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

Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Standard vs. Expert - 8/21/2002 11:08:25 PM   
PylonWorld



Posts: 1346
Joined: 12/29/2001
From: Monroe, NC, USA
Status: offline 		If you've been following this thread, please read [URL=http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/tm.asp?m=238874]An Unofficial NMPRA Discussion forum[/URL]..

_____________________________

Don Stegall
RCPRO Chairman of the Board

(in reply to daven)
       Post #: 26

Standard vs. Expert - 8/21/2002 11:33:55 PM   
PylonWorld



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

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

Dan,

The thing I noticed at the NATS is that there is a lot of dead air. People coming off the course and those getting off the course don't run because the distance with the extra weight you're carrying wears you out unless you are in good shape. My muscles have atrophied a lot since I had surgery in December and it wore me out. I started carrying a bottle of water out to the line with me and taking a hit before the heats.

The AMA does spend money on the pylon events. A couple of years ago they at least partially financed the course control syste,\m. This year they spent money on the pylons (and so did I, Dave). Pickup truck pulled trolleys would help a whole lot. I've heard they use them in PHX and it saves a lot of time and energy. If you had one for incoming and one for outgoing, more racing could be done in less time, and more racing could be done. If someone can enlighten us on the trolleys used in Phoenix, we can take a look at this option.

_____________________________

Don Stegall
RCPRO Chairman of the Board

(in reply to daven)
       Post #: 27

Standard vs. Expert - 8/21/2002 11:42:43 PM   
PylonWorld



Posts: 1346
Joined: 12/29/2001
From: Monroe, NC, USA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by R.Bridge
"Composite airframes have no advantage over a well crafted woodie."

- Man, I sure need to start spending my money elsewhere. I'm sure that any "woodie" would certainly be less money than these composite planes right? [/QUOTE]

Randy,

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 [URL=http://www.pylonworld.com/rc_pylon/q-3/q-3.htm]F3D/30[/URL] in all molded composite for $157.77 retail and it's just a little smaller than a Q-40.

I'm in the process of acquiring the molds for all molded Q-40 on the approved list and they may produce it, also.

BTW, they could produce a slightly lower quality Vortex if the plugs (preferrable) or molds are available.

_____________________________

Don Stegall
RCPRO Chairman of the Board

(in reply to daven)
       Post #: 28

Re: 424 Committee - 8/21/2002 11:45:46 PM   
PylonWorld



Posts: 1346
Joined: 12/29/2001
From: Monroe, NC, USA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bill Vargas
OK Guys,,, So how do "WE" start a 424 Committee and have rules for the Best intrest of AMA 424 Competition?

BV [/QUOTE]

IMO, the best way would be for the president of the NMPRA to designate a 424 Coordinator.

_____________________________

Don Stegall
RCPRO Chairman of the Board

(in reply to daven)
       Post #: 29

Standard vs. Expert - 8/22/2002 12:06:52 AM   
PylonWorld



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

One place the painted in the mold composites have an advantage is that there are no paint lines for numbers and trim. On Martin Hepperle's site (which appears to be down, thanks for letting me know BV), he had a study on the effect of trim lines on an airfoil. He calculated that the trim lines alone could cost 3-5 seconds. It's probably significantly less on the slower 424 planes.

One reason I've been investing heavily in being able to produce my own planes is that I count on it paying off in my not having to spend $400-600 on planes in the future. I spent $325 just on composite materials before the NATS. Unfortunately I didn't get my plane done in time.

_____________________________

Don Stegall
RCPRO Chairman of the Board

(in reply to daven)
       Post #: 30

Standard vs. Expert - 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 daven)
       Post #: 31

Standard vs. Expert - 8/23/2002 12:36:02 AM   
PylonWorld



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

Least, Don give a sneak peak at the composite quickee, please!!!! [/QUOTE]

Sorry Dan, you'll have to wait a couple of weeks. There is a big hobby trade show in early September, and I'm trying to get one ready. A friend with a lot more experience than myself has the plugs and is finishing them, and making the molds.

I'll take some photos of the fuse and tail plug for the second one and send them via email.

If you can't wait for that, take a look at the [URL=http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/tm.asp?m=210217]Build a curing oven for $50[/URL] thread and you can see a prototype..

_____________________________

Don Stegall
RCPRO Chairman of the Board

(in reply to daven)
       Post #: 32

Re: All Composite Quickee under $200.00 - 8/23/2002 12:59:31 AM   
PylonWorld



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

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 [/QUOTE]

Mike,

There aren't any pictures of the new Quickies on the web site, but you can get a glimpse in the thread mentioned in my response to Dan.

The F3D/30 has a polyester fuselage. The wing and stab are hollow with the skins being bagged 2 oz cloth and 2 mm obechi. They do not have cloth on the inside of the skins, which will be corrected on the Quickies. They have skinned hinges and they have carbon fiber capped spars. All of the linkages are external on the F3D/30 and it uses two wing servos.

