jim woodward

Tony, Guys,

Thank you for the nice comments. I like to think I do the best work at the best price. Tony, you went "above and beyond" posting the pics. Thank You for the support. If you guys want to send me a particular garmet I will sew it for you at a reduced rate of course. I can also embroider on womens bikinis - as long as they want to post the photos

Thanks,
Jim W.

sparky925

My Feedback: (1)

WebSITE

Let me know what you want to see on the new site!!!
www.ballisticpattern.com

look at the little game link on the bottom!!

Tony C

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

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


An auction alert section where anyone finding items of interest on any auction site pertaining to BPA qualified R/C gear can post a heads up for the rest of the BPA community.

A similar location that would allow us to "bird dog" prices and availability of BPA type engines and parts around the world at various venders sites. And a feature where we can leave comments regarding the services of said sites.

A collection of articles describing how to build a foam wing cutting bow, how to use it and a forum for discussion of same.

A section devoted to the location of BPA workable retractable landing gear system and their discussion.

A section devoted to the location of BPA usable tuned pipe exhaust systems and their discussion.

A video displaying section showing various maneuvers/models that are BPA related (maybe later on).

A section devoted to collecting new member's fees and donations via PayPal.

That's just for starters. <G>


Ed Cregger

cmgtech1

Just thinking about stepping on to a field loaded with planes like Currare, Tipo, Compensator, Atlas, Bootlegger, Dirty Birdy, makes me happy!.

While many of us say we long for the day when pattern flying wasn't dominated by "the rich folks", let's not kid ourselves. Pattern flyers always had the top of the line radio's, which most of the hobby could not afford. Pattern flyers alwyas had the hot engines and pipes, which most of the hobby could not afford. A rear exhaust Rossi .61 was by no means within the financial realm of the casual flyer. Pattern flyers had the expensive planes. In their day, these rocket ships were the showcase for technology and having the lastest greatest design was very expensive even back then.

Flying pattern has always been an expensive hobby and I don't think that the price of today's F3A ships is what keeps most of us from flying it. Look at the price that folks are gladly paying for the IMAA sized Extra's, CAP's, Edges, etc. that are taking over most of our flying fields! I think the real reason that most of us don't fly the F3A stuff is because we simply don't enjoy the current F3A style of flying. We liked our fast linear style of flying and we hated having a small group of folks dictate to us that we would no longer be flying it. By in large I blame the AMA, but that's a whole other thread.

Back on track... the BPA seems like a great idea because it puts the pattern flyer back into the type of flying that most pattern flyers enjoyed the most. If you limit the events to certain models that have been out of production for a long while, and dictate engines that are not readily available then you might be shooting yourself in the foot. Yes, Ebay has older engines available everyday, but they are USED engines for the most part, and for the BPA to have any real viability, you will have to organize an event that anyone can get into relatively easily.

The "Ballistic days" were not just about certain kits/models but rather a certain type of flying. The EU-1A was a completely different animal than the Curarre and they both competed at the same contest, flying the same maneuvers. Every contest I attended had the ever present "curent hot design" but there were also many original designs competeing with them. Have weight and size limitations if you like but don't force somebody to do months of digging to come up with a set of plans, or a kit of a model who's manufacturer doesn't even exist any more. Origninal designs should be encouraged, or at least not forbidden.

The SPA has been a great success because they are providing an opportunity for folks to return to the type of pattern flying that we all used to enjoy. The BPA is being considered because many don't want to be restricted by "no pipes and no retracts" that the SPA decided to adopt. Why not just mirror what the SPA has done, but remove their pipes and retract restrictions? IF the SPA would allow pipes and retracts on the .61 2 stroke models, then it would be the end of the O.S. 91 dominance.... I think.

Just my 7 cents. Your milage may vary. Offer void where prohibited. Always use appropriate safty devices while reading these posts.

ShineyObject

My Feedback: (4)

Just what I was thinking CMG! Thanks for articulating it so well.

