RE: Starting the BPA  
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 >> Pattern Flying >> Classic Pattern Flying >> RE: Starting the BPA
Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   next >   >>  

Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Starting the BPA - 10/12/2006 4:06:59 PM   
LaCerne



Posts: 223
Joined: 9/14/2002
From: Bartlett, TN, USA
Status: offline 		Me too! I've got a 15-year-old Jekyll with Hanno 60, and a Jetstar NIB, and plenty of Enya 60 rear-exhaust engines, all waiting for August 07!

BPA Membership number _____?

Larsen A.

_____________________________

AMA 93432

(in reply to Sport_Pilot)
       Post #: 26

RE: Starting the BPA - 10/12/2006 4:29:35 PM   
Sundance120



Posts: 48
Joined: 10/5/2005
From: WinnipegManitoba, CANADA
Status: offline 		I re-read a previous post and realise that new designs are out but vintage pre 1982, are what the proposal is.

Thanks

Bruce

(in reply to Sundance120)
       Post #: 27

RE: Starting the BPA - 10/12/2006 5:37:36 PM   
jquid



Posts: 114
Joined: 7/29/2002
From: st. charles, IL, USA
Status: offline 		Hi All,

WOW! Glad I started this thread. I was not sure what to expect when I looked in this morning. Maybe a few people read it, maybe some would just laugh me off the board. But over 263 people have read, and 26 responses! That to me shows a genuine interest. You can almost feel how excited people are in their posts. I am impressed! All we have to decide is what categories. As far as I am concerend this is a from the ground up club. So we can do whatever we want. We just have to agree on a list of categories. I see no reason why someone cannot fly a converted electric, in a vintage design, or a 4 stroke in a vintage, or a old Webra, Rossi, or a Tower engine. The point is you fly a pattern, not how fast or slow you do it right?

So let's keep thinking what we want, and spread the word!

(in reply to Sport_Pilot)
       Post #: 28

RE: Starting the BPA - 10/12/2006 6:34:26 PM   
MHester



Posts: 2414
Joined: 10/27/2002
From: Woodstock, GA, USA
Status: offline 		I like the limits being at 1.2ci displacement, 2 or 4 stroke, and total size of 72". No weight limits. And other than that, anything goes!!!!!!
Keeping it simple allows the most options. I'd love to tackle an Aurora or Atlanta. This would allow use of the TT120pro pumped RE engine, which isn't all that expensive. It doesn't idle worth a crap, but with these types of planes, who cares?????

Man you guys have my interest peaked. I am running a pattern plane business now and my time os sort of pressed (ok that's putting it mildly) but given the simplicity of these planes, I am fairly sure that given all winter to come up with one, I can manage something pretty cool =)

-Mike

_____________________________

Owner Custom Airframes of America, Team YS, Mercury Adhesives

(in reply to jquid)
       Post #: 29

RE: Starting the BPA - 10/12/2006 6:44:10 PM   
grcourtney


 

Posts: 494
Joined: 4/3/2005
From: huntsville, AL, USA
Status: online 		before we start limiting by year or wing span , a list of available planes and manufacturers should be compiled, I realize that any plane can be scratched but some who may want to fly in a event may be lacking in the scratch build department.


i vote "no" for limiting on year and would like to see a wing span rule,3 classes

Also would like to see as few rules as possible( kind of like drag racing on the street, run what you brung and hope you brung enough)


I will be flying a bridi XLT 6 1/2 lb. w/ .61 OS. Hanno, B&D retracts (tail dragger) RTF as soon as my pipe tunnel gets painted


gary

(in reply to jquid)
       Post #: 30

RE: Starting the BPA - 10/12/2006 9:13:58 PM   
somiss1


 

Posts: 110
Joined: 1/16/2002
From: Pass Christian, MS, USA
Status: offline 		Folks, if we're going to allow 1.2 two strokes or four strokes, then count me out. This is exactly what killed the old pattern event that we loved. I saw it happen as the planes got bigger and bigger to handle the power. Deadstik has it right! He should know as he kits the airplanes. I also like the tricyle retracts, however, if you want to put two wheel retracts in, go ahead. You'll face a tougher time on the take off score but, hey, that's your choice. 10cc should be the limit as it was then. 1.20 four strokes were allowed because they were not as powerful as they are today but steadily improved and, of course, needed bigger airplanes to handle the power.

