RE: Growth of the sport  
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 >> Q-500 Racing >> RE: Growth of the sport
Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5 6   next >   >>  

Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Growth of the sport - 4/6/2006 4:21:37 PM   
daven



Posts: 7026
Joined: 12/7/2001
From: Andover, MN, USA
Status: offline
As pointed out above, 424 is too slow for 428 pilots, and 428 is too fast and expensive for 424 pilots. The gap between both classes has gotten a bit wide with no intermediate class. Maybe overgeneralized, but basically the point.

Someone want to write the rules for 426. (if there isn't one already)

Here are some points that I think make sense.

Use the short course (475 foot). Makes the planes seem faster, and helps with smaller fields.

Limit the engines to sport .46's, either make a list of approved, or pick one.

Allow the user to use different props, but make them all APC.

The quickie airframe requirements are pretty good, not sure we should deviate there.

etc....

Basically something similar to what we've been running up here for years with 20+ contestants and 8 races every summer.


I do think SPAD racing would attract a new base of potential fliers, but I also agree with many of the negative comments to them above.

_____________________________

Dave Norman

klasskote.com
supertrc.com

(in reply to DHG)
       Post #: 51

RE: Growth of the sport - 4/6/2006 4:29:46 PM   
daven



Posts: 7026
Joined: 12/7/2001
From: Andover, MN, USA
Status: offline
One more point,

I've been thinking about a bit the past 6 months and we talked about it a bit in the NCPL.

We have an Expert and Standard class for our club racing. We all race each other, but at the end of the day, you pull out the expert scores and compare the scores of all the experts and all the standards and give awards to each.

We are down to very few standards. Does it make sense to do something similar, but make the break out by ARF vs. Kit planes. There is a big perception that the Seekers and R200's home builts are faster than the ARFS (probably because they are). This would give the "no time to build" ARFers the opportunity to compete against similar airframes, and the Unlimited kit builds to do the same.

Just a thought, after long discussion, the NCPL decided not to go this route, but I think there is merit to it.

_____________________________

Dave Norman

klasskote.com
supertrc.com

(in reply to daven)
       Post #: 52

RE: Growth of the sport - 4/6/2006 4:38:53 PM   
Super Splatter



Posts: 401
Joined: 3/21/2006
From: , MN, USA
Status: offline
That's why I liked the handicap system that the boys in TX are going to try

If you wish to run a plane faster than Viper, fine, you'll be docked in points because your faster to start with. When your ready to not be penelized, than get a Viper.

Don't know what I'll do with all that basement time now, build scale

(in reply to daven)
       Post #: 53

RE: Growth of the sport - 4/6/2006 4:48:48 PM   
DMyer


 

Posts: 495
Joined: 10/16/2002
From: Potomac, MD, USA
Status: offline
IMO at the speeds 424 planes go.... there is very little if any advantage for the good kits versus a well setup viper ARF... except maybe the weight. Quickie 424 is still primarily a thumbs event with the only real advantage going to those that know how to setup a plane for racing. Passing on racing setup/flying knowledge is probably the best way we have help the newcomer become successful at 424 as even a 424 is a handful for inexperienced pilots with a poorly balanced plane with too much throw and no clue where the course is.

426 might not be a bad idea... we will need a bumper crop of 424 pilots to make it successfull.


dan

(in reply to daven)
       Post #: 54

RE: Growth of the sport - 4/6/2006 4:52:02 PM   
diggs_74



Posts: 1296
Joined: 1/20/2004
From: Emerald, WI, USA
Status: offline
I may be one of the few who enjoy building I guess.. Should that warrent me coming into the day down on points to start with.. It's no secret I don't care much for the expert standard thing but it's a hell of a lot better than the handicap idea, especially if it's across the board. Now, if it was done something like bowling or golf, maybe that would be worth looking into. Hmmmm, maybe that wouldn't be a bad idea at all..


_____________________________

Lee LaValley
NMPRA# 33w

(in reply to Super Splatter)
       Post #: 55

RE: Growth of the sport - 4/6/2006 5:24:57 PM   
Ed Smith


 

Posts: 2875
Joined: 12/29/2001
From: Brantford, ON, CANADA
Status: offline
quote:

If you wish to run a plane faster than Viper, fine, you'll be docked in points because your faster to start with.


How can it be determined that an airplane is faster than any other? How can a rule like that be worded?

Ed S

(in reply to diggs_74)
       Post #: 56

RE: Growth of the sport - 4/6/2006 5:29:29 PM   
Super Splatter



Posts: 401
Joined: 3/21/2006
From: , MN, USA
Status: offline
This is the opening post in this thread, ed


quote:

ORIGINAL: James Hornsby

In District VIII we had our first race of the season this past weekend. At lunch on Saturday we had a meeting to discuss a proposal aimed at addressing the continuing decline in participation. The proposal was to limit the airplanes that could be used in 428.

After a fair amount of discussion the majority decided to try setting the standard district plane as the Viper. A handicapping system was created so that a person can still fly any airplane that they want other than the Viper. The way we decided to try this is to start each race day with a flight of a Viper to establish a base time. Then in any heat if an airplane, that is not a Viper, goes faster than this time it gets one point taken off of that heat’s score. If a Viper beats the base time then the time is reset to this new mark, but is not retroactive to already flown heats.