OLDPATFLYER

I agree that the AMA pulled out the rug, but there was pressure to adopt a plane that would perform well in international contests. I believe they are the ones that dictated the turn-around pattern, and AMA believed turn-around resulted in more rounds in the same amount of time.
My $.02 is 2 stroke 61's and any plane you want, just like it was. In the classes there should be a novice class with no pipes or retracts. Other classes, pipes and retracts OK. Other classes could be, Sportsman, Advanced, and Masters. Do away with the K factors to make scoring easy, and normalising is just to complicated to bother with. If you end up in a tie, well you end up in a tie, or highest single round wins tie.
I also look foward to an event with all the greatest planes EVER flying!

DAVE

rainedave

My Feedback: (1)

Shoot, 2 channel 1/2A r/c was too expensive for me in the '70s! I was born in 1961. And, I agree that the top pattern fliers back then were spending gobs by 1970s standards.

But, today, a sixty powered ballistic ship is cheap compared to the world class 2M arfs. Realistically speaking, between 1/5th and 1/8th the cost. I also think allowing new, original designs is a great thing. There are two or three of them here on this forum right now.

sparky925

My Feedback: (1)

website stufff www.ballisticpattern.com

keep me uprised of what you would like on the site...
ideas, pictures, videos ect...email me a link to videos and pics and ill doo all i can.

[email protected]

i wlll be developing the site over the nexyt week or 2, then ill upload the final stuff when complete..
keep all info and pictures coming!!

8178

My Feedback: (17)

Does anyone know what the rules are for the PBA aircraft? I assume if you are following the original PBA idea, we are talking about absolutely no airframe limitations and a 10CC engine size limit but use any type engine or configuration.

grcourtney

My Feedback: (1)

the rules that will be used at the huntsville contest and the ones that will be posted on the web site will be out of a 1990-91 rule book I think that was the last year of non-turnaround ama through the masters class

as far as limitations at the h-ville contest
novice has none
the rest will be wing span of around 72in and motor 1.2
I am not trying to regulate for anyone but huntsvilles contest
I am not saying that the BPA should be modled after my contest.

lets see what people have to fly that show up at contest and regulate around that hopefully things will gravitate to what was flown back then



gary

8178

My Feedback: (17)

That’s fine for Huntsville but unless I was in a fog I thought we were talking about no airframe restrictions and 10CC engines. Kind of like it was in the days of the real PBA aircraft.

RCBuilder42yrs

8178 (Mike I think)

I'm on the same page with you. I want to fly the "Old time Ballistic" airplanes with 10cc engines/pipes/retracts and whatever creative airframe you want to put that in is UP to the individual. I'm as BIG A competitor as you would ever find and if you beat me with your WIZ bang 1.2 powered/geddiup aircraft then have at it. But I will relish in sheer JOY if I beat you with an OLD TIMEY Pattern Bird that I have built with my own hands, lovingly applied a painted finish, flown and trimmed as best as my ability at this "increased" age will allow and If the "CREATIVE BUG" bites me and I come up with a <LOL> "NEW" Design based on the old parameters, then I'm going to be singing that Glory land march, just knowing that I "still Gottit" and I can fly "MY" design even if its NOT perfect. It will be from my creative INNER JUICES.

Let me Jump out on the WATER and say.. YOU want to have a CONTEST on SHEER ability.... LETS all fly the SAME Aircraft. That can really be a testimony to the fliers Ability to fly an Aircraft and its idiosyncrasy's. I have always wanted to have a CONTEST like that.... sure would be a HOOT! JMHO

Man, I get excited just thinking about what may show up in Huntsville and not only that but WHO might come back from the DEAD because we will be flying REAL pattern Aircraft without BOXES... <BOSEG>

"And for my Next Presentation, it will be an 8 point Roll".....

