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  2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   next >   >>  

Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Starting the BPA - 10/14/2006 1:53:40 PM   
Ed Cregger



Posts: 7735
Joined: 1/31/2002
From: Ringgold, GA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: impactiq


quote:

ORIGINAL: grcourtney

Or has the SPA, and now the BPA, been hijacked by youngsters in good health and to hell with the old farts whose dues really support the organization?


NAh.... we will keep the "old farts" around for your knowledge. AND the good company too!!!



------------------


Well, it's good to be wanted for any reason.

I get all pumped up at the prospect of flying the old pattern, but forget many real, present world facts - which I will not go into any further in the forum. I'll read about your adventures. Make plenty of posts, please.



_____________________________

Artisan

"Flying models since the Fifties - I'll get the hang of this yet!!!"

(in reply to impactiq)
       Post #: 76

RE: Starting the BPA - 10/14/2006 3:38:48 PM   
McLaughlinRP


 

Posts: 14
Joined: 11/20/2004
From: Eustis, FL, USA
Status: offline 		I think BPA has crossed the threshold into "moral imperative".

If I recall, non-turnaround pattern was flown in all AMA classes well into the late 80s. Perhaps we use the rules and patterns flown then and see what happens? To Gary C's point, maybe we restrict the size to keep things in check and/or allow any plane that was flown up to when AMA made the change. We should all be able to find something between 0 A.D. and 1989 A.D. that will serve the "spirit of the law"...fast and smooth.

Let's all show up at Gary's contest using his guidelines and take a vote there on permanent rules.

(in reply to Ed Cregger)
       Post #: 77

RE: Starting the BPA - 10/15/2006 2:21:05 AM   
nxtdoor


 

Posts: 297
Joined: 6/5/2002
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Status: offline 		I say make the engine limit on 2-stroke at least .91 since I just bought a Jett Fire .91 for my next Curare with RETRACTS!!

Jeff

(in reply to McLaughlinRP)
       Post #: 78

RE: Starting the BPA - 10/15/2006 4:09:20 AM   
Ed Cregger



Posts: 7735
Joined: 1/31/2002
From: Ringgold, GA, USA
Status: offline 		I offer my apologies to everyone for throwing a wet blanket on the party. Take care, my friends.


_____________________________

Artisan

"Flying models since the Fifties - I'll get the hang of this yet!!!"

(in reply to Ed Cregger)
       Post #: 79

RE: Starting the BPA - 10/15/2006 4:56:11 AM   
grcourtney


 

Posts: 494
Joined: 4/3/2005
From: huntsville, AL, USA
Status: offline 		Opinions are not wet blankets if everybody agreed all the time how boring would that be. Just because i'm right all the time shouldn't hurt everyones feelings..LOL!!!!!!


gary

(in reply to Ed Cregger)
       Post #: 80

RE: Starting the BPA - 10/15/2006 6:35:37 AM   
stiletto660



Posts: 176
Joined: 7/15/2006
From: Dallas, TX, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: nxtdoor

I say make the engine limit on 2-stroke at least .91 since I just bought a Jett Fire .91 for my next Curare with RETRACTS!!

Jeff


Man, are you sure you want to hit 170 mph?!!


(in reply to nxtdoor)
       Post #: 81

RE: Starting the BPA - 10/15/2006 4:51:30 PM   
Ed Cregger



Posts: 7735
Joined: 1/31/2002
From: Ringgold, GA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: nxtdoor

I say make the engine limit on 2-stroke at least .91 since I just bought a Jett Fire .91 for my next Curare with RETRACTS!!

Jeff



------------


Boy, it sure is tempting to think like that, isn't it? <G>


_____________________________

Artisan

"Flying models since the Fifties - I'll get the hang of this yet!!!"

(in reply to nxtdoor)
       Post #: 82

RE: Starting the BPA - 10/15/2006 6:39:08 PM   
nxtdoor


 

Posts: 297
Joined: 6/5/2002
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Status: offline 		170 mph? We shall see. That's the plan. I figured since the engine is the same size and weight as an old .61, why not?

My last Curare had a ST .61X RE and was a motivating machine. That has been twenty years, but I am ready for another.

I have flown turnaround and it just isn't as fun as the old ballistic pattern.

Jeff

(in reply to Ed Cregger)
       Post #: 83

RE: Starting the BPA - 10/15/2006 10:44:28 PM   
Pattern Student



Posts: 296
Joined: 8/2/2003
From: DEATSVILLE, AL, USA
Status: offline 		Hey Guys,

I have my Mystic 90 with YS 61 Rear Exhaust Long Stroke ready to go. Looking forward to it.

