New 428 Rules  
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 >> New 428 Rules
Page: [1] 2   next >   >>  

Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
New 428 Rules - 1/29/2002 12:12:34 AM   
daven



Posts: 6908
Joined: 12/7/2001
From: Andover, MN, USA
Status: offline 		Over the past couple of years, there has been considerable talk about the possibility of removing the inner pipes from our Nelson and Jett engines to slow them down.

What is the current status of this initiative?

Is this a path we want to go down?

My only hope is that it is presented and debated by all racers before it is shoved down our throats.

_____________________________

Dave Norman

klasskote.com
supertrc.com
       Post #: 1

New 428 Rules - 1/29/2002 8:16:36 AM   
Jerry-B


 

Posts: 39
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Ramsey, MN, USA
Status: offline 		We already have an entry level Q500 class, 424 so there is no reason to "slow down" 428. If anythig it is time to take a step ahead to some where around 200MPH. I think Nelson used to make a .50 that would be a good place to start, raise the C.I.
displacement.

_____________________________

Jerry-B

(in reply to daven)
       Post #: 2

need for speed! - 1/30/2002 6:30:58 AM   
splatt



Posts: 651
Joined: 1/30/2002
From: splattsville, MN,
Status: offline 		just think.. with a QM that could do 200 coming into turn 2 what a rush! with the technology today, I could see that very easy. LET'S GO! common henry, give us the stuff

(in reply to daven)
       Post #: 3

New 428 Rules - 2/1/2002 12:25:08 AM   
js3



Posts: 1142
Joined: 1/30/2002
From: Arvada, CO, USA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jerry-B
We already have an entry level Q500 class, 424 so there is no reason to "slow down" 428. If anythig it is time to take a step ahead to some where around 200MPH.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by splatt
just think.. with a QM that could do 200 coming into turn 2 what a rush! with the technology today, I could see that very easy.[/QUOTE]

Ok, are you guys saying that with Q40s going 180+ mph and Q500s going 170+ mph racing is no longer exciting for you? How sad.

We do not need more speed. What we need is more competition!

Think about it.

< Message edited by js3 -- Feb 1 2002 12:18AM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to daven)
       Post #: 4

AMA 428 Slow down vote - 2/1/2002 6:53:23 AM   
Tony Pacini


 

Posts: 266
Joined: 1/11/2002
From: Prescott Valley, AZ, USA
Status: offline 		Before I could answer "yes" or "no" I'd need to know WHY and who is behind the push for the slowdown. While the event may have evolved into more than it was originally intended to (speed-wise) that may not be enough reason to change it. Perhaps there is a very good reason. I just haven't heard it yet....

Tony Pacini

(in reply to daven)
       Post #: 5

New 428 Rules - 2/1/2002 7:43:13 AM   
PylonWorld



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

In the last NMPRA newsletter, Darrol Cady had this to say in the A Word from the President section:

"This also leads me to an old subject. It is time to separate our classes of racing. 428 Quickie should not be as fast as it is. Going back to my old words that I still believe to be right, we should have three different classes of racing for three different levels of skill. 424 Quickie is going 125 mph. Q40 is going about 180. 428 Quickie should be going 150 mph maximum, not the 165 to 170 that some are going. The last rule cycle was not the right timing, but this one is. It is time. The power is in the muffler, and it is time to make the changes.

The muffler rule did not pass last time for different reasons. It is time now to put the rule to the Pylon Contest Board again for the next rule cycle. The rule proposal is written and is being readied for the next cycle. I hope it will pass this time."

That should be part of the answer to your question.

_____________________________

Don Stegall
RCPRO Chairman of the Board

(in reply to daven)
       Post #: 6

did I say "slow down"? - 2/1/2002 7:52:40 AM   
js3



Posts: 1142
Joined: 1/30/2002
From: Arvada, CO, USA
Status: offline 		Tony,

You infer a lot from the few words I've posted above. Nowhere in that post did I state that either Q40 or Q500 should be slowed down. What I said was that more speed in these events is not needed. More speed is not good for racing; more competition (read more contestants) is good for racing.

