a different view of what the rule says, is the problem. Who's right & who's wrong? The rule wording needs to be simple, and all CD's need to apply it the same way........

[/QUOTE]

Mike you have now identified the problem. No one has ever said it so precisely in the whole year I've been hearing and participating in the debates on 424 engines. Identification is the first phase of problem solving. And Sam, that is why we have these discussions.

I broke in a TigerShark 40 today. At the end of the day it would do 16100 with the very constricting baffled muffler. I stuck a Tower 46 muffler of the same length and similar design except it is an empty can and then the engine will peak at 16800-16900. Not a real hoss of an engine but a great idle transition, at least with the baffled muffler.

Since it won't peak over 16,500 at all with the baffled muffler, it should clearly be legal for 424, although not highly competitive with the TT Pro 40.

Now, if Kangke offered it with an unbaffled muffler and it will peak at 17, but it is best to take off at 16,500, is it still legal?