I've been going around with them on using English hardware, which they don't want to do because they sell worldwide. So the first one (project name: The Martin) will not have internal tail or aileron linkages and will be like the F3D/30, but with an epoxy fuselage. It also has a more forgiving wing than The Smasher, which will have internal linkages. It is possible that they may not produce The Smasher and I will produce it, or have it produced domestically. A lot will depend on the response to The Martin.

_____________________________

Don Stegall
RCPRO Chairman of the Board

(in reply to daven)
       Post #: 33

Re: Copy Cat - 8/23/2002 10:04:14 PM   
PylonWorld



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


Don, you are a LIER!

I sent you that kit that you have up on this site now for a return favor that you never came thru with.

Nobody else cuts a fuse and wing cores like that except for me and the person that told me that I should be cutting my wings like this!

you are truely unbelievable,,, even more so than before!

Don, I am not really all that pissed at you, but what you are claiming is a direct copy of my Racer II and you know it!

Geeze, go out and design your own stuff Don.

BV [/QUOTE]

Bill, would you explain how my plane is like yours? They are both pseudo pod and boom from the side, but so are a lot of other Quickies.

Yes, I still have the kit you sent me, and it was a freebie, with nothing I was supposed to do in return.

I can lay my fuselage sides over yours, and there is no comparison. In fact my fuselage sides are closer to the NEME-Q than to your plane. And I never built your plane, but the formers don't match up to the top shape of my plane. It is entirely my own. Look at the inside back cover of the most recent Flying magazine at the Cirrus ad. You will see the shape of my fuselage in their logo. Mine is based on aerodynamic engineering and has been through over 40 revisions. There is a reason the nose is lowered slightly on my plane. Yours is not. Can you tell me why I did that?

The tail of my plane is closer to a Bird of Prey in shape.

And I don't remember any of your planes being engineered for a bolt on tail.

The wing on The Martin is an MH-18B, which you didn't design. One of my friends was using that wing before you were. It's a nice forgiving airfoil, but not quite as fast as some others.

>> Nobody else cuts a fuse and wing cores like that except for me and the person that told me that I should be cutting my wings like this! <<

That means your plane isn't actually your own design then. And if that person had the knowledge about how fuselages should be designed, do you think he had an exclusive on it?

You shouldn't be pissed. You have no reason to be. I on the other hand do, so leave it alone, or be gone. You are crossing over into the personal attack zone, and I will not tolerate that here.

_____________________________

Don Stegall
RCPRO Chairman of the Board

(in reply to daven)
       Post #: 34

Standard vs. Expert - 8/23/2002 10:37:56 PM   
PylonWorld



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

End of story, I wish discussed things like this when we...

wrote the rules for QM-40 (THANKS JIM GAGER!!!!)
Made Q-500 a national event and everyone had to throw away their perfectly good $225 Rossi's to buy Nelson's.

If you and others honestly believe the best thing to do is to leave the rules alone, Hey I am all for it. Less work for me!!!!!

PUT these words away and save them for a rainy day. IF 424 is run as is you will see an entirely different animal than the animal you are flying in NEPRO, APRA, or here in the midwest with FP 40's.

However, I am not going to sit back and watch it happen!

By the way if a rule proposal is to be submitted it needs to be done prior to the end SEPT.

TICK TOCK, TICK TOCK. [/QUOTE]

Dan,

The ability to have these open public discussions is wonderful isn't it?

Any kind of technical rules can always use refinement. Some see it as splitting hairs, but reducing ambiguity through clarification and consensus leads to better rules.

_____________________________

Don Stegall
RCPRO Chairman of the Board

(in reply to daven)
       Post #: 35

Standard vs. Expert - 8/24/2002 4:50:32 AM   
PylonWorld



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

Regarding your #3 ... I absolutely agree ... however, when someone starts making malicious comments in public about me being a thief, I am going to defend myself, otherwise the person who made the assertions may appear to have validity.

MikeyD asked about the all molded composite for under $200 that will be a reality by the end of the year. That and my response were relevant to the discussion, because the issue of composite planes was brought up. Cheap all molded composite planes will become more and more common. The thing that makes the all molded composite planes in racing expensive is domestic cottage industry production.

Bill Vargas chose to call me a thief.

All airplane designs borrow from other designs. The Racer II is not some brilliant piece of innovation that is entirely original. I stated in my message what I borrowed from. Most of it is from full scale aircraft. The Cherokee series as well as most modern designs have the widest part of the fuselage at the rear of the wing. This is due to a lack of fillets on those planes. It is very hard to design fillets that do not induce drag. It has been known for more than twenty to thirty years that the so-called "Coke Bottle" shape is an efficient way of handling airflow behind the wing, especially when there is no wing fillet. I'm not even sure if the Racer II uses this techique. The side profile of a fuselage has little to do with the airflow behind the wing when compared to the top profile. Check out the wing to stab area on the [URL=http://website.lineone.net/~ukpylon/shark.htm]Shark[/URL]. Notice how there are no straight surfaces in the critical areas. This is something that I used on my design. The Racer II and many other Q-500 designs have a lot of drag inducing straight areas in critical areas like from the firewall to the wing. My plane is actually fatter in certain areas than many Q-500 designs. As I said, I did a lot of work running simulations to try to optimize my plane.