Tony
BPA #2
Boling,TX

grcourtney

My Feedback: (1)

Most of the people that have commited to this contest (H-ville) will be flying 10cc or .91 4c. of some sort. including myself with a 10cc.


gary

Paternguy

My Feedback: (1)

I still vote for an engine cap of .91 2 or 4 stroke. This will dictate the size of the airframes.

rainedave

My Feedback: (1)

I don't recall anyone wanting the SPA to increase their 2-cycle cap of 10cc. All of the talk I'm aware of has been about wanting to use pipes and retracts (and post-1975 designs).

Why not just take the very successful SPA model, drop the cutoff date and allow pipes and retracts? That simple.

To put it another way, does any other single factor put more emphasis on designing, building and flyings skills than a displacement cap?

Paternguy

My Feedback: (1)

I was thinking in terms of noise, you could swing a bigger prop at lower rpms and still generate similar power to the hot 60's from back in the day. You can do all of this with a $100 super tiger, $175 if you run a header and a pipe. That’s a lot of bang for your buck and it opens up those performance levels to guys on a limited budget. I think keeping a level playing field for all contestants should be one of the most important mandates for this new organization, the mission should be about having fun while competing, not finding out who can bend the rules and spend the most money. The thing I remember most fondly about the old “BPA� days, was that almost everyone in our club had a pattern plane and loved the competition. I think any of us that have been around for a while knows that setting the rules up to allow higher dollar equipment to dominate will frustrate the average flyer and will lead to the early demise of this new organization. You know as well as I do, there will be guys showing up with higher dollar engines and dominating the contests, the one idea that SPA had in the beginning that I agreed with 100% was trying to keep costs down. I am not quite sure why they got away from this, but I think we should learn from that mistake. I would rather see .91 2 strokes in the nose of a classic bird, than see the OS 91 4 stroke in 2 out of 3 birds on the flight line. If you don’t give the 2 strokes a level playing field from day 1, then you will see the same thing happen in BPA that has happened in SPA, the majority will migrate the 4 strokes for more torque and pulling power, it won’t take long to figure out how to overcome the prop clearance issues with retracts. Just my 2cents.

Please don’t take this as an angry tone or shots at SPA. I am simply trying to express my opinion on “future� trouble points I see with this new organization. I really want to see this thing get going and be successful for a very long time. I think that keeping the average Joe in mind is a large ingredient in making that happen.

Paternguy

My Feedback: (1)

One other point, a 91 2 stroke is the same size as a 60 2 stroke, so there will be less airframe modifications neccessary on the classic birds.

RCBuilder42yrs

Paternguy,

I think you've hit on the solution. In talking with Dub Jett about a month ago about my "incoming" "Brushfire" it is easy enough to get a .90 F.I.R.E which has the same mounting as a .60 just a bigger "hole" in the motor, so I think thats the route I'm going on that plane! If we later do decide to stick with 10cc then I can simply change back to a .60 F.I.R.E.

Question:::

Has anybody in the BPA Forum ever seen a "Dario Brisigella" Viper? Has anybody ever seen one Fly?

It won Toledo in 1972 -Original Design and Best Finish.

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

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


Remember Ed Roth's custom show cars from the early Sixties? No one ever expected them to be streetable. I suspect that Dario's "Viper" falls into the same category. It's built to look good at model shows only. I never heard of Dario actually flying pattern. I could be wrong.


Ed Cregger

pimmnz

Dario designed several pattern models, AAM published a few and he was a competitor back in the 60's and early 70's. I remember somewhere he was also in the early phase of the large model movement.
Evan.

bob27s

My Feedback: (19)

I second that too.

Yes, the spirit of the rules is to hit the 1983 way of doing things (my point of view as high-water mark for real 10cc pattern ships, before the 4c came into play)

But making the engine rule very simple..... .91 or 15cc max .... just seems right for the process in place here.

Quite honestly, the Tower 75, ST90 and OS91 are not much different in power than the best Webra 61R, Rossi and OPS engines we tweeked to perfection back in the day. And although there are some of the vintage engines still in use, one runs in to the problem like we found with SPA .... there is only so much life left in a G60 blue head or a W-blackhead.... and only so many still running.