The majority still rules, however. Ain't it a great country?
Frank

(in reply to grcourtney)
       Post #: 31

RE: Starting the BPA - 10/12/2006 9:39:25 PM   
rainedave



Posts: 5176
Joined: 7/21/2005
From: Greensboro, NC, USA
Status: online 		1.20s defeat the whole purpose for me. What would be the point? I was under the impression that the idea was to fly the fast, sixty powered designs of the '70s and early '80s (Ballistic Pattern planes), not the 120 powered models of the '90s. Although I guess someone could start a '90s 120 Society, too, if they wanted. And definitely score takeoff and landing (not just 0 or 10).

(in reply to somiss1)
       Post #: 32

RE: Starting the BPA - 10/12/2006 9:56:10 PM   
MHester



Posts: 2414
Joined: 10/27/2002
From: Woodstock, GA, USA
Status: offline 		I'd be willing to keep it at .61ci, so long as anything goes with that engine

You could always just have 2 classes. One for 61 sized ballistic planes, and one 120 sized for the larger and more modern planes from say 82 up. Like a "Classic" class and an "Unlimited" class.

No sense in dividing further, but that way the smaller planes would be on an even playing field, and those that prefer something a little larger and more modern get to play too. it's all the same, trust me up until the last 5-7 years pattern was still fairly ballistic, it just had turnarounds.

-Mike

_____________________________

Owner Custom Airframes of America, Team YS, Mercury Adhesives

(in reply to rainedave)
       Post #: 33

RE: Starting the BPA - 10/12/2006 10:19:33 PM   
rainedave



Posts: 5176
Joined: 7/21/2005
From: Greensboro, NC, USA
Status: online 		Mike, I actually like Artisan's proposal of an 80ish displacement cap. The Tower .75 is an excellent 2-stroke that probably keeps up with the hot, piped sixties of 20yrs ago. The parts grow on trees and they're under $100.

(in reply to MHester)
       Post #: 34

RE: Starting the BPA - 10/13/2006 1:51:29 AM   
vellum2


 

Posts: 224
Joined: 10/1/2004
From: Gainesville, FL, USA
Status: offline 		Mike, I like the idea of the Unlimited class. That may be a good way to include as many folks as possible. The key seems to be the size limit and the style of the pattern. Non-turnaround favors a faster, sleeker plane. I'd put an aurora or T2A against any wide body.

I was thinking of the trike idea myself - though I'd hate to make that a rule. trikes were popular because you could approach a 10 take off and landing easier than you could with a tail dragger. So I'm with Frank on this one - let that be your own chosen advantage or disadvantage... Just don't get upset with me if I get a 10 because i took off at half throttle, rotated directly in front of the judges and lifted off ever so slightly whilst retrating the 3 little wheels, nose gear first *G*

10CC seems like a recurring theme for most folks though. I'd hesitate to limit the years of design since the style of pattern really does dictate what airplanes to use. These were purpose built machines - designed to excell at the current pattern sequences. So keep the sequences in the spirit of the era and the designs will follow suite.

Joe W.

(in reply to rainedave)
       Post #: 35

RE: Starting the BPA - 10/13/2006 2:13:47 AM   
8178



Posts: 3015
Joined: 5/25/2004
From: _ , USA
Status: offline 		Great discussion!!!

I think that there are plenty of 10cc engines available including the hot Jett Engineering RE Jett-Fire 60 and side exhaust 60. Pleanty of stuff on eBay too. So again, I vote for 10cc limit because they fit the airframes best without hacking and modifying. 10cc engines of any type, no limits, e.g. pumps, pipes, whatever! They sound right too!!!!!!!

I believe in keeping with the sprit of the ballistic patter era that it is important that there be a list of approved aircraft rather than wing span or wing area limits. It would be pretty cool to arrive at a contest and feel like you were in a 80s time warp! The list could be expanded as more aircraft are approved.