We thought that we would give this a try and then reevaluate at the end of the year. I think that the consensus was that we have to try something. Not taking any action is not working. We still have alot of things to work out but we are doing something.

Several people were flying Vipers with 428 engines at the race and I heard of a 1:09 with a Viper.


(in reply to James Hornsby)
       Post #: 57

RE: Growth of the sport - 4/6/2006 5:39:14 PM   
Clark L



Posts: 148
Joined: 1/22/2003
From: So-Cal, USA
Status: offline
I don't see how an intermediate class (426?) will help anything. The problem seems to be there's not enough "new blood". 424 is already a great, inexpensive, entry-level class. The average sport flyer has the skills needed to participate. If we create something in between 424 and 428 you'll lose some 424 guys and some 428 guys just further diluting both classes.

New racers are gonna come from the sport flyers you see every Saturday and Sunday morning at your local field.... These are the people that we need to expose to what we do. The average guy out there is not gonna just "show up" to a race. He (or she) needs to be pushed a little. Get out there and get a little practice in when the club field is packed with sport flyers (remember to be considerate, you don't want to be a field hog or scare anyone). Show them how much fun it is. Get them interested. Bring out the "high-dollar" composite or the home built woodie, bring out the Quickies and the Q40's and put on a show. Just chase each other around the field a bit. When people see how much fun you're having, they'll show up with their own... Encourage them, you watch, it works. We did this at my club field and now over ten percent of the club membership races..... they all love it. Even the non-racers really show their support. We get new guys all the time. We've got guys in every AMA class (and a couple other local classes too). Once you get a guy hooked, it's easy to drag him to a race...

Attract NEW racers.....It's natural for people to want to move up into more competitive classes. 428 and 422 will take care of themselves.....

Clark

(in reply to diggs_74)
       Post #: 58

RE: Growth of the sport - 4/6/2006 5:59:06 PM   
Teachu2


 

Posts: 857
Joined: 12/5/2001
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DHG


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.



Duane Gall
RCPRO


Greetings from the Birthplace of Quickee Racing. Duane makes some valid points. Glen designed the original as a club racer for BARKS back when we ran the biggest F1 event in the world. Glen saw the need to involve more people in pylon, and that required a class that the average sport flyer could handle. The Spickler Quickee was intentionally slow, stable and hard to stall. Glen sold kits dirt-cheap, and probably gave away several dozen to folks he thought would enjoy it but couldn't afford it. We raced every month that weather allowed, and had lots of fun. So much fun that guys started coming up from Los Angeles to fly with us. Everyone flew the same airframe, and a couple of enterprising fellas built a set of jigs to frame them up and sold them as ARCs and ARFs. Everyone ran "stock" K&B .40s, and there was a claim rule.

About the time I went off to college, we had a major accident at the F1 race - a turn worker was hit by a fuse that had come thru a pylon and he lost a kidney. Within a couple years, the race was history.

In the mid-80s, I returned to BARKS to find pylon racing gone. Q500 had grown to the point of opening up the class to different airframes and engines, and it lost it's entry-level appeal. I hoped to revive it, so I proposed a club class - Spickler Quickees and box-stock OS FP40s. We got about 30% of our active members participating, and had a ball. Racing was tight, because the planes were equal. It was not unusual for three of four planes to battle all the way to the finish. $5 entry fee, club supplied fuel, flight box stickon plaques to the winners, 2 classes - beginner and advanced. Win two and you had to move up.

This went on for about a year, then several members wanted to allow other airframes so that they could compete in races 100 miles up the road. The club voted in the changs, and soon Doddgers were the plane to beat. That went another year, then the rules we changed to allow any $100 motor.....and we never had another race.

Entry-level classes need to be uniform and consistent. I would love to see a single airframe/single motor class established on a national level. Spec the airframe so that it could be produced by any manufacturer, kitted, or scratched. Specs should be specific enough that everyone is flying the same airframe, regardless of who built it. Adopt a set of plans, allow NO variation from it whatsoever - no changes to airfoil, no internal linkages, no different landing gear (you COULD even spec trike gear!), nuthin! If you did so on a national level, manufacturers would conform to the rules - and quality would determine sales. Spec iron-on covering. Limit the motor to bushing 40s, no mods. Spec APC 9x6 sport props, max RPM and provide 10% fuel. Weigh the planes, and establish minimum weight that allows a standard flight pack to be used competitively.

Entry-level classes need to be uniform and consistent. Entry-level classes need to be uniform and consistent. Entry-level classes need to be uniform and consistent. Entry-level classes need to be uniform and consistent.

Whatever rules you establish, they need to be easy to follow and enforced without exception. Leave 424 and 428 alone - but establish an entry-level pylon class that STAYS entry-level. Establish straight-forward rules, enforce them and DON'T CHANGE THEM.