While I personally feel that it would be better for R/C pylon in general if Q500/428 were slower than it is now, I do not believe that a slow-down due to rule changes will EVER happen. Do not place me in the camp of those that wish to slow down Q40/422. I think the Q40 rules should remain the way they are now.

For those of you who wish to fly faster, why not give FAI/F3D a try?

_____________________________

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

(in reply to daven)
       Post #: 7

Entry Level - 2/1/2002 9:34:20 AM   
daven



Posts: 6908
Joined: 12/7/2001
From: Andover, MN, USA
Status: offline 		In my opinion, the key to getting and keeping racers is with a consistant 424 class.

Every local area across the country has different rules, making it tough to race outside your immediate area. We need to standardize entry level racing.

After 424 is standardized, it would be possible to race this class at the nats. This is the key, not slowing down or seperating 428 speeds from 422.

I had a more difficult time making the jump from 428 to 422. Not going from 424 to 428. Jumping to 422 is a considerable expense in planes, new engines, and custom props. Even though the speed difference is not that great (approx 20 mph) I had a tougher time with this jump, the planes seem much faster, and are much more difficult to land.

Just my opinion.

_____________________________

Dave Norman

klasskote.com
supertrc.com

(in reply to daven)
       Post #: 8

New 428 Rules - 2/1/2002 10:38:40 AM   
PylonWorld



Posts: 1346
Joined: 12/29/2001
From: Monroe, NC, USA
Status: offline 		To those who have heard me say this before, I apologize for the redundancy.

Taking the mini-pipes out does two things: it lowers the speed and it also lowers the noise.

Our club now has an unofficial noise limit of 103 db's. A lot of clubs are using noise limits between 100 and 103. This is causing me a problem with being able to run 422 and 428 at our field.

In England they are mostly running Quiet Quickie's now because of noise restrictions. It actually requires specific engines, but the point is reduced sound levels.

A Quickie Jett at 3 meters measures about 106-107 db. A Quickie Jett with an open can muffler measures about 101 db at 3M. The difference in sound level is dramatic. Up close, and far away.

Now with that said, I don't believe 422 and 428 should be changed. Stability in rules is essential to the life of an event, up to a point. If people had listened to Dub, F1 might (or might not) still be alive if some things had been changed.

People seem really happy with the QM-40 and Q-500 airframe rules. And a lot of planes are available for all budgets. Like Dave said, landing a Q40 versus a Quickie is a whole new ballgame, though.

I have suggested that there should be Quiet versions of 422 and 428. That is, open can mufflers. For reference, call them 421 and 427. 421 is open now that F1 is gone from the rulebooks. After thinking about this, it has pros and cons. Confusion about which to run is a definite con, however, clubs that can't run 422 and 428 because of noise limits would at least have an option. In 427, you would also have that missing step between 424 and 428.

_____________________________

Don Stegall
RCPRO Chairman of the Board

(in reply to daven)
       Post #: 9

New 428 Rules - 2/1/2002 8:00:01 PM   
Ed Smith


 

Posts: 2835
Joined: 12/29/2001
From: Brantford, ON, CANADA
Status: offline 		428 slowdown, AGAIN?

I have said this before. I guess it is time to go round again. Especialy as we now have the NMPRA President, again, trying to slow down 428.

For those people who have limitless amounts of money and want to go as fast as they can with airplanes that look like airplanes we have AMA 422, (Q40)

For those people who do not have limitless money and time or who do not wish to spend it, but still want to go as fast as they can we have AMA 428, (Q500)

For those people who want to race but at an all round less intense level we have AMA 424.

We have to accept the fact that speed and this hobby costs money, Those that have neither time or money are out of luck.