I will attempt to split out the discussion about The Smasher versus the Racer II.

_____________________________

Don Stegall
RCPRO Chairman of the Board

(in reply to daven)
       Post #: 36

Re: Goodluck - 8/25/2002 10:29:20 PM   
PylonWorld



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

I probably wouldn t have gotten so angry at you by going to [url]www.Flyingfoam.com[/url] for my exact wing numbers, regarding the MH18B and the NACA 66,,, Umm, he's my neighbor.

...[/QUOTE]

I'm so glad I've learned that you were the developer of the MH-18B airfoil. I certainly thought that Martin Hepperle was the creator of the airfoil. Plus his analysis that it would be a great airfoil for a Q-500 wasn't attributed to you. If I had only known ...

Regarding the NACA 66, you told Dave Norman that you copied the Vortex airfoil and modified it. Dave said he couldn't tell any difference. I guess I missed the News Flash - Bill Vargas develops the ultimate airfoil and donates it to NACA. And you didn't even hide the fact that you were using a Vortex wing on your 10th place NATS winning so-called "Racer II". Maybe with a better fuselage design you would have picked up 2-3 seconds per lap and finished even higher. Try my fuselage, because I can almost guarantee you it is better, and for the last time, it is not a copy.

Bob Mellon will not release anyone's airfoil or order information. He seems to have ethics. Don't they teach that where you come from?

Your logic capabilities are disgraceful ... you've called me a danger to racing. They call that transference. Look it up.

And another thing. I was designing my own planes before you were even born. I made my first plug, pulled parts, and built planes froms them when I was 13 in 1971 ... here's a photo of one of them. Notice the pod and boom shape, and it wasn't even new when I did it.

Attachments
Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize


_____________________________

Don Stegall
RCPRO Chairman of the Board

(in reply to daven)
       Post #: 37

Standard vs. Expert - 8/7/2002 4:32:17 AM   
bl10


 

Posts: 303
Joined: 12/29/2001
From: Chatsworth, CA,
Status: offline 		Dan:

I will weigh in on the whys and wherefores of APRA as opposed to 424 as well as any other rules deviations used.

1st off my credentials: We run at least 10 races a year between Whittier, the Basin and PHX. All races except the PHX Winterfest run three classes: 422, 428 and 424-APRA (the Winterfest runs 428 and 424-APRA. I CD four of these events and am deeply involved with race management of all except PHX. (PHX also puts on monthly APRA races but does not use the 9 lap rule)

Rule deviations are as follows:

422: APC 8 x 7.4 carbon fiber filled molded props permitted:
Rational: We believe use of this prop promotes 422 racing by eliminating a huge variable and added expense.

428: No deviations.

APRA-424: Deviations from the 424 rules are as follows.

1. No composite wings or tails.
Rational:
a.Cost. A competitive Q500 composite airframe cost is prohibitive for an entry-level class. The Vortex, arguably the best quickie around, runs from $400.00 to $650.00 depending on level of completion.
b.Performance. A composite airframe is perceived as being faster. If it is or not I can't say but I don't believe there were any wood and foam quickies in the top 10 at the Nats.
2. Permissible engine list.
Rational: Two samples of all engines permitted are tested both in the air and on the ground using a reference 9 x 6 APC prop. Only those which give no huge advantage are permitted.
3. No RPM limit.
a. The current predominate engine the TT PRO 40 will exceed the 16500 RPM limit specified in the 424 Rules using the mandated APC 9 x 6 prop.
b.It has been our experience in racing classes where RPM is limited it in necessary to check the winner of each heat. This takes 2 to 3 minutes additional each heat which severely impacts the number of rounds we can get in. We see as much as a 1000 RPM difference from the morning to afternoon with the highest RPM during the heat of the day.
4. APC 9 x 6 prop. (Sometimes supplied at the race)
Rational: Levels the playing field. Same size prop as permitted engines are tested with.
5. Engines must be stock except for bearings, bolts, back plate mount (if used) and head gaskets.
Rational: Some sport engine bearings will not hold up under racing conditions. Intended to be the same as 428 engine rules.
6. Novice pilots are permitted to fly 9 laps instead of 10 until he or she meets break out criteria.
Rational: Levels the playing field and encourages new pilots. The break out on the long course is 1:45. A good pilot can beat this in 10 laps but it’s a struggle for most. We consider this a entry-level event and want to give the novice a chance. We generally have a 9 lapper in the top three but almost never have a 9 lapper winning overall. We also award both 9 and 10 lap fast time plaques.


These rules work for us. Our average number of entrants, split between three classes, is between 40 and 50 with 428 being heaviest followed by APRA then 422. APRA turn out has been on the up swing. A couple of years ago when several APRA contestants were flying composite airframes entries had fallen to about half of what they were and are again.


Hope this helps


Barry

(in reply to daven)
       Post #: 38

Standard vs. Expert - 8/7/2002 10:35:11 PM