For an entry-level class to sustain itself, it has to be uniform and consistent. That is a basic requirement for the racing to be FAIR. How cool would it be if half the clubs in the country had a race every month that all used the same entry-level setups? Folks that wanted to race could easily establish a schedule with other area clubs, and race enough to keep it fun. Racing doesn't have to be fast to be fun - four planes running 80-82 mph is more fun than 1 at 125, 1 at 120, and 2 at 115. A race with 25-30 pilots flying virtually identical $200 airframe/motor combos would be fun.

428 and 424 are classes that encourage development of faster equipment. That is great, but it's DEATH to an entry-level class. Many pilots would fly pylon if it wasn't so demanding - yes, I SAID IT - and there is a need for a place for these fliers. Including them in pylon can only benefit the sport! These less-serious racers would provide 424 and 428 with new blood (some WILL want to go faster!) and will also stimulate interest in pylon generally. The flyers who choose to stay in the entry-level class are much more likely to volunteer to work the 424/428 races.......




_____________________________

Trent Combs
Fly 'em until the last piece stops!

(in reply to DHG)
       Post #: 59

RE: Growth of the sport - 4/6/2006 7:32:05 PM   
luv to race


 

Posts: 490
Joined: 12/10/2002
From: Liquored, FL,
Status: offline
UNIFORM and CONSISTANT.. that is it. Promote your 424 class, it's pretty cheap and easy to get into. No high dollar composites are allowed in that class. Just wood/foam/balsa planes...

Punishing contestants for not flying a Viper, I just can't buy into that. Taking points away because your plane is faster than a Viper. How about we take points away from you less than talented pilots that won't take the time to learn how to get a model plane around a race course quickly?? Maybe Great Planes is sponsoring the NMPRA ? what if everything is faster than the Viper ? Then the guy with the Viper wins.. How STUPID is that ? And ED is right.. how the hell do you police that? guys could sandbag? back off on the last lap? that's hardly racing...

Every rookie wants to reinvent the program...

Randy Bridge 6X

(in reply to Teachu2)
       Post #: 60

RE: Growth of the sport - 4/6/2006 8:15:49 PM   
Super Splatter



Posts: 401
Joined: 3/21/2006
From: , MN, USA
Status: offline
I had nothing good to say

< Message edited by Super Splatter -- 4/6/2006 8:46:45 PM >

(in reply to luv to race)
       Post #: 61

RE: Growth of the sport - 4/6/2006 10:06:56 PM   
Clark L



Posts: 148
Joined: 1/22/2003
From: So-Cal, USA
Status: offline
To everyone that wants to find a "new" entry level class,

What exactly isn't entry level about 424?

It's cheap.
The airframes and engines are all exactly the same, pilot skill wins races.
There's no molded composites allowed.
The "average" flyer is capable of doing it, the airplanes land almost like trainers.
It's a proven, competitive AMA class.
You can fly it on the long or short course to suit many club fields.
ARFs are available for those who don't build.
Several high quality kits are available for those that do.
Scratch builders can design their own if they want.
If the airplane is well built it can be used in 428 if people want to try that.

Uh... did I mention it's cheap? Cheaper than most sport planes...

Clark

(in reply to Super Splatter)
       Post #: 62

RE: Growth of the sport - 4/6/2006 10:30:31 PM   
js3



Posts: 1147
Joined: 1/30/2002
From: Arvada, CO, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Clark L

To everyone that wants to find a "new" entry level class,

What exactly isn't entry level about 424?

It's cheap.
The airframes and engines are all exactly the same, pilot skill wins races.
There's no molded composites allowed.
The "average" flyer is capable of doing it, the airplanes land almost like trainers.
It's a proven, competitive AMA class.
You can fly it on the long or short course to suit many club fields.
ARFs are available for those who don't build.
Several high quality kits are available for those that do.
Scratch builders can design their own if they want.
If the airplane is well built it can be used in 428 if people want to try that.

Uh... did I mention it's cheap? Cheaper than most sport planes...

Clark


Great post Clark. I agree with you.

Probably the thing that keeps people away 424 (aside from the fact that it's not enough fun) is that the airplanes are not very good looking. But that's a double edged sword isn't it? They aren't attractive because the are a simple design. Make them attractive, say like Formula 1 planes, and they become more complex.

Oh one more thing, I think a lot of people are freaked out by the V Tail. Maybe we should change the rule so that only Scat Cat type tails are allowed.

_____________________________

John
I feel a lot more like I do now than I did earlier!

(in reply to Clark L)
       Post #: 63

RE: Growth of the sport - 4/6/2006 10:33:02 PM   
Teachu2


 

Posts: 857
Joined: 12/5/2001
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Clark L

To everyone that wants to find a "new" entry level class,

What exactly isn't entry level about 424?

It's cheap.
The airframes and engines are all exactly the same, pilot skill wins races.
There's no molded composites allowed.
The "average" flyer is capable of doing it, the airplanes land almost like trainers.
It's a proven, competitive AMA class.
You can fly it on the long or short course to suit many club fields.
ARFs are available for those who don't build.
Several high quality kits are available for those that do.
Scratch builders can design their own if they want.
If the airplane is well built it can be used in 428 if people want to try that.