My vote would be for all aircraft to be built to plan, e.g. NO modifications other than materials (glass, foam, wood), servo placement and modern radios. Other organizations have struggled with the problems caused by allowing airframe modifications. Once you allow modifications in moment arms for heaver 4S engines, control surfaces, landing gear, etc. the door opens for all kinds of compliance problems. What would be wrong with a quick tech inspection at contest registration? The flyer could provide the plan for proof of compliance. You would think that most flyers are going to build there favorite BP aircraft from the era so compliance should not be a big deal.



< Message edited by 8178 -- 10/13/2006 2:16:23 AM >

_____________________________

Builder and flyer of high performance acrobatic R/C aircraft and a proud member of VR/CS.
Made in China = no sale!

(in reply to vellum2)
       Post #: 36

RE: Starting the BPA - 10/13/2006 3:03:03 AM   
jjpetro


 

Posts: 105
Joined: 8/25/2003
From: Lancaster, SC, USA
Status: offline 		Looks as if there are plenty of ideas. The BPA looks like it can be an awesome conduit for preserving more or of the classic planes and flying characteristics those of us in this forum desire.

It appears someone (jquid?) needs to bring this thing to consensus. Perhaps scan the posts, try to draw up a "constitution" and put it out for general vote, and go with the majority? Another question to consider, the VR/CS and SPA are "specialty groups" within the AMA. Will this group be the same? If so, is there a need to check any governing criteria from the AMA? I'm just "thinking out loud".

I think it is a great idea and I will join when it comes to fruition. In the past few months I have been researching appealing ballistic planes to kit. I hope to have one worthy of this group in the next year.

For what it is worth, I favor the cap on a .61 and 70"-72" spans. As noted earlier, we should probably make considerations for electrics. There have been a few electrics flying pattern in the SPA and they appear to be holding their own.

_____________________________

Jeff Petroski
Home and Hobby Solutions
www.homeandhobbysolutions.com

(in reply to 8178)
       Post #: 37

RE: Starting the BPA - 10/13/2006 3:11:39 AM   
grcourtney


 

Posts: 494
Joined: 4/3/2005
From: huntsville, AL, USA
Status: online 		if you want a motor limit that small go fly spa.


gary

(in reply to jjpetro)
       Post #: 38

RE: Starting the BPA - 10/13/2006 3:34:55 AM   
MHester



Posts: 2414
Joined: 10/27/2002
From: Woodstock, GA, USA
Status: offline 		Maybe it's just me, but I think the classic and unlimited classes have a lot of merit. We basically have 2 schools of thought: One is the older .61 sized designs, and the other is pretty much everything up until the mid 90s. Why exclude either one with limits? Juast have 2 classes to level the playing field. And no more than 2.

Maybe just a .61 (or .80 or whatever) limit on the classic class, and 1.20 on the unlimited class. 2 or 4 stroke shouldn't matter in those cases.

Also maybe it's just me, but why should we have strict compliance with anything? If I wanted to stretch a Curare a bit, then I'd have a problem. Why do that? What's the point really? Also keep in mind, look at who's "in" with this game....mostly builders. or people that could/would build something like this. I think if they want to get creative, let them. As long as they stay within the simple rules we'd have.

And you better believe mine will be tricycle gear with retracts And I'm liking the idea of a Jett FIRE engine too. Pricey, but who cares. At least I'll know it will turn the R's!!!!

-Mike

PS whenever we decide to come up with the patterns, I'd like to be involved!!

_____________________________

Owner Custom Airframes of America, Team YS, Mercury Adhesives

(in reply to grcourtney)
       Post #: 39

RE: Starting the BPA - 10/13/2006 3:37:11 AM   
MHester



Posts: 2414
Joined: 10/27/2002
From: Woodstock, GA, USA
Status: offline 		One more suggestion.....since we're all about the classic ballistic planes that we all love, what about a prize for "best of show"? Like best finish? Let's throw down the gauntlet!!!!!!!


-Mike

_____________________________

Owner Custom Airframes of America, Team YS, Mercury Adhesives

(in reply to MHester)