Jim Oliver

_____________________________

Jim Oliver
Revver Brother No. 51

(in reply to nxtdoor)
       Post #: 84

RE: Starting the BPA - 10/15/2006 11:26:32 PM   
aerowoof


 

Posts: 1917
Joined: 6/11/2006
From: pembroke, NH, USA
Status: offline 		Hi All,
after reading all the post I thought I would put my two cents in.I like this idea as it would be a step up from the SPA in allowing new technology ie.retracts and pipes to be used.Now with that said and since we are trying to roll back time,then why not use the pattern rules and manuvers that were in effect at the time trying to be re created.back then a novice could show up with a super kaos with pipe and retracts and compete in novice and as contestants won they were moved up in class.there are still engines like the kraft 61,hp 61,webra speed 61,and rossi being made,as in anything those with the bucks can afford the best.the rest of us use what we can afford since this is a hobby not a money making adventure.
I think if you want to allow 4 strokes then they should be in a seperate class.you know how many 2 stroke planes I can build for the price of a single superchaged 4 stroke?at least 3.

(in reply to Pattern Student)
       Post #: 85

RE: Starting the BPA - 10/16/2006 12:37:38 AM   
8178



Posts: 3015
Joined: 5/25/2004
From: _ , USA
Status: offline 		I don’t understand why anyone wants engines sizes above 10cc when there are so many good 10cc engines available that fit the airframes. The recommended prop for the OS 91 FX is 13-6 to 16-6 http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXBY47&P=0 . How in the world are you going to run a 13” prop on a classic? My Tipo and Blue Angel barely have clearance enough for a 12-10 and I always fly off tarmac.



< Message edited by 8178 -- 10/16/2006 12:39:16 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 aerowoof)
       Post #: 86

RE: Starting the BPA - 10/16/2006 3:02:07 AM   
vellum2


 

Posts: 224
Joined: 10/1/2004
From: Gainesville, FL, USA
Status: offline 		Hey folks!

Just the fact that this thread has taken off points out the interest in doing the BPA. Excellent!

Ryan M and I were talking this weekend and he had a great suggestion... How about let's just decide on the sequences and let anyone fly whatever they want at the first contest or two and see how things shake out. I'm all about getting as many folks in this as we can. Given the non-turnaround style, I really don't see that a brandy-new wide body with a 160 DZ would be any more competitive than a tricked out T2A or Curare. The true test of course is to just try it! That said - I still think the size limits are all that is really necessary...

And for the record - Take offs and landings should always be a scored maneuver ;-)

Joe W.

(in reply to 8178)
       Post #: 87

RE: Starting the BPA - 10/16/2006 3:31:46 AM   
rainedave



Posts: 5173
Joined: 7/21/2005
From: Greensboro, NC, USA
Status: online 		edited to say: I'm glad to see all the interest here, too.

< Message edited by rainedave -- 10/16/2006 9:25:41 AM >

(in reply to vellum2)
       Post #: 88

RE: Starting the BPA - 10/16/2006 11:03:47 PM   
Paternguy


 

Posts: 628
Joined: 3/9/2002
From: East Berlin, PA, USA
Status: offline 		First let me say I have stayed out of this one intentionally, so I would have some time to think about what I would like to see. Although I think the open format of fly what you brought is the politically safe answer, I also believe it will allow things to progress the same way they did the first time around. I suggest capping the engines at .91 across the board. I think by doing that you will see the majority will migrate to the two strokes. There are couple of low cost options out there (Super Tiger, Magnum). Then couple this with a square inch limit say 800 sq in. Allow for the older birds and any mad scientist types that want to tinker in their basement to create a better mouse trap. After all the guys tweaking a little more performance out of the existing formats was part of what made it interesting back in the day. My hope would be that this would also prevent one design (Daddy Rabbit) from becoming dominant. I think SPA is a great organization, but they made one mistake by refusing to adapt and allowing one design to dominate, lets learn from that mistake. If its worth doing its worth doing right.

Just my 2 cents, no angry flames please. LOL

(in reply to rainedave)
       Post #: 89

RE: Starting the BPA - 10/17/2006 12:25:56 AM   
stiletto660



Posts: 176
Joined: 7/15/2006
From: Dallas, TX, USA
Status: offline 		Also, I'd like to add that we might want to go up to 840 sq in to allow for some of the planes from the Conquest and LA-1 time frame.

(in reply to Paternguy)
       Post #: 90

RE: Starting the BPA - 10/17/2006 2:20:34 AM   
Paternguy