DHG
Posts: 896
Joined: 4/24/2002
From: Arvada,
CO, USA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kane
The unfortunate thing here is that the CURRENT 424 event for form, fit and function have brought us back 15 years to the days of Rossi/Webra racing. Look at the recent record set on the short course, 1:16 and some change. I remember when we did 1:14-1:16 regularly, with Rossi's and Webra's on the short course. ... Perhaps there should be some proposals to bring us back 30 yrs?? Clubs don't hold races like they used to, people move out of an area, the main supporter moves on and so on.
All,
I know Dan was kidding when he said why don't we turn the clock back 30 years. Nobody wants 30-year-old radios or 30-year-old engines. But maybe we could use some 30-year-old airspeeds. After all, human reflexes haven't changed in that time, and newbies still need to gain a certain comfort level before they're ready to tackle anything near the speed of what we hardboiled veterans consider ho-hum normal. Like any other addict, we're in denial about our own overdoses, but even a Viper with a cheap .40 is enough to send most average pilots running for cover. We won't make any progress attracting newcomers until we face that fact.
30 years ago, Glen Spickler's purpose-built "entry-level" racing airplane -- the original Quickie 500 -- only did 80-90 mph with the engine it was designed for, the mighty K & B Torpedo .40. Ten-lap times were around 2 minutes. (Yes, TWO entire minutes!) Compare that to the 120-130 mph we're trying to sell as "entry-level" and you'll notice a very slight  50-percent increase.
Spickler's design rapidly caught on because the airspeed of that combination, as well as its flying characteristics, were so similar to what the target audience (weekend sport flyers) were ALREADY FLYING. There was no "learning curve" to speak of, except for learning to fly around yourself.
This is not to deny the many other factors that send would-be racers into other activities like foamies, helis, cars, giants, jets, etc. But runaway airspeed is the root cause of most, if not all, of the problems we identify every time we start another round of "why won't anybody race with us?". Consider:
Lower airspeed = short course = more fields available
Lower airspeed = less load on airframe = lighter/cheaper structures
Lower airspeed = less load on airframe = perfect construction not required
Lower airspeed = less intimidating to newcomers = more new pilots
Lower airspeed = less emphasis on eyesight, reflexes = more old pilots
Lower airspeed = airfoil, fuselage contours less critical = more choice of designs
Lower airspeed = surface finish less critical = Monokote OK
Lower airspeed = spectators excited, not scared = more families in pits
Lower airspeed = more club members can compete = more club support
Lower airspeed = newbies can mix with experts and sometimes beat them = more entries
Lower airspeed = easier airplane ID = more volunteer judges, better calls
Lower airspeed = carbs, tailwheels not such a handicap = more "sport" racers
Lower airspeed = less critical servo centering = lower purchase cost
Lower airspeed = softer crashes = lower replacement cost
Lower airspeed = more reaction time = fewer crashes
Lower airspeed = flatter props = better takeoffs
Lower airspeed = flatter props = more engine choices ...
The list goes on.
So, anyone who wants to write the specs for the next entry-level class should make darn sure the airplanes aren't overpowered to begin with, and also allow lots of margin for "speed creep." Otherwise, we are doomed to repeat the lessons of history.
OK, I'm done. Thanks for listening.
Duane Gall
RCPRO
|
Printable Version
All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> Pylon Universe - RC Pylon Racing >> Q-500 Racing >> RE: Growth of the sport 
RE: Growth of the sport - 
