Here comes ol' Flattop  
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 >> QM-40 Racing >> Here comes ol' Flattop
Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>  

Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Here comes ol' Flattop - 7/31/2003 1:41:49 AM   
DHG


 

Posts: 896
Joined: 4/24/2002
From: Arvada, CO, USA
Status: offline 		Don,

That's how I've done all my shoulder-wing models since Day One ... they fly perfect that way. Plus, it makes it easy to cut your spar and you can sheet the whole wing at once with no dihedral break.

DHG

(in reply to PylonWorld)
       Post #: 26

Piper J-3 Cub for Q-40 - 7/31/2003 2:10:20 AM   
PylonWorld



Posts: 1346
Joined: 12/29/2001
From: Monroe, NC, USA
Status: offline 		What spar?

We're going pink foam plugs for the wing and fuselage, and all molded composite.

_____________________________

Don Stegall
RCPRO Chairman of the Board

(in reply to PylonWorld)
       Post #: 27

Piper J-3 Cub for Q-40 - 7/31/2003 5:07:35 AM   
Ed Smith


 

Posts: 2837
Joined: 12/29/2001
From: Brantford, ON, CANADA
Status: offline 		Don,

If just the word "Convential" was used I would agree with you. However the phrase "Horizontal Stabilizer" is there, to me that is quite explicit.

I agree with Inspector Gadget from the muffler post. It is time to tidy up the rules. Maybe the NMPRA should get involved and add some input, or is that too much to hope for?

Ed S

(in reply to PylonWorld)
       Post #: 28

Piper J-3 Cub for Q-40 - 7/31/2003 5:21:49 AM   
PylonWorld



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

DHG was the "conventional" message poster.

If you look at the Pushy Galore photos, you will see that the Pushy Galore and the Pushy Cat do have an aft horizontal stabilizer. And from what I've been able to find out, the stab does in fact singularly control the pitch of the plane.

Yes, they are T-tails, but so were the Rivets and AJ which were both approved.

I have quite a few plane projects ahead of the "Pully Galore". I'm going to finish up the Hughes H-1 molds over the next week or two. I was going to do the Mr. Smoothie after that, but the Cub will be much easier, so it's next in line. "Pully" will just be a background thought process for some time ... Probably.

_____________________________

Don Stegall
RCPRO Chairman of the Board

(in reply to PylonWorld)
       Post #: 29

Piper J-3 Cub for Q-40 - 7/31/2003 5:12:20 PM   
kane


 

Posts: 255
Joined: 6/28/2002
From: Arlington Heights, IL, USA
Status: offline 		Ed,

Conventional???

What is conventional? A bird has no Vertical stabilizer so are we flying un-conventional airplanes? The Wright flyer had the Horizontal stabilizer in the front. Was that un-conventional or conventional? The progession of aviation seems to be airplanes without tails. Does this now mean that a tailless airplane is conventional?

I would agree that there are some ambiguities in the rules. It seems that it is your recent crusade to find all the problems with the rules. Hopefully, you have written down the corrections! There is also a little thing called intent. Every rule proposal written includes an intent section. This is used when the written rule is found to have a loop hole. When the contest board votes on legality of something the intent is always considered. IF the intent was to outlaw delta wing tailless airplanes, and one shows up, it will obviously get disallowed. I think we are so caught up in the written letter of the law we can't see through the fog. (this is not only directed to you but to all of us) If the rule book included every scenario it would be huge. I would agree that some need to be cleaned up, but a majority work just fine and are very clear in the intent and the execution. We have bigger problems with racing than just fixing the rules. How about getting more people to participate. We should all focus our efforts in promoting the sport rather than saying how bad it is or what a farce our rules are. It is easy to be the monday morning quarterback and say what we should have done. Let's all try to be the sunday morning QB and get things done.

By the way the ***** CAT has a HORIZONTAL STAB.

_____________________________

Dan Kane

(in reply to PylonWorld)
       Post #: 30

Dog my Cats - 7/31/2003 8:24:23 PM   
DHG


 

Posts: 896
Joined: 4/24/2002
From: Arvada, CO, USA
Status: offline 		Dan,

Pushy Cat, Pully Cat, Pole Cat ... you guys seem to have the Cat thing pretty well covered, so my next will be a Loki -- named for the Norse god of pranks and mischief, who, according to my American Heritage Dictionary, was best known for "creating discord, especially among his fellow gods."

Do you suppose it's just a coincidence that Ed flies one?

(in reply to PylonWorld)
       Post #: 31

Piper J-3 Cub for Q-40 - 7/31/2003 9:28:49 PM   
kane


 

Posts: 255
Joined: 6/28/2002
From: Arlington Heights, IL, USA
Status: offline 		It is funny you should mention that. I was thinking along similar lines, (thanks for the definition it is more fitting). The Loki is a shoulder wing airplane yet the QM version is a low wing. HMMMMM, I guess the rules can get stretched even into Canada.

_____________________________

Dan Kane

(in reply to PylonWorld)
       Post #: 32

Piper J-3 Cub for Q-40 - 8/1/2003 8:23:03 AM   
PylonWorld



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

I drew up the Pully Cat in a moment of inspired insanity ... Thanks BV.

But I do have some interesting info about a popular plane in Q-40, and the replica rule.

I've been keeping this one under my bonnet for quite a while ... In the early days of my re-entry into racing, I was afraid it might create too much controversy.

Ever hear of the TRC-1? The Q-40 version of it is known as the Sidewinder. In fact, on the Approval List it is listed as the Sidewinder TRC-1. Take a look at these links:

http://www.totalracing.com/bluebery/newgenfv.htm

http://www.totalracing.com/

And I have attached a picture of the VNR-1, aka the TRC-1.

I called Mr. Vliet in 2001 to obtain info about buying a kit. I was informed that the kit was not, and would not be available. I was also informed that NO VNR-1 or TRC-1 had even been constructed. Some portions had been constructed, and some molds had been in process. So, no TRC-1 has ever even been built, much less flown.

Then I read the replica rule and the interesting part is Models entered in this event shall be recognizable replicas of full-scale, human-carrying, propeller-driven aircraft that either raced in or were built for closed-course or cross-country racing or a speed record attempt.

This would mean that your Sidewinders should be illegal. ( Along with your Nelsons )

A Bugatti was approved for Q-40 ... but at least the full sized plane was constructed.

Attachments
Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize


_____________________________

Don Stegall
RCPRO Chairman of the Board

(in reply to PylonWorld)
       Post #: 33

Piper J-3 Cub for Q-40 - 8/1/2003 10:07:01 AM   
Bill Vargas



Posts: 1555
Joined: 1/6/2002
From: Team Coldies, CA, USA
Status: offline 		So now if a Q40 plane has no known "full size" counter part,,, how did it get approved to compete?

But then again, does it really matter? I don t think it does for Q40.



BV
run whatcha brung (designed) and go fast

_____________________________

If it ain't leaking oil, then something's wrong,,, USMC, RETIRED!

(in reply to PylonWorld)
       Post #: 34

The perils of scale racing - 8/1/2003 8:54:05 PM   
DHG


 

Posts: 896
Joined: 4/24/2002
From: Arvada, CO, USA
Status: offline 		Don & Bill,

Interesting! Especially since the "or built for" was added specifically to clear up an earlier question about Mr. Smoothie and Vendetta, which were definitely built and attempted to qualify for, but never actually raced in, an official head-to-head competition. The contest board decided to draw the line at airplanes that actually got off the drawing board without trying to split hairs over the definition of "racing" or "flying in competition". Otherwise somebody could get their brother-in-law to design some radical new Unlimited, change the scale on the drawings, and use it for a Q40 model.

So maybe the design approval committee made a mistake. Nevertheless, the TRC-1 is an approved design and it meets all the necessary measurements (wing area, fuselage cross-section, etc.) so the next time one shows up at a contest, there should be no argument over whether the CD should allow it to compete. I say that's better than the old system where you never really knew from one contest to the next whether your expensive whiz-bang would get protested, or whether the guy behind you in the registration line would be able to browbeat the CD into allowing his OBVIOUS cheater to enter because "they let me run it down at Sepulveda, so you have to let me run it here."

And yes, my Loki will really be a midwing!

(in reply to PylonWorld)
       Post #: 35

Piper J-3 Cub for Q-40 - 8/1/2003 11:49:22 PM   
PylonWorld



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

You are correct that the Sidewinder actually should remain legal, because a later passage says that once a design is approved, as long as the dimensional measurements are met, and the model aircraft is reasonably close to the submitted 3 views of the model, it is legal.

Back in 2001 when I was building [url]www.pylonworld.com[/url] and researching the origins of the Q-40 models, I came across the info about the TRC-1. And I have been sitting on it until yesterday.

The dimensional requirements and limits of Q-40 don't result in planes that really resemble the real planes. And some of the planes that have been approved have set a precedent of allowing MAJOR license in the model interpretation. With some planes you can come reasonably close. With others you have to take some license.

I don't know if I'll ever get to the Pully Cat, but if I do, and I can make it fly, I would hope that it would be approved. Yes, the engine location would have to be changed to meet the "conventional" engine in front passage. And the wing would probably need to be moved forward a little more and maybe shorten the nose some. But if it comes close to capturing the essence of the real plane, at least as much as the Dagos and Ashleys do, why not allow it?

_____________________________

Don Stegall
RCPRO Chairman of the Board

(in reply to PylonWorld)
       Post #: 36

Re: The perils of scale racing - 8/2/2003 1:42:54 AM   
PylonWorld



Posts: 1346
Joined: 12/29/2001
From: Monroe, NC, USA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by DHG
...

So maybe the design approval committee made a mistake.

...[/QUOTE]

Duane,

One more thing. I don't think the committee made a mistake. Unless it's in the amount of license allowed. At the time Jerry Small designed the Sidewinder, the TRC-1 was in progress. Neither Jerry nor the committee could have known that the real plane was not going to be completed. And we don't know that it never will.

But I do think the committee should allow the same license to all designers. Any way about it, Q-40's look a lot more like real planes than do Quickies.

Speaking of license, someone mentioned to me that the real Cub has wing struts, and that may be an issue with approval. I highly respect the person who mentioned it, but I would hope that the J-3 Cub for Q-40 would be allowed to go sans struts. They are functional on the real J-3, but on a model would be unnecessary.

_____________________________

Don Stegall
RCPRO Chairman of the Board

(in reply to PylonWorld)
       Post #: 37

Strut your stuff - 8/2/2003 2:36:55 AM   
DHG


 

Posts: 896
Joined: 4/24/2002
From: Arvada, CO, USA
Status: offline 		Don,

I do recall that one design was rejected because of a lack of struts, but they were a very prominent feature on that particular design. Wish I could remember now which one it was ... a Fairchild or a Stinson or something. I mean, these were MAJOR struts. On the full-scale airplane, they were actually included in the wing area calculations. The Cub's struts are pretty spindly by comparison.

DHG

(in reply to PylonWorld)
       Post #: 38

Piper J-3 Cub for Q-40 - 8/2/2003 6:44:58 AM   
Arch Adamisin


 

Posts: 19
Joined: 7/4/2003
From: Taylor, Mi
Status: offline 		The one I know was disallowed, was the Texas Wildcat, originally designed by Glenn Curtiss then designed as a Q-40 by Jerry Small. The real plane was originally designed as a mono plane, was then modified into a