The three events listed are stand alone events. Those three events cater to all combinations of time effort and money expended. They are independent of each other. One is not meant as a stepping stone to the other. It would make sense, of course, to start with AMA 424. But this event should not be restricted to newcomers. I would claim that it is good for a newcomer to see what can be done with identical equipment by somebody with flying skills. There would be no argument about specialized equipment. Just practice, practice, practice. We should not try to legislate "Everyone a winner". There is an apprenticeship to be served, some effort is required.

The NMPRA President, in his wisdom, or otherwise, is now advocating the slowing down of AMA 428. Is this a personal opinion or is he claiming to represent the NMPRA? We went through this a couple of years ago and it was rejected. If 428 is slowed down, who does it serve? It certainly does not serve it's current adherents, and we already have a slower event (424). It will be no cheaper, because to slow it down he is advocating changes to the existing engine used. We will all have to buy new engine parts. As before the suggestion has no merit or logic. I urge people to reject it again.

This hobby requires expenditures of time, effort and money in various amounts. Less expenditure of one of those items requires more of one or two of the others!!

Ed S

(in reply to daven)
       Post #: 10

New 428 Rules - 2/11/2002 11:31:40 AM   
Tony Pacini


 

Posts: 266
Joined: 1/11/2002
From: Prescott Valley, AZ, USA
Status: offline 		js3,

Sorry but I was posting a reply to the survey at the top of this page ("Should we slow down the 428 quickie class" ; I didn't mean to infer that I thought you were in favor of a slow-down.

I don't think that 428 is too fast. I understand the history behind the tuned muffler and how it came to be allowed in the first place. It seems that a few are still upset that it went down that way.

It may seem like a big jump from 424 to 428.............but I made it (as most do) without a whole lot of fuss. I was used to flying faster airplanes but not on the 3-pole course. The adrenaline junkies will make the jump eagerly. The rest will be content flying 424. Growing new racers in/for 424 should be more of a concern than bridging the gap.

Too loud? Most of the noise is from the prop, anyway. You'd get a slight reduction from gutting the muffler but after the manufacturers redesign the engines for the "new" muffler they'd probably re-gain most of the lost performance and be just as loud, anyway. 424 with stock (baffled!) mufflers is the event to run if you have a noise problem.

428 and 422 may seem like the same speed (and maybe they are) but people fly the 2 events for different reasons and seem to enjoy doing so. Many fly both.

428, though, can be flown with a relatively inexpensive airframe (compared to 422, anyway). There are lots of foam/balsa 428 kits around (even some ARFs). I don't recall many inexpensive 422 kits (and almost everyone uses composites, anyway).

Is there really a problem? If so, what is it? Who's complaining? Maybe 428 has evolved beyond designed intent. From what I understand 422 has, as well.

One thing's for sure: if this forum is any representation of how the racing body feels then it would appear that most are against a slow-down. Perhaps this assumption isn't true.............but maybe it is............!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(in reply to daven)
       Post #: 11

New 428 Rules - 2/12/2002 12:51:49 PM   
MDP


 

Posts: 116
Joined: 2/12/2002
From: Phoenix, OR, USA
Status: offline 		Our NMPRA President, Darrol Cady, is promoting the 428 slow down on his own. I last talked to Darrol at Winterfest, in Phoenix, when he brought it up to me again. The conversation, was like a repeat of two years ago. I told Darrol, no, that it would cost us all lots of money, because without the tuned muffler, changes would be made by the Henry & Dub, and most all of the internal parts, could, or would be changed, along with the cost of a new muffler. High exhaust, and crank timing, along with different combustion chamber shapes, work well with tuned exhaust systems, but gut the muffler, and the timing would need to be modified to compensate. The new timing changes, would make our current $350.00 engines obsolete. The new gutted muffler engines, would perform better, than our current high timed engines, with the gutted mufflers, and not just two, or three hundred RPM, like Darrol said Henry Nelson told him. Even if it was only a slight gain, all serious competitors would have to have the new stuff, right ? Henry told me, the new engine would be not quite as fast as what we have now, but not far off. Henry already has had, for quite some time, a non- tuned muffler .36 size engines in control line combat, that really smoke, go watch one some time, and they are the same case size as as our .40's, and running low nitro. I asked Henry Nelson the same question Darrol asked, but I got a different answer.......If they decide to gutt the mufflers, will you (Henry) be making new parts to compensate ?...Answer "YES".....Will you take a check ?......Answer "YES"......Hey guys, don't take my word for it, call Henry & Dave and ask for yourself. By the way, all your old APC props will make great stir sticks. The Prop game, would start all over again. and we all would have to find a new one to work with the new engines, or the old ones for that matter. Chances are Fred would end up designing a new one. Is all this worth slowing down 10 mph, or so ? I think not....What do you guys think ? Maybe I am just getting more irritable, and hard headed in my old age............

(in reply to daven)
       Post #: 12

New 428 Rules - 2/12/2002 5:42:46 PM   
Ed Smith


 

Posts: 2835
Joined: 12/29/2001
From: Brantford, ON, CANADA
Status: offline 		No Mike, you are not getting irritable or hard headed in your old age. You are probably reflecting what the majority of racers want. LEAVE THE RULES ALONE. The points you make are right on, why other people cannot understand them is a mystery. This issue was defeated two years ago, and now here we go again. Why Darrol has dragged it up is beyond me. Maybe he can no longer keep up with the young guys. Do we have to go through this nonsense at every rules change cycle. If Darrol was truly interested in getting the numbers up he would be promoting a truly National set of rules for a low cost less intensive event, (424).
The amount of effort expended on screwing up 428 coud be better used elswhere.

Ed S

(in reply to daven)
       Post #: 13

New 428 Rules - 2/12/2002 10:14:55 PM   
MDP


 

Posts: 116
Joined: 2/12/2002
From: Phoenix, OR, USA
Status: offline 		I'm not sure why Darrol is up to it again either. Darrol has a good heart, and does his best helping everyone out at the field, etc., but he has lost me on this one....This is just a guess, but I think he really wants to believe that all we would have to do is pull out the mini pipe, slow it down 20mph, and that would be that. It would be quite simple if this was true, it couldn't be farther from the truth......The other argument is, 428, and 422, are almost the same, and he wants a separation. Comparing a 428 Nelson powered Q-500, to Nelson powered Q-40, is like comparing Apples to Prime Rib. The National record for 422, is :59+ sec / 428 is 1:03+ sec....428 averages 160 mph / 422 averages 180 mph.....428 is easier to take off & land, and less expensive, especially with a wood kit, than a Q-40, plus what about having to paint....In my area, it is hard to find a field, that will accept a Q-40, because of the length of runway, speed, & noise level, but all our fields accept Quickies, plus there are a lot more 428 racers than 422 racers. It is harder to get Q-40 entries at the races we have. The times may look fairly close, in a way, but the difference is Quickies are lighter, and accelerate faster than Q-40's. Its like drag racing a drag bike, and a big block chevy Pro Stock car. It would be likely, the lighter, less powerful bike, would blow the doors off a Pro Stock car, for 3/4 of the the track, but the faster, heavier, more powerful Pro Stock would win at top end, just like racing a Q-40 against a 428 Quickie, like Lyle Larson, flying a Dago, and Gary Schmidt, flying a REVO, did a few years ago, during a lunch break, at a Phoenix race. Lyle past Gary on the last lap, or so, and beat the REVO, only to end up in a mid-air...OUCH ! What a waste that was......Dont get me wrong...To me there is nothing I like better, than the looks, and sound of a BEAUTIFUL !, SCREAMING ! Q-40. The point is 428 & 422 is as different as night & day already, or am I loosing my mind ?

(in reply to daven)