So, I haven't been able to determine when the Tiporare was designed, but the fact it is not listed on the "approved planes" list in the SPA website leads me to believe it must not be. With that being said, and with no intention of starting a problem, I have a question.

First, in the construction article by Dick Hansen, he starts with a question, and answers himself. That question is, "Just excactly what is a Tiporare? If you are an active pattern flier you probably already know the answer; it's a Curare with a nose job, silicone shots and a tummy tuck."

Since (from what I can tell) it is accepted that a model may be used for SPA competition if it is based on an approved design, or more appropriately a modified or personalized version of said design, it should be clear that the Tiporare is a personalized, or modified Curare as said by the creator himself. Would I be able to use a Tiporare to compete in SPA?

HaHaHa !! Very Good Point !!!

Good luck; I brought up the possibility of a 25 year rule when this vintage pattern thing was heating and I got somewhat trounced over it. There is the BPA and then there is the SPA, and that is how the consensus decided to cope with the questions such as yours. My perspective is that during the season in which these ships would fly, one might be flying a DB against a Tipo in the same class. Don't remember why the year 1975 was drawn, but I'm sure someone will jump on this one. Here we go.

Fly the tipo in CPA - Classic pattern Association see our site and we have about a dozen of CPA members from TX
www.classicpatternassociation.com


scott cpa #2

Blake,

you're on to something now...

First, the Tipo is one fine aircraft - both in terms of looks and on the wing. I think of it as being the female version of the Curare - voluptuous yet slender with curves in all the right places.

The lack of a clear canopy and the tuck lines along the fuse make for a nice and sleek model. In the original model builder article, Hanson designed the wing tips to be assymetric along the chord. The article was published in February of 1980 as you know from the article. Later, when GP kitted the glass/foam version in 1982, they changed the design of the wing tips slightly and, if I'm not mistaken, also changed the planform of the wing and stab ever so slightly. I personally prefer the plans shown planform and wing tip concept and would go slightly further to produce straight TE wing tips with sections that extend the ailerons. In the GP kit, the tips are round at the LE and the TE which makes for a trickier and less robust TE. But I'm getting into minutia without addressing your question, so...

Second, the issue you brought up has been brought to light before. The main thing here is that SPA condones design changes made today by builders and pilots within certain margins. The fact that Hanson did the same exact thing back in 1980 with Hanno's Curare apparently doesn't fly with them. The Tipo is considered to be an original design from back in the day even if it really was a departure from the Curare. In short, the SPA apparently has said NO due to cut off dates.

It's a shame in some respects because the Tipo is really and all American re-design championed by Dave Brown, Tony Frakowiack and others back in the day. Since the SPA is also an all American association, it would be fitting to allow the Tipo to fly. But dates are dates and they have turned it down.

There are other models which apparently do abide by the cutoff date but they have also been disallowed...

The good news is the Atlas (glass/foam) or the Compensator (built up) make very nice alternate candidates! And then, of course, there is always the Deception - an easy model to build with interesting planform for the day. Longer and squarer than most.

David.

Well you know, somebody COULD start with a Curare, then add some tucks on the fuse sides and delete some flaps and touch up a few things here and there and be legal according to their rules...

And by golly, it might just be a dead-ringer for a Tipo, except that it's just a modified Curare...

Especially if he uses Hanno's paint scheme instead of Dick's

Andy

Not allowing the Tipo is especially odd since they allow the Phoenix 8. The 8 didn't come out until late 1978, the exact same time as the Tipo. Go figure.

David,

Thank you for your detailed explanation. I am not looking to challenge the rules or cause heated arguments. Before I read the article (big thanks to Trenton RC for their efforts and the people donating) I could see the Tipo had some styling that looked a lot like the Curare, but did not realize it essentially a copy. I only learned this when I had seen the Tipo article posted on the Trenton database and decided to read it. Fortunately, my little heart is not set on a Tipo, but since I am considering a Curare, it did catch my eye.

Scott,

I respect what you are doing. Here in my area, if I want to compete in a "Classic Pattern" contest, my plane must conform to the SPA rules. When CPA host a contest within a reasonable drive from Fort Worth, I will certainly be there! (BTW, I am a member of the CPA forum )

LOL, I did think of that. It would look a lot more like a Curare than a certain "Dirty Birdy" resembled its namesake in Fort Worth last week that won in Expert ...

Thank you for your input. I am not looking to chang the rules, I hope it didn't come across that way.

The SPA has been pretty consistent regarding the planes of the organizations era. I've only flown SPA since 2008, so I don't know all of the reasons they set the cutoff dates where they did. I imagine as Mickey thought through the organization he wanted to create, that he had some specific thoughts regarding planes and maneuvers and set the dates accordingly. Of course there are planes that came out in the late 70's and early 80's that are gorgeous planes that I may build someday, I will just fly an SPA legal plane when I compete in SPA events. What Mickey has done consistently is allow subsequent versions of a plane to be legal as long as the original falls within the time frame. Whether it is the Phoenix series, the Lucky Flys, etc., he has allowed all of the versions. That's where the Tipo falls under a different category. While it's designer proudly owns up to the design he "borrowed and tweaked", it is not a Curare 2 designed by Hanno Prettner, it's a different model all together. It's an interesting thought and perspective given the Tipo's "heritage", and follows a logical path, but I understand and support the SPA's choice not to allow it.

How's the process going on your next plane, Blake?<br type="_moz" />

I am strongly considering the Curare, very interested in Don's fiberglass short kit... Still like the Compensator, and not to be counted out... Atlas. Doesn't look like I have weeded through them yet, lol. I can tell you one thing though, whatever I build will be to the plan visually!

Blake,

Ed Valls will be looking at doing CPA contest in 2012 in the great state of TX.

Welcome to the forum also.

Scott#2

Suppose there was going to be a contest in which the best fighter plane (full size) was going to be determined. The first two fighter planes would be the Japanese Zero and the McDonell F-4 Two (two jet engines, flew in Vietnam). The F-4 will be outfitted with its 20mm cannon pod and sight. Both will be flown by the best pilots in the world. The altitude will be 5000 feet and the max top speed will be 200 mph. Which will win?

In a way, something similar is going on here, when selecting ultra streamlined models to fly without tuned pipes and retracts retracted against models that were designed to fly slower with muffled two-strokes or four-strokes.

By the way, I'd place my money on the Zero.


Ed Cregger

That is an interesting comment. To the best of my knowledge, NO airplane has been disallowed if it was designed before 1-1-76, and in fact, Mickey has been pretty lenient. He has given any "benefit of the doubt" to the person requesting the plane. Just research the airplane in question and provide documentation, and it will be added to the list.

Lindy is correct about the seeming inconsistency in allowing the Phoenix 8, Tiger Tail 4, and such; I don't necessarily agree with allowing later planes based on a "legal ancestor", but SPA is Mickey's organization, and that's the way it is. I think somebody "back when" really wanted a P8, and Mickey gave him the "benefit" as I said earlier.

I am now researching and beginning an article about the 20th anniversary of SPA, and how things have changed. Interestingly, the original cut-off date was 1970, and the original age requirement, (yes age requirement) was 45 years, (Mickey originally based SPA on the Senior PGA). For most of SPA's 20 years, rules have been relatively unchanged with a few major exceptions, (such as allowing 4-strokes because of noise concerns in the late 90s).

I believe the current cut-off date of 1-1-76 will remain for some time rather than adopting a 25, or 30 year revolving date for legal models. The reason is that by the mid to late 70's, ALMOST EVERYONE IN THE UPPER CLASSES AT PATTERN CONTESTS NATIONWIDE was using the tuned pipe and retracts, (retracts started around 1970 in the HIGHEST LEVELS of competition, and pipes around mid-decade). Extending the date past what it is now would take us into the CPA-era where these add-ons were the NORM FOR EVERYONE(again outside of Novice). There is a good selection of planes that fall within the pre-1976 time frame.

There is a second very important consideration that defines a lot of what SPA is about. One of the most important guiding principles SPA was based upon is the general idea of "simple & inexpensive"...for example using basic engines as they come out of the box without additional equipment, (yes, competitiveness being what it is, some SPA engines are "hypertuned" shall we say by some in the Expert class, but they don't absolutely have to be in order to be competitive), nor are you expected, (or even allowed), to use a pipe to keep up with your competition. An intentional "technology ceiling" keeps costs from being driven higher and higher, which ultimately results in exclusion of the average modeler, and the formation of an "elite" class of highly competitive modeler. What Mickey really did is take the AMA rules applied to Novice back then and apply them to all classes. That is why SPA remains for the most part "simple and inexpensive" even 20 years later. You can compete with an SPA plane that costs no more than sport planes commonly seen at the local flying field.

The Curare, and Dirty Birdy were right on the edge of the time window, and are the most modern. The Tipo is simply a separate design coming after 1-1-76...that's why it's excluded. Ed Hartley loved the Curare, as does Steve Byrum; it's kind-of "state of the art" in the SPA time window. The Compensator is really catching on lately. The modified Dirty Birdy spoken of earlier was largely responsible for all the discussion we have going on now about building more to "planform" in the future.

Duane Wilson

There must be some serious mods on that Dirty Birdy. I seen photos of "stretched" accepted designs that need some "blury glasses" to allow me to recognize them as the original. I guess its all good as long as the SPA body is good with the rules.

That is exciting news! Thank you for the welcome, though I have been a member of that forum since December 8, 2009.

I don't think that argument has any relevance when considering my original post, but it seems calculated to stir the pot. Not my intention, I don't think I could have been more clear. A Tipo should be no faster than a Curare, it is just prettier in some eyes...

Maybe the thread could just get locked now... my question has certainly been answered. Thanks everyone!

That's a good explanation Duane. It is nice to have other groups emerging and evolving that wish to capture that transitional era of the classic period. Somewhat akin to the rising jet age and the dying recip age (in air transportation)in the late fifties through mid sixties. The groups do provide a choice as well as a fairly common bond. Personally, I would choose to join any or all of the groups if my interest is/were there. Having experienced the Chicago Classic (twice) and my first SPA event recently, all I can say is Hoo-rah! I'll fly em witha pipe and folding legs or without.

hook

Of course it was intended to stir the pot.

To my way of thinking, even the Curare should not be chosen to fly the older patterns. The Curare was among the first of the ballistic type of pattern models. It should not be permitted in this type of pattern contest. But, that's just my opinion.

SPA was for flying a Kaos against Kwik-Flis type of models, if I understand the owner's philosophy.


Ed Cregger

Ed,

In a sense you are right. But there are many examples of sleek airplanes from the early 70s - just look at the Phantom to name one. But without pipes and with the gear down even the sleek ones fly slower. And if you fly with a 4-stroke, then it is a whole different presentation than the true ballistic one. In the end, there are a lot of planes to choose from. You can fly a Kaos or Daddy Rabbit or a Curare or a Compensator, etc, etc. But the point we like to emphasize is how much fun you can have. It's all about the fun and camaraderie. The models are just a means to an end.

Jeff

Duane,

I'd like to preface my following comments by saying that since I am not a member of any competitive classic pattern association based in the US (for logical reasons - I simply can't attend those events), I am in no way against any particular body. I appreciate the fact that there is an SPA for those who are able to compete in such events organized by it. I also appreciate the fact that the BPA's mantle has been picked up and continued in the form of the CPA to foster interest in the following ~12 year period after the SPA's cut off date.

With that said, I'll make a couple of further comments.

I admit that I used the word "apparently" since the comment was coming from a 2 to 3 year old recollection in previous discussions on the subject. However, while not intending to split hairs, it's not clear to me what constitutes the design of an airplane. Is that date fixed by the moment of inception of the idea? By the first lines jotted down on a napkin? By the first lines drafted on a scale sheet? By the moment the "plans" are actually used to build? By the date such a plan is published (if indeed it is required to be published)? In short, you can see what I'm getting at.

Again, if memory serves, I believe that Hanson's and Brown's conception of the Tipo and, further, the actual flying of a prototype, occurred before the SPA cut off date and began with Prettner's third place F3A Super Sicroly entry in 1973 and second place Curare finish in Switzerland '75. This based on my recollection of what Hanson said in the last couple of years after being posed questions on the matter. In other words, the Tiporare apparently flew before the end of 1975. My memory might falter and it might have been in early 1976 that the actual prototype was flown but I don't believe any particular criterion has been set forth by the SPA to require planes to have flown before the cutoff date - Hanson was evidently busy designing during 1975. The fact that the article and plan was not published until 1980 shouldn't come into question.

With that said, I don't have any particular vested interest in the Tipo being admitted into SPA. I'm just pointing out what I believe are the facts in the matter.

This is indeed extremely inconsistent. A P8 or TT4 that was designed several years after the cutoff date, and no doubt with input from many pilots and builders, is little different from the same evolution of the Super Sicroly. The SS can be thought of as being the forefather of the Curare and the Tiporare 720 (T720). In this sense the Tipo's (not only the T720 but the 750, the 825, the Surpass - specifically designed for 4-stroke 90's, etc.) are to the Super Sicroly no different than what the P7 and subsequent Phoenix designs (including the P10!) are to the P1. The fact that the model name changed over the years compared to the model number is in my opinion of little substance.

But,... if the pilot and Mickey were in agreement in allowing model number changes in any given design evolution - then so it is.

This makes sense since it was indeed 1975 that marked a mid-decade transition to consistent use of retracts and tuned pipes with Prettner himself using both on his '75 Curare entry.

I understand this and agree with the principle set forth.

Here I have to disagree - at least with the part of the "Tipo being a separate design". What does that mean exactly? Is it because Hanson's name is associated with it? We all know that F3A model design is an evolutionary process. One model is based on its predecessor(s) or other similar designs and is therefore not what I would consider "separate". I'd venture that there are in fact very few true original designs. If a P8 is allowed because its predecessor was the P6 then a Tipo should be allowed because its predecessor was the Super Sicroly, never mind the Curare. In fact, the UFO should be allowed because its predecessor was the Dirty Birdy. Many builders and pilots in the know are even hard pressed to tell the difference between a Dirty Birdy and a UFO. There is more than one thread on that specific subject on this forum. Further, if a P8 or a TT4 are allowed, which are no where close to the time window, then the Curare and Dirty Birdy can no longer be considered the "most modern" SPA allowed planes.

Given Mickey's past leniency, if I were to show up with a UFO, he would no doubt make the same concession he made for the P8 pilot. As with the P8, I could provide plenty of post 1976 documentation! I would start with Strasser's Sep 1977 RCM article including his second paragraph which begins:

"Joe Bridi's birds have evolved as have the aircraft of any of the pattern pilots who have been able to hang in there successfully over the years."

I guess I'm just pointing out that, like all organizations, there are inconsistencies which are understandable and acceptable and I applaud the SPA for their hard work and efforts in keeping classic pattern of the pre '76 era alive and well. However, I feel it is important that the SPA also recognize that they are not infallible and that, as is often the case, rules can and will be bent according to the case in question.

The SPA being the more aged organization has been a source of query regarding some of their decision making - which is just natural. The CPA, being a younger organization, is of course also going to be under such scrutiny over the coming years.

David.

LOL, I did think of that. It would look a lot more like a Curare than a certain ''Dirty Birdy'' resembled its namesake in Fort Worth last week that won in Expert ...
================================================== ================================================== ===============================

"Massaged DB"

Crank