jquid

Hello all,

I thought we should start the !QUOT!Ballistic Pattern Association!QUOT!. For the people who want retracts, and pipes on their vintage pattern planes. So I made us a logo, and that makes it a start. Ok so here it goes, this may just wind up being a cyberspace association, but hopefully we can become a recognized segment that currently has no real home. There has been a lot of controversy about the SPA allowing retracts, or pipes, or both. There is no need to force them to allow or change the rules they came up with just to include something others want. With that said, the term Ballistic Pattern came up with reference to the older planes, Curares' the Jekyll's'. etc. Most of what RC City produced, and some planes now carried by PAC. So I thought if I came up with a logo, we could all sign in and say what we are flying, and or building. This has been a chicken and egg scenario. Some people say if you have a club, then people will build, others say build then make a club. So here it is a club dedicated to the Ballistic Pattern planes, retracts, and pipes.

What do I hope to accomplish?

1) Give people who enjoy those planes a group to belong to.
2) Possibly some group discounts from Mfr's. on some kits? $400 for a fuse, and wing kit seems steep. Maybe if we have 10 people order they can lower the price, and hence more club members.
3) If we get enough people we can get some decals made, and put them on your plane. People will ask "What is the BPA"? Spread the word.
4) Tell your club Presidents about us, maybe we start out with 2 guys flying against each other in 1 club. Then 2 clubs, etc. and we grow some more.
5) If we grow large enough then who knows ~ maybe another group will invite us to become a part of them, or even fly at their events.

If none of that happens so be it. At least we can say we tried to get people together, and if it fails then the controversy about allowing retracts/pipes into the SPA should end.

Hey, This is a hobby, and supposed to be fun, so I am doing this in a fun atmosphere, and hoping to see what we can accomplish. So here is my membership.

1) Jeff Quid -Founder. Building a Great Planes "Illusion"- have Rossi .60 W/Pipe and Spring Air retracts (3) gear. Glass fuse, foam cores.
Membership # 00001

Whose next?

stiletto660

That's good... are we going to fly a pattern? I think the best way to start is to simply advertise and run a contest sometime in the future that's non-turnaround. No need to emphasize the use of pipes or retracts, they will be used by the competitors that like them.

stiletto660
currently also building an Illusion 60 as well as a 2-meter Tiporare project.

grcourtney

My Feedback: (1)

I have discussed having a contest with several people in the NSRCA DIST 3 I.E. Jon Lowe , Joe W. Ryan M. Lamar B. Jason S. MIke H. and several others and I believe we have enough people to have a contest here in Huntsville Alabama some time in Aug 07. I am currently working on a proposal to present to my club to hold this event.


Rules

1. PLanes are to be pre 2m basically before the engine ban was lifted, under or around 70 in. wing span this dictates engine size 120 4c or smaller( .61 2c)

2. Patterns will be pre turn around ( no box ) patterns Will be determined long before the event.

3. Classes 3.> novice, sportsman, masters.

4. muffled pipes, retracts,super chargers, electric, NO2, what ever cranks your tractor.

5. AMA rules will be the guide line. any snaffu will be handled by pilot or cd consensus.

6. Basically show up with a plane, hopefully something resembling an older style plane or under or around 70 in. and fly


The purpose of the event is to fly the older style planes and have some fun> If you are the type of Pilot that pops a vein if you don't win or get the perfect scores then this event is probably not for you. Fun and flying skills with the older planes will be the order of the event.


There will be more info as I get it or make it up.


So there is less than a year to build, buy or borrow a plane for this event.

All those that are wanting an event of this type here it is leave the SPA guys to there niche and help create your own, I personally like what the SPA does and think there is no reason they should change it.

To take a look at our field go to Rocket City Radio Controllers




President RC/RC

Gary

stiletto660

I think I might drop the 120 engines though, as they were pricing pattern out of reach back in the 90's... and of course they would be 100% of the engines used by competitors under these guidelines as well. We might want to do max 10cc both two and four stroke.

Sundance120

Hi:

Where Can I Sign Up?

I like to design airplanes for this class and style and have found them unsupported. I would gladly support an endeavor.


Bruce Feaver

MHester

My Feedback: (1)

YEEEEEEAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm in, heck been in for 4 years now.....details please!!!

I would suggest a .91 size on engines, but that's just my thought. That way you could get the speed out of your plane without quite the noise.

So let's do it!!

-Mike

MHester

My Feedback: (1)

BTW, I LOVE the logo!!!!

-Mike Hester

Member#.....?

8178

My Feedback: (17)

Excellent idea!

McLaughlinRP

Perfect.

rainedave

My Feedback: (1)

I would be in. And I third the 10cc cap.

roncoleman

My Feedback: (14)

I would be in also. 10cc cap is the only way to go. How about a design cutoff
year of 82 or the year just before the switch to turnaround?

Ron

vellum2

My Feedback: (2)

Oh I am so all over this! And I too love the LOGO - Gear up for speed was a delightful touch!

I don't particularly care whether or not you allow wiz bang 120's. The elimination of turnaround takes away some of that advantage IMHO. Prop it and go!
"Eight point roll, beginning now............................................... .................................................. ..............................Complete!"

Sweeeeeeet.

So, how do you guys want to set guidelines for plane designs? 70" seems like a pretty good start. Should it be limited to year of design? I'd hate to eliminate planes that are really cool, but just got designed a year too late.

PAC and Carolina Custom Aircraft are going to love this.

Joe W.

dumbthumbs999

My Feedback: (15)

love the logo.... im in.

Bootalini

I like the 10cc cap myself. I also agree with Joe W's comments about not nescessarily limiting designs based on year designed/introduced. Many of the early turnaround pattern designs are also classics....Aurora, Eclipse, LA 1, etc. One important advantage afforded by this would be a potentially larger membership base....something for everybody? As mentioned previously, the classic style pattern schedules themselves will gravitate folks towards fast and sleek.

How about a max wingspan and/or wing area rule? 800 squares perhaps?

Jeff L

rainedave

My Feedback: (1)

A max wing area is interesting since it could prevent history from repeating itself all over again, i.e., bigger planes lead to more expensive engines which leads to bigger planes and even more expensive engines. Might as well just spend $800 on 1.40 engine/pipe setup and fly current pattern.

grcourtney

My Feedback: (1)

Lets not limit ourselves right out of business here Limiting engine size to 120 4c is the only way to go remember 10 cc rear exhaust are a thing of the past witch the majority of the older style ballistic ships call for. unless you have a stock pile of .61's stashed you are already out of the game before it begins (limiting the number of people that can participate in a event). If a club loses money on a event there probably won't have another, clubs are funny that way. 70 inches on the wing span is also the way to go, size of the plane dictates size of the engine. Try hanging a 160 dz on a escape or a blue angel and see how it flies it may have all the power in the world but i will bet it will be a ton nose heavy flying like s&^%.


If your in to flying on limitations you may as well fly SPA a good well established organization.

All i am saying is there are plenty of YS and os 120's 91's and 110's out there, there are a limited number of .61 re's.

Advantage with a 120 is only perceived it all boils down to skill in a pattern event (geometry, straight lines, proper rudder input) IE practice,practice, practice!

gary

rainedave

My Feedback: (1)

I see your point, gary. Maybe the Tower and ST .75s should be allowed. They're going to come closer to the performance of a piped competition designed sixty and have realistically quiet mufflers. My only reservation is this: the SPA is dominated by the OS .91 Surpass. I'd hate to see this idea simply fall into nothing more than a YS 110FZ event. Those things run around $325.

glowplugboy

My Feedback: (17)

I like what I am reading here. I happen to have three pristine OS Max .61 VF's and a NIB Rossi .61 RE. I am currently having a Ivan Christainson Summit being put together, and I have a Phoenix 8 in the box. I also have a Sapphire II which is a 1.20 size rocket. Really like the logo as well....
GPB

stiletto660

Gary has a good point... I forgot how hard it would be to fly a class of planes where the engines were all collector's items!

I think the BPA would be considered more "legit" if it were somehow associated with a contest such as the one above... something like "sanctioned" or anything along those lines.

vellum2

My Feedback: (2)

Good points on the motors - Availability of the good ole long strokes could be an issue. I suppose there should be some comprehensive survey looking at all the past SPA forums and what people who are interested in these types of planes had to say about suggesting changes to their rules. The SPA obviously has a good thing going and can serve as a great model for a new organization.

Jquid, feel like being nominated for pres of the new organization? Let's get this ball rolling!

Gary C. is already organizing the first event giving us time to build some of these old birds too...

Joe W.

Deadstik

My Feedback: (8)

JQUID,

It is great to see that this form of pattern is getting the attention it deserves !!! I thought I would chime in here with a couple of opinions. I believe the engine limit should be left at 1.2 TWO OR FOUR STROKE. As others have pointed out, the RE .61 two strokes are not really available at the local hobby shop BUT.... they are available. I point to Jett Engineeering as a source. I would prefer not to have the 4 strokes as these planes simply were not designed for them. I kit four Ballistic Birds and you try to stuff a 1.20 4 stroke in any of them and you'll have quite a mess on your hands. Instead of an engine limit, I vote for a cut off off of designed/flown prior to 1984 and/or a wingspan limit of 72". As others have said, you stuff a 1.20 4 stroke in a .60 sized pattern ship and you have a nose heavy blob.
The other thing is the tricycle retracts.... I feel that's important to the heritage of these planes. The thing that made Ballistic Pattern as popular as it was/is was the spectacle/sound of the retracts and tuned pipes. These two things obviously led up to the 3rd factor which is SPEED. Keep in mind THIS is the rear reason that you had spectators at the early meets. It was exciting to watch these planes. Remember, to get the public involved, you must put on a show. I've just attended an SPA meet and I can tell you one thing for certain. POWER does NOT win contests in Ballistic Pattern. Skill does. The idea that a you need a bigger 4 stroke to win is just not true. More to come, but I want to volunteer any help/support I can for this rebirth of Ballistic Pattern.

Dan


Carolina Custom Aircraft

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

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


How about upping the four-stroke displacement to .82? That would permit the YS .63, OS .70, Magnum .70, Enya 80-4C (actually a .74) and the Saito .82 and all of the other engines that fall somewhere in between. I don't see either of these engines giving a piped Rossi .60 much of a gap to make up - if any.

Lots of folks own YS .63 and Saito .82 engines, I'll bet. It might be the catalyst that is needed to bring them to the Ballistic side. <G>

But, if you insist on .61 CID, I'm still with you. I've been collecting old pattern two-strokes and have enough to do the job.

Your present proposed rule has lots of merit. You don't have to say no four-strokes, you just don't give them the advantage.

I am most enthused about not flying the turnaround pattern.

Sundance120

Hi:

What if you want to design a plane from scratch that fit's into the 72" span and engine class that's appropriate, but use some of the aerodynamic properties that were popular with the airplanes relevant at that time? Since I like to create new airplanes, none would be ARF or ARC or old plans but a new design for the Ballistic Pattern. I would not want to be forced to pick a past design just because it's my only option.

I really like the flavor and style of the airplanes in this time frame and would stick to the guidlines to make some new fresh shapes.

Thanks

Bruce Feaver

Bootalini

Don't forget about electric power. It was briefly mentioned as part of the original proposal earlier in this thread. Electric power is a saviour to this hobby (in my opinion) as I've witnessed and been personally affected by too many flying fields being lost due to noise and intolerant home owners. Those old airplanes/engines unloading to 14000 rpm + made a fair bit of noise.......which is fine and understood among this crowd. Just wanted to make sure we don't omit the electric option given all the 2 and 4 stroke discussion.
Would restrictions for electrics be required as well?

Jeff L

Sport_Pilot

Can I use a supercharged four stroke instead of a piped two stroke?[sm=idea.gif]