What we grew up with as the .20 .40 and .60 standard engine sizes have all drifted and gone away in the past 20 years. Although they do exist, more commonly found in production are .75-90, .46-50, and .32-37 in those same crankcase sizes. I guess my point here is, yes we are trying to duplicate the speedy, smooth and fantasic pattern aircraft and flying styles of the past, but in a way we will have to accept some modern tools. Simply accepting and using the 4C engines is testiment an effort to take this approach.

So permitting current design, currently available engines only seems practicle.

grcourtney

My Feedback: (1)

Bob

does jett offer any long stroke option on the 60 size engines they produce?



gary

MHester

My Feedback: (1)

yes Gary, they do. If you call Dub you'll find he can and will make any engine to do whatever you want it to. It's like having a custom engine shop!

I've been reading all of these poroposed rules....again. Since I plan to actively participate, let me tell you what my thoughts are.

I would be ok with a .91 cap IF the majority is in agreement. A .61 cap can be rather limiting as super high output .61s aren't easy to come by for the average guy. Put any old .91 in the place of a .61 on a classic bird, and you will have at least the same performance as the hot .61s of back then. Plus you can get one failry cheap.

My personal favorite for the "Unlimited" class is 1.2 cap, 72" wing span. This would allow some of the newer planes in the 90s era to perform the same task with the same idea. I am not in favor of regulating much on the airframe, we should leave it unlimited so we can be creative. A 120 sized plane doesn't have that much advantage over a 60 sized plane at all for the type of flying we're talking about.

Personally, I'm not crazy about the idea of making this venture "SPA part duex". I'm not worried about the cost, and I'm the brokest guy here. I want to fly and see fast planes, cool stuff, adrenaline pattern. Clean designs, gobs of screaming power, and SMOOOOOOOTH pilot skills. If we are going to be successful in this venture, we need to be open minded and inclusive...not exclusive.

Fly what you want!!!!! And let everyone else do the same. If you're really that worried about the competition side of it, AMA 2 meter pattern is as competetive as you can get. In BPA I'll be starting out in the top class flying against the likes of Jason Shulman and company. Do you think for one second I care about losing??? I'm coming to gary's contest. I'm coming for the fun, the speed, the laughs, and the cool planes. I'm not coming for a crapload of rules on limiting my airplane.

For the record, I'll be flying a modified Curare with a Jett .91LX and full tricycle retracts. With any luck, I'll also have an Aurora.

I'll be there, please don't regulate things to make my plane illegal when I get there. I would do the same for you

-Mike

tommy s

My Feedback: (55)

If everyone wants it to be like the "old days", why not make the rules like the old days. If you
limit the engine displacement to .91 or whatever everyone wants it to be, that will dictate the size
limits of the airplane.
When I flew pattern back then most of the planes I flew against were original designs with a few kits
thrown in here and there. There were no rules as to the design of the airplane.
Hmmm, .... I'm thinking maybe an Eyeball or Troublemaker with a MVVS .90 should do the trick !!

tommy s

bob27s

My Feedback: (19)

The long-stroke torqure type Jett engines that are .61 size are the BSE-100L and BSE-120L (60 size crankcase) (and they are not really long stroke - pretty much square)

Jett's only true 60 (10cc) engine is the SJ-60L or SJ-60LX. This is a "40" size engine on steroids.

Jett does not produce a 60 or 61 big block. The 76 and 90L fill those shoes.

The SJ-90L can be set up with a full size pipe, tuned long for somewhere 11,500 - 13,000 rpm range if you choose to go with a heavier prop like a 11x10, 12x8, 12x9 or 12x10.

Dub will assist by tuning the engines (pipes) to certian specifications - various muffler and pipe setups are available - as is the standard or LX porting options - but the engines are